People vs. Ojeda

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. CORA ABELLA OJEDA, appellant. G.R. Nos. 104238-58. June 3, 2004 Nature of the case:  For review of the decision of the Court which finds the accused, Cora Abella Ojeda guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa as defined and penalized under paragraph 2(d) of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Rep. Act 4885, in Criminal Case No. 88-66228 and hereby sentences her to suffer a penalty of reclusion perpetua, with the accessories provided by law and with credit for preventive imprisonment undergone, if any, in accordance with Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code as amended, and to pay complainant Ruby Chua the amount of Two Hundred Twenty Eight Thousand Three Hundred Six (P228,306.00) Pesos with interests thereon from the time of demand until fully paid. Facts:  Cora Abella Ojeda used to buy fabrics f r o m c o m p l a i n a n t Ruby Chua.  F o r t h e t h r e e years approximately she transacted business with Chua used postdated checks to pay for the fabrics she bought.  On November 5, 1983, appellant purchased from Chua various fabrics and textile worthP 2 2 8 , 3 0 6 f o r w h i c h s h e i s s u e d 2 2 p o s t d a t e d c h e c k s bearing different dates and amounts. The 22 checks were all dishonored.  Demandsw e r e a l l e g e d l y m a d e t o m a k e g o o d t h e d i s h o n oredchecks, to no avail.  Estafa and BP 22 charges were thereafter filed against Ojeda.  T h e t r i a l c o u r t convicted appellant of the crime of estafa as definedand penalized under paragraph 2(d) of Article 315 ofthe Revised Penal Code (RPC), and sentenced her tor e c l u s i o n p e r p e t u a .  The trial court also convictedappellant of violation o f B P 2 2 f o r i s s u i n g b o u n c i n g checks. However, the court a quo held her guilty of only 14 counts out of the 22 bouncing checks issued. Issue:  WON the court erred in not taking into account the lack of intent by the accused to commit the crime which may render her not guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Ruling:  The ruling of the lower court was reversed and set aside. The appellant Cora Abella Ojeda is ACQUITTED in Criminal Case No. 88-66228 for estafa and in Criminal Case Nos. 88-66230, 88-66232, 88-66235 to 8866240, 88-66242, 88-66243, 88-66245 to 88-66248 for violation of BP 22. Ratio:  There is not intent because: 1. She told Chua not to deposit the postdated checks because they were not sufficiently funded. 2. She made partial payment right away. 3. She appealed, however her counsel filed it late, to dismiss the case with the affidavit including Chua’s statement that she has made payments for the amount Ojeda owed her and requesting that the accused be acquitted of her criminal liability. 4. The issuance of postdated checks were only to insure future payments and not really with intent to deceive.  Intent is an indispensable element of mala in se crimes of the RPC to convict an accused with criminal liability. Conclusion: “Actus non facit reum, insi men sit rea” means the act is culpable unless the mind is guilty. Applying it to statutory construction, unless Ojeda had intent to deceive and commit the crime she should not be held criminally liable.