June 2004 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
People v. Ojeda : 104238-58 : June 3, 2004 : J. Corona : Third Division : Decision
THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. NOS. 104238-58. June 3, 2004]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. CORA ABELLA OJEDA, Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
CORONA, J.:
For review is the decision1 dated June 21, 1991 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 38, the dispositive portion of which read:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary
WHEREFORE, the Court finds 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.
Likewise, the Court also finds the said accused guilty for Violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 in Criminal Cases Nos. 88-66230, 88-66232, 88-66235 to 88-66240, 88-66242, 88-66243, 88- 66245 to 88-66248 (14) counts and hereby sentences her to suffer a penalty of one year of imprisonment for each count. On the other hand, the other charges docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 88- 66229, 88-66231, 88-66233, 88-66234, 88-66241 and 88-66244 are hereby dismissed for insufficiency of evidence.
Costs against accused in all instances.2
Appellant Cora Abella Ojeda was charged in 21 separate Informations for estafa in Criminal Case No. 88-66228 and for violation of Batas Pambansa (BP) 22 in Criminal Case Nos. 88-66229 to 88-66248.
The Information charging Ojeda with estafa read:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary
That on or about the first week of November, 1983, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud RUBY CHUA in the following manner, to wit: the said accused, well knowing that she did not have sufficient funds in the bank and without informing the said Ruby Chua of such fact drew, made out and issued to the latter the following post-dated Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation checks, to wit:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary
Check No. Date Amount
1. 033550 Nov. 5, 1983 P17,100.00
2. 041782 Nov. 5, 1983 5,392.34
3. 042935 Nov. 6, 1983 1,840.19
4. 041799 Nov. 9, 1983 11,953.38
5. 033530 Nov. 10, 1983 19,437.34
6. 041714 Nov. 10, 1983 26, 890.00
7. 042942 Nov. 10, 1983 1,941.59
8. 041783 Nov. 12, 1983 5,392.34
9. 041800 Nov. 14, 1983 11,953.39
10. 041788 Nov. 15, 1983 3,081.90
11. 033529 Nov. 15, 1983 19,437.34
12. 041784 Nov. 18, 1983 5,392.34
13. 042901 Nov. 18, 1983 11,953.38
14. 042902 Nov. 23, 1983 11,953.38
15. 041785 Nov. 25, 1983 5,392.34
16. 042903 Nov. 29, 1983 11,953.38
17. 033532 Nov. 29, 1983 13,603.22
18. 041786 Nov. 30, 1983 5,392.34
19. 042905 Dec. 8, 1983 11,953.39
20. 043004 Dec. 10, 1983 2,386.25
21. 042907 Dec. 15, 1983 11,953.38
22. 042906 Dec. 18, 1983 11,953.39
P228,306.60
in payment of various fabrics and textile
materials all in the total amount of P228,306.60 which the said accused
ordered or purchased from the said RUBY CHUA on the same day; that upon presentation
of the said checks to the bank for payment, the same were dishonored and
payment thereof refused for the reason Account Closed, and said accused,
notwithstanding due notice to her by the said Ruby Chua of such dishonor of the
said checks, failed and refused and still fails and refuses to deposit the
necessary amount to cover the amount of the checks to the damage and prejudice
of the said RUBY CHUA in the aforesaid amount of P228,306.60, Philippine
currency.
Contrary to law.
The Informations charging Ojeda for violation of BP 22 were similarly worded except for the amounts of the checks, the check numbers and the dates of the checks:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary
That on or about the first week of November 1983, in the City of
Manila, Philippines, the said accused did then and there wilfully, unlawfully
and feloniously make or draw and issue to RUBY CHUA to apply on account or for
value Rizal Commercial Banking Corp. Check No. 041784 dated November 18, 1983
payable to Ruby Chua in the amount of P5,392.34, said accused well knowing
that at the time of issue he/she/they did not have sufficient funds in or
credit with the drawee bank or payment of such check in full upon its
presentment, which check, when presented for payment within ninety (90) days
from the date thereof was subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for
insufficiency of funds, and despite receipt of notice of such dishonor, said
accused failed to pay said complainant the amount of said check or to make
arrangement for full payment of the same within five (5) banking days after
receiving said notice.
Contrary to law.
The pertinent facts of the case follow.
Appellant Cora Abella Ojeda used to buy fabrics (telas)
from complainant Ruby Chua. For the three years approximately she transacted
business with Chua, appellant used postdated checks to pay for the fabrics she
bought. On November 5, 1983, appellant purchased from Chua various fabrics and
textile materials worth P228,306 for which she issued 22 postdated
checks bearing different dates and amounts.
Chua later presented to the bank for payment check no. 033550
dated November 5, 1983 in the amount of P17,1003 but
it was dishonored due to Account Closed.4 On
April 10, 1984, Chua deposited the rest of the checks but all were dishonored
for the same reason.5 Demands were allegedly made on the appellant to make good the dishonored
checks, to no avail.
Estafa and BP 22 charges were thereafter filed against appellant. The criminal cases were consolidated and appellant, on arraignment, pleaded not guilty to each of the charges.
On the whole, appellants defense was grounded on good faith or absence of deceit, lack of notice of dishonor and full payment of the total amount of the checks.
With the exception of six checks6 which
did not bear her signature, appellant admitted that she issued the postdated
checks which were the subject of the criminal cases against her. She, however,
alleged that she told Chua not to deposit the postdated checks on maturity as
they were not yet sufficiently funded. Appellant also claimed that she made
partial payments to Chua in the form of finished garments worth P50,000.
This was not rebutted by the prosecution.
The trial court convicted appellant of the crime of estafa as defined and penalized under paragraph 2(d) of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), and sentenced her to reclusion perpetua. The trial court also convicted appellant of violation of BP 22 for issuing bouncing checks. However, the court a quo held her guilty of only 14 counts out of the 22 bouncing checks issued. The court reasoned:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary
xxx This is due to the fact that of the 22
checks, two of them are not covered by the indictment. This refers to Check No.
042935 dated November 6, 1983 in the amount of P1,840.19 (Exhibit D) and
Check No. 042942 dated November 10, 1983 in the amount of P1,941.59
(Exhibit F). And of the total number of checks, six of them were not signed by
the accused but by the latters husband (Exhibits C,H,J,M,R and O). The accused
should not be liable for the issuance of the 6 checks in the absence of any showing
of conspiracy.7
Appellant appealed to this Court, seeking acquittal. Her counsel, however, failed to file the appellants brief within the prescribed period. Her appeal was thus dismissed in a resolution of this Court dated October 14, 1992.8 cralawred
In her motion for reconsideration, appellant asked this Court to reverse its order of dismissal in the interest of substantial justice and equity.9 We initially found no compelling reason to grant her motion and resolved to deny with finality appellants MR in a resolution dated February 3, 1993.10 Appellant thereafter filed a Second and Urgent Motion for Reconsideration, attaching thereto an Affidavit of Desistance of complainant Ruby Chua which stated in part:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary
x
