7/29/2019 People vs. Ojeda

1/1

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, CoraAbella Ojeda guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa as

defined and penalized under paragraph 2(d) of Article 315 of theRevised Penal Code, as amended by Rep. Act 4885, in Criminal Case No.

88-66228 and hereby sentences her to suffer a penalty of reclusionperpetua, 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 ThreeHundred Six (P228,306.00) Pesos with interests thereon from the time

of demand until fully paid.

Facts:

Cora Abella Ojeda used to buy fabrics fr om c om p l a i na n tR u b y C h u a .

F o r t h e t h r e e years approximately she transacted business withChua used postdated checks to pay for the fabrics she bought.

On November 5, 1983, appellant purchased fr om Ch ua va ri ousfabrics and textile

wo rt hP 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 alldishonored.

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 no r e d c h e c k s , t o n o a v a i l .

E s t a f a a n d B P 2 2 c h a r g e s w e r et h e r e a f t e r f i l e d a g a i n s t O j e d a .

T h e t r i a l c o u r t co nvicted appel l ant o f the cr ime o f estafaas definedand penalized under paragraph 2(d) of Article 315

ofthe Revised Penal Code (RPC), and sentenced her

t or e c l u s i o n p e r p e t u a .

T h e t r i a l c o u r t a l s o c o n v i c t e d a p p e l l a n t o f v i o l a t i o n of B P 2 2 f o r iss uin g b o un cin gchecks . H o wever , the co urt aquo 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 theaccused to commit the crime which may render her not guilty beyondreasonable doubt.

Ruling:

The ruling of the lower court was reversed and set aside. The appellantCora Abella Ojeda is ACQUITTED in Criminal Case No. 88-66228 for

estafa and in Criminal Case Nos. 88-66230, 88-66232, 88-66235 to 88-

66240, 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 theywere 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 Chuas statement that she has made

payments for the amount Ojeda owed her and requesting that theaccused be acquitted of her criminal liability.

4. The issuance of postdated checks were only to insure futurepayments and not really with intent to deceive.

Intent is an indispensable element of mala in se crimes of the RPC toconvict 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.