G.R. No. 141066 February 17, 2005 Acts committed contrary to the provisions of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22.

EVANGELINE LADONGA, petitioner, The accusatory portions of the Informations in Criminal Case Nos. 7069
vs. and 7070 are similarly worded, except for the allegations concerning the
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent. number, date and amount of each check, that is:

DECISION (a) Criminal Case No. 7069 - UCPB Check No. 284744 dated July 22,
1990 in the amount of P12,730.00;3
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
(b) Criminal Case No. 7070 UCPB Check No. 106136 dated July 22,
1
Petitioner Evangeline Ladonga seeks a review of the Decision, dated May 1990 in the amount of P8,496.55.4
17, 1999, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 20443, affirming the
Decision dated August 24, 1996, of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch The cases were consolidated and jointly tried. When arraigned on June 26,
3 of Bohol, in Criminal Case Nos. 7068, 7069 and 7070 convicting her of 1991, the two accused pleaded not guilty to the crimes charged.5
violation of B.P. Blg. 22, otherwise known as The Bouncing Checks Law.
The prosecution presented as its lone witness complainant Alfredo
The factual background of the case is as follows: Oculam. He testified that: in 1989, spouses Adronico6 and Evangeline
Ladonga became his regular customers in his pawnshop business in
On March 27, 1991, three Informations for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 were Tagbilaran City, Bohol;7 sometime in May 1990, the Ladonga spouses
filed with the RTC, docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 7068 - 7070. The obtained a P9,075.55 loan from him, guaranteed by United Coconut
Information in Criminal Case No. 7068 alleges as follows: Planters Bank (UCPB) Check No. 284743, post dated to dated July 7,
1990 issued by Adronico;8sometime in the last week of April 1990 and
That, sometime in May or June 1990, in the City of Tagbilaran, Philippines, during the first week of May 1990, the Ladonga spouses obtained an
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named additional loan of P12,730.00, guaranteed by UCPB Check No. 284744,
accused, conspiring, confederating, and mutually helping with one another, post dated to dated July 26, 1990 issued by Adronico;9 between May and
knowing fully well that they did not have sufficient funds deposited with the June 1990, the Ladonga spouses obtained a third loan in the amount
United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB), Tagbilaran Branch, did then and ofP8,496.55, guaranteed by UCPB Check No. 106136, post dated to July
there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, draw and issue UCPB Check No. 22, 1990 issued by Adronico;10 the three checks bounced upon
284743 postdated July 7, 1990 in the amount of NINE THOUSAND presentment for the reason "CLOSED ACCOUNT";11 when the Ladonga
SEVENTY-FIVE PESOS AND FIFTY-FIVE CENTAVOS (P9,075.55), spouses failed to redeem the check, despite repeated demands, he filed a
payable to Alfredo Oculam, and thereafter, without informing the latter that criminal complaint against them.12
they did not have sufficient funds deposited with the bank to cover up the
amount of the check, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously While admitting that the checks issued by Adronico bounced because
pass on, indorse, give and deliver the said check to Alfredo Oculam by there was no sufficient deposit or the account was closed, the Ladonga
way of rediscounting of the aforementioned checks; however, upon spouses claimed that the checks were issued only to guarantee the
presentation of the check to the drawee bank for encashment, the same obligation, with an agreement that Oculam should not encash the checks
was dishonored for the reason that the account of the accused with the when they mature;13 and, that petitioner is not a signatory of the checks
United Coconut Planters Bank, Tagbilaran Branch, had already been and had no participation in the issuance thereof.14
closed, to the damage and prejudice of the said Alfredo Oculam in the
aforestated amount.
On August 24, 1996, the RTC rendered a joint decision finding the On May 17, 1999, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of
Ladonga spouses guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating B.P. Blg. 22, petitioner.18 It held that the provisions of the penal code were made
the dispositive portion of which reads: applicable to special penal laws in the decisions of this Court in People vs.
Parel, 19 U.S. vs. Ponte, 20 and U.S. vs. Bruhez.21 It noted that Article 10 of
Premises considered, this Court hereby renders judgment finding accused the Revised Penal Code itself provides that its provisions shall be
Adronico Ladonga, alias Ronie, and Evangeline Ladonga guilty beyond supplementary to special laws unless the latter provide the contrary. The
reasonable doubt in the aforesaid three (3) criminal cases, for which they Court of Appeals stressed that since B.P. Blg. 22 does not prohibit the
stand charged before this Court, and accordingly, sentences them to applicability in a suppletory character of the provisions of the Revised
imprisonment and fine, as follows: Penal Code (RPC), the principle of conspiracy may be applied to cases
involving violations of B.P. Blg. 22. Lastly, it ruled that the fact that
1. In Criminal Case No. 7068, for (sic) an imprisonment of one (1) petitioner did not make and issue or sign the checks did not exculpate her
year for each of them, and a fine in the amount of P9,075.55, from criminal liability as it is not indispensable that a co-conspirator takes a
equivalent to the amount of UCPB Check No. 284743; direct part in every act and knows the part which everyone performed. The
Court of Appeals underscored that in conspiracy the act of one conspirator
could be held to be the act of the other.
2. In Criminal Case No. 7069, for (sic) an imprisonment for each of
them to one (1) year and a fine of P12, 730.00, equivalent to the
amount of UCPB Check No. 284744; and, Petitioner sought reconsideration of the decision but the Court of Appeals
denied the same in a Resolution dated November 16, 1999.22
3. In Criminal Case No. 7070, with (sic) an imprisonment of one
year for each of them and a fine ofP8,496.55 equivalent to the Hence, the present petition.
amount of UCPB Check No. 106136;
Petitioner presents to the Court the following issues for resolution:
4. That both accused are further ordered to jointly and solidarily
pay and reimburse the complainant, Mr. Alfredo Oculam, the sum 1. WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITIONER WHO WAS NOT THE
of P15,000.00 representing actual expenses incurred in DRAWER OR ISSUER OF THE THREE CHECKS THAT
prosecuting the instant cases; P10,000.00 as attorneys fee; and BOUNCED BUT HER CO-ACCUSED HUSBAND UNDER THE
the amount of P30,302.10 which is the total value of the three (3) LATTERS ACCOUNT COULD BE HELD LIABLE FOR
subject checks which bounced; but without subsidiary VIOLATIONS OF BATAS PAMBANSA BILANG 22 AS
imprisonment in case of insolvency. CONSPIRATOR.

With Costs against the accused. 2. ANCILLARY TO THE MAIN ISSUE ARE THE FOLLOWING
ISSUES:
SO ORDERED.15
A. WHETHER OR NOT CONSPIRACY IS APPLICABLE IN VIOLATIONS
Adronico applied for probation which was granted.16 On the other hand, OF BATAS PAMBANSA BILANG 22 BY INVOKING THE LAST
petitioner brought the case to the Court of Appeals, arguing that the RTC SENTENCE OF ARTICLE 10 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE WHICH
erred in finding her criminally liable for conspiring with her husband as the STATES:
principle of conspiracy is inapplicable to B.P. Blg. 22 which is a special
law; moreover, she is not a signatory of the checks and had no Art. 10. Offenses not subject of the provisions of this Code. Offenses
participation in the issuance thereof.17 which are or in the future may be punished under special laws are not
subject to the provisions of this Code. This Code shall be supplementary to The first clause should be understood to mean only that the special penal
such laws, unless the latter should specially provide the contrary. laws are controlling with regard to offenses therein specifically punished.
Said clause only restates the elemental rule of statutory construction that
B. WHETHER OR NOT THE CASES CITED BY THE HONORABLE special legal provisions prevail over general ones.24 Lex specialis derogant
COURT OF APPEALS IN AFFIRMING IN TOTO THE CONVICTION OF generali. In fact, the clause can be considered as a superfluity, and could
PETITIONER AS CONSPIRATOR APPLYING THE SUPPLETORY have been eliminated altogether. The second clause contains the soul of
CHARACTER OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE TO SPECIAL LAWS the article. The main idea and purpose of the article is embodied in the
LIKE B.P. BLG. 22 IS APPLICABLE.23 provision that the "code shall be supplementary" to special laws, unless
the latter should specifically provide the contrary.
Petitioner staunchly insists that she cannot be held criminally liable for
violation of B.P. Blg. 22 because she had no participation in the drawing The appellate courts reliance on the cases of People vs. Parel,25 U.S. vs.
and issuance of the three checks subject of the three criminal cases, a fact Ponte,26 and U.S. vs. Bruhez27 rests on a firm basis. These cases involved
proven by the checks themselves. She contends that the Court of Appeals the suppletory application of principles under the then Penal Code to
gravely erred in applying the principle of conspiracy, as defined under the special laws. People vs. Parel is concerned with the application of Article
RPC, to violations of B.P. Blg. 22. She posits that the application of the 2228 of the Code to violations of Act No. 3030, the Election Law, with
principle of conspiracy would enlarge the scope of the statute and include reference to the retroactive effect of penal laws if they favor the
situations not provided for or intended by the lawmakers, such as accused. U.S. vs. Ponte involved the application of Article 1729 of the same
penalizing a person, like petitioner, who had no participation in the drawing Penal Code, with reference to the participation of principals in the
or issuance of checks. commission of the crime of misappropriation of public funds as defined and
penalized by Act No. 1740. U.S. vs. Bruhez covered Article 4530 of the
The Office of the Solicitor General disagrees with petitioner and echoes same Code, with reference to the confiscation of the instruments used in
the declaration of the Court of Appeals that some provisions of the Revised violation of Act No. 1461, the Opium Law.
Penal Code, especially with the addition of the second sentence in Article
10, are applicable to special laws. It submits that B.P. Blg. 22 does not B.P. Blg. 22 does not expressly proscribe the suppletory application of the
provide any prohibition regarding the applicability in a suppletory character provisions of the RPC. Thus, in the absence of contrary provision in B.P.
of the provisions of the Revised Penal Code to it. Blg. 22, the general provisions of the RPC which, by their nature, are
necessarily applicable, may be applied suppletorily. Indeed, in the recent
Article 10 of the RPC reads as follows: case of Yu vs. People,31 the Court applied suppletorily the provisions on
subsidiary imprisonment under Article 3932 of the RPC to B.P. Blg. 22.
ART. 10. Offenses not subject to the provisions of this Code. Offenses
which are or in the future may be punishable under special laws are not The suppletory application of the principle of conspiracy in this case is
subject to the provisions of this Code. This Code shall be supplementary to analogous to the application of the provision on principals under Article 17
such laws, unless the latter should specially provide the contrary. in U.S. vs. Ponte. For once conspiracy or action in concert to achieve a
criminal design is shown, the act of one is the act of all the conspirators,
and the precise extent or modality of participation of each of them
The article is composed of two clauses. The first provides that offenses
becomes secondary, since all the conspirators are principals.33
which in the future are made punishable under special laws are not subject
to the provisions of the RPC, while the second makes the RPC
supplementary to such laws. While it seems that the two clauses are All these notwithstanding, the conviction of the petitioner must be set
contradictory, a sensible interpretation will show that they can perfectly be aside.
reconciled.
Article 8 of the RPC provides that "a conspiracy exists when two or more Criminal liability cannot be based on a general allegation of conspiracy,
persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and and a judgment of conviction must always be founded on the strength of
decide to commit it." To be held guilty as a co-principal by reason of the prosecutions evidence. The Court ruled thus in People v. Legaspi,
conspiracy, the accused must be shown to have performed an overt act in from which we quote:
pursuance or furtherance of the complicity.34 The overt act or acts of the
accused may consist of active participation in the actual commission of the At most, the prosecution, realizing the weakness of its evidence against
crime itself or may consist of moral assistance to his co-conspirators by accused-appellant Franco, merely relied and pegged the latters criminal
moving them to execute or implement the criminal plan.35 liability on its sweeping theory of conspiracy, which to us, was not
attendant in the commission of the crime.
In the present case, the prosecution failed to prove that petitioner
performed any overt act in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy. As The rule is firmly entrenched that a judgment of conviction must be
testified to by the lone prosecution witness, complainant Alfredo Oculam, predicated on the strength of the evidence for the prosecution and not on
petitioner was merely present when her husband, Adronico, signed the the weakness of the evidence for the defense. The proof against him must
check subject of Criminal Case No. 7068.36 With respect to Criminal Case survive the test of reason; the strongest suspicion must not be permitted to
Nos. 7069-7070, Oculam also did not describe the details of petitioners sway judgment. The conscience must be satisfied that on the defense
participation. He did not specify the nature of petitioners involvement in could be laid the responsibility for the offense charged; that not only did he
the commission of the crime, either by a direct act of participation, a direct perpetrate the act but that it amounted to a crime. What is required then is
inducement of her co-conspirator, or cooperating in the commission of the moral certainty.
offense by another act without which it would not have been accomplished.
Apparently, the only semblance of overt act that may be attributed to Verily, it is the role of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the appellant
petitioner is that she was present when the first check was issued. beyond reasonable doubt in order to overcome the constitutional
However, this inference cannot be stretched to mean concurrence with the presumption of innocence.
criminal design.
In sum, conviction must rest on hard evidence showing that the accused is
Conspiracy must be established, not by conjectures, but by positive and guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged. In criminal cases,
conclusive evidence.37 Conspiracy transcends mere companionship and moral certainty -- not mere possibility -- determines the guilt or the
mere presence at the scene of the crime does not in itself amount to innocence of the accused. Even when the evidence for the defense is
conspiracy.38 Even knowledge, acquiescence in or agreement to weak, the accused must be acquitted when the prosecution has not proven
cooperate, is not enough to constitute one as a party to a conspiracy, guilt with the requisite quantum of proof required in all criminal cases.
absent any active participation in the commission of the crime with a view (Citations omitted)41
to the furtherance of the common design and purpose.39
All told, the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the petitioner with
As the Court eloquently pronounced in a case of recent vintage, People vs. moral certainty. Its evidence falls short of the quantum of proof required for
Mandao:40 conviction. Accordingly, the constitutional presumption of the petitioners
innocence must be upheld and she must be acquitted.1a\^/phi1.net
To be sure, conspiracy is not a harmless innuendo to be taken lightly or
accepted at every turn. It is a legal concept that imputes culpability under WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision,
specific circumstances; as such, it must be established as clearly as any dated May 17, 1999, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 20443
element of the crime. Evidence to prove it must be positive and convincing, affirming the Decision, dated August 24, 1996, of the Regional Trial Court
considering that it is a convenient and simplistic device by which the (Branch 3), Bohol, in Criminal Case Nos. 7068, 7069 and 7070 convicting
accused may be ensnared and kept within the penal fold. the petitioner of violation of B.P. Blg. 22is hereby REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. Petitioner Evangeline Ladonga is ACQUITTED of the charges
against her under B.P. Blg. 22 for failure of the prosecution to prove her
guilt beyond reasonable doubt. No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.