View full case

EVANGELINE LADONGA v. PEOPLE

FACTS:

The case involves the conviction of petitioner Evangeline Ladonga for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 or The Bouncing Checks Law. Ladonga, along with her husband, was charged with conspiring to issue post-dated checks without sufficient funds. The checks were given as guarantees for loans obtained by them. Ladonga asserted that she was not a signatory of the checks and had no involvement in their issuance. The Regional Trial Court found her guilty and sentenced her to imprisonment and fines. Ladonga's husband applied for probation and was granted. Ladonga appealed to the Court of Appeals, arguing that conspiracy does not apply to B.P. Blg. 22 and that she should not be held criminally liable since she did not issue or sign the checks. The Court of Appeals affirmed her conviction, stating that the principle of conspiracy can be applied in cases involving violations of B.P. Blg. 22. The Court of Appeals also ruled that a co-conspirator does not have to directly participate in every act to be held liable for conspiracy. Ladonga sought reconsideration, but it was denied. She then filed a petition before the Supreme Court, raising issues on her liability as a conspirator and the applicability of conspiracy in B.P. Blg. 22 violations.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the petitioner, who was not the drawer or issuer of the three bounced checks but her co-accused husband under the latter's account, could be held liable for violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 as a conspirator.

  2. Whether or not conspiracy is applicable in violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 by invoking Article 10 of the Revised Penal Code.

  3. Whether or not the cases cited by the Court of Appeals in affirming the conviction of the petitioner as a conspirator, applying the suppletory character of the Revised Penal Code to special laws like Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, are applicable.

  4. Whether the prosecution was able to prove that the petitioner performed any overt act in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy.

  5. Whether the petitioner's presence during the commission of the crime establishes her guilt.

RULING:

  1. The conviction of the petitioner must be set aside.

  2. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the petitioner's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court emphasized that conspiracy must be established by positive and conclusive evidence, and that mere presence at the scene of the crime does not itself amount to conspiracy. The court also ruled that knowledge, acquiescence, or agreement to cooperate is not enough to constitute one as a party to a conspiracy, without active participation in the commission of the crime. Thus, the court acquitted the petitioner due to the prosecution's failure to establish her guilt with moral certainty.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Article 10 of the Revised Penal Code provides that offenses which in the future are made punishable under special laws are not subject to the provisions of the Revised Penal Code. However, the Revised Penal Code shall be supplementary to special laws unless the latter specifically provides otherwise.

  • The suppletory application of the provisions of the Revised Penal Code to special laws, like Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, is allowed in the absence of a contrary provision in the special law.

  • In cases of conspiracy, 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 becomes secondary, since all the conspirators are principals.

  • To be held guilty as a co-principal by reason of conspiracy, the accused must be shown to have performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the complicity. The overt act may consist of active participation in the actual commission of the crime or moral assistance to co-conspirators in executing the criminal plan.

  • Conspiracy must be established by positive and conclusive evidence.

  • Mere presence at the scene of the crime does not amount to conspiracy.

  • Knowledge, acquiescence, or agreement to cooperate is not enough to establish guilt in a conspiracy.

  • Criminal liability cannot be based on a general allegation of conspiracy.

  • Judgment of conviction must be founded on the strength of the prosecution's evidence.

  • Conviction must rest on hard evidence proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

  • The prosecution must overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence by proving guilt with the requisite quantum of proof.