View full case

PEOPLE v. GILBERT REYES WAGAS

FACTS:

Gilbert R. Wagas was charged with estafa for issuing a check for P200,000 to Alberto Ligaray without sufficient funds. Ligaray testified that Wagas had ordered 200 bags of rice and assured him of sufficient funds. Wagas claimed the check was intended for a property purchase from his brother-in-law, not Ligaray. The Prosecution presented a letter signed by Wagas admitting to owing Ligaray P200,000. Wagas argued that he did not negotiate the check and questioned the reliability of Ligaray's testimony. The RTC found Wagas guilty and sentenced him to imprisonment. Wagas filed a motion for new trial and/or reconsideration, which was denied. He appealed to the Supreme Court, asserting that the Prosecution failed to prove the elements and his identity as the perpetrator.

ISSUES:

  1. Did the Prosecution establish beyond reasonable doubt the existence of all the elements of the crime of estafa and the identity of the perpetrator of the crime?

  2. Whether the telephone conversation between Ligaray and the buyer of rice should first be authenticated before it could be received in evidence.

  3. Whether the identity of the caller could be established by direct or circumstantial evidence.

  4. Whether the identification of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime meets the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

  5. Whether the accused can still be held civilly liable despite being acquitted of the criminal charge.

RULING:

  1. The appeal is meritorious. The essential elements of estafa under the Revised Penal Code are: (a) a check is postdated or issued in payment of an obligation contracted at the time the check is issued; (b) lack or insufficiency of funds to cover the check; and (c) damage to the payee thereof. The Prosecution was able to establish that the check issued by the accused was dishonored due to insufficiency of funds. However, the Prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt the identity of the person who defrauded the complainant. The complainant did not personally meet the person with whom he transacted, and the check delivered to the complainant was made payable to cash and not to him. The person who received the goods and delivered the check was a different individual. Therefore, the accused cannot be held guilty of estafa as charged.

  2. Yes, it is essential for purposes of reliability and trustworthiness that a telephone conversation be first authenticated before it could be received in evidence. The person with whom the witness conversed by telephone should be first satisfactorily identified by voice recognition or any other means. Without authentication, incriminating another person based solely on a telephone conversation would be too easy.

  3. Yes, the identity of the caller may be established by direct or circumstantial evidence. It is not necessary for the witness to be able to identify the person with whom the conversation was had at the time of the conversation, provided subsequent identification is proved by direct or circumstantial evidence. The completeness of the identification goes to the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility.

  4. The identification of the accused as the person who transacted on the rice did not preclude a reasonable possibility of mistake. Therefore, the proof of guilt did not meet the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The accused is entitled to an acquittal based on the constitutional right of presumption of innocence.

  5. Even though the accused is acquitted of the crime of estafa, he can still be held civilly liable. As the admitted drawer of the dishonored check, the accused is legally liable to pay the amount to the holder in due course. The accused is ordered to pay the amount of the dishonored check, plus legal interest of 6% per annum.

PRINCIPLES:

  • In order to constitute estafa, the act of postdating or issuing a check in payment of an obligation must be the efficient cause of the defraudation.

  • The person who issues a check must be the one who defrauded the complainant, not just the mere issuance of the check.

  • Identity of the offender must be established by proof beyond reasonable doubt in every criminal prosecution.

  • A telephone conversation must be authenticated before it can be considered as evidence.

  • The identity of the caller in a telephone conversation may be established by direct or circumstantial evidence.

  • The State carries the burden of proof in establishing the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

  • The presumption of innocence dictates that the Prosecution has the duty to prove the guilt and not for the accused to establish innocence.

  • An identification that does not preclude a reasonable possibility of mistake cannot be accorded any evidentiary force.

  • An accused may still be held civilly liable despite being acquitted of the criminal charge if the preponderance of the established facts warrants it.