Wednesday, April 15, 2020

GR No 141066


Evangeline Ladonga vs People of the Philippines
GR No 141066        February 17, 2005

Facts:

The spouses Ladonga were charged to have conspired and mutually helped one another in violating the provisions of BP Blg 22 in issuing a UCPB check on their account, knowing fully well that the same does not have sufficient funds. The said check was delivered to Alfredo Oculam to guarantee the loan availed of by the spouses. Apparently, when Oculam encashed the check, the same was dishonored by the Bank as the account of the spouses has already been closed.

This is where Evangeline Ladonga contended that she was not a signatory of the checks and had no participation in the issuance thereof, thus acquitting her from the judgment against her husband. She argued that the RTC erred in finding her criminally liable for conspiring with her husband as the principle of conspiracy is inapplicable to BP Blg 22. The CA affirmed RTC decision, hence the appeal.

Issue:

     WON Evangeline Ladonga is guilty of conspiracy with her husband in committing a violation against BP Blg 22.

Held:
          
          Principle of conspiracy is applicable to BP Blg 22 because the RPC provides that its provisions shall be supplementary to special laws unless the latter provides the contrary. Apparently, BP Blg 22 does not prohibit the applicability of the suppletory character of the provisions of RPC.

          Article 10 of RPC provides that, offenses which are or in the future may be punishable under special laws are not subject to the provisions of this Code. This Code shall be supplementary to such laws, unless the latter should specially provide the contrary.

          The first clause should be understood to mean only that the special penal laws are controlling with regard to offenses therein specifically punished. The second clause states that the code shall be supplementary to special laws, unless the elater should specifically provide the contrary.

          However, the conviction of Evangeline must be set aside as conspiracy was not established. Article 8 of the RPC provides that a conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. 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 or acts of the accused may consist of active participation in the actual commission of the crime itself or may consist of moral assistance to his co-conspirators by moving them to execute or implement the criminal plan.

No comments:

Post a Comment

GR No 170257

Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue GR No 170257 FACTS:           On Aug 15, 1996, RCBC re...