Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

Case Digests

Ladonga v. People
Facts:
In 1989, spouses Adronico and Evangeline Ladonga became Alfredo Oculams regular
customers in his pawnshop business. Sometime in May 1990, the Ladonga spouses
obtained a P9,075.55 loan from him, guaranteed by United Coconut Planters Bank
(UCPB) Check No. 284743, post dated to July 7, 1990 issued by Adronico; sometime in
the last week of April 1990 and during the first week of May 1990, the Ladonga spouses
obtained an additional loan of P12,730.00, guaranteed by UCPB Check No. 284744,
post dated to July 26, 1990 issued by Adronico; between May and June 1990, the
Ladonga spouses obtained a third loan in the amount of P8,496.55, guaranteed by
UCPB Check No. 106136, post dated to July 22, 1990 issued by Adronico; the three
checks bounced upon presentment for the reason CLOSED ACCOUNT; when the
Ladonga spouses failed to redeem the check, despite repeated demands, he filed a
criminal complaint against them. While admitting that the checks issued by Adronico
bounced because there was no sufficient deposit or the account was closed, the
Ladonga spouses claimed that the checks were issued only to guarantee the obligation,
with an agreement that Oculam should not encash the checks when they mature; and,
that petitioner is not a signatory of the checks and had no participation in the issuance
thereof. The RTC rendered a joint decision finding the Ladonga spouses guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of violating B.P. Blg. 22. Petitioner brought the case to the Court of
Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of petitioner.
Issue:
Whether or not the petitioner, who was not the issuer of the three checks that bounced,
could be held liable for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 as conspirator.
Ruling:
Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code provides that a conspiracy exist when two
or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and
decide to commit it. To be held liable guilty as co-principal by reason of conspiracy, the
accused must be shown to have perform an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the
complicity.
It was not proven by direct evidence; petitioner was merely present at the time of
the issuance of the checks. However, this inference cannot be stretched to mean
concurrence with the criminal design. Conspiracy must be established, not by
assumptions, but by positive and conclusive evidence.

Bernardo v. People
Facts:
Bemardo was a tenant of Ledda Sta. Rosas Riceland in Bulacan from Oct. 72 to Aug.
74. His son stayed with him in the house built on that land. The tenancy rights of the
house were
left with the son when the father transferred but without Sta. Rosa knowing. Eventually,
Sta. Rosa took possession of the whole rice field and filed a case of forcible entry
against the Bernardos. The Bernardos lost in their cases before the Municipal Court Sta.
Rosa sent a letter of demand to petitioners telling them to vacate their house and land
but since they refused, a criminal complaint was charged against them for violation of
PD 772 on squatting.
Issue:
Whether or not the Court of First Instance has jurisdiction to entertain criminal case for
alleged violation of presidential decree no 772 since the facts obtaining in the case do
not constitute an offence or violation of said law.
Ruling:
Petition for certiorari is granted. No person should be brought within the terms of a penal
statute who is not clearly within them, nor should any act be pronounced criminal which
is not clearly made so by the statute. Based on its preamble, PD 772 applied only to
squatters in urban areas and not to agricultural lands.

Вам также может понравиться