Issue:

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. CORA ABELLA WON the court erred in not taking into account the lack of
OJEDA, appellant. intent by the accused to commit the crime which may
G.R. Nos. 104238-58. render her not guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
June 3, 2004
Ruling:
Nature of the case: The ruling of the lower court was reversed and set aside.
For review of the decision of the Court which finds the The appellant Cora Abella Ojeda is ACQUITTED in Criminal
accused, Cora Abella Ojeda guilty beyond reasonable doubt Case No. 88-66228 for estafa and in Criminal Case Nos. 88-
of the crime of Estafa as defined and penalized under 66230, 88-66232, 88-66235 to 88-66240, 88-66242, 88-
paragraph 2(d) of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, as 66243, 88-66245 to 88-66248 for violation of BP 22.
amended by Rep. Act 4885, in Criminal Case No. 88-66228
and hereby sentences her to suffer a penalty of reclusion Ratio:
perpetua, with the accessories provided by law and with There is not intent because:
credit for preventive imprisonment undergone, if any, in
1. She told Chua not to deposit the postdated checks
accordance with Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code as
because they were not sufficiently funded.
amended, and to pay complainant Ruby Chua the amount
2. She made partial payment right away.
of Two Hundred Twenty Eight Thousand Three Hundred Six
(P228,306.00) Pesos with interests thereon from the time of 3. She appealed, however her counsel filed it late, to
demand until fully paid. dismiss the case with the affidavit including Chuas
statement that she has made payments for the amount
Facts: Ojeda owed her and requesting that the accused be
Cora Abella Ojeda used to buy fabrics f r o m c o m p l a i n a n t acquitted of her criminal liability.
4. The issuance of postdated checks were only to insure
Ru b y C h u a .
future payments and not really with intent to deceive.
F o r t h e t h r e e years approximately she transacted
Intent is an indispensable element of mala in se crimes of
business with Chua used postdated checks to pay for the
the RPC to convict an accused with criminal liability.
fabrics she bought.
On November 5, 1983, appellant purchased from Chua
Conclusion:
various fabrics and textile Actus non facit reum, insi men sit rea means the act is
worthP 2 2 8 , 3 0 6 f o r w h i c h s h e i s s u e d 2 2 p o s t d a t culpable unless the mind is guilty.
e d c h e c k s bearing different dates and amounts. The 22 Applying it to statutory construction, unless Ojeda had intent to
checks were all dishonored. deceive and commit the crime she should not be held criminally
Demandsw e r e a l l e g e d l y m a d e t o m a k e g o o d t h e liable.
dis honore d che cks, to no avail.
Estafa and BP 22 charge s we re
t h e r e a f t e r fi l e d a g a i n s t O j e d a .
T h e t r i a l c o u r t convicted appellant of the crime of
estafa as defi nedand penalized under paragraph 2(d)
of Article 315 ofthe Revised Penal Code (RPC), and
sentenced her tor e c l u s i o n p e r p e t u a .
The trial court also convictedappellant of viola
t i o n o f B P 2 2 f o r i s s u i n g b o u n c i n g checks.
However, the court a quo held her guilty of only 14
counts out of the 22 bouncing checks issued.