PEOPLE v. GILBERT WAGAS, G.R. No.
157943, September 4, given to him; and that the check was dishonored when presented for
2013
FACTS:
1. Ligaray claims that Gilbert Wagas placed an order of 200 sacks of
rice for delivery.
2. Ligaray was met by Cañada, brother in law, of Wagas who
handed him a check payable to cash in the amount of 200,000
php. It was also Cañada who signed the delivery receipt.
3. The Check was dishonored for insufficiency of funds by Solid
Bank.
4. Despite repeated demands, no payment to Ligaray was made.
5. Ligaray filed a criminal complaint for estafa against Wagas.
6. RTC convicted Wagas for estafa.
ISSUE:
WON Wagas is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
estafa. NO.
RULING:
In order to constitute estafa under estafa, the act of
postdating or issuing a check in payment of an obligation must be the
efficient cause of the defraudation. This means that the offender must
be able to obtain money or property from the offended party by
reason of the issuance of the check, whether dated or postdated. In
other words, the prosecution must show that the person to
whom the check was
delivered would not have parted with his money or property were it
not for the issuance of the check by the offender.
The Prosecution established that Ligaray had released
the goods to Cañada because of the postdated check the latter had
payment because of the insufficiency of funds.
In every criminal prosecution, however, the identity of the
offender, like the crime itself, must be established by proof beyond
reasonable doubt. In that regard, the prosecution did not establish
beyond reasonable doubt that it was Wagas who had
defrauded Ligaray by issuing the check.
Firstly, Ligaray expressly admitted that he did not personally
meet the person with whom he was transacting over the telephone.
Secondly, the check delivered to Ligaray was made payable
to cash. Under the Negotiable Instruments Law, this type of check
was payable to the bearer and could be negotiated by mere delivery
without the need of an indorsement. This rendered it highly probable
that Wagas had issued the check not to Ligaray, but to somebody
else like Cañada, his brother-in-law, who then negotiated it
to Ligaray. Relevantly, Ligaray confirmed that he did not himself
see or meet Wagas at the time of the transaction and thereafter.
Wagas could not be held guilty of estafa simply because he
had issued the check used to defraud Ligaray. The proof of guilt
must still clearly show that it had been Wagas as the drawer who had
defrauded Ligaray by means of the check.
Thirdly, Ligaray admitted that it was Cañada who received
the rice from him and who delivered the check to him. Considering
that the records are bereft of any showing that Cañada was then
acting on behalf of Wagas, the RTC had no factual and legal bases to
conclude and find that Cañada had been acting for Wagas.