G.R. No. L-26370 - Philippine 1st Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Hartigan

On the 22nd day of December, 1991, in Kalookan City, Metro Manila, a transaction took place involving the delivery of 400 sacks of rice valued at ₱200,000.00.
The complainant, Marie Antoinette Dacuma, sold the rice to a group of three accused: Primitiva S. Dizon, Liberty Martinez, and Aniceta (“Annie”) Aquino.
The charge concerned the crime of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2 (d) of the Revised Penal Code, which covers swindling by using postdated checks or issuance of unfunded checks in payment of an obligation.

The prosecution presented the Delivery Receipt No. 001 as evidence that the rice was actually delivered.
Four postdated checks, allegedly issued by accused Primitiva Dizon, were submitted as part of the payment for the rice.
When these checks were presented for payment, they were dishonored by the bank with the conspicuous stamp “Account Closed” on each return slip.
The documentation included return notices from the bank, indicating the checks were unfunded.

Although three accused were implicated in the transaction, only Aniceta (“Annie”) Aquino was arrested and brought to trial.
The other two co-accused, Primitiva Dizon and Liberty Martinez, remained at large, with unverified reports indicating that Liberty Martinez might have been killed in 1994.
At arraignment, Aniceta Aquino pleaded not guilty.

During trial, the prosecution’s sole witness, Marie Antoinette Dacuma, testified and introduced documentary evidence (including the checks and delivery receipt) to establish the charge of estafa.
Accused Aquino presented her own testimony as the sole evidence in her defense.
The RTC of Kalookan City, in its decision dated August 18, 1997, found Aniceta Aquino guilty beyond reasonable doubt as co-principal in the commission of the crime of estafa.
The sentencing imposed was 30 years of reclusion perpetua along with accessory penalties, indemnification of the complainant in the amount of ₱200,000.00, and payment of a portion of the costs, while cancelling her bail bond.

Aquino, through counsel with the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO), contended that the evidence was insufficient to establish her full participation in the conspiracy to defraud Dacuma.
It was argued that her role was limited to facilitating the transaction—namely, introducing her co-accused to the complainant and being present during the delivery of the rice and checks—without proof that she was aware of or involved in the issuance of the unfunded postdated checks.

Whether the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that a conspiracy existed among the accused, specifically implicating Aniceta Aquino, to defraud the complainant.
Whether mere presence and facilitation of the transaction, by handing over checks and being part of the delivery, constitute active participation in a conspiracy to commit estafa.
Whether the evidence presented meets the stringent requirement of demonstrating moral certainty, especially under the equipoise rule, given the existence of alternative inferences favoring the accused’s innocence.
Whether the trial court erred in its inference that Aniceta Aquino was a co-principal in the commission of estafa despite the absence of proof that she had actual knowledge of the insufficiency of funds in the account from which the checks were drawn.