Title
People vs. Aquino
Case
G.R. No. 130742
Decision Date
Jul 18, 2000
Aniceta Aquino acquitted of Estafa; SC ruled insufficient evidence of conspiracy in issuing dishonored checks for 400 sacks of rice.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 132848-49)

Background and Charges

On May 6, 1993, Aniceta Aquino along with Primitiva S. Dizon and Liberty Martinez was charged with the crime of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2 (d) of the Revised Penal Code. The allegation centered on a transaction that occurred on December 22, 1991, where the accused collectively purportedly deceived complainant Marie Antoinette Dacuma by receiving 400 sacks of rice valued at P200,000. They issued postdated checks in payment despite knowing that they lacked sufficient funds to cover these checks.

Trial Proceedings and Initial Ruling

During the trial, Aniceta Aquino was the only defendant present; her co-accused remained at large, with reports suggesting one may have died. The prosecution’s presentation included the testimony of Marie Antoinette Dacuma and documentary evidence, including the dishonored checks. The RTC, in its decision dated August 18, 1997, found Aquino guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, determining that she acted as a co-principal in the crime.

Appellate Claims

In her appeal, Aniceta Aquino contested the RTC's decision, asserting that the evidence presented was insufficient to warrant a conviction. The defense contended that her involvement was limited to facilitating the meeting between Dacuma and her co-accused and that mere presence did not equate to conspiratorial intent.

Legal Standards for Conspiracy

The court reiterated the legal framework surrounding conspiracy. A conspiracy occurs when two or more individuals unite in purpose and intent to commit a crime, underscoring the requirement that such an agreement must be proven with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, analogous to the proof necessary for the underlying crime itself.

Evaluation of Evidence

The appellate court reviewed the prosecution's evidence and scrutinized whether the elements of conspiracy were established regarding Aniceta Aquino. It opined that there was insufficient evidence demonstrating that Aquino had the requisite knowledge of her co-defendants’ intentions to defraud Dacuma. The presumption of guilt cannot be established merely from her

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.