Case Summary (G.R. No. 157943)
Petitioner
People of the Philippines
Respondent
Gilbert R. Wagas
Key Dates
• April 30, 1997 – Telephone order for 200 bags of rice and issuance of postdated check
• May 8, 1997 – Date on Bank of the Philippine Islands Check No. 0011003 for ₱200,000.00
• July 11, 2002 – RTC Branch 58 decision convicting Wagas
• September 4, 2013 – Supreme Court decision reversing the conviction
Applicable Law
• 1987 Constitution – presumption of innocence and proof beyond reasonable doubt
• Revised Penal Code, Art. 315(2)(d) – estafa by issuing a check without sufficient funds
• Negotiable Instruments Law – bearer checks and drawer’s liability
Presumption of Innocence and Burden of Proof
An accused is presumed innocent; the prosecution must prove every element of the offense and the identity of the offender beyond reasonable doubt. Failure to meet this burden requires acquittal as a constitutional duty of the court.
Facts of the Case
Wagas allegedly placed a telephone order for 200 bags of rice with Ligaray, issuing a postdated BPI check payable to “cash” for ₱200,000.00. Ligaray delivered the rice to Robert Caáada, deposited the check in his bank, and upon dishonor for insufficient funds, demanded payment by telephone. Wagas neither funded nor replaced the check despite repeated demands.
Trial and Evidence
Prosecution presented Ligaray’s testimony, the dishonored check, return slip, affidavit, and delivery receipt. Ligaray admitted he never met Wagas in person and dealt only by telephone, and that Caáada signed the delivery receipt. Wagas testified he issued the check to Caáada in connection with a separate property transaction and denied any dealings with Ligaray. A letter signed by Wagas acknowledging a debt to Ligaray was admitted in rebuttal.
RTC Decision and Rationale
The Regional Trial Court found all elements of estafa satisfied: (1) issuance of a postdated check for an existing obligation; (2) dishonor for insufficient funds; (3) reliance by the payee; and sentenced Wagas to 12 years’ prision mayor as minimum to 30 years’ reclusion perpetua as maximum, indemnification of ₱200,000.00, attorney’s fees of ₱30,000.00, and costs.
Issues on Appeal
• Whether the prosecution proved that Wagas personally transacted with Ligaray over the telephone
• Whether the check’s negotiability as a bearer instrument permitted transfer by delivery to Ligaray without Wagas’s direct involvement
• Whether Caáada was acting as Wagas’s agent when he received the rice and check
• Reliability of Ligaray’s identification of the caller as Wagas
Legal Standard for Estafa by Check
Under Art. 315(2)(d) RPC, estafa occurs when a check is issued in payment of an obligation knowing there are insufficient funds. Failure to cover the check within three days of notice is prima facie evidence of deceit. Crucially, the issuance must be the proximate cause of the defrauding.
Analysis on Identity of Offender
• Telephone conversations require voice identification or corroborating circumstances to establish the caller’s identity; mere assertion of
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 157943)
Presumption of Innocence and Burden of Proof
- The Bill of Rights guarantees every accused the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
- To overcome this presumption, the Prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt as to both the elements of the offense and the identity of the offender.
- If the Prosecution fails to meet this heavy burden, the court has the constitutional duty to acquit the accused.
Facts of the Case
- On or about April 30, 1997, in Cebu City, Wagas allegedly ordered 200 bags of rice by telephone from complainant Alberto Ligaray.
- Wagas purportedly issued a postdated BPI Check No. 0011003 for ₱200,000 dated May 8, 1997, payable to “cash,” as payment for the rice.
- Ligaray released the rice upon Wagas’s assurance that he had sufficient funds in his bank and lending business.
- The check was dishonored for insufficiency of funds when Ligaray deposited it with his depository bank, Solid Bank.
- Despite notice, demand, and Wagas’s promise to settle upon his return to Cebu, he failed and refused to pay.
Trial Proceedings and Lower Court Ruling
- Wagas pleaded not guilty.
- At pre-trial, the Defense admitted the check was dishonored; the Prosecution made no admission.
- The Prosecution’s sole witness, Ligaray, testified to the telephone order, delivery of the rice to Wagas’s brother-in-law Robert Caáada, and subsequent non-payment.
- Prosecution exhibits admitted: the dishonored BPI check, Solid Bank return slip, Ligaray’s affidavit, and the delivery receipt.
- Wagas testified that he issued the check to Caáada for a separate property transaction and denied