Evangeline Ladonga vs.

People of the Philippines

GR no. 141066, February 17, 2005

Facts:

In 1989, spouses Adronico and Evangeline Ladonga, petitioner, became the regular
customer of Alfredo Oculam in his pawnshop. Sometime in May 1990, the Ladonga spouses
obtained a loan from him, guaranteed by check of United Coconut Planters Bank, issued by
Adronico. On last week of April 1990 and during the first week of May 1990 the spouses
obtained additional loan guaranteed by UCPD. And between May and June 1990, the spouses
obtained the third loan guaranteed by UCPD. The three checks bounced upon presentment for
the reason that the account was closed. When the spouses failed to redeem the check, despite
repeated demands, Oculam filed a criminal complaint against them.
While admitting that the checks issued by Adronico bounced because there was no
sufficient deposit or the account was closed, the spouses claim that the checks were issued
only to guarantee the obligation, with an agreement that Oculam should not encash the checks
when they mature, and, that petitioner is not a signatory of the checks and had no participation
in the issuance thereof.

Issue:

Whether or not the petitioner, who was not the issuer of the three checks that bounced,
could be held liable for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 as conspirator.

Ruling:

Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code provides that “a conspiracy exist when two or more
persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.”
To be held liable guilty as co-principal by reason of conspiracy, the accused must be shown to
have perform an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the complicity.
It was not proven by direct evidence; petitioner was merely present at the time of the
issuance of the checks. However, this inference cannot be stretched to mean concurrence with
the criminal design. Conspiracy must be established, not by conjectures, but by positive and
conclusive evidence.