PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. CORA ABELLA OJEDA, appellant.

Ruling:
G.R. Nos. 104238-58.  The ruling of the lower court was reversed and set aside. The appellant
June 3, 2004 Cora Abella Ojeda is ACQUITTED in Criminal Case No. 88-66228 for
estafa and in Criminal Case Nos. 88-66230, 88-66232, 88-66235 to 88-
Nature of the case: 66240, 88-66242, 88-66243, 88-66245 to 88-66248 for violation of BP
 For review of the decision of the Court which finds the accused, Cora 22.
Abella Ojeda guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa as
defined and penalized under paragraph 2(d) of Article 315 of the Ratio:
Revised Penal Code, as amended by Rep. Act 4885, in Criminal Case No.  There is not intent because:
88-66228 and hereby sentences her to suffer a penalty of reclusion 1. She told Chua not to deposit the postdated checks because they
perpetua, with the accessories provided by law and with credit for were not sufficiently funded.
preventive imprisonment undergone, if any, in accordance with Article 2. She made partial payment right away.
29 of the Revised Penal Code as amended, and to pay complainant 3. She appealed, however her counsel filed it late, to dismiss the case
Ruby Chua the amount of Two Hundred Twenty Eight Thousand Three with the affidavit including Chua’s statement that she has made
Hundred Six (P228,306.00) Pesos with interests thereon from the time payments for the amount Ojeda owed her and requesting that the
of demand until fully paid. accused be acquitted of her criminal liability.
4. The issuance of postdated checks were only to insure future
Facts: payments and not really with intent to deceive.
 Cora Abella Ojeda used to buy fabrics f r o m c o m p l a i n a n t  Intent is an indispensable element of mala in se crimes of the RPC to
Ruby Chua. convict an accused with criminal liability.
 F o r t h e t h r e e years approximately she transacted business with
Chua used postdated checks to pay for the fabrics she bought. Conclusion:
 On November 5, 1983, appellant purchased from Chua various “Actus non facit reum, insi men sit rea” means the act is culpable unless the
fabrics and textile mind is guilty.
worthP 2 2 8 , 3 0 6 f o r w h i c h s h e i s s u e d 2 2 p o s t d a t e d c h e Applying it to statutory construction, unless Ojeda had intent to deceive and
c k s bearing different dates and amounts. The 22 checks were all commit the crime she should not be held criminally liable.
dishonored.
 Demandsw e r e a l l e g e d l y m a d e t o m a k e g o o d t h e d i s h o n
oredchecks, to no avail.
 Estafa and BP 22 charges were
thereafter filed against Ojeda.
 T h e t r i a l c o u r t convicted appellant of the crime of estafa
as definedand penalized under paragraph 2(d) of Article 315
ofthe Revised Penal Code (RPC), and sentenced her
tor e c l u s i o n p e r p e t u a .
 The trial court also convictedappellant of violation o
f B P 2 2 f o r i s s u i n g b o u n c i n g checks. However, the court a
quo held her guilty of only 14 counts out of the 22 bouncing checks
issued.

Issue:
 WON the court erred in not taking into account the lack of intent by the
accused to commit the crime which may render her not guilty beyond
reasonable doubt.