46. Ladonga v. People G.R. No.

141066
February 17, 2005 | AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. | Crimes in Mala in se and Mala Prohibita

Petitioner: Evangeline Ladonga

Respondents: People of the Philippines

Summary: Adronico and Evangeline Ladonga obtained a loan from Alfredo Oculam, guaranteed by UCPB all issued
by Adronico. Alfred filed a criminal complaint against them when they failed to redeem the check. The RTC found the
Ladonga spouses guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating B.P. Blg. 22. Evangeline argued that the RTC erred in
finding her criminally liable for conspiring with her husband as the principle of conspiracy is inapplicable to B.P. Blg.
22 and she was not a signatory of the checks and had no participation in the issuance thereof. The Court ruled that the
general principles of the RPC can be used to supplement B.P. Blg. 22, making it possible for the principle of conspiracy
to be applied. Regardless, the prosecution failed to prove that petitioner performed any overt act in furtherance of the
alleged conspiracy, acquitting her from the charges.

Doctrine: Art. 10 of the Revised Penal Code: Offenses not subject to the provisions of this Code. — Offenses which
are or in the future may be punishable under special laws are not subject to the provisions of this Code. This Code shall
be supplementary to such laws, unless the latter should specially provide the contrary.

Facts:
1. Spouses Adronico and Evangeline Ladonga obtained a loan thrice from pawnshop owner Alfredo Oculam, guaranteed
by United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB) all issued by Adronico. The three checks bounced upon presentment for the
account had already been closed. Consequently, the Ladonga spouses failed to redeem the check, despite repeated
demands from Alfredo, prompting him to file a criminal complaint against them.
2. The Ladonga spouses claimed that the checks were issued only to guarantee the obligation, with an agreement that
Alfredo should not encash the checks when they mature; and, that Evangeline is not a signatory of the checks and had
no participation in the issuance thereof.
3. The RTC rendered a joint decision finding the Ladonga spouses guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating B.P. Blg.
22, ordering them to jointly and solidarily pay and reimburse the complainant, Alfredo.
4. Evangeline brought the case to the Court of Appeals, arguing that the RTC erred in finding her criminally liable for
conspiring with her husband as the principle of conspiracy is inapplicable to B.P. Blg. 22 which is a special law; and
that she had no involvement in the issuance of the checks. The CA affirmed the conviction of petitioner. Petitioner
sought for reconsideration but was denied the same.
5. Evageline petitioned to the Supreme Court, insisting that she had no participation in the drawing and issuance of the
three checks and that the Court of Appeals gravely erred in applying the principle of conspiracy as it would enlarge
the scope of the statute and include situations not provided for or intended by the lawmakers, penalizing a person, like
petitioner, who had no participation in such a criminal act.

Issue:
1. Whether or not conspiracy is applicable in violations of B.P. Blg. 22 by invoking the last sentence of Art. 10 of the
Revised Penal Code. – YES
2. Whether or not the petitioner who was not the drawer or issuer of the three checks that bounced but her co-accused
husband under the latter's account could be held liable for violations of B.P. Blg. 22 as conspirator. – NO

Ruling:
1. B.P. Blg. 22 is a special law and under Art. 10 of the RPC, offenses of this law are not subject to the provisions of this
Code. However, B.P. Blg. 22 does not expressly proscribe the suppletory application of the provisions of the RPC.
 Unless B.P. Blg. 22 explicitly states otherwise or conflicts with the provisions of the RPC, the general principles of the
RPC can be used to supplement B.P. Blg. 22, particularly in cases where B.P. Blg. 22 might not provide clear guidance
or coverage. Thus, making it possible for the principle of conspiracy to be applied.
2. The prosecution failed to prove that petitioner performed any overt act in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy. From
the testimony of the complainant Alfredo, Evangeline was merely present when her husband, Adronico, signed the
first check. Alfredo did not describe the details of petitioner's participation, whether by her own actions, influencing a
co-conspirator, or assisting in a way that made the crime possible. The only apparent action linked to the petitioner
was her presence during the issuance of the first check, but this alone does not imply her agreement with the criminal
intent, warranting her acquittal.

Dispositive Portion:
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the Decision
of the Regional Trial Court (Branch 3), Bohol convicting the petitioner of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 is hereby REVERSED
and SET ASIDE. Petitioner Evangeline Ladonga is ACQUITTED of the charges against her under B.P. Blg. 22 for failure
of the prosecution to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. No pronouncement as to costs.