LUZ CAJIGAS and LARRY CAJIGAS, petitioners,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.
G.R. No. 156541
February 23, 2009
CARPIO, J.
FATCS:
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals.
On 2 September 1989, petitioners went to Daisy’s house in Lam-an, Ozamiz City and bought
jewelries from her totaling P55,000. Petitioners paid for the jewelries by issuing two postdated Allied
Bank Checks dated 2 and 5 October 1989, respectively. Daisy alleged that petitioners assured her that
the checks were sufficiently funded. These checks, however, were dishonored by the drawee bank for
the reason “Account Closed.”
On 14 October 1989, Daisy claimed that petitioners went again to her house and purchased
jewelries worth P33,000.As payment for the jewelries, petitioners issued five postdated checks, two
United Coconut Planters Bank(UCPB) checks dated 30 November and 20 December 1989 and three Far
East Bank and Trust Company (FEBTC)checks dated 14, 20, and 25 November 1989. Petitioners again
assured Daisy that the checks were funded. However, the checks, except UCPB Check No. 82289
dated20 December 1989 in the amount of P2,713.00, bounced for the reason “Account Closed.” Daisy
no longer presented UCPB Check No. 82289 for payment because she already knew that Luz’s UCPB
account had been closed when Daisy presented the other UCPB check. As early as 10August 1989, Luz’s
UCPB account was already closed. Daisy further claimed that she went twice to the house of petitioners
to demand payment. On her first visit, petitioners allegedly evaded Daisy and on the second time, Daisy
discovered that petitioners were no longer residing there. Daisy searched for petitioners in Zamboanga
and Cagayan de Oro City until the latter were located sometime in 1994 inSucat, Parañaque, where they
were finally arrested. Multiple testimonies from tellers of different banks confirming the openings and
closing of respective bank accounts of the petitioner.
After the trial, the Regional Trial Court of Ozamiz City, Branch 35, found petitioners guilty as
charged Spouses Larry and Luz Cajigas guilty beyond reasonable doubt of estafa punishable under Art.
315, par. 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by PD 818 without modifying circumstances, this
Court renders judgment sentencing them to two indeterminate penalties of six(6) years and one (1) day
of prision mayor to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal and to
indemnify the complainant P55,000.00 in Crim Case No. 1412 and P33,758.21 in Crim. Case No. 1411.
The court of appeals then affirmed the sentence of the RTC with modification and sentenced each to
serve an indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years of prision mayor as minimum to twenty-one (21)
years of reclusion perpetua as maximum, in Criminal Case No. RTC-1411, and twelve (12) years of prision
mayor as minimum to twenty-three (23) years of reclusion perpetua as maximum, in Criminal Case No.
RTC-1412,the judgment rendered by the trial court against accused-appellants Luz Cajigas and Larry
Cajigas. Hence the petition of certiorari to the SC.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioners are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of estafa
under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the RPC, as amended by PD 818.
RULING:
a. The prosecution sufficiently established Luz’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt for two counts
of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the RPC. Luz admits issuing the subject
postdated checks as payment for the jewelries she purchased from Daisy. In their various
transactions, Daisy always required the issuance of checks in exchange for the jewelries
purchased by Luz.
b. the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt Larry’s guilt for the crime of estafa
under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the RPC. The prosecution failed to discharge its burden
of establishing conspiracy between Luz and Larry based on proof beyond reasonable doubt.
There was no proof, unlike in People v. Isleta,32 that Larry had knowledge that Luz, the
issuer of the checks, had no funds in the bank.
WHEREFORE, we PARTIALLY GRANT the petition. We SET ASIDE the 24 July 2002 Decision
and 23December 2002 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 21278. We find
petitioner Luz Cajigas GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of estafa under Article
315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 818.
In Criminal Case No. RTC-1411, petitioner Luz Cajigas is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate
penalty of six years and one day of prision mayor as minimum to twenty-one years of
reclusion perpetua as maximum. In Criminal Case No. RTC-1412, she is also sentenced to
suffer an indeterminate penalty of six years and one day of prision mayor as minimum to
twenty-three years of reclusion perpetua as maximum. She is likewise ordered to pay the
total amount of P88,758.21 corresponding to the value of the checks. We ACQUIT petitioner
Larry Cajigas in both criminal cases based on reasonable doubt.
