EVANGELINE LADONGA v. PEOPLE - CRIMINAL LAW CASE DIGEST

EVANGELINE LADONGA v. PEOPLE

G.R. No. 141066, February 17, 2005

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:

TOPICS: CONSPIRACY IN VIOLATION OF B.P 22

                  SUPPLETORY APPLICATION OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE

                  CONSPIRACY

FACTS:

Spouses Adronico and Evangeline Ladonga was a regular customers of Alfredo Oculam's pawnshop.  Ladonga spouses obtained several loans from Oculam which were guaranteed by several check.  The said checks bounced for the reason of "Closed Account".  Spouses Ladonga failed to redeem the checks despite repeated demand thus three (3) criminal cases for conspiracy to commit violation of B.P. 22.

RTC found spouses Ladonga guilty for violation of B.P. 22.  On appeal, Evangeline argued that conspiracy RTC erred in finding her criminally liable for conspiring with her husband as the principle of conspiracy is inapplicable to B.P. 22 which is a special law.

ISSUE:

Whether Article 10 of the Revised Penal Code applicable to B.P. 22 a Special Law.

Whether petitioner is guilty of conspiracy to commit violation of B.P. 22.

HELD:

Yes, Article 10 of the Revised Penal Code is applicable to B.P. 22.

Article 10 provides that, "offenses which are 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."

The Supreme Court held that is composed of two clauses.  the first provides that offenses which in the future are made punishable under special laws are not subject to the provisions of the RPC, while the second makes the RPC supplementary to such laws.  While it seems that the two clauses are contradictory, a sensible interpretation will show that they can perfectly be reconciled.

The first clause should be understood to mean only that the special penal laws are controlling with regard to offenses therein specifically punished.  Said clause only restates the elementary rule of statutory construction that special legal provisions prevails over general ones.  the second clause contains the soul of the article.  The main idea and purpose of the article is embodied in the provision that, "the code shall be supplementary" to special laws, unless the latter should specifically provide the contrary.

B.P. 22 does not expressly proscribe the suppletory application of the provisions of the RPC.  Thus, in the absence of contrary provision in B.P. 22, the general provisions of the RPC, by their nature, are necessarily applicable, may be applied suppletorily.

No, petitioner is not guilty of conspiracy to commit violation of B.P. 22

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." 

The Supreme Court held that to be held guilty as a co-principal by reason of conspiracy, the accused must be shown to have performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the complicity.  The overt act of the accused may consist of active participation in the actual commission of the crime itself or may consist of moral assistance to his co-conspirator by moving them to execute or implement the criminal plan.

In the present case, the Supreme Court finds that there is no proof that petitioner performed any overt act in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy.  Petitioner was merely present when her husband signed the check.

Conspiracy must be established, not by conjectures, but by positive and conclusive evidence.  Conspiracy transcends mere companionship and mere presence of the scene of the crime does not in itself amount to conspiracy.  Even knowledge, acquiescence in or agreement to cooperate, is not enough to constitute one as a party to a conspiracy, absent any active participation in the commission of the crime with a view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose.

Read Full text: Evangeline Ladonga v. People (full text) - ChanRobles