People vs.

Ojeda
G.R. No. 104238-58
June 3, 2004
Corona, J.
FACTS:

The appellant Cora Abella Ojeda was charged in 21 separate informations for estafa in and for violation of
Batas Pambansa (BP) 22. On November 5, 1983, appellant purchased from Chua various fabrics and textile
materials worth P228,306 for which she issued 22 postdated checks bearing different dates and amounts. Chua
later presented to the bank for payment check no. 033550 dated November 5, 1983 in the amount of P17,100 but
it was dishonored due to “Account Closed.” On April 10, 1984, Chua deposited the rest of the checks but all were
dishonored for the same reason. Demands were allegedly made on the appellant to make good the dishonored
checks, to no avail.

With the exception of six checks which did not bear her signature, appellant admitted that she issued the
postdated checks which were the subject of the criminal cases against her. She, however, alleged that she told
Chua not to deposit the postdated checks on maturity as they were not yet sufficiently funded. Appellant also
claimed that she made partial payments to Chua in the form of finished garments worth P50,000. This was not
rebutted by the prosecution.
In her Second and Urgent Motion for Reconsideration, appellant attached an “Affidavit of Desistance” of
complainant Ruby Chua which stated in part “that the defendant Mrs. Cora Ojeda has already fully paid her
monetary obligation to me in the amount of P228,306.00 which is the subject of the aforementioned cases.”

ISSUE:
Was there good faith on the part of the appellant? If yes, does this constitute a valid defense against
estafa?

RULING:

Yes. The provision of 2 (d) of Article 315 of the RPC, as amended by RA 4885,[20] the elements of estafa
are: (1) a check is postdated or issued in payment of an obligation contracted at the time it is issued; (2) lack or
insufficiency of funds to cover the check; (3) damage to the payee thereof. Deceit and damage are essential
elements of the offense and must be established by satisfactory proof to warrant conviction. It must be noted that
our Revised Penal Code was enacted to penalize unlawful acts accompanied by evil intent denominated as crimes
mala in se. The principal consideration is the existence of malicious intent. There is a concurrence of freedom,
intelligence and intent which together make up the “criminal mind” behind the “criminal act.” Thus, to constitute a
crime, the act must, generally and in most cases, be accompanied by a criminal intent. Actus non facit reum, nisi
mens sit rea. No crime is committed if the mind of the person performing the act complained of is innocent.
Therefore, appellant acted in good faith and should be acquitted for estafa and for violation of BP 22.