5 People V Wagas March 6
5 People V Wagas March 6
The check delivered to Ligaray was made payable to cash. Under the Negotiable Instruments Law, this type
of check was payable to bearer and could be negotiated by mere delivery without the need of an
indorsement. As such it was probable that Wagas had issued the check to somebody else other than Ligaray;
someone like Canada who then negotiated it to Ligaray.
FACTS:
Gilbert Wagas was charged and convicted of estafa by the RTC. According to the
testimony of Alberto Ligaray, the accused Wagas had placed an order for 200 bags of rice
over the telephone. He further claims that he and his wife initially refused to the proposed
payment through a post-dated check but was Wagas assured them that the latter has the
means to pay them through his lending business and money stored in the bank.
Alberto Ligaray claims that he released the 200 bags of rice to Wagas on April
1997, and received at the same time a BPI Check payable to cash post-dated at May 8,
1997. Ligaray tried to deposit the check with Solid Bank, but the same was dishonoured due
to insufficiency of funds. He further alleges that despite repeated demands, Wagas failed to
pay them.
The accused Gilbert Wagas admitted having issued the BPI check, but to his
brother-in-law, Robert Canada Ligaray, not to Ligaray. He further denies having any
telephone conversation nor any dealings with Ligaray. He further explained that the check as
intended as payment for a portion of Canada’s property. However, the sale did not push
through so he no longer funded the check. Wagas also admitted that he indeed owed
Ligaray P200, 000 for the 200 bags of rice.
The RTC convicted Wagas of estafa. According to the trial court, Wagas issued the
postdated check as payment for an obligation contracted at the time the check was issued;
that he failed to deposit an amount to cover the check despite being notified of the check
being dishonored; and that Ligaray released the goods upon receipt of the postdated check
and Wagas’ assurance that the check would be funded.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not Wagas is guilty for issuing the check used to defraud Ligaray.
HELD:
No, Wagas cannot be held guilty of estafa. In order to constitute estafa, the act of
postdating or issuing a check in payment of an obligation must be the efficient cause of the
fraud. Offender must be able to obtain money or property from the offended party by reason
of the issuance of check. The Prosecution indeed proved that Ligaray released the good
because of the postdated check. However, it failed to establish that it was Wagas who
defrauded Ligaray by issuing the check.
The check delivered to Ligaray was made payable to cash. Under the Negotiable
Instruments Law, this type of check was payable to bearer and could be negotiated by
mere delivery without the need of an indorsement. As such it was probable that Wagas
had issued the check to somebody else other than Ligaray; someone like Canada who then
negotiated it to Ligaray.
To be guilty of estafa, the accused must have used the check in order to defraud the
complainant. The law punishes the fraud or deceit, not the mere issuance of the
worthless check. As such, Wagas could not be held guilty of estafa for merely issuing the
check that was used to defraud Ligaray. The proof of guilt should clearly show that it was
Wagas, as the drawer, who defrauded Ligaray by means of the check.