Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 5 People V Wagas March 6

    Uploaded by

    Josh Palomera
    43 views2 pages
    Gilbert Wagas was charged with estafa for issuing a post-dated check to Alberto Ligaray for 200 bags of rice. However, Wagas claimed he issued the check, which was payable to cash, to his brother-in-law Robert Canada and not to Ligaray. The court found that as the check was payable to bearer, it was probable that Wagas issued it to Canada who then passed it to Ligaray, so the prosecution failed to prove Wagas defrauded Ligaray. As such, Wagas was not guilty of estafa merely for issuing the check, as the law punishes the fraud or deceit, not just the issuance

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    5 PEOPLE V WAGAS MARCH 6

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Gilbert Wagas was charged with estafa for issuing a post-dated check to Alberto Ligaray for 200 bags of rice. However, Wagas claimed he issued the check, which was payable to cash, to his brother-in-law Robert Canada and not to Ligaray. The court found that as the check was payable to bearer, it was probable that Wagas issued it to Canada who then passed it to Ligaray, so the prosecution failed to prove Wagas defrauded Ligaray. As such, Wagas was not guilty of estafa merely for issuing the check, as the law punishes the fraud or deceit, not just the issuance

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    43 views2 pages

    5 People V Wagas March 6

    Uploaded by

    Josh Palomera
    Gilbert Wagas was charged with estafa for issuing a post-dated check to Alberto Ligaray for 200 bags of rice. However, Wagas claimed he issued the check, which was payable to cash, to his brother-in-law Robert Canada and not to Ligaray. The court found that as the check was payable to bearer, it was probable that Wagas issued it to Canada who then passed it to Ligaray, so the prosecution failed to prove Wagas defrauded Ligaray. As such, Wagas was not guilty of estafa merely for issuing the check, as the law punishes the fraud or deceit, not just the issuance

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    NIL - MACALINO DIGESTS 2020 - 2021

    PEOPLE V. WAGAS REQUISITES OF NEGOTIABILITY

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff—Appellee, -versus- GILBERT REYES


    WAGAS, Accused-Appellant.
    G.R. No. 157943, September 4, 2013
    Estafa, Rice Transaction, Payable to Cash
    J. Bersamin

    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

    NIL - MACALINO DIGESTS (2020 - 2021)


    FABUL, GUICO, MARASIGAN, SASIS, PALOMERA
    NIL - MACALINO DIGESTS 2020 - 2021
    PEOPLE V. WAGAS REQUISITES OF NEGOTIABILITY

    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.

    NIL - MACALINO DIGESTS (2020 - 2021)


    FABUL, GUICO, MARASIGAN, SASIS, PALOMERA

    You might also like