G.R. No. 141066 ; February 17, 2005
Evangeline Ladonga, petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Evangeline Ladonga and her husband, Adronico, were charged with three counts of violating Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (The Bouncing Checks Law). The charges stemmed from three checks issued by Adronico to complainant Alfredo Oculam as guarantees for loans obtained from Oculam’s pawnshop. All checks were dishonored upon presentment for the reason “CLOSED ACCOUNT.” The prosecution established that the Ladonga spouses were regular customers who obtained the loans together.
The defense admitted the checks bounced but claimed they were issued merely as guarantees, with an agreement that Oculam would not encash them upon maturity. Petitioner specifically argued she could not be held criminally liable as she was not a signatory to any of the checks and had no direct participation in their issuance. The Regional Trial Court convicted both spouses, sentencing them to imprisonment and fines. Adronico applied for probation, while Evangeline appealed.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner Evangeline Ladonga, who did not sign the bouncing checks, may be held criminally liable for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 under the principle of conspiracy.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The legal logic proceeds from the suppletory application of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) provisions to special laws. Article 10 of the RPC provides that its provisions shall be supplementary to special laws, unless the latter provide the contrary. Since B.P. Blg. 22 does not expressly prohibit the application of RPC principles, the doctrine of conspiracy under Article 8 of the RPC applies suppletorily.
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Direct proof is not essential; it may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime, indicating a common purpose. Here, the evidence showed petitioner and her husband jointly obtained the loans from the complainant. Their concerted actions in procuring the loans and delivering the checks issued by the husband as security demonstrated a common design to issue worthless checks. A conspirator need not personally perform every act of the crime; participation in the conspiracy is enough. Thus, petitioner’s lack of signature on the instruments does not exculpate her, as her active participation in the transaction made her a co-conspirator.