In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court acquitted Lucia Manuel y Cadiz of estafa, emphasizing the importance of proving deceit and damage beyond reasonable doubt. The court considered the private complainant’s affidavit of desistance—where she stated she had no transactions with the accused and repudiated the charges—along with her failure to testify during the trial, as critical factors. This decision underscores the high burden of proof in criminal cases and the court’s willingness to consider new evidence that casts doubt on a defendant’s guilt, safeguarding individuals from potential wrongful convictions.

When a Chicken Deal Turns Sour: Can an Affidavit of Desistance Overturn a Fraud Conviction?

Lucia Manuel y Cadiz was charged with estafa for allegedly issuing bad checks to Flordeliza Uy in payment for live chickens. The prosecution claimed that Lucia ordered the chickens from Ebot’s Farm, owned by Flordeliza, and issued checks that were later dishonored due to a closed account. However, Lucia argued that she never dealt directly with Flordeliza, but rather with Ebot’s Farm, which she believed was owned by someone else. Moreover, she claimed to have issued blank checks as a guarantee for payment.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially found Lucia guilty, a decision upheld by the Court of Appeals (CA), albeit with a modified penalty. The CA reasoned that the prosecution had sufficiently proven all elements of estafa, even without Flordeliza’s testimony. Dissatisfied, Lucia elevated the case to the Supreme Court, challenging the prosecution’s evidence, particularly the element of deceit and damage, given Flordeliza’s absence from the trial.

A key development arose when Lucia submitted an affidavit of desistance from Flordeliza, along with an order from the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) dismissing related B.P. Blg. 22 (bouncing check law) cases. In her affidavit, Flordeliza stated there was no legal basis for the charges against Lucia, as the underlying obligation was no longer demandable. Moreover, during the MTC hearing, Flordeliza admitted under oath that she had no transactions with Lucia and was unaware why the checks were issued in her name.

The Supreme Court then had to grapple with the admissibility and probative value of this affidavit of desistance. Generally, courts view such affidavits with skepticism, especially when presented after a conviction, suspecting coercion or monetary influence. However, the Court acknowledged an exception: when an affidavit of desistance is coupled with an express repudiation of the material allegations and casts doubt on the witness’s trial testimony, it may warrant a second look at the case.

Referencing Gomez v. Intermediate Appellate Court, the Court reiterated that an affidavit of desistance, along with other circumstances, can create serious doubts about the accused’s liability. It necessitates a re-evaluation of the case records and the basis for the conviction. The Supreme Court found Flordeliza’s affidavit and subsequent testimony to be particularly compelling, especially considering her prior absence from the trial. Her statements directly contradicted the prosecution’s claim that Lucia had defrauded her. The Court also took note of Flordeliza’s admission that she wasn’t familiar with Ebot’s Farm, further undermining the prosecution’s narrative.

The Court then turned to the elements of Estafa as defined under Article 315, paragraph (2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC):

Article 315. Swindling (estafa). – Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow x x x

2. By means of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud:

d. By postdating a check, or issuing a check in payment of an obligation when the offender had no funds in the bank, or his funds deposited therein were not sufficient to cover the amount of the check. The failure of the drawer of the check to deposit the amount necessary to cover his check within three (3) days, from receipt of notice from the bank and/or the payee or holder that said check has been dishonored for lack or insufficiency of funds shall be prima facie evidence of deceit constituting false pretense or fraudulent act.

The elements of Estafa under the foregoing provision, are as follows: (1) the offender has postdated or issued a check in payment of an obligation contracted at the time of the postdating or issuance; (2) at the time of postdating or issuance of said check, the offender has no funds in the bank or the funds deposited were not sufficient to cover the amount of the check; and (3) the payee has been defrauded.

The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove two critical elements beyond a reasonable doubt: deceit and damage. Flordeliza’s admission that she had no transactions with Lucia undermined the existence of any contracted obligation. The conflicting testimonies and Flordeliza’s lack of familiarity with Ebot’s Farm further cast doubt on the prosecution’s narrative. Consequently, the Court acquitted Lucia, emphasizing that the prosecution’s case did not meet the required burden of proof.

Furthermore, the Court clarified that Lucia’s acquittal extended to her civil liability. Generally, an acquittal doesn’t automatically preclude civil liability. However, in this case, Flordeliza’s own testimony negated the existence of any obligation, extinguishing Lucia’s civil liability ex delicto (arising from the crime).

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt all the elements of estafa, particularly deceit and damage, given the private complainant’s affidavit of desistance and her absence during the trial.
What is an affidavit of desistance?	An affidavit of desistance is a sworn statement by the complainant in a criminal case stating that they are no longer interested in pursuing the case against the accused.
Are affidavits of desistance always accepted by the courts?	No, affidavits of desistance are generally viewed with suspicion, especially if executed after conviction, as they may be obtained through coercion or monetary consideration.
When can an affidavit of desistance lead to an acquittal?	An affidavit of desistance can lead to an acquittal when it is coupled with other circumstances that raise serious doubts about the accused’s guilt, such as an express repudiation of material points in the information.
What does “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” mean?	Proof beyond a reasonable doubt means that the evidence presented by the prosecution must be so convincing that there is no reasonable doubt in the mind of a prudent person that the accused committed the crime.
What are the elements of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the RPC?	The elements are: (1) the offender issued a check in payment of an obligation; (2) at the time of issuance, the offender had insufficient funds; and (3) the payee was defrauded.
What is civil liability ex delicto?	Civil liability ex delicto is the civil liability that arises from the commission of a crime.
Does an acquittal in a criminal case always extinguish civil liability?	No, an acquittal doesn’t always extinguish civil liability; however, if the acquittal is based on a finding that the act or omission from which the civil liability arises did not exist, then the civil liability is extinguished.

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case underscores the critical importance of the burden of proof in criminal proceedings. The Court’s willingness to consider new evidence, even at the appellate stage, demonstrates a commitment to ensuring justice and protecting individuals from wrongful convictions. This ruling serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in estafa cases and the necessity of thoroughly examining all evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: LUCIA MANUEL Y CADIZ VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 213640, April 12, 2023