The prosecution established that Ligaray

had released the goods to Caada because

of the postdated check the latter had given
to him; and that the check was dishonoured
when resented for payment because of the
insufficiency of funds.
In every criminal prosecution, the identity
of the offender must be established by
proof beyond reasonable doubt. However,
in this case, the prosecution did not
establish beyond reasonable doubt that it
was Wagas who had defrauded Ligaray by
issuing the check..
First, even after the dishonour of the check,
Ligaray expressly admitted that he did not
personally meet the person with whom he
was transacting over the telephone.
Second, the check was payable to case.
This type of check was payable to the
bearer and could be negotiated by mere
delivery
without
the
need
of
an
indorsement.
Third, Ligaray admitted that it was Caada
who received the rice from and who
delivered the check to him Considering that
the records are bereft of any showing that
Caada was then acting in behalf of Wagas,
the trial court had no factual and legal
bases to conclude and find that Caada had
been an agent of Wagas.
Finally, Ligarays declaration that it was
Wagas who had transacted with him over
the telephone was not reliable because the
same should be authenticated first before it
could be received in evidence.
A fundamental rule in criminal procedure
that the State carries the onus probandi
in establishing the guilt of the accused
beyond a reasonable doubt. The State has
the burden of proof to show: (1) the correct
identification of the author of the crime,
and (2) the actuality of the commission of
the offence with the participation of the
accused. The accused, being presumed
innocent, carries no burden of proof on his
shoulders. For this reason, the first duty of
the Prosecution is not to prove the crime
but to prove the identity of the criminal. For

People v. Wagas
G.R. No. 157943; 4 September 2013
Facts:
Alberto
Ligaray
(Ligaray)
transacted
business with Gilbert Wagas (Wagas) in
which the latter placed an order of 200
bags of rice over the telephone. Ligaray
released the goods to Wagas and at the
same time received the a check for
P200,000 payable to cash. Upon depositing
the said check, the same was dishonoured
because of insufficient funds. Ligaray
demanded from Wagas for the payment of
the check but the latter did not pay the
former.
Wagas was charged with estafa in an
information stating that he issued a check
in the amount of P200,000; however, when
the check was presented for encashment, it
was dishonoured because it was drawn
against insufficient funds. Despite of
notice and several demands upon Wagas to
make good said check, he failed to do so.
On arraignment, Wagas pleaded not guilty.
On pre-trial, Wagas admitted that the check
alleged in the information had been
dishonoured due to insufficient funds. Trial
ensued and on cross examination, Ligaray
admitted that he did not personally meet
Wagas because they transacted through
telephone only; and he release the 200
bags of rice directly to Robert Caada
(Caada), the brother-in-law of Wagas, who
signed the delivery receipt upon receiving
the rice. In his defense, Wagas admitted
that he issued the check to Caada for the
payment of Caadas property and denied
he had any dealings with Ligaray. The trial
court convicted Wagas of the crime charged
against him. After denial of Wagas motion
for new trial/ consideration, he appealed
directly to the Supreme Court.
Issue:
Did the prosecution establish
reasonable doubt the identity
perpetrator of the crime?

beyond
of the

Ruling:
No, the prosecution was not able to
establish beyond reasonable doubt the
identity of the perpetrator of the crime.

identity of the accused beyond reasonable

doubt, there can be no conviction.

even if the commission of the crime can be

established, without competent proof of the