PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. CORA ABELLA OJEDA, appellant.

Facts:

 Cora Abella Ojeda (Cora), appellant, used to buy fabrics from complainant Ruby Chua (Chua),
appellee
 For the three years approximately Cora transacted business with Chua used postdated checks to
pay for the fabrics she bought
 On November 5, 1983, Cora purchased from Chua various fabrics and textile worth P228,306
for which she issued 22 postdated checks bearing different dates and amounts. The 22 checks
were all dishonored.
 Demands were allegedly made to make good on the dishonored checks, to no avail.
 Estafa and BP 22 charges were thereafter filed against Cora
 With the exception of six checks which did not bear Cora’s signature, Cora admitted that she
issued the postdated checks which were the subject of the criminal cases against her.
 Cora, however, alleged that she told Chua not to deposit the postdated checks on maturity as
they were not yet sufficiently funded.
 Cora also claimed that she made partial payments to Chua in the form of finished garments
worth ₱50,000. This was not rebutted by the prosecution.
 The trial court convicted appellant of the crime of estafa as defined and penalized under
paragraph 2(d) of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), and sentenced her to
reclusion perpetua
 Appellant appealed to SC, seeking acquittal. Her counsel, however, failed to file the appellant’s
brief within the prescribed period.

Issue: WON the court erred in not taking into account the lack of intent by the accused to commit the
crime which may render her not guilty beyond reasonable doubt

Held: NO.

The ruling of the lower court was reversed and set aside. The appellant Cora Abella Ojeda is ACQUITTED
in Criminal Case No. 88-66228 for estafa and in Criminal Case Nos. 88-66230, 88-66232, 88-66235 to 88-
66240, 88-66242, 88-66243, 88-66245 to 88-66248 for violation of BP22

There is no intent because:

1. She told Chua not to deposit the postdated checks because they were not sufficiently funded.
2. She made partial payment right away.
3. She appealed, however her counsel filed it late, to dismiss the case with the affidavit including
Chua’s statement that she has made payments for the amount Ojeda owed her and requesting
that the accused be acquitted of her criminal liability.
4. The issuance of postdated checks was only to insure future payments and not really with intent
to deceive.

Intent is an indispensable element of mala in se crimes of the RPC to convict an accused with criminal
liability.

“Actus non facit reum, insi men sit rea” means the act is culpable unless the mind is guilty.
Unless Ojeda had intent to deceive and commit the crime she should not be held criminally liable.