9.

People v Wagas

Doctrine:
To be guilty of estafa, the accused must have used the check in order to defraud the complainant because what the law punishes
is the fraud or deceit, not the mere issuance of the worthless check.

Facts:
Alberto Ligaray - witnessed against Wagas stating that the alter ordered 200 bags of rice over the telephone and reluctantly
agreed to the proposed payment of a post-dated check but the check was dishonored for insufficiency of funds.

Gilbert Wagas - convicted of estafa for issuing a check from the Bank of the Philippine Islands when said account has insufficient
funds. On his defense, he insisted that it was his brother in law (Canada) who transacted with Ligaray but he assumed the
responsibility because his sister and her husband asked him to do so.

Issue:
Whether or not the accused is guilty of estafa.

Held:
No. The prosecution did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that it was Wagas who had defrauded Ligaray by issuing the
check. The check delivered to Ligaray was made payable to cash. Under the NIL, this type of check was payable to the bearer
and could be negotiated by mere delivery without the need of an indorsement. It is highly probable that Wagas has issued the
check not to Ligaray but to 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 because what the law punishes
is the fraud or deceit, not the mere issuance of the worthless check. Wagas could not have been guilty of estafa simply because
he had issued the check used to defraud Lagaray. The proof of guilt must clearly show that it had been Wagas as the drawer who
had defrauded Ligaray by means of the check.