You are on page 1of 2

MEMORANDUM

I. DEFINITION OF TERMS

a. Check is a bill of exchange drawn and payable on demand. (Section 185, Negotiable Instruments Law) b. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Direct evidence in such instance is not necessary and conspiracy may be inferred from and shown by the acts of the accused themselves during the commission of the offense. The acts point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action, and community of interest. (People vs. Lising, G.R. Nos. 106210-11, 30 January 1998, 91 SCRA 294). II. STATUTORY BASIS OF B.P. BLG. 22

Under Section 1, Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 on Checks without sufficient funds provides: Any person who makes or draws and issues any check to apply on account or for value, knowing at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment, which check is subsequently dishonoured by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or would have been dishonoured for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment, shall be punished by imprisonment of not less than thirty days but not more than one (1) year or by fine of not less than but not more than double the amount of the check which shall in no case exceed Two Hundred Thousand Pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court. x x x The same penalty shall be imposed upon any person who, having sufficient funds in a credit with the drawee bank when he makes or draws and issues a check, shall fail to keep sufficient funds or to maintain a credit to cover the full amount of the check if presented within a period of ninety (90) days from the date appearing thereon, for which reason it is dishonoured by the drawee bank. III. ISSUE

Whether there can be conspiracy in a violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.

IV.

DISCUSSION OF ISSUES

Where conspiracy is established, the precise modality of extent of participation of each individual conspirator becomes secondary since the act of one is the act of all. The degree of actual participation in the commission of crime is immaterial. x x x One who joins a criminal conspiracy in effect adopts as his own the criminal designs of his co-conspirators; he merges his will into the common felonious intent. A person who embraces a criminal conspiracy is properly held to have casts his lot with his fellow conspirators and have taken his chances that things may go awry and that the offended party may resists or third persons may get killed in the course of implementing the basic criminal design. To free himself from such criminal liability, the law requires some overt act on the part of the conspirator, to seek to prevent commission of the second related felony or to abandon or dissociate himself from the conspiracy to commit the initial felony. (People v. Degoma 209 SCRA 266, 1992) 1.1 Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code provides that a conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit of a felony and decide to commit it. To be held guilty as a co-principal by reason of conspiracy, the accused must be shown to have performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the complicity (People vs. Pickrell, 414 SCRA 19); 1.2 The overt act or acts of the accused may consist of active participation in the actual commission of the crime itself or may consist of moral assistance to his co-conspirators by moving them to execute or implement the criminal plan (People vs. Caballero, 400 SCRA 424); 1.3 In this case, the prosecution failed to prove that petitioner performed any overt act in the furtherance of the alleged conspiracy. As testified to by the lone prosecution witness, complaint Alfred Oculam, petitioner was merely present when her husband, Adronico, signed the check subject of Criminal Case No. 7068 (Ladonga vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 141066); 1.4 Conspiracy must be established, not by conjectures, but by positive and conclusive evidence (People vs. Tamayo SCRA 540, 553); 1.5 Conspiracy transcends mere companionship and mere presence at the scene of the crime does not in itself amount to conspiracy (People vs. Leano, 366 SCRA 774); 1.6 Even knowledge, acquiescence in or agreement to cooperate , is not enough to constitute one as a party to a conspiracy, absent any active participation in the commission of the crime with a view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose (People vs. Natividad, 411 SCRA 587, 595);