Conrado Fernando, Jr. Vs. People Of The Philippines, G.R. No. 255180, January 31, 2024
Facts:
1. On August 1, 2006, Doroliza Reyroso Din (Private Complainant) read an advertisement regarding a package tour to Hong Kong offered by Airward Travel and Tours (Airward).
2. Private complainant inquired about it through phone and Conrado Fernando, Jr (petitioner), after introducing himself as a travel agent of Airward, informed her of the details of the tour via Book and Buy package.
3. Petitioner informed private complainant that for her to avail herself of the package tour, she had to pay in full the tickets and all other items included in the package.
4. On August 4, 2006, Petitioner informed private complainant that she was booked on August 22 to 25, 2006 through Airward's Book and Buy Promo arrangement.
5. Thereafter, private complainant went to Airward's office and paid PHP 25,000.00 in cash and PHP 12,400.00 in post-dated check, which was cleared on its due date, or on August 10, 2006.
6. Petitioner handed to private complainant a Guaranty Deposit Receipt and travel itinerary which indicated the latter's flight to Hong Kong via Cebu Pacific Airlines.
7. Petitioner also instructed private complainant to pick up the tickets and travel documents from Airward's office on August 19, 2006.
8. On August 19, 2006, private complainant called petitioner over the phone to confirm her booking on the dates mentioned.
9. However, petitioner informed her that the schedule would not push through because Disney's Hollywood Hotel could no longer accommodate her.
10. Private complainant agreed to the re-booking of her flight on August 23, 2006 with return flight on August 26, 2006 via Philippine Airlines (PAL) instead.
11. However, without any valid explanation, petitioner informed private complainant that the intended flight was cancelled again.
12. Private complainant talked to one of PAL's supervisors; she was surprised to find out that PAL granted her travel request and confirmed her flight to Hong Kong on August 23, 2006.
13. Thereafter, she informed petitioner that she was able to secure a flight and asked the latter to secure her a travel booking.
14. However, petitioner refused by saying that Airward encountered a problem with Guandong Hotel, which was supposed to accommodate private complainant.
15. Consequently, private complainant asked petitioner for a refund of the amount she paid for the package tour.
16. Meanwhile, private complainant and her father successfully travelled to Hong Kong through Great Pacific Travel Corporation (Great Pacific Travel).
17. The prosecution proved that petitioner failed to refund private complainant the amount of PHP 37,400.00.
18. While it was true that petitioner issued private complainant a post-dated Bank of Commerce Check dated August 25, 2006 for the amount of PHP 37,400.00, the check bounced when presented for payment due to insufficient funds.
19. On the other hand, petitioner alleged that Airward is not a member of the International Air Transportation Association (IATA); thus, Airward cannot issue directly airline tickets. Instead, Airward endorses the request for reservation to an IA.TA-member travel agency. Then, the IATA-member travel agency will check whether the reservation is feasible or not. If the reservation is approved, airward will then have to pay for the airline tickets so that the IATA-member travel agency will issue the airline tickets on Airward's behalf.
20. Petitioner claimed that the approval of the package tour was subject to the IATA-member travel agency's issuance of airline tickets. Petitioner fmiher alleged that he forwarded private complainant's deposit to the IATA-member travel agency.
Issues:
1. Whether or not private complainant is guilty of forum shopping. (By filing a case of BP 22 and Estafa against petitioner)
2. Whether or not petitioner guilty of the crime of estafa under Article 315 (2) (a) of the RPC.
You can support our page by clicking any of the following links:
|
Ruling:
First Issue
The Supreme Court answered in the negative.
In the case of Rodriguez v. Ponferrada, the Court ratiocinated that a single act of issuing a bouncing check may give rise to two distinct criminal offenses: Estafa and violation of BP 22. As these remedies are simultaneously available to a party, there can be no forum shopping.
Second Issue
The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's guilt is unsupported by the evidence on record.
The elements of Estafa by means of deceit under Article 315 (2) (a) of the RPC are as follows:
First. that there must be a false pretense or fraudulent representation as to his power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions;
Second. that such false pretense or fraudulent representation was made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud.
Third. that the offended party relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means and was induced to part with his money or property; and
Fourth. that, as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.
All the elements are wanting in this case.
First. The Court is not convinced that just because Airward is not a member of IATA, petitioner's representation that Airward was duly authorized to make promotional tour packages under a book and buy arrangement is fraudulent.
Airward's promotional tour packages through the book and buy arrangement with an IATA-member travel agency is an accepted practice among travel agencies.
Petitioner was a mere employee of Airward.
Considering the foregoing, petitioner can be said to have only acted for and on behalf of Airward when he transacted with private complainant and when he received from the latter the amount of PHP 37,400.00. Thus, petitioner cannot be faulted when private complainant's trip to Hong Kong, which was originally booked in Airward, did not materialize.
Second. The prosecution failed to establish that Airward's advertisement regarding its promotional tour packages to Hong Kong is false . The mere fact that private complainant failed to travel to Hong Kong through Airward is not sufficient to establish that there is no truth to their advertisement, or that the same is not valid.
"To sustain a conviction, the prosecution has the heavy burden of proving that the accused committed the crime beyond reasonable doubt. Even an iota of doubt on the guilt of the accused will warrant his acquittal therefrom. "
In the present case, the absence of the first two elements warrants the acquittal of petitioner.
0 comments:
Post a Comment