By Atty. Julius Gregory B. Delgado
CONRADO FERNANDO, JR. VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. NO. 255180 (JANUARY 31, 2024): TRAVEL AGENT ACQUITTED OF ESTAFA AFTER PROSECUTION FAILS TO PROVE EXISTENCE OF ALL THE ELEMENTS UNDER ARTICLE 315 (2) (A) OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE
The case stems from an Information against petitioner Conrado Fernando, Jr. (“Conrado”) for violation of Article 315 (2) (a) of the Revised Penal Code. The prosecution accuses Conrado of committing Estafa by representing himself as Travel Agent of Airward Travel and Tours (“Airward”), and with deceit and false representation, supposedly enticed them to purchase a Package Tour to Hong Kong for an amount of Php37,400.00 which later did not materialize.
On August 4, 2006, Conrado informed private complainant Doloriza Reyroso Din (“Doloriza”) that she was booked on August 22 to 25, 2006 through Airward’s Book and Buy Promo arrangement. Thereafter, Doloriza went to the Airward’s Office and paid Php25,000.00 in cash and Php12,400.00 in check which was cleared on its due date of August 10, 2006. Conrado handed to Doloriza a Guaranty Deposit Receipt and Travel Itinerary indicating the latter’s flight to Hong Kong via Cebu Pacific Airlines. Conrado also instructed Doloriza to pick up the tickets and travel documents from Airward’s office on August 19, 2006.
However, on August 19, 2006, when Doloriza called Conrado to follow-up her booking on the dates mentioned, Conrado told her that the schedule would not push through because the Disney’s Hollywood Hotel could no longer accommodate her. Doloriza agreed for a rebooking on her flight to August 23, 2006, with return flight on August 26, 2006, via Philippine Airlines. Later, without any valid explanation, Conrado informed Doloriza that the intended flight was cancelled again.
When Doloriza 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. Thereafter, she informed Conrado that she was able to secure a flight and asked Conrado for him to secure her a travel booking. However, Conrado refused by saying Airward encountered a problem with Guandong Hotel, the supposed accommodation of Doloriza when she arrives in Hong Kong.
Doloriza and her father successfully travelled to Hong Kong through Great Pacific Travel Corporation. Doloriza then demanded a refund from Conrado to which the latter issued a post-dated Bank of Commerce Check dated August 25, 2006, for Php37,400.00. However, when Doloriza tried to encash the same, the check was dishonored due to insufficient funds. Hence, the case for Estafa.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Conrado of Estafa and sentenced him to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from two years and two months of prision correcional as minimum, to nine years as maximum. It also ordered him to reimburse the amount of Php37,400.00 to Doloriza. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified it by deleting the reimbursement considering that Conrado paid already in a separate BP 22 case filed by Doloriza against him. The Court of Appeals, however, sentenced him for a straight penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor.
First, on the issue of forum-shopping considering that Doloriza also instituted a BP 22 case against Conrado, the Supreme Court held that the former is not guilty of forum shopping. Citing Rodriguez vs. Ponferrada, G.R. Nos. 155531-34, July 29, 2005, the Supreme Court held that a single act of issuing a bouncing check may give rise to two distinct criminal offenses: Estafa and violation of BP 22. These remedies may be availed simultaneously by a party and cannot be considered as forum shopping. What is proscribed is double recovery for the same act or omission under the doctrine against unjust enrichment.
Second, the Supreme Court acquitted Conrado because all the elements of Article 315 (2) (a) of the Revised Penal Code are absent: (a) that there must be a false pretense or fraudulent representation as to his power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions; (b) that such false pretense or fraudulent representation was made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; (c) 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 (d) that, as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.
The Court was unconvinced that just because Airward was not a member of IATA, Conrado’s representation that Airward was duly authorized to make promotional tour packages under a book and buy arrangement is fraudulent. The Court held that as testified, Airward’s promotional tour packages through the book and buy arrangement with an IATA-member agency is an accepted practice among travel agencies.
The Court also held that the trial court likewise erred when it failed to appreciate that Conrado was merely an employee of Airward. As such, Conrado merely acted for and on behalf of Airward when he transacted with Doloriza and when he received the Php37,400.00 from the latter. Hence, Conrado could not be faulted when Doloriza’s trip to Hong Kong, which was originally booked in Airward, did not materialize. The Court also held that Conrado’s attempt to reimburse Doloriza through his personal check could not be taken against him. The said fact is not enough in establishing the guilt of Conrado for the crime of Estafa.
The Court also held that 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.