Set-5_24-25_crim.docx

Francisco v People, G.R. No. 177720, February 18, 2009 FACTS: Petitioner Francisco was an employee of Bankard, a credit company engaged in issuing credit cards and in acquiring credit card receivables from commercial establishments arising from the purchase of goods and services by credit card holders using Mastercard or Visa credit cards issued by other banks and credit card companies, at the time the alleged crime occurred. He was knowledgeable in computer programming, and held the position of Acquiring Chargeback Supervisor. Sometime in August 1999, Solidbank, one of the companies which issues credit cards, relayed to Bankard that there were four questionable transactions reflected in Solidbank Mastercard Account No. 5464 9833 0005 1922 under the name of petitioner Francisco. An amount of P663,144.56 was allegedly credited to said account of petitioner Francisco, the credit apparently being a reversal of charges from four establishments. The amount of P18,430.21 was also credited to petitioner Francisco’s AIG Visa Card based on another supposed credit advance. Petitioner Francisco was the person who received the transmittals from Equicom of documents including any purported cash advice at the time the credit transactions were made in favor of his credit card accounts. As a result of the fraudulent crediting of the amount of P663,144.56 to petitioner Francisco’s Solidbank credit card account, Bankard was made to pay the same to Solidbank in the course of the settlement of transactions between the issuing banks from the time of the crediting of the amount to petitioner Francisco’s credit card account until the fraudulent credits were charged back to Solidbank on 27 August 1999. Bankard was unable to recover the amount of P18,430.21 which petitioner Francisco fraudulently credited to his AIG Visa Card No. 4009 9218 0463 3006. ISSUE: Is petitioner guilty of the crime of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code despite absence of one element? RULING: Yes. The element of estafa referred to by petitioner Francisco is the third one under Article 315(a) of the Revised Penal Code in the following list provided by this Court in several cases: the accused uses a fictitious name, or falsely pretends to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or employs other similar deceits; such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; the offended party must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means, that is, he was induced to part with his money or property because of the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means; and as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage. The third element of estafa under Article 315(a) merely requires that the offended party must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means. It does not require that the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means be intentionally directed to the offended party. Thus, in this case wherein a person pretended to possess credit in order to defraud third persons (Solidbank Mastercard and AIG Visa), but the offended party nevertheless relied on such fraudulent means and consequently suffered damage by virtue thereof, such person is liable for estafa under Article 315(a), even though the fraudulent means was not intentionally directed to the offended party. A person committing a felony is criminally liable although the consequences of his felonious act are not intended by him.

Franco v People GR No. 171328, February 16, 2011 FACTS: In Criminal Case No. 99-173688, petitioners Lyzah Sy Franco (Franco) and Steve Besario (Besario) were convicted of the crime of Estafa. The Information filed against petitioners and their co-accused, Antonio Rule, Jr. (Rule) and George Torres (Torres), contained the following accusatory allegations: That on or about the first week of June 1998, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring and confederating together and helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud MA. LOURDES G. ANTONIO, in the following manner, to wit: the said accused by means of false manifestations and fraudulent representations which they made to said Ma. Lourdes G. Antonio, to the effect that they are employees of FINAL ACCESS MARKETING, a business entity engaged in the sale and financing of used or repossessed cars, and as such could process and facilitate the sale of a Mazda car 323 bearing plate number PVB-999 worth P130,000.00 provided they be given the amount of P80,000.00 as down payment and by means of other deceits of similar import, induced and succeeded in inducing the said Ma. Lourdes G. Antonio to give and deliver as in fact she gave and delivered to herein accused the said amount of P80,000.00, and accused knowing fully well that their manifestations and representations were false and untrue and were made only to obtain the said amount of P80,000.00 which amount once in their possession, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously misapply, misappropriate and convert the said amount of P80,000.00 to their own personal use and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of said MA. LOURDES G. ANTONIO in the aforesaid amount of P80,000.00 in its equivalent amount to the Philippine Currency. During arraignment, petitioners entered separate pleas of not guilty. Rule and Torres failed to appear and, to date, remain at large. After the termination of the pre-trial conference, trial ensued. ISSUE: Whether or not the accused is guilty for the crime of estafa committed under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code? RULING: The elements of the crime of estafa under the foregoing provision are: (1) there must be a false pretense, fraudulent acts or fraudulent means; (2) such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; (3) the offended party must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means and was thus induced to part with his money or property; and (4) as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage. Petitioners presented themselves to Lourdes as persons possessing the authority and capacity to engage in the financing of used vehicles in behalf of Final Access Marketing. This was a clear misrepresentation considering their previous knowledge not only of Erlindas complaint but also of several others as regards the failure of Final Access Marketing to deliver the motor vehicles bought. Lourdes relied on their misrepresentations and parted with her money. The fact that they continued to offer for sale a second-hand car to Lourdes is indicative of deceit and their complicity in the conspiracy to commit estafa. The manner in which petitioners transacted business with Erlinda and Lourdes as well as their awareness of 12 other similar complaints with Hoy Gising were sufficient to establish the existence of a modus operandi. Francos attempt to escape culpability by feigning ignorance of the previously failed transactions on the delivery of vehicles by Final Access Marketing cannot be countenanced. As an employee of Final Access Marketing, Franco was expected to be familiar with its daily activities. It would be

unworthy of belief that she did not know of the complaints for the unexplained failure of Final Access Marketing to deliver vehicles to its customers. The petitioners also contend that they are not criminally liable since the transaction with Lourdes was a contract of sale. This contention does not deserve serious consideration. While the fact that they entered into a contract with Lourdes cannot be denied, the transaction transpired due to their deceit. It was their misrepresentation that induced Lourdes to sign the Sales Proposal agreement and part with her money. In denying any criminal wrongdoing, petitioners blame their co-accused, Torres, whom they claim to be the owner of Final Access Marketing. The shifting of blame is common among conspirators in their attempt to escape liability. It is a desperate strategy to compensate for their weak defense. We are not readily influenced by such a proposition since its obvious motive is to distort the truth and frustrate the ends of justice.