G.R. No. 255180 - Ferdo, Jr. vs People

The case originated from an Information dated July 30, 2007, charging petitioner Conrado Fernando, Jr. with the crime of Estafa under Article 315 (2) (a) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
The Information alleged that on or about August 1, 2006 in Quezon City, petitioner, through false manifestations and fraudulent representations, induced private complainant Doroliza Reyroso Din to pay PHP 37,400.00 for a promotional package tour purportedly to Hong Kong Disneyland.
It was further alleged that petitioner, knowing his representations were false, misappropriated the amount for his own personal use, and subsequently failed to refund the money upon the complainant’s demand.

The case evolved after the private complainant responded to an advertisement for a four-day tour to Hong Kong offered by Airward Travel and Tours (Airward), which was purportedly available under a Book and Buy package.
Petitioner, identifying himself as a travel agent from Airward, advised that for the complainant to avail herself of the tour package, full payment was required, resulting in full payment by the complainant (PHP 25,000 in cash and PHP 12,400 via a post-dated check).
Petitioner issued a Guaranty Deposit Receipt and a travel itinerary, confirming the complainant’s flight (initially provided by Cebu Pacific Airlines), and later indicated changes to the booking due to hotel accommodation issues.
Despite reassurances, subsequent communications revealed repeated cancellations of the flight and re-booking attempts. Ultimately, the complainant’s travel arrangements could not be completed.
When the complainant requested a refund of the total amount paid, petitioner allegedly failed to comply.
Additional testimony from Natalie Arevalo, representing Great Pacific Travel, recounted that the complainant was able to secure travel with another agency, underlying the failure of petitioner’s arrangements.

Petitioner denied the charge of Estafa, asserting that he acted solely in his capacity as an employee of Airward, a legitimate travel agency.
He argued that the payment of PHP 37,400.00 made by the complainant was merely a deposit and not the final payment for the tour package, which was subject to confirmation by an IATA-member travel agency authorized by Airward.
Petitioner further claimed that the funds were forwarded to the IATA-member travel agency and that he even attempted to reimburse the complainant through a post-dated check, which later bounced due to insufficient funds.
Testimonies from defense witnesses, including Rolando Albano Fernando, corroborated petitioner’s employment status and supported the contention that he acted as an agent of Airward rather than on personal behalf.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 216, in its Decision dated November 24, 2016, found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Estafa.

The RTC sentenced petitioner to an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment (minimum two years and two months up to nine years).
It ordered petitioner to reimburse the complainant PHP 37,400.00 as actual damages.

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, arguing that he was merely an employee and that further, the practices of non-IATA affiliated travel agencies allowed the sale of tour packages.
The RTC, via its Omnibus Order dated March 8, 2017, denied petitioner’s motion while partially granting the complainant’s motion for partial reconsideration by awarding moral damages of PHP 20,000.00 and imposing the payment of court costs.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated January 7, 2021, affirmed the guilt of petitioner for Estafa with modification by deleting the award for actual damages on the ground of prohibiting double recovery under Article 2177 of the Civil Code.

Petitioner elevated the issue before the Supreme Court by filing a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
Notwithstanding various procedural deficiencies (non-compliance with requirements on e-filing, verification, affidavit of service and certification against forum shopping), the Court decided to review the substantive merits due to the stake on petitioner’s liberty.

Whether the private complainant is guilty of forum shopping by failing to notify the RTC of the payment of actual damages (PHP 37,400.00) already effected in a separate proceeding (BP 22 case).
Whether petitioner, Conrado Fernando, Jr., is guilty of the crime of Estafa under Article 315 (2) (a) of the RPC, taking into account the alleged fraudulent representations and misappropriation of funds.