Case Digest (G.R. No. 255180)
Facts:
Conrado Fernando, Jr. v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 255180, January 31, 2024, the Supreme Court Third Division, Inting, J., writing for the Court.The case arose from an Information dated July 30, 2007, in Criminal Case No. Q-07-148522, Branch 216, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, charging petitioner Conrado Fernando, Jr. with Estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code for allegedly defrauding Doroliza (Doloriza) Reyroso Din by inducing her, through false representations, to pay PHP 37,400.00 for a four-day Hong Kong package tour. Upon arraignment petitioner pleaded not guilty and trial followed.
The prosecution presented the private complainant and Natalie Arevalo (owner of Great Pacific Travel). The complainant testified she responded to an Airward Travel and Tours advertisement, was told by petitioner (as Airward reservation officer) to pay PHP 25,000 cash and PHP 12,400 by post-dated check for a Book-and-Buy promo booked for August 2006, and that petitioner handed her a guaranty receipt and itinerary. The complainant alleged repeated cancellations by petitioner, that she later secured tickets through Great Pacific Travel and that petitioner failed to refund her PHP 37,400 despite demands; a check dated August 25, 2006 for PHP 37,400 reportedly bounced for insufficient funds when presented later.
Petitioner denied deceit, asserting he was a mere Airward employee, that the PHP 37,400 was a deposit forwarded to an IATA-member agency, and that non-IATA travel agencies may sell packages through IATA members; he also claimed to have reimbursed the complainant in a separate BP 22 case (MeTC Branch 42, Decision dated October 15, 2012). Defense witness Rolando Albano Fernando corroborated petitioner’s employment and Airward’s ownership.
The RTC, in a Decision dated November 24, 2016, convicted petitioner of Estafa, sentenced him to an indeterminate term (prision correccional minimum to nine years maximum), ordered reimbursement of PHP 37,400.00, and later in an Omnibus Order dated March 8, 2017 the court granted partial reconsideration by awarding PHP 20,000 moral damages and costs (and denied petitioner’s motion as pro forma). The Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 39899, Decision dated January 7, 2021, affirmed with modification: it found petitioner guilty but deleted the award of actual damages (PHP 37,400.00) because petitioner had allegedly already paid that amount in the BP 22 case, citing Article 2177 of the Civil Code (prohibition against double recovery); it left moral damages and costs in favor of the complainant.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 (filed March 8, 2021) before the Supreme Cou...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is the private complainant guilty of forum shopping for having recovered actual damages in a BP 22 case while pursuing Estafa in the RTC?
- Is petitioner Conrado Fernando, Jr. guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Re...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)