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

The case arose 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 criminal charge stemmed from a transaction involving a promotional package tour to Hong Kong, where the accused was alleged to have defrauded the complainant, Doroliza Reyroso Din, in connection with a “book and buy” arrangement.

On August 1, 2006, private complainant Doroliza Din responded to an advertisement for a promotional package tour to Hong Kong offered by Airward Travel and Tours, which was presented as valid despite Airward not being an IATA-member.
Petitioner, acting as a travel agent for Airward, explained the tour details and informed the complainant that full payment was required to avail herself of the package.
On August 4, 2006, petitioner confirmed the booking for the complainant, who subsequently paid PHP 25,000 in cash and PHP 12,400 via a post-dated check, totaling PHP 37,400.
The petitioner issued the complainant a Guaranty Deposit Receipt and a travel itinerary, instructing her to claim travel documents on a later date.
Subsequent communications revealed changes in the flight and hotel arrangement, including claims that the originally scheduled accommodations were no longer available and repeated cancellations of the proposed flights.
Ultimately, when the complainant was able to secure her own travel arrangements through another agency (Great Pacific Travel Corporation), she demanded a refund of the PHP 37,400, which the petitioner allegedly failed to return.
The prosecution further presented evidence that although petitioner provided a post-dated Bank of Commerce check meant to refund the complainant, the said check bounced due to insufficient funds.

Petitioner denied the charge of Estafa, asserting that his involvement was limited to his role as a reservation officer for Airward.
He clarified that Airward, being a non-IATA member, operates by forwarding ticket requests to an IATA-member travel agency which subsequently issues the airline ticket upon feasibility of the reservation.
The defense maintained that the money received from the complainant was merely a deposit, subject to confirmation by the IATA-member agency.
Petitioner contended that his subsequent attempt to reimburse the complainant through his personal check was in line with addressing her previous case under BP 22, and therefore, the transaction did not constitute fraud on his part.

In the RTC Decision dated November 24, 2016, petitioner was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Estafa.
The RTC sentenced petitioner to an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from a minimum of two years and two months to a maximum of nine years, and ordered him to reimburse PHP 37,400 as actual damages.
The petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration arguing his status as an employee and disputing the finality of the transaction, while the complainant filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration seeking additional remedies (reimbursement for roundtrip tickets, moral damages, and costs).
The RTC, in its Omnibus Order dated March 8, 2017, denied the petitioner’s motion but partially granted the complainant’s motion by awarding moral damages of PHP 20,000 and ordering the payment of court costs, while specifically upholding the liability for Estafa.

In its Decision dated January 7, 2021, the CA affirmed the RTC’s findings regarding the petitioner’s guilt on the crime of Estafa but with one material modification.
The CA deleted the award of actual damages amounting to PHP 37,400, citing the principle of double recovery—highlighting that petitioner had already paid that amount in a previous BP 22 case, and recovery for the same loss cannot be awarded twice.
Additionally, the CA briefly addressed allegations regarding forum shopping by the complainant, holding that recovery under one remedy bars a second recovery for the same civil liability.

Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, challenging both the factual findings and the legal basis of the lower courts’ decisions.
Despite lapses in procedural compliance regarding required documentary submissions (such as the soft copy of the petition, proper verifications, and affidavit of service), the Court opted to address the merits due to the petitioner’s liberty being at stake.
The petitioner argued that the factual findings regarding the alleged misrepresentations were not sufficient to prove fraudulent intent and that his status as an employee absolved him of personal liability.
The Supreme Court, after reviewing evidences and prior jurisprudential standards, held that the elements of Estafa were not sufficiently established, leading to petitioner’s final acquittal.

Whether the complainant is guilty of forum shopping in pursuing multiple remedies for the same alleged wrong.

Petitioner alleged that seeking relief in both the BP 22 case and the Estafa case amounted to double recovery and constituted forum shopping.
The issue was raised as part of the defense’s argument against the complainant’s simultaneous pursuit of two different remedies for the same incident.

Whether petitioner was guilty of Estafa under Article 315 (2)(a) of the RPC.

The primary issue revolved around whether petitioner’s actions, including his alleged misrepresentations related to the promotional travel package, met the requisite elements of Estafa by means of deceit.
It was contended whether the evidence, particularly his role as an employee acting on behalf of Airward, was sufficient beyond reasonable doubt to support a conviction for Estafa.