Factual Background

The prosecution evidence established that private complainant read an advertisement offering a Hong Kong package tour through Airward Travel and Tours (Airward). The package was stated to be for two persons and was priced at PHP 37,400.00, including a four-day stay in Hong Kong and an overnight stay in Disneyland Hotel. Petitioner introduced himself as a travel agent of Airward and communicated the tour details to private complainant through Airward’s “Book and Buy” arrangement, informing her that she had to pay in full in order to avail herself of the package.

On August 4, 2006, petitioner allegedly informed private complainant that she was booked from August 22 to 25, 2006 through Airward’s Book and Buy Promo arrangement. Private complainant proceeded to pay PHP 25,000.00 in cash and PHP 12,400.00 via post-dated check, which later cleared on August 10, 2006. Petitioner issued a Guaranty Deposit Receipt and travel itinerary showing private complainant’s flight through Cebu Pacific Airlines, and instructed her to pick up tickets and travel documents on August 19, 2006.

When private complainant called on August 19, 2006 to confirm the booking, petitioner allegedly advised that her schedule would not push through because Disneyland’s Hollywood Hotel could no longer accommodate her. Private complainant agreed to rebooking her flight to August 23, 2006 with return flight on August 26, 2006 via Philippine Airlines (PAL). Yet petitioner allegedly later cancelled again without a valid explanation.

Private complainant then checked directly with PAL’s supervisor and learned that PAL had granted her travel request and confirmed her flight to Hong Kong on August 23, 2006. She informed petitioner and asked him to secure her booking, but petitioner allegedly refused, stating that Airward had encountered a problem with the Guandong Hotel expected to accommodate her. Private complainant sought a refund of the PHP 37,400.00. She ultimately travelled to Hong Kong through Great Pacific Travel Corporation (Great Pacific Travel). She later alleged that petitioner’s assurances were lies and that she would not have parted with her money but for petitioner’s false pretenses and deceit.

The prosecution further established that petitioner failed to refund the money. It noted that petitioner issued a post-dated Bank of Commerce check dated August 25, 2006 for PHP 37,400.00, which bounced due to insufficient funds. Demands for refund allegedly yielded no response.

Defense Version

Petitioner denied the charge and asserted that he worked for Airward as a reservation officer. He explained that Airward was not an IATA member, and thus could not issue airline tickets directly. He claimed that Airward endorsed reservation requests to an IATA-member travel agency, which would assess feasibility and, if approved, would issue tickets on Airward’s behalf after Airward paid for them.

As to the transaction with private complainant, petitioner admitted receiving the cash and check but insisted the PHP 37,400.00 was only a deposit, not full payment, and that approval of the package depended on the IATA-member travel agency’s issuance of tickets. He stated that he forwarded private complainant’s deposit to the IATA-member travel agency. During re-cross examination, petitioner testified that he returned the PHP 37,400.00 in view of the BP 22 case filed against him.

Fernando, another defense witness, corroborated petitioner’s testimony and stated that Melinda Estanislao owns Airward.

Trial Court Proceedings

In its Decision dated November 24, 2016, the RTC convicted petitioner of Estafa and imposed an indeterminate sentence ranging from two years and two months of prision correccional as minimum to nine years as maximum. The RTC also ordered petitioner to reimburse private complainant PHP 37,400.00 as actual damages.

The RTC found that the prosecution proved all elements of Estafa by identifying, in substance, a scheme of deceit: petitioner allegedly misrepresented he was duly authorized to make promotional tour packages through the Book and Buy arrangement; the misrepresentation allegedly induced private complainant to purchase the Hong Kong tour package; and private complainant paid PHP 37,400.00. The RTC further reasoned that, despite private complainant’s payment, the trip did not materialize and petitioner failed to refund upon demand.

Motions and Omnibus Order of the RTC

Petitioner sought reconsideration, asserting that he was merely an employee of Airward, that Airward—though non-IATA—could sell tour packages, that he did not make the promotional packages, and that he had already paid the amount of PHP 37,400.00 in the BP 22 case. Private complainant then filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration, asking for reimbursement of the roundtrip tickets she bought, for moral damages, and for costs.

In its Omnibus Order dated March 8, 2017, the RTC treated petitioner’s motion for reconsideration as pro forma for failure to set it for hearing. It denied private complainant’s request for reimbursement of the roundtrip tickets and stressed that she had a choice not to proceed with the travel. Nevertheless, it granted private complainant’s request for moral damages and costs. It modified the RTC’s decision by awarding PHP 20,000 moral damages and ordering petitioner to pay costs of suit.

Appeal to the Court of Appeals

Petitioner appealed to the CA. On January 7, 2021, the CA denied the appeal for lack of merit. It affirmed petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt for Estafa but modified the RTC’s monetary awards. In view of petitioner’s full payment of PHP 37,400.00 under the BP 22 case, the CA deleted the RTC’s award of actual damages, invoking Article 2177 of the Civil Code and the prohibition on double recovery.

Issues Raised Before the Court

The petition presented two main issues: first, whether private complainant was guilty of forum shopping; and second, whether petitioner was guilty of Estafa under Article 315 (2) (a) of the RPC.

The Court’s Ruling on Forum Shopping

The Court addressed forum shopping first and rejected the allegation. Petitioner argued that private complainant committed forum shopping by failing to inform the RTC that petitioner had already paid the PHP 37,400.00 actual damages pursuant to the BP 22 decision. The Court held that this argument lacked merit.

The Court explained that under Rodriguez v. Ponferrada, a single act of issuing a bouncing check may give rise to two distinct criminal offenses—Estafa and violation of BP 22—and that both remedies may be simultaneously available. As between those remedies, the Court clarified that the rule proscribes double recovery of the single civil liability arising from the same act, but not the filing or pursuit of the related criminal actions. The Court thus concluded that the circumstances did not amount to forum shopping.

Legal Basis and Reasoning on Estafa

On the principal issue, the Court reversed the CA and acquitted petitioner. The Court reiterated the elements of Estafa by means of deceit under Article 315 (2) (a) of the RPC, as stated in People v. Sison: (a) there must be a false pretense or fraudulent representation as to one’s power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business, or imaginary transactions; (b) the false pretense or fraudulent representation must be made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; (c) the offended party must rely on the false pretense or fraudulent act and be induced to part with money or property; and (d) the offended party must suffer damage. The Court ruled that these elements were wanting.

The Court noted that the CA had affirmed the RTC’s findings that petitioner (1) personally transacted with private complainant; (2) represented himself as duly authorized to make promotional tour packages via Book and Buy; (3) enticed private complainant to purchase the tour package and caused her to pay PHP 37,400.00; (4) prepared the travel schedule; (5) the promised trip did not push through; and (6) petitioner failed to refund when demanded. However, the Court concluded that these circumstances did not suffice to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

First, the Court held that the evidence did not convincingly prove that petitioner’s representation was fraudulent. It pointed out that the RTC failed to appreciate testimony from Arevalo that even travel agencies that are not IATA members are authorized to sell tickets, and that the responsibility to the passenger lies with the non-IATA agent who sells tour packages for the principal’s behalf. From this testimony, the Court reasoned that the promotional tour packages arranged through the Book and Buy arrangement with an IATA-member travel agency reflected accepted industry practice, and thus the mere fact that Airward was not an IATA member did not, by itself, prove that the advertisement or petitioner’s representation was false or fraudulent.

Relatedly, the Court also found error in treating petitioner

The case arose from a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 filed by Conrado Fernando, Jr. (petitioner) to assail the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated January 7, 2021 in CA-G.R. CR No. 39899.
The CA affirmed with modification the conviction for Estafa issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 216, in Criminal Case No. Q-07-148522.
The CA modified the RTC ruling by deleting the award of actual damages because petitioner had fully paid the same under a prior BP 22 proceeding, pursuant to the prohibition on double recovery under Article 2177 of the Civil Code.
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the CA and RTC decisions, and acquitted petitioner for failure of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Parties and Procedural Posture

Private complainant was Doroliza Din (also referred to as Doroliza Reyroso Din in parts of the record).
The prosecution charged petitioner with Estafa under Article 315 (2) (a) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
The RTC found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty with imprisonment ranging from two years and two months of prision correccional as minimum to nine years as maximum, and ordered reimbursement of PHP 37,400.00 as actual damages.
The RTC initially refused to reimburse the cost of the roundtrip tickets but later granted moral damages of PHP 20,000.00 and ordered petitioner to pay costs of the suit.
Petitioner appealed to the CA, which affirmed guilt but deleted the award of actual damages due to Article 2177.
Petitioner sought further relief before the Supreme Court through a Rule 45 Petition for Review on Certiorari.

Accusatory Charge and Theory

The Information dated July 30, 2007 alleged that on or about August 1, 2006 in Quezon City, petitioner defrauded Doroliza Din by means of false manifestations and fraudulent representations.
The Information alleged that petitioner represented he could facilitate processing of documents for a promotional package tour to Hong Kong Disneyland under a four-day tour for PHP 37,400.00.
The Information alleged that, relying on the representations, complainant paid and delivered PHP 37,400.00 to petitioner to meet the requirements of the package tour.
The Information further alleged that petitioner received the money knowing it was false and fraudulent, and then with intent to defraud misapplied, misappropriated, and converted the amount to his personal use despite demand, to the damage and prejudice of complainant.

Prosecution Evidence

The prosecution presented Doloriza Din and Natalie Arevalo.
Complainant testified that she read an advertisement offered by Airward Travel and Tours (Airward) for a four-day package tour to Hong Kong with an overnight stay in Disneyland Hotel for a total of PHP 37,400.00.
Complainant testified that she inquired by phone and petitioner introduced himself as a travel agent of Airward, after which petitioner furnished details through a Book and Buy arrangement.
Complainant testified that petitioner required payment in full, and that on August 4, 2006 she paid PHP 25,000.00 in cash and PHP 12,400.00 via a post-dated check that cleared on August 10, 2006.
Complainant testified that petitioner issued a Guaranty Deposit Receipt and a travel itinerary indicating her flight to Hong Kong via Cebu Pacific Airlines, and instructed her to pick up tickets and travel documents at Airward’s office on August 19, 2006.
Complainant testified that on August 19, 2006 petitioner informed her that her schedule would not push through because Disneyland’s Hollywood Hotel could no longer accommodate her.
Complainant testified that she agreed to re-book her flight to depart August 23, 2006 with return on August 26, 2006 via Philippine Airlines (PAL).
Complainant testified that petitioner later cancelled again without valid explanation and, after complainant verified through PAL’s supervisor, PAL confirmed her flight to Hong Kong on August 23, 2006.
Complainant testified that she then asked petitioner to secure her booking again, but petitioner refused, claiming Airward had a problem with the Guandong Hotel supposed to accommodate her.
Complainant testified that she requested a refund, but petitioner failed to refund.
Complainant testified that she and her father successfully travelled to Hong Kong through Great Pacific Travel Corporation (Great Pacific Travel), after the intended Airward booking failed.
The prosecution evidence further included that the post-dated check for PHP 37,400.00 bounced due to insufficient funds, and that demands for refund yielded no result.
Arevalo, owner of Great Pacific Travel, testified that complainant purchased two roundtrip tickets to Hong Kong and paid PHP 65,600.00 under their Book and Buy arrangement.

Defense Evidence and Claims

Petitioner denied the charge and claimed he was an Airward reservation officer.
Petitioner claimed Airward was not an IATA member, thus it could not directly issue airline tickets, but instead endorsed reservations to an IATA-member travel agency for approval and ticket issuance.
Petitioner admitted that he personally received the cash and check from complainant, but he claimed the transaction was not yet final.
Petitioner asserted that the PHP 37,400.00 payment was a deposit subject to the IATA-member travel agency’s issuance of airline tickets.
Petitioner testified that he forwarded complainant’s deposit to the IATA-member travel agency.
On re-cross examination, petitioner testified that he returned the PHP 37,400.00 in view of a BP 22 case filed by complainant before the MeTC.
A defense witness, Rolando Albano Fernando (Fernando), corroborated that petitioner was an employee and testified that Melinda Estanislao owned Airward.

RTC’s Findings and Damages

The RTC found