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.