Veloso v. People
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Roland Veloso and Ramon Sy Hunliong, president and general manager of Shangri-la Finest Chinese Cuisine, had a friendly bet regarding Ferdinand Marcos, Jr.'s senatorial bid. The loser would host a dinner for ten. Marcos, Jr. lost, making Veloso the winner. Procedural History: Congressman Cuenco's secretary contacted Eva Anne Nanette Sto. Domingo, the restaurant's assistant dining manager, to reserve a dinner for ten on behalf of petitioner. Ramon informed Eva that he would pay for one table as per the bet. Upon arrival, petitioner requested four additional tables, promising to pay for them. The bill for these four tables amounted to P11,391.00. Petitioner refused to pay, claiming he was Ramon's guest. He instructed Eva to send the bill to Congressman Cuenco's office, but he was no longer reporting there. The bill was sent to his home address, but he still refused to pay. A demand letter was sent, but to no avail. The Petition: Petitioner was charged with estafa before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 31, Quezon City. The MeTC found him guilty and sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty and to indemnify the restaurant. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the MeTC decision, as did the Court of Appeals. Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court, challenging the Court of Appeals' decision.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC Decision finding petitioner guilty of estafa under Article 315 (2)(e) of the Revised Penal Code. Whether the petitioner is only civilly liable for an unpaid debt.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, upholding the conviction of Roland V. Veloso for estafa under Article 315 (2)(e) of the Revised Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of estafa under Article 315 (2)(e) of the Revised Penal Code: The Court affirmed the findings of the lower courts that the petitioner committed estafa. The petitioner ordered four additional tables, consumed the food with his guests, and then refused to pay the bill. His claim that he was merely a guest of Ramon was contradicted by the agreement that Ramon would only pay for one table. The Court agreed with the Solicitor General that the petitioner employed deceit and fraudulent acts by ordering the additional tables, partaking of the food, and then illegally refusing to pay, which constitutes estafa. The Court reiterated that the assessment of the credibility of witnesses by the trial court, which was affirmed by the appellate courts, is entitled to great weight and persuasion. On the issue of whether the petitioner is only civilly liable for an unpaid debt: The Court ruled that the petitioner's actions went beyond a mere civil liability for an unpaid debt. By using deceit and false pretenses to obtain services (food and drinks) and then refusing to pay, the petitioner committed the crime of estafa. The Court emphasized that compelling the petitioner to stay in the restaurant due to his failure to pay would have exposed the restaurant staff to a criminal charge of coercion, thus making the victim the villain. Therefore, the petitioner's liability was criminal, not merely civil.
Main Doctrine
A person who orders food and drinks at a restaurant, consumes them, and then refuses to pay the bill by falsely claiming to be a guest of another, thereby employing deceit and fraudulent acts, is guilty of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2, sub-paragraph (e) of the Revised Penal Code.