Francisco v. People
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Eliseo R. Francisco, Jr. was an employee of Bankard, Inc., a credit card company. He was tasked with converting reports from Equicom from ARJ Text Format to Amipro Format. In August 1999, Solidbank informed Bankard of four questionable transactions in petitioner's credit card account totaling P663,144.56, and another P18,430.21 credited to his AIG Visa Card, purportedly as reversals of charges. Bankard's investigation revealed that the original reports from Equicom showed reversals of charges credited to petitioner's accounts, but the converted reports by petitioner no longer reflected these reversals, showing zero instead. There were no original purchase transactions to justify these reversals, indicating fictitious credits. Bankard was consequently made to pay Solidbank for these fictitious credits during the settlement of transactions, and was unable to recover the amounts credited to petitioner's cards. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City convicted petitioner Francisco of Estafa under Article 315, par. 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code, sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty and ordering him to reimburse Bankard, Inc. The RTC denied his motion for reconsideration/new trial. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the prison sentence to an indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as the minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal, as the maximum, based on the total amount defrauded. The Petition: Petitioner seeks review of the Court of Appeals' decision, arguing that an essential element of estafa was absent, specifically that the offended party relied on his false pretense or fraudulent act, and that Bankard, Inc. was not the proper offended party as the damage was allegedly suffered by Solidbank Mastercard and AIG Visa.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in affirming the RTC decision despite the absence of an element in the crime charged, specifically whether the false pretense was directed to the offended party. Whether the prosecution failed to present evidence that petitioner was privy to the business deal between Bankard and the credit card companies, thus failing to establish that Bankard relied on his false pretense or fraudulent act; and whether Bankard, Inc. had the personality to file the complaint and suffered damages. Whether the penalty imposed was correct, considering the amount of fraud involved.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 28 February 2007 and Resolution dated 4 May 2007 in CA-G.R. CR No. 29699, upholding the conviction of petitioner Eliseo R. Francisco, Jr. for Estafa and the modified penalty imposed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the absence of an element in the crime charged and whether the false pretense was directed to the offended party: The Court held that the third element of estafa under Article 315(a) of the Revised Penal Code, which requires the offended party to have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means, does not necessitate that such pretense or act be intentionally directed to the offended party. It is sufficient that the offended party relied on these fraudulent means and consequently suffered damage. The Court emphasized that a person committing a felony is criminally liable even if the consequences of his felonious act were not intended by him. In this case, even if the petitioner pretended to possess credit to defraud third persons (Solidbank and AIG Visa), Bankard, as the offended party, relied on these fraudulent means and suffered damage, thus establishing the element. On whether the prosecution presented sufficient evidence and whether Bankard, Inc. had the personality to file the complaint and suffered damages: The Court found that Bankard, Inc. did suffer damages. As a result of the fictitious credits posted to petitioner's credit cards, Bankard was made to pay Solidbank during the settlement of transactions. Furthermore, Bankard was unable to recover the amount of P18,430.21 that petitioner fraudulently credited to his AIG Visa Card. The Court clarified that even if Solidbank Mastercard and AIG Visa were considered the proper offended parties, a complaint filed by the offended party is not essential for the institution of a criminal action, except in specific cases not applicable here. A crime is an offense against the State, prosecuted in the name of the People of the Philippines, and an Information filed by the prosecutor is sufficient. A complaint for preliminary investigation need not be filed by the offended party but by any competent person. On the modification of the penalty: The Court affirmed the modification of the penalty by the Court of Appeals. Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code provides for penalties based on the amount of fraud. For amounts exceeding P22,000, the penalty is the maximum period of prision correccional to prision mayor, adding one year for each additional P10,000, but not exceeding twenty years. The total amount defrauded was P681,574.77. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum term was correctly set at four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, which is one degree lower than the prescribed penalty. The maximum term was correctly pegged at twenty (20) years, as the additional years calculated would have exceeded this limit.
Main Doctrine
A person committing a felony is criminally liable although the consequences of his felonious act are not intended by him. The element of estafa requiring the offended party to have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means does not necessitate that such pretense or act be intentionally directed to the offended party; it is sufficient that the offended party relied on such means and consequently suffered damage.