Conrado Fernando, Jr. vs. People Of The Philippines, G.R. No. 255180, January 31, 2024 [Case Digest]

Summary

The case revolves around Conrado Fernando Jr., a travel agent accused of estafa (fraud) and issuing a bouncing check related to a package tour to Hong Kong. The private complainant paid a total of 37,400 pesos for a tour, but her trip was repeatedly canceled due to booking issues. Although Fernando issued a refund check, it bounced due to insufficient funds. The Supreme Court, however, acquitted Fernando, ruling that the evidence did not support the claim of fraudulent representation or deceit, and the complainant's travel issues did not prove criminal intent beyond reasonable doubt.

Takeaways

• 📅 The case involves a dispute between Conrado Fernando Jr. and the People of the Philippines, with events beginning in August 2006.
• 📞 Private complainant Dor Aliza Rioso booked a Hong Kong tour package through petitioner Conrado Fernando Jr., a travel agent for Air Ward Travel and Tours.
• 💸 The private complainant paid a total of 37,400 pesos, in both cash and post-dated checks, to secure the travel package.
• ✈️ The tour was initially scheduled for August 22-25, 2006, but petitioner postponed the trip, citing hotel availability issues.
• 😡 After several delays and cancellations, the private complainant managed to book her flight independently through another travel agency, Great Pacific Travel Corporation.
• 📝 Petitioner issued a post-dated check to refund the complainant, but it bounced due to insufficient funds.
• ❌ Air Ward was not a member of IATA, but their process of issuing tickets through IATA-member agencies was common and accepted in the travel industry.
• ⚖️ The Supreme Court ruled that the complainant was not guilty of forum shopping despite filing multiple charges, as both estafa and BP 22 violations can coexist.
• 📉 The court found insufficient evidence to prove the petitioner guilty of estafa under Article 315 2A of the RPC, citing the lack of fraudulent representation.
• 🔍 The prosecution failed to prove that the travel package advertisement was false, leading to the acquittal of the petitioner due to reasonable doubt.

Q & A

What was the nature of the advertisement that the private complainant responded to on August 1, 2006?

The private complainant, Dor Aliza Rioso, saw an advertisement about a package tour to Hong Kong offered by Air Wward Travel and Tours.

What were the details of the payment made by the private complainant for the tour package?

The private complainant paid 25,000 pesos in cash and 12,400 pesos via post-dated check to Air Wward Travel and Tours, with the check being cleared on August 10, 2006.

Why did the private complainant’s trip to Hong Kong get canceled after the initial booking?

The petitioner informed the private complainant that her trip scheduled for August 22-25, 2006 was canceled because Disney's Hollywood Hotel could no longer accommodate her.

What alternative arrangements were made for the private complainant after the initial cancellation?

The private complainant agreed to a rebooking for a flight on August 23, 2006, with a return flight on August 26, 2006, via Philippine Airlines.

What issue did the private complainant face after the second booking was canceled?

After being informed that her second booking was canceled, the private complainant discovered from a Philippine Airlines supervisor that her flight request had been confirmed by the airline. Despite this, the petitioner claimed that there was a problem with the hotel booking in Hong Kong.

What steps did the private complainant take after her trip was canceled again?

The private complainant asked the petitioner for a refund of the 37,400 pesos she had paid for the package tour.

Did the petitioner provide the private complainant with a refund as requested?

No, the petitioner issued a post-dated check for the amount of 37,400 pesos, but it bounced due to insufficient funds when presented for payment.

What were the two main legal issues raised in the case against the petitioner?

The legal issues were whether the private complainant was guilty of forum shopping by filing both a BP 22 case (for issuing a bouncing check) and an estafa case against the petitioner, and whether the petitioner was guilty of estafa under Article 315 2A of the Revised Penal Code.

What was the Supreme Court’s ruling regarding the issue of forum shopping?

The Supreme Court ruled that the private complainant was not guilty of forum shopping, as the issuance of a bouncing check can give rise to separate charges of estafa and a violation of BP 22.

What was the final verdict of the Supreme Court on the estafa charge against the petitioner?

The Supreme Court acquitted the petitioner, stating that the elements of estafa were not sufficiently proven. Specifically, there was no evidence of fraudulent misrepresentation by the petitioner, and the failure of the trip alone was not enough to establish deceit.