G.R. No. 148371 ; August 12, 2004
ELSA JOSE, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES; REJIE RAMOS DEL ROSARIO; and the Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 148, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Elsa Jose was charged with estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code. The Information alleged that from November 1994 to March 1995, in Makati City, she defrauded private respondent Rejie Ramos del Rosario by falsely representing herself as a professional travel agent with connections at the Japanese Embassy who could secure a visa, passport, and round-trip ticket to Japan for a fee. Induced by these representations, private respondent, along with her aunt and mother, delivered a total of P104,000.00 to the petitioner on several occasions. Despite repeated follow-ups and assurances, Jose failed to produce any genuine travel documents. A verification with the Japanese Embassy revealed the provided visa slip was not authentic. A formal demand for the return of the money was likewise unheeded.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Jose. On appeal, she argued that the prosecution failed to prove deceit, claiming private respondent was not actually deceived as she knew Jose was not a licensed travel agent and that the payments were merely loans. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, prompting this Petition for Review.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioner’s conviction for estafa through false pretenses or fraudulent acts.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction. The Court held that all elements of estafa under Article 315(2)(a) were proven beyond reasonable doubt. The petitioner’s false representations—that she was a professional travel agent who could secure a Japanese visa and related documents—were established by the consistent testimonies of the private respondent and her aunt. These representations were the direct inducement for the delivery of the money. The defense of loan was correctly rejected by the lower courts as unsupported by evidence and belied by the receipts and demand letter. The Court emphasized that the law on estafa protects the gullible as much as the wary; the private respondent’s credulity does not negate the criminal deceit. The deceit employed need not be sophisticated; it is sufficient that it was the efficient cause of the defraudation. The penalty imposed by the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, was within the range prescribed by law. The findings of fact of the trial court, affirmed by the CA, are generally conclusive and binding, especially when they pertain to the credibility of witnesses, as no substantial reason was shown to warrant their reversal.