GR 149354; (January, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 149354 . January 18, 2008.
ROLAND V. VELOSO, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Roland Veloso and Ramon Sy Hunliong, president of Shangri-la Restaurant, made a friendly bet on a senatorial election. The loser would host a dinner for ten persons. Veloso won. On August 22, 1995, a reservation was made for one table, to be paid by Ramon. Upon arrival on August 23, Veloso ordered four additional tables, promising to pay for them himself. The Sales Invoice for these four tables amounted to P11,391.00.
After the meal, Veloso refused to pay for the four additional tables, insisting he was Ramon’s guest. Despite demands, including a bill sent to his address, he persistently refused payment. Consequently, he was charged with estafa under Article 315(2)(e) of the Revised Penal Code for obtaining food from a restaurant without paying, with intent to defraud.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioner’s conviction for estafa under Article 315(2)(e) of the Revised Penal Code.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction. The legal logic centers on the presence of deceit and fraudulent intent at the time of obtaining the food, which distinguishes the criminal act of estafa from a mere civil obligation of debt. The Court found that Veloso employed fraud by ordering the four additional tables, partaking of the food, and then illegally refusing to pay, despite his clear promise to pay for them separately from the single table covered by the bet.
The Court upheld the consistent factual findings of the lower courts, which gave credence to the prosecution’s evidence showing Veloso’s fraudulent intent. His act of ordering the food with a promise to pay, which he had no intention of fulfilling, constitutes the false pretense contemplated by the law. The offense is completed upon obtaining the food without payment, with intent to defraud, and his subsequent refusal to pay despite demand confirms this intent. The argument that his liability is merely civil was rejected, as the elements of estafa under Article 315(2)(e) were proven beyond reasonable doubt.