G.R. No. 171328 & G.R. No. 171335, February 16, 2011
Case Title: Lyzah Sy Franco and Steve Besario, Petitioners, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioners Lyzah Sy Franco and Steve Besario, along with co-accused Antonio Rule, Jr. and George Torres (at large), were charged with Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code. The Information alleged that in the first week of June 1998, in Manila, they conspired to defraud Ma. Lourdes G. Antonio by falsely representing themselves as employees of Final Access Marketing, a business engaged in selling and financing used cars. They induced Antonio to give a down payment of ₱80,000.00 for a Mazda 323, promising delivery within three days, but then misappropriated the money.
The prosecution evidence established that Franco, introduced as an Assistant Administrative Coordinator, solicited Antonio. Franco, Besario, and Rule presented a sales proposal at Antonio’s house on July 2, 1998. Antonio agreed, and on July 3, 1998, Franco and Besario collected the ₱80,000.00 down payment, giving a receipt signed by Rule. The car was never delivered. Antonio later discovered other victims, including Erlinda Acosta, who testified that Besario and Rule similarly failed to deliver a vehicle after receiving payment. The defense of Franco was that she was merely an employee and also a victim, acting under the instructions of Rule and Torres, the owner.

ISSUE

Whether petitioners Franco and Besario are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petitions and AFFIRMED with modification the Court of Appeals’ Decision, which had affirmed the conviction by the Regional Trial Court. The Court held petitioners guilty of Estafa.
The Court ruled that all elements of Estafa by means of deceit were present: (1) the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or deceit; (2) damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation was caused to the offended party. The evidence proved that petitioners, through false pretenses, induced Antonio to part with her money based on a promise to deliver a vehicle they had no intention or capacity to fulfill. Their acts of soliciting the transaction and collecting payment, despite knowledge of prior complaints against their employer for non-delivery, constituted fraudulent misrepresentation. The Court found conspiracy, as petitioners’ concerted actions demonstrated a common design to defraud Antonio. The penalty imposed on each petitioner was modified to an indeterminate prison term of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional as minimum to thirteen (13) years of reclusion temporal as maximum.