GR 177720; (February, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 177720 February 18, 2009
ELISEO R. FRANCISCO, JR., Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Eliseo Francisco, Jr., an employee of Bankard, Inc. (a credit card company), was charged with Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code. As the Acquiring Chargeback Supervisor, his task included converting transaction reports from Equitable Computer Services, Inc. (Equicom) from ARJ Text Format to Amipro Format. An investigation revealed that fictitious reversals of charges, totaling ₱663,144.56 and ₱18,430.21, were credited to his Solidbank Mastercard and AIG Visa accounts, respectively. These credits appeared in Equicom’s original reports but were deleted (replaced with zero) in the converted reports Francisco handled. No original purchase transactions existed on his cards to justify such reversals. As a result, Bankard paid Solidbank the ₱663,144.56 during interbank settlements and was unable to recover the ₱18,430.21. The Regional Trial Court convicted Francisco. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction despite the alleged absence of an element of Estafa under Article 315(2)(a), specifically that the offended party (Bankard) relied on or was induced by the false pretense or fraudulent means employed by the petitioner.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. It held that the third element of Estafa under Article 315(2)(a) — that the offended party relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means — does not require that the fraudulent means be intentionally directed at the offended party. The Court ruled that a person is criminally liable for estafa if the offended party relies on the fraudulent means and suffers damage, even if the deceit was not aimed at that party. In this case, Francisco’s fraudulent manipulation of reports caused Bankard to rely on the fictitious credits and suffer financial damage by paying Solidbank and being unable to recover the funds. The Court also found no merit in Francisco’s other arguments, including his claim that Bankard was not the damaged party, noting that the information sufficiently alleged the elements of the crime and that Bankard, as the acquirer of the receivables, suffered the loss. The penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals was upheld.