GR 252807; (May, 2022) (Digest)
G.R. No. 252807. June 22, 2022
TEOFILO FLORES Y DELA CRUZ, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
FACTS
Petitioner Teofilo Flores y Dela Cruz was charged with two counts of estafa under Article 315, Paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code. The charges stemmed from incidents on December 9 and 10, 2010, where petitioner, allegedly conspiring with a certain “James Aquino” who posed as an Operations Manager of Aboitiz, Inc., picked up assorted San Miguel products from TRM Sales Marketing, Inc. (TRM) using falsified authorization notes. He paid for the goods with PBCom checks (No. 2000024652 for P483,095.00 and No. 2000024651 for P657,294.00) which were later dishonored for being “Account Closed.” Bank officials testified the checks were spurious, drawn from an account belonging to a doctor who denied issuing them and reported a lost checkbook. TRM later verified that “James Aquino” and petitioner were not employees of Aboitiz. During pre-trial, it was stipulated that petitioner was the driver of jeepney plate TWT-219 and that he received the subject items on December 9, 2010. The Regional Trial Court found petitioner guilty of estafa, a decision affirmed with modification by the Court of Appeals. Petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether petitioner Teofilo Flores y Dela Cruz is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of estafa under Article 315, Paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code.
RULING
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, REVERSED and SET ASIDE the Court of Appeals Decision as to Criminal Case No. 10-1375, and ACQUITTED Teofilo Flores y Dela Cruz of Estafa in said case. The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove all elements of estafa, particularly the element of deceit. The evidence showed that TRM Sales Marketing processed the orders based solely on phone calls and faxed purchase orders from “James Aquino” without verifying his identity or authority with Aboitiz. TRM released the goods to petitioner upon his presentation of an authorization note that did not even bear his name, and accepted the checks without verifying their genuineness with the drawee bank. The Court, citing Metrobank v. Tobias, ruled that TRM’s failure to exercise due diligence in its dealings—by not verifying the authenticity of the documents and the identity of the persons involved—precluded a finding of deceit on the part of petitioner. For its lack of care, TRM had only itself to blame. Consequently, petitioner’s guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.