Eliseo Francisco worked at Bankard converting credit card transaction reports. He altered reports to credit his own cards for $5,989.60 from reversals that did not actually occur. Bankard investigated and charged Eliseo with estafa. The Court of Appeals convicted Eliseo and increased his penalty. Eliseo argued on appeal he could not have induced Bankard to part with money since he was not privy to deals between Bankard and credit card companies. However, the Supreme Court ruled Eliseo could be convicted of estafa against Bankard even if fraudulent means were not directed at Bankard, so long as Bankard relied on the fraud and suffered damages. A crime is an offense against the state
Eliseo Francisco worked at Bankard converting credit card transaction reports. He altered reports to credit his own cards for $5,989.60 from reversals that did not actually occur. Bankard investigated and charged Eliseo with estafa. The Court of Appeals convicted Eliseo and increased his penalty. Eliseo argued on appeal he could not have induced Bankard to part with money since he was not privy to deals between Bankard and credit card companies. However, the Supreme Court ruled Eliseo could be convicted of estafa against Bankard even if fraudulent means were not directed at Bankard, so long as Bankard relied on the fraud and suffered damages. A crime is an offense against the state
Eliseo Francisco worked at Bankard converting credit card transaction reports. He altered reports to credit his own cards for $5,989.60 from reversals that did not actually occur. Bankard investigated and charged Eliseo with estafa. The Court of Appeals convicted Eliseo and increased his penalty. Eliseo argued on appeal he could not have induced Bankard to part with money since he was not privy to deals between Bankard and credit card companies. However, the Supreme Court ruled Eliseo could be convicted of estafa against Bankard even if fraudulent means were not directed at Bankard, so long as Bankard relied on the fraud and suffered damages. A crime is an offense against the state
Eliseo Francisco worked at Bankard converting credit card transaction reports. He altered reports to credit his own cards for $5,989.60 from reversals that did not actually occur. Bankard investigated and charged Eliseo with estafa. The Court of Appeals convicted Eliseo and increased his penalty. Eliseo argued on appeal he could not have induced Bankard to part with money since he was not privy to deals between Bankard and credit card companies. However, the Supreme Court ruled Eliseo could be convicted of estafa against Bankard even if fraudulent means were not directed at Bankard, so long as Bankard relied on the fraud and suffered damages. A crime is an offense against the state
ELISEO R. FRANCISCO, JR., Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
A crime is an offense against the State, and hence is prosecuted in the name of the People of the Philippines. The participation of the private offended party is not essential to the prosecution of crimes, except in the crimes stated above, or in the prosecution of the civil action deemed instituted with the criminal action.
FACTS: Eliseo is an employee of Bankard. His job as Acquiring Chargeback Supervisor is to
convert the reports posted by Equicom Services, contracted by Bankard to encode and post credit card transactions, from ARJ text format used by Equicom, to the Amipro format used by Bankard. He is the only one tasked to do this job. Bankard on the other hand is a company that issues credit cards and in acquiring credit card receivables from commercial establishments using using Mastercard or Visa credit cards issued by other banks and credit card companies. Mastercard or Visa pays Bankard for the amount Bankard has paid the commercial establishments for the invoices it acquires. On the other hand, Mastercard or Visa debits Bankard for the amount due to other credit card companies or banks which acquire the invoices where the credit card used for the purchase is issued by Bankard. One such company who issued credit cards is Solidbank. Francisco is the holder of Solidbank credit card 5464983300051922. Solidbank reported to Bankard that the card appear to have numerous suspicious transactions, where the amount of P663,144.56 was allegedly credited to said account of petitioner Francisco, the credit apparently being a reversal of charges from four establishments. Bankard conducted an investigation where it found out that upon comparison of the original reports of Equicom with those converted by Eliseo, it was found that based on Equicoms original Daily Transaction Prooflist, there was a reversal of charges from Bankard Travel Services in the amount of $5,989.60 which was credited to the credit card under the name of Eliseo, with a conversion date of 10 August 1999. The Outgoing Interchange Transaction also reflected a reversal of a transaction with Bankard Travel and the credit of the amount of $5,989.60 to Cardholder No. 5464983300051922 on 1 August 1999. The converted report no longer reflected the reversal of charges. The crediting of the amount of $5,989.60 as stated in the original reports coming from Equicom and Mastercard was deleted and replaced with the figure zero.There was also no record of the transactions or purchases from the four establishments charged against petitioner Franciscos Mastercard Account No. 5464 9833 0005 1922 and AIG Visa Account No. 4009 9218 0463 3006 that may be reversed. Only those availments which have been charged against the credit cards could be reversed, and the amount charged for such availments would then be returned and credited to the same credit card. Since there were no original purchase transactions charged against petitioner Franciscos credit cards, the reversal of charges and the crediting of sums of money to petitioner Eliseos credit cards appeared to be fictitious. Because of the fraudulent scheme, Bankard was deprived of its money amounting to P663, 144.56 for the period where Solidbank charged it, until such time the money was returned to Bankard when the transactions were settled. Bankard then filed a case for Estafa against Eliseo. After trial, the Regional Trial Court convicted Eliseo and imposed on him a penalty of 2 to 6 years imprisonment. In his Motion for New Trial/REconsideration, Eliiseo argued that he should be acquitted since it was really Solibank that incurred damage, not Bankard. The trial court denied the motion. On his appeal to the Court of Appeals, the CA modified his penalty by increasing it from 2 to 6 years imprisonment to 20 years of reclusion perpetua. The Court of Appeals ruled that Eliseo should be held accountable for the amount of P663,144.56, thus increasing his penalty. Eliseo appealed his case to the Supreme Court. In his brief, Eliseo essentially argued that that the prosecution failed to present evidence that he was privy to the business deal between Bankard and the credit card companies (Solidbank Mastercard and AIG Visa). Eliso seems to be implying that since he was not privy to the business deal between Bankard and the credit card companies, he could not have induced Bankard to part with its money or property because of any false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means committed by him, directed to the credit card companies.
ISSUE: May Eliseo be convicted of Estafa, even if the private offended party is not the complainant in the case?
RULING: The third element of estafa under Article 315(a) merely requires that the offended party must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means. It does not require that the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means be intentionally directed to the offended party. Thus, in this case wherein a person pretended to possess credit in order to defraud third persons (Solidbank Mastercard and AIG Visa), but the offended party nevertheless relied on such fraudulent means and consequently suffered damage by virtue thereof, such person is liable for estafa under Article 315(a), even though the fraudulent means was not intentionally directed to the offended party. A person committing a felony is criminally liable although the consequences of his felonious act are not intended by him xxx Except in cases that cannot be prosecuted de oficio, namely adultery, concubinage, seduction, abduction and acts of lasciviousness, a complaint filed by the offended party is not necessary for the institution of a criminal action. The Information filed by the prosecutor with the proper court is sufficient. A crime is an offense against the State, and hence is prosecuted in the name of the People of the Philippines. The participation of the private offended party is not essential to the prosecution of crimes, except in the crimes stated above, or in the prosecution of the civil action deemed instituted with the criminal action. A complaint for purposes of preliminary investigation by the prosecutor need not be filed by the offended party but may be filed by any competent person, unless the offense subject thereof cannot be prosecuted de oficio.
