Flores vs. People

A person who is merely hired to perform mechanical tasks—such as delivering documents, signing sales invoices, and transporting goods—without knowledge of the fraudulent scheme cannot be convicted of estafa by conspiracy, because conspiracy requires proof beyond reasonable doubt of a conscious design to commit the offense.

TRM Sales Marketing, Inc. is a company engaged in distributing San Miguel, Magnolia, and Purefoods products. Aboitiz, Inc. is a separate corporate entity that was fraudulently invoked by the perpetrators to lend credibility to the fraudulent purchases. Petitioner Teofilo Flores y Dela Cruz was a jeepney driver operating a passenger jeepney with Plate No. TWT-219. The case arose from a scheme in which unidentified individuals, using the fictitious name "James Aquino" and falsely claiming affiliation with Aboitiz, placed orders with TRM for substantial quantities of food products, paying with spurious checks drawn on an account that did not belong to Aboitiz.

Petitioner Teofilo Flores y Dela Cruz was a jeepney driver operating a passenger jeepney with Plate No. TWT-219. On December 8, 2010, a person identifying himself as James Aquino, purportedly a Purchasing Manager at Aboitiz, Inc., called TRM Sales Marketing, Inc. (TRM) to place orders for assorted San Miguel products. TRM was a distributor of San Miguel, Magnolia, and Purefoods goods. The caller stated he was referred by San Miguel Foods Corporation. A woman later called identifying herself as Aquino's secretary. TRM received two purchase orders: the first, dated December 7, 2010, for goods worth ₱483,095.00, and the second, dated December 9, 2010, for goods worth ₱657,294.00.

On December 9, 2010, petitioner arrived at the TRM warehouse to pick up the items covered by the first purchase order. He handed warehouse supervisor William Sarmiento a sealed envelope containing an Authorization Note dated December 8, 2010, signed by "James Aquino," though the note did not specify petitioner's name. Petitioner also gave Sarmiento PBCom Check No. 2000024652 in the amount of ₱483,095.00. Sarmiento issued Official Receipt No. 58303 and, after inspecting the goods, had petitioner sign Sales Invoice Nos. 101550 and 101591. The goods were loaded onto petitioner's jeepney. The following morning, December 10, 2010, two jeepneys arrived for the second purchase order; the driver of one presented another Authorization Note and PBCom Check No. 2000024651 for ₱657,294.00. After the driver signed Sales Invoice Nos. 101656 and 101609, the items were loaded. When the PBCom checks were deposited into TRM's UCPB account, both were dishonored for "Account Closed."

Bank officials from PBCom Ayala, Alabang Branch testified that both checks were spurious. The signatures on the checks did not match specimens on file, Aboitiz did not maintain an account with that branch, and the account number belonged to a doctor who claimed she had lost her checkbook. Aboitiz denied that James Aquino or Teofilo Flores were its employees or that it had made purchases from TRM.

Petitioner testified that on December 9, 2010, a woman named Elsa Hernandez, wearing an Aboitiz identification card, approached him at the jeepney terminal and offered to hire his jeepney to pick up goods at TRM. He initially refused her offer of ₱500.00 but agreed after she raised it to ₱1,000.00. She gave him a sealed envelope addressed to Sarmiento, the contents of which he did not know. At TRM, he handed the envelope to Sarmiento, who perused its contents and ordered the goods loaded onto petitioner's jeepney. Per Sarmiento's instruction, petitioner signed the sales invoices. He then met Hernandez in Baclaran, who instructed him to deliver the goods to Paco Market in Manila. He initially hesitated because his route was only up to Baclaran, but agreed after Hernandez hired a traffic enforcer to escort him. After unloading the goods at Paco Market, Hernandez gave him another ₱1,000.00. He did not go to TRM on December 10, 2010. His co-worker Leopoldo Brania corroborated his account, testifying that he saw Hernandez approach petitioner at the terminal, heard her offer, and saw her hand petitioner ₱1,000.00.

The RTC convicted petitioner of two counts of estafa. The Court of Appeals acquitted him in Criminal Case No. 10-1374, finding no evidence he participated in the December 10 transaction, but affirmed his conviction in Criminal Case No. 10-1375, finding that the elements of estafa were established. The Supreme Court took cognizance of the factual issues on the ground that the lower courts had overlooked relevant facts that would change the outcome.

• Mere Hired Driver: Petitioner argued that he was only a hired driver and was not privy to the transaction between Hernandez and TRM Sales Marketing, having no knowledge that the transaction was illegal.
• Absence of Conspiracy: Petitioner maintained that there was no conspiracy between him and James Aquino and the John Does, because he did not know the transaction was illegal and was merely following instructions from the person who hired him.

• Issues Already Addressed: The Office of the Solicitor General argued that the issues and arguments raised in the petition had already been addressed in full by the Court of Appeals, defending the verdict of conviction.

• Conspiracy: Whether conspiracy was established between petitioner and the unidentified perpetrators of the estafa, such that petitioner could be held liable for the fraud.
• Elements of Estafa: Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code, particularly that petitioner committed false pretenses or fraudulent acts that induced TRM to part with its goods.

• Conspiracy: No. Conspiracy was not established, the prosecution having failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner was actuated by any unlawful purpose or that he had a conscious design to commit the offense.
• Elements of Estafa: No. The elements of estafa were not proved against petitioner, as none of his acts constituted a false pretense or fraudulent act; he was merely an errand boy who mechanically followed instructions without knowledge of the fraud.

• Conspiracy: Conspiracy requires that two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. It need not be established by direct evidence and may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime, but its existence cannot be presumed and must itself be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The Court examined each of petitioner's acts—handing over the sealed envelope, allowing goods to be loaded per Sarmiento's instruction, signing sales invoices, delivering the check, transporting goods to Baclaran and then Paco Market, and receiving ₱2,000.00 total—and found that, whether taken singly or collectively, they did not establish conspiracy. Petitioner was not shown to have been actuated by any unlawful purpose. He used his real name in signing documents, spoke face-to-face with Sarmiento, and readily went to his operator's residence when called—conduct inconsistent with guilt. His fellow jeepney driver Brania corroborated his account of being hired by Hernandez. The Court emphasized that conspiracy is a facile device by which an accused may be ensnared, and its existence cannot be presumed but must be proved beyond any shadow of doubt.

• Elements of Estafa: Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) requires: (1) a false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means; (2) made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; (3) the offended party relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means, inducing them to part with money or property; and (4) resulting damage to the offended party. The Court found that Sarmiento, the warehouse supervisor, could not cite any single deceitful utterance of petitioner that caused him to part with the goods. Petitioner was simply an errand boy who mechanically did as he was told, with no reason to suspect anything was wrong. The Court further noted that Sarmiento's own gross negligence directly caused the loss: despite the fact that petitioner's name did not appear in the Authorization Letter, Sarmiento processed the transaction and ordered the goods loaded. Citing Metrobank vs. Tobias, the Court held that a complainant's failure to observe due diligence precludes a finding of estafa, as the resulting injury is self-inflicted.

• Conspiracy Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt — Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. It need not be proved by direct evidence and may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the crime. However, conspiracy cannot be presumed; it must itself be proved beyond any shadow of doubt. The existence of conspiracy requires a conscious design to commit an offense, which is the product of intentionality on the part of the cohorts. The Court applied this doctrine by examining each of petitioner's acts and finding no evidence of a conscious design to defraud, thereby acquitting him.

• Due Diligence as a Bar to Estafa — A complainant's failure to observe due diligence in its dealings precludes a finding of estafa, because the resulting injury is self-inflicted. Drawing from Metrobank vs. Tobias, the Court noted that Sarmiento's gross negligence—releasing goods despite the authorization letter not bearing petitioner's name—directly caused the loss, undermining the element of reliance on fraudulent acts.

• Elements of Estafa Under Article 315, Paragraph 2(a), RPC — The four elements are: (1) a false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means; (2) executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; (3) the offended party relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means and was induced to part with money or property; and (4) the offended party suffered damage as a result. The Court found that none of petitioner's acts constituted a false pretense or fraudulent act attributable to him.

• "Conspiracy is a facile device by which an accused may be ensnared and kept within the penal fold. As such, the existence of conspiracy cannot be presumed but must itself be proved beyond any shadow of doubt." — This passage articulates the Court's caution against presuming conspiracy and underscores the prosecution's burden to prove it independently beyond reasonable doubt.

• "Truly, the innocent does not flee but is as bold and brave as a lion." — The Court invoked this principle to highlight that petitioner's conduct—using his real name, speaking face-to-face with the warehouse supervisor, and readily reporting to his operator when called—was inconsistent with guilt and supported his acquittal.

• "It was no other than Sarmiento's gross negligence which directly caused him and the company to lose the goods to the impostor or impostors." — This finding shifted responsibility for the loss to the complainant's own failure to exercise due diligence, reinforcing the doctrine that a party's negligence precludes recovery under estafa.

• People vs. Tividad, 126 Phil. 913 (1967) — Cited for the principle that conspiracy is a facile device by which an accused may be ensnared, and that its existence cannot be presumed but must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The Court relied on this case to justify its strict scrutiny of the conspiracy charge against petitioner.
• Metrobank vs. Tobias, 680 Phil. 173 (2012) — Cited for the doctrine that a complainant's failure to observe due diligence in its dealings bars a finding of estafa, because the resulting injury is self-inflicted. The Court applied this principle to Sarmiento's gross negligence in releasing goods without verifying the authorization.
• Cruz vs. People, 821 Phil. 372 (2017) — Cited for the exception allowing the Supreme Court to take cognizance of factual issues in Rule 45 petitions when the lower court has ignored, overlooked, or misconstrued relevant facts that would change the outcome.
• Arias vs. People, G.R. Nos. 237106-07, June 10, 2019 — Cited for the elements of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code.
• Bahilidad vs. People, 629 Phil. 567 (2010) — Cited for the definition of conspiracy and the requirement of a conscious design to commit an offense.

• Article 315, Paragraph 2(a), Revised Penal Code — Defines estafa committed by means of false pretenses or fraudulent acts, specifically by using a fictitious name or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business, or imaginary transactions, or by means of other similar deceits. The Court applied this provision by testing whether petitioner's acts satisfied all four elements and found they did not.

Leonen, SAJ. (Chairperson), M. Lopez, J. Lopez, and Kho, Jr., JJ., concurred.