Scribd
Upload
291 views1 page

Franco v. People, Besario v. People

Franco and Besario were charged with conspiracy and estafa for convincing a woman, Lourdes, to give them an advance payment of 80,000 pesos for a used car they claimed to be selling through their company. However, the car was never delivered. The trial court found them guilty of estafa, which the appellate court affirmed with modification. The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) Franco and Besario violated conspiracy laws by continuing to deceive customers about car sales despite knowing the company was swindling others; and 2) their actions met the elements of estafa by using deceitful pretenses to fraudulently obtain money from Lourdes. It denied their petition and affirmed the conviction.

Uploaded by

Kenjan Silvestre
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
291 views1 page

Franco v. People, Besario v. People

Franco and Besario were charged with conspiracy and estafa for convincing a woman, Lourdes, to give them an advance payment of 80,000 pesos for a used car they claimed to be selling through their company. However, the car was never delivered. The trial court found them guilty of estafa, which the appellate court affirmed with modification. The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) Franco and Besario violated conspiracy laws by continuing to deceive customers about car sales despite knowing the company was swindling others; and 2) their actions met the elements of estafa by using deceitful pretenses to fraudulently obtain money from Lourdes. It denied their petition and affirmed the conviction.

Uploaded by

Kenjan Silvestre
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Case Title : Franco v. People of the Philippines, GR No.

171328
: Besario v. People of the Philippines, GR No. 171335

Issues : 1. Whether or not there is a violation of the Article 8 (Conspiracy and


proposal to Commit a felony) of the Revised Penal Code?

2. Whether or not the accused are criminally liable for the offense
committed and that they can be charged of the crime of estafa?

Facts:

On the first week of June 1998, the accused willfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud Ma.
Lourdes G. Antonio by convincing her to purchase a second-hand or used car in the amount of P130,
000.00 for her to use in her taxi operation. Lourdes was induced by Franco and Besario to give an
advance payment of P80, 000.00 with a promise that she will have the Mazda Car 323 bearing the
Plate No. PVB No. 999 within three (3) days. But the car was not delivered as promised. On the
other hand, Lourdes learned that the company where Franco and Besario were working already
had a lot of victims and one of them was Erlinda Acosta who referred her concern to the Hoy Gising
Program.

During the RTC hearings, Franco denied involvement in the alleged conspiracy to commit estafa
against Lourdes. She alleged that it was Torres, the owner of Final Access Marketing, who was the
swindler. She also added that like Lourdes, she was a victim in this case. Moreover, Besario failed to
attend several court hearings. Thus, upon motion of the prosecution, he was declared to have
waived his right to present evidence.

Accordingly, the RTC rendered its decision finding Franco and Besario guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of estafa under Article 315, par. 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code and sentenced
each of them to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from 7 years of reclusion
temporal as maximum to 8 years and 1 day of prison mayor as minimum and to suffer all the
accessories penalties as provided by the law.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC with modification.

Ruling of the Court:

1. There was a violation of the Article 8 (Conspiracy and proposal to Commit a felony) of the
Revised Penal Code since several circumstances in the case at bar conclusively showed
Franco’s and Besario’s roles in defrauding Lourdes. Despite their previous knowledge of the
company’s failure to deliver the vehicle sold to Erlinda and other victims, they still
continued to actively conspire and convince Lourdes to buy the car in relation to the
attainment of their common objective.

2. Franco and Besario committed the crime of estafa since as stipulated in Article 315, par. 2
(a) of the Revised Penal Code which penalizes fraud or deceit when committed by means of
false pretenses or fraudulent acts prior to or simultaneously with the commission of fraud:
by using fictitious name, or actions, falsely pretending to possess power, influence,
qualification, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of
other similar deceits. Moreover, the presentation of Franco and Belario to Lourdes as
persons possessing the authority and capacity to engage in the financing of used vehicles in
behalf of Final Access Marketing was a clear misrepresentation considering their previous
knowledge not only of Erlinda’s complaint but also of several victims of the said company.
Considering the foregoing facts, the court DENIED the petition of Franco and Besario and
the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) which affirmed the decision of the RTC with
modification of the crime of estafa is AFFIRMED WITH FURTHER MODIFICATION.

You might also like