J.A.B. Bulao & Associates

DISPOSITIVE:

ACCORDINGLY, the Petitions for Certiorari, docketed as G.R. No.
232968 and G.R. No. 232974, are DISMISSED on the ground of mootness.

On the other hand, the Petition for Certiorari filed by Arthur Cua Yap
in G.R. Nos. 238584-87 is GRANTED. Accordingly, the Resolutions dated
November 28, 2017 and March 1, 2018 of the Sandiganbayan (SBN) in SB-
17-CRM-1510-1545 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Yap’s Motion for
Partial Reconsideration (Re: Resolution dated 15 August 201 7) with Motion
to Quash Informations is GRANTED and the cases against him before the
Sandiganbayan, docketed as SB-l 7-CRM-1526, SB-17-CRM-1527, SB-l 7-
CRM-1531, and SB-l 7-CRM-1544, are hereby DISMISSED.

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

Corollary thereto, it is doctrinal that the burden of proof to justify the
delay shifts depending on when the right was invoked. The defense bears the
burden if the right was invoked within the periods prescribed by this Comi,
the Rules of Court, or the 0MB for the conduct of preliminary investigation;
the prosecution bears the burden if the right was invoked beyond the set
periods, and it must show that the delay was justifiable under the factors
provided in Cagang.66 In other words, if the O1\1B exceeded the prescribed
period, the burden of proof shifts to the state.67 Catamco v. Sandiganbayan68
instructs that once the burden of proof shifts to prosecution, the prosecution
must prove that: 1) it followed the prescribed procedure in the conduct of
preliminary investigation and in the prosecution of the case, 2) the complexity
of the issues and the volume of evidence made the delay inevitable, and 3) no
prejudice was suffered by the accused as a result of the delay.69

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.

DISPOSITIVE:

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.

DISPOSITIVE:

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated
January 7, 2021 of the Cou11 of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 39899
is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner Conrado Fernando, Jr. is
ACQUITTED of the crime ofEstafa in Criminal Case No. Q-07-148522
as his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Branch 216,
Regional Trial Court, Quezon City is ORDERED to CANCEL the cash
bail bond and return the same to petitioner.

Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.

SO ORDERED.

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

PETITIONER ONLY ACTED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPANY, AIRWARD. HE WAS JUST A MERE EMPLOYEE.. THUS, WHEN HE RECEIVED FROM THE COMPLAINANT THE AMOUNT OF PHP 37,400.00,
PETITIONER CANNOT BE FAULTED WHEN PRIVATE COMPLAINANT’S TRIP TO HONG KONG,
WHICH WAS ORIGINALLY BOOKED IN AIRWARD, DID NOT MATERIALIZE.

From Arevalo’s testimony, it can be concluded that Airward’s
promotional tour packages through the book and buy arrangement
with an IATA-member travel agency is an accepted practice among
travel agencies.

The RTC likewise erred when it failed to appreciate petitioner’s
defense that he was a mere employee of Airward. 52 The fact that petitioner
was indeed an employee of Airward was confirmed by Fernando, who was
a bookkeeper in Airward from 2004 to 2007. 53 Also, from the records,
Fernando was presented in court to prove that Airward is a legitimate
business entity owned by Melinda Estanislao. 54

Considering the foregoing, petitioner can be said to have only acted
for and on behalf of Airward when he transacted with private complainant
and when he received from the latter the amount of PHP 37,400.00. Thus,
petitioner cannot be faulted when private complainant’s trip to Hong Kong,
which was originally booked in Airward, did not materialize.

Likewise, petitioner’s attempt to reimburse private complainant
through his personal check cannot be taken against him . This fact is not
enough in establishing the guilt of petitioner for the crime of Estafa.

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.