Expensive dinner

Up to now some people refuse to believe or are not convinced that obtaining and eating food in a restaurant without paying for it may land them in jail. One such kind of person is Bert, a consultant of a Congressman and an occasional guest at a Quezon City restaurant serving fine Chinese cuisine.

On one occasion when Bert and his Congressman boss ate in the said restaurant, he had a friendly bet with Mon its president and general manager regarding the outcome of the 1995 Senatorial elections. They both agreed that the loser will host a dinner for ten persons. Based on the election results, Bert won the bet.

So on August 22, 1995, the Congressman’s secretary called Emmy, the restaurant’s assistant dining manager to reserve one table for ten persons on behalf of Bert. Mon, the loser confirmed to Emmy that he would pay for the dinner as his commitment to Bert.

However when Bert arrived at the restaurant, he asked that four additional tables be set, promising he would pay for the same. Hence Emmy had four additional tables prepared in addition to the one under Mon’s account. The sales invoice for the additional four tables amounted to P11,391.

After Bert and his guests consumed the food and when the invoice was presented to Bert, he refused to pay. He said he was the guest of Mon. Due to his stubborn refusal to pay, Emmy had to let him go but asked him where she should send the bill. Bert thus instructed her to just send it to the Congressman’s office as he was always there. It turned out however that he was no longer reporting at that office. And when the bill was sent to his home address, he still refused to pay. So the restaurant sued Bert for estafa.

Bert insisted that he was not criminally liable for estafa but only civilly liable for unpaid debt. In fact he argued that he was not prevented from leaving the restaurant even after he refused to pay the bill for the four tables. Was Bert correct?

No. The understanding between Bert and Mon was that the latter would pay for only one table. So when Bert ordered four additional tables and he and his guest occupied them and partook of the food ordered and then refused to pay the bill by insisting that he was a mere guest of Mon, he employed fraud thereby making him liable for estafa under Article 315 (2) (e) of the Revised Penal Code which provides that: Any person who shall defraud another by obtaining any food or refreshment at a restaurant without paying for it and with intent to defraud the manager or proprietor thereof, shall be guilty of swindling.

Bert’s argument that he was not prevented from leaving the restaurant even after he refused to pay the bill for the four tables does not serve him any. Compelling him to stay because of his failure to pay for his food would have exposed the person enforcing it to possible criminal charge of coercion. The victim would then become the villain.

So Bert was sentenced to imprisonment of four months minimum to one year, eight months and 21 days maximum. He was also ordered to pay the bill of P11,391 with interest at the legal rate from August 23, 1995 until fully paid, plus attorney’s fees of P10,000 (Velasco vs. People, G.R. 149354, January 18, 2008).

That was an expensive dinner indeed.

*     *     *

E-mail at: [email protected]