This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-06-04 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| We point out that conviction under the Labor Code for illegal recruitment does not preclude punishment under the Revised Penal Code for the crime of estafa.[4] We are convinced that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant violated Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, which provides that estafa is committed by any person who defrauds another by using a fictitious name; or by falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business; by imaginary transactions or similar forms of deceit executed prior to or simultaneous with the fraud.[5] | |||||
|
2009-10-26 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Thus, as against the positive and categorical testimonies of Palo and Caraig, appellant's denials cannot prevail.[15] Moreover, there is no reason to overturn the trial and appellate courts' findings on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses as there is no showing that any of them had ill motives against appellant or her co-accused and especially since it appears they were motivated solely by the desire to bring appellant and her co-accused to justice for the crimes they have committed.[16] | |||||
|
2001-04-19 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Both elements of the crime were established in these cases, namely, (a) accused-appellant defrauded complainant by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit and (b) complainant suffered damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation as a result.[37] Complainants parted with their money upon the prodding and enticement of accused-appellant on the false pretense that she had the capacity to deploy them for employment abroad. In the end, complainants were neither able to leave for work overseas nor did they get their money back, thus causing them damage and prejudice.[38] The issues that misappropriation on the part of accused-appellant of the money paid by complainants and their demand for the same were not sufficiently established are immaterial and irrelevant, conversion and demand not being elements of estafa under Art. 315 (2) (a) of the Revised Penal Code. | |||||
|
2001-02-19 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Article 38 (b) of the Labor Code, as amended by P. D. No. 2018 provides that illegal recruitment shall be considered an offense involving economic sabotage if any of the following qualifying circumstances exists: First, when illegal recruitment is committed by a syndicate. For purposes of the law, a syndicate exists when three or more persons conspire or confederate with one another in carrying out any unlawful or illegal transaction, enterprise or scheme.[32] Second, there is economic sabotage when illegal recruitment is committed in a large scale, as when it is committed against three or more persons individually or as a group.[33] | |||||