This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2010-06-29 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| In the instant case, accused-appellant committed the acts enumerated in Sec. 6 of R.A. 8042. Testimonial evidence presented by the prosecution clearly shows that, in consideration of a promise of foreign employment, accused-appellant received the amount of Php 45,000.00 from Dela Caza. When accused-appellant made misrepresentations concerning the agency's purported power and authority to recruit for overseas employment, and in the process, collected money in the guise of placement fees, the former clearly committed acts constitutive of illegal recruitment.[11] Such acts were accurately described in the testimony of prosecution witness, Dela Caza, to wit: PROS. MAGABLIN | |||||
|
2004-01-26 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| The cases before Branch 52 consisted of two counts of estafa committed against Genteroy and Onza. On the other hand, the present cases, which sprang from Branch 18, are for one count of estafa committed against Durano and for illegal recruitment in large scale, filed at the instance of Durano, Genteroy and Onza. Plainly, there is no identity between the estafa cases in Branch 52 and the estafa case in Branch 18 because each case arose from different sets of facts and committed against different persons. Neither do any of the estafa cases bar a prosecution for illegal recruitment, since they are entirely different offenses and neither one necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the other. A person who is convicted of illegal recruitment may, in addition be convicted of estafa under Article 315 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code. There is no problem of jeopardy because illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum, in which the criminal intent is not necessary, whereas estafa is malum in se in which the criminal intent of the accused is necessary.[72] The claim of double jeopardy, therefore, is patently without merit. | |||||
|
2001-02-19 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| "...any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not: Provided, that any person or entity which in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement." From the evidence adduced, accused-appellants committed acts of recruitment and placement, such as promises to the complainants of profitable employment abroad and acceptance of placement fees. Accused-appellants gave the impression that they had the power to send the complainants to Taiwan for employment.[29] | |||||
|
2000-07-10 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| (a) By using 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 elements of the crime are: (a) the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit; and (b) damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party.[48] Both elements have been proven in these cases. The prosecution's evidence shows that the complainants gave money to accused-appellant because of her misrepresentation that she can get them employed in high-paying jobs in Korea. Accused-appellant, however, failed to make good her promise, thus causing damage and prejudice to complainants.[49] | |||||