This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2016-01-13 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| This Court is also in agreement with the ruling of the CA that accused-appellant is guilty of six (6) counts of estafa under Article 315, par. 2 (a) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. It is settled that a person may be charged and convicted separately of illegal recruitment under R.A. 8042, in relation to the Labor Code, and estafa under Article 315 (2) (a) of the Revised Penal Code.[17] The elements of estafa are: (a) that the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit, and (b) that damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party or third person.[18] As aptly found by the RTC and affirmed by the CA, accused-appellant defrauded the private complainants into believing that she had the authority and capability to send them for overseas employment in Japan and because of such assurances, private complainants each parted with P20,000.00 in exchange for said promise of future work abroad. Still, accused-appellant's promise never materialized, thus, private complainants suffered damages to the extent of the sum of money that they had delivered to accused-appellant. | |||||
|
2015-07-01 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| We likewise affirm appellant's conviction for five counts of estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code. It is settled that a person, for the same acts, may be convicted separately for illegal recruitment under RA 8042 (or the Labor Code), and estafa under Article 315(2)(a)[21] of the Revised Penal Code.[22] | |||||
|
2015-07-01 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| 3. Maximum Period - 6 years, 8 months and 21 days to 8 years. Any incremental penalty, i.e. one year for every PI 0,000 in excess of P22,000, shall be added to anywhere from 6 years, 8 months and 21 days to 8 years, at the court's discretion, provided the total penalty does not exceed 20 years.[25] | |||||
|
2015-07-01 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, appellant should indemnify private complainants for the amounts paid to her, with legal interest at the rate of 6% per annum, from the time of demand, which shall be deemed as the same day the Informations were filed against appellant, until the amounts are fully paid.[26] | |||||
|
2015-06-17 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| As against the positive and categorical testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, Medina's mere denials cannot prevail for being self-serving and uncorroborated. Denial is considered with suspicion and always received with caution because it is inherently weak and unreliable, easily fabricated and concocted.[40] | |||||