36. DELIA D.
ROMERO, Petitioner, vs PEOPLE OF THE the absence of any receipt or any other documentary
PHILIPPINES, ROMULO pADLAN and ARTURO SIAPNO,
Respondents
G.R. No. 171644, November 23, 2011
FACTS:
Petition for Review on Certiorari of petitioner
DELIA D. ROMERO assailing the Decision and Resolution
of the Court of Appeals (CA) affirming the Decision of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dagupan City, finding
petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of Illegal Recruitment as defined in paragraph (a) of
Article 38 of Presidential Decree No. 2018[1].
Sometime in August 2000, Arturo siapno went
to petitioner's stall. He was convinced by the petitioner
that if he could give her US$3,600.00 for the processing
of his papers, he could leave the country within 1 to 2
weeks for a job placement in Israel. Arturo was able to
secure the amount neede through relatives help then
petitioner processed Arturo's papers and contacted
Jonney Erez Mokra. Jonney instructed Arturo to attend
a briefing in Dau, Mabalacat, Pampanga. Afterwards,
Arturo left for Israel sometime in September 2000. He
was able to work and receive US$800.00 salary per
month. After three months of stay in Israel, he was
caught by the immigration officials, incarcerated for ten
days and was eventually deported. After arriving in the
country, Arturo immediately sought the petitioner who
then promised him that she would send him back to
Israel, which did not happen.
Meanwhile, sometime in September 2000, Romulo
Padlan went to petitioner's stall at Calasiao, Pangasinan
to inquire about securing a job in Israel. Convinced by
petitioner's words of encouragement and inspired by a
high potential salary, Romulo asked petitioner the
amount of money required in order for him to be able
to go to Israel. Petitioner informed him that as soon as
he could give her US$3,600.00, his papers would be
immediately processed. When he was able to raise the
amount, Romulo went back to petitioner and handed
her the money. Petitioner contacted JonneyErezMokra
who instructed Romulo to attend a briefing at his house
in Dau, Mabalacat, Pampanga. Romulo was able to
leave for Israel on October 26, 2000 and was able to
secure a job but unfortunately, after two and a half
months, he was caught by Israel's immigration police
and detained for 25 days. He was subsequently
deported because he did not possess a working visa. On
his return, Romulo demanded from petitioner the
return of his money, but the latter refused and failed to
do so.
Petitioner also claims that the testimony of Arturo
Siapno saying that he paid a certain amount of money
to the former must not be given any credence due to
evidence proving such.
ISSUE: Whether or not DELIA D. ROMERO is guilty of
the act of Illegal Recruitment.
HELD: Yes. As testimonies of SIAPNO and PADLAN
shows that petitioner was able to convince the private
respondents to apply for work in Israel after parting
with their money in exchange for the services she would
render. Such act of the petitioner, without a doubt, falls
within the meaning of recruitment and placement as
defined in Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code[2].
The Court ruled that in illegal recruitment
cases, the failure to present receipts for money that was
paid in connection with the recruitment process will not
affect the strength of the evidence presented by the
prosecution as long as the payment can be proved
through clear and convincing testimonies of credible
witnesses.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on
Certiorari of petitioner Delia D. Romero is hereby
DENIED. Consequently, the Decision and Resolution of
the Court of Appeals, affirming the Decision of the
Regional Trial Court, finding petitioner guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Recruitment as
defined in paragraph (a) of Article 38 of Presidential
Decree (P.D.) No. 2018, are hereby AFFIRMED with the
MODIFICATION on the penalty to be imposed.
37. Lapasaran vs People
GR No. 179907, Feb 12, 2009
Facts:
In September 2001, private complainant Menardo
Villarin (Menardo) and his sister Vilma Villarin (Vilma)
met petitioner Arlene N. Lapasaran, who worked at
Silver Jet Travel Tours Agency(Silver Jet) at SIMCAS
Building, Makati. For a fee of P85,000.00, petitioner
undertook the processing of the papers necessary for
the deployment (under a tourist visa) and employment
oMenardo in South Korea. Petitioner informed
Menardo that he would be employed as “factory
worker,” which was, subsequently, changed to “bakery
worker”. Thereafter, Menardo paid the said fee in
installments, the first in September 2001 in the amount
of P10,000.00, which was received by a certain Pastor
Paulino Cajucom; the second installment was
P35,000.00; while the third and last payment was
P40,000.00; the last two installments were delivered to
the petitioner.
After two postponements in his flight schedule,
Menardo finally left for South Korea on November 25,
2001. Unfortunately, he was incarcerated by South
Korean immigration authorities and was immediately
deported to the Philippines because the travel
documents issued to him by the petitioner were fake.
He immediately contacted petitioner and informed her
of what happened. Thereupon, petitioner promised to
send him back to South Korea, but the promise was
never fulfilled. Consequently, Menardo and his sister
Vilma demanded the return of the money they paid, but
petitioner refused and even said, “Magkorte na lang
tayo.” It was later found out that petitioner was no
longer connected with Silver Jet.
Hence, the separate charges for illegal recruitment and
estafa against petitioner before the RTC of Manila.
When arraigned, she pleaded not guilty to both charges.
In her defense, petitioner testified that she owned a
travel agency named A&B Travel and Tours
General Services, engaged in the business of visa
assistance and ticketing. She averred that it was Vilma
who solicited her assistance to secure a tourist visa for
Menardo. She admitted transacting with the Villarins,
but committed only to securing a tourist visa and a two-
way airplane ticket for Menardo, for which she received
P70,000.00 as payment. She denied having recruited
Menardo Villarin; she likewise denied having promised
him employment in South Korea. On February 15, 2005,
the RTC rendered a Decision finding petitioner guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of illegal recruitment and
estafa. CA affirmed with modifications..
Issue: WHETHER OR NOT THE LAWS ON ILLEGAL
RECRUITMENT AND ESTAFA ARE APPLICABLE IN THESE
CASES
Held: Affirmative on both accounts. In the first case,
petitioner was charged with illegal recruitment, defined
and penalized by the Labor Code as amended R.A. No.
8042. [14] Illegal recruitment is committed when it is
shown that petitioner gave the complainant the distinct
impression that she had the power or ability to send the
complainant abroad for work, such that the latter was
convinced to part with his money in order to be
employed. Petitioner’s misrepresentations concerning
her purported power and authority to recruit for
overseas employment, and the collection from
Menardo of various amounts, clearly indicate acts
constitutive of illegal recruitment. In the second case,
petitioner was charged with violation of Article
315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code which punishes
estafa. 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.
Here, it has been sufficiently proven that petitioner
represented herself to Menardo as capable of sending
him to South Korea for employment, even if she did not
have the authority or license for the purpose.
Undoubtedly, it was this misrepresentation that
induced Menardo to part with his hard-earned money
in exchange for what he thought was a promising future
abroad. The act of petitioner clearly constitutes estafa
under the above-quoted provision. It is well established
in jurisprudence that a person may be convicted of both
illegal recruitment and estafa. The reason, therefore, is
not hard to discern: illegal recruitment is malum
prohibitum, while estafa is malum in se. In the first, the
criminal intent of the accused is not necessary for
conviction. In the second, such an intent is imperative.
Petition denied. CA decision affirmed.
38. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. EDUARDO
BALLESTEROS
G.R. Nos. 116905-908. August 6, 2002
39. People of the Philippines (petitioner) v Jamilosa
(repondent)
GR No. 169076 January 23, 2007
FACTS:
Sometime in the months of January to
February, 1996, representing to have the capacity,
authority or license to contract, enlist and deploy or
transport workers for overseas employment, did then
and there, willfully, unlawfully and criminally recruit,
contract and promise to deploy, for a fee the herein
complainants, namely, Imelda D. Bamba, Geraldine M.
Lagman and Alma E. Singh, for work or employment in
Los Angeles, California, U.S.A. in Nursing Home and Care
Center.
Prosecution presented three witnesses, namely
Imelda Bamba, Geraldine Lagman and Alma Singh.
According to Bamba, she met the appellant on a
bus. She was on her way to SM North Edsa where she
was a company nurse. Appellant introduced himself as
a recruiter of workers for employment abroad.
Appellant told her he could help her get employed as
nurse. Appellant gave his pager number and instructed
her to contact him is she’s interested. Sometime in
January 1996, appellant fetched her at her office, went
to her house and gave him the necessary documents
and handed to appellant the amount of US$300.00 and
the latter showed her a photocopy of her supposed US
visa. However, the appellant did not issue a receipt for
the said money. Thereafter, appellant told her to resign
from her work because she was booked with Northwest
Airlines and to leave for USA on Feb, 1996. On the
scheduled departure, appellant failed to show up.
Instead, called and informed her that he failed to give
the passport and US visa because she had to go to
province because his wife died. Trying to contact him to
the supposed residence and hotel where he temporarily
resided, but to no avail.
Winess Lagman testified that she is a registered
nurse. In January 1996, she went to SM North Edsa to
visit her cousin Bamba. At that time Bamba informed
her that she was going to meet to appellant. Bamba
invited Lagman to go with her. The appellant convinced
them of his ability to send them abroad. On their next
meeting, Lagman handed to the latter the necessary
documents and an amount of US$300.00 and 2 bottles
of black label without any receipt issued by the
appellant. Four days after their meeting, a telephone
company called her because her number was appearing
in appellants cell phone documents. The caller is trying
to locate him as he was a swindler. She became
suspicious and told Bamba about the matter. One week
before her scheduled flight, appellant told her he could
not meet them because his mother passed away.
Lastly, Alma Singh, who is also a registered
nurse, declared that she first met the appellant at SM
North Edsa when Imelda Bamba introduced the latter to
her. Appellant told her that he is an undercover agent
of FBI and he could fix her US visa. On their next
meeting, she gave all the pertinent documents.
Thereafter, she gave P10,000 to the appellant covering
half price of her plane ticket. They paged the appellant
through his beeper to set up another appointment but
the appellant avoided them as he had many things to
do.
The accused Jamilosa testified on direct
examination that he never told Bamba that he could get
her a job in USA, the truth being that she wanted to
leave SM as company nurse because she was having a
problem thereat. Bamba called him several times,
seeking advices from him. He started courting Bamba
and went out dating until latter became his girlfriend.
He met Lagman and Singh thru Bamba. As complainants
seeking advice on how to apply for jobs abroad, lest he
be charged as a recruiter, he made Bamba, Lagman and
Singh sign separate certifications, all to effect that he
never recruited them and no money was involved.
Bamba filed an illegal recruitment case against him
because they quarreled and separated.
RTC rendered judgment finding accused guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of illegal recruitment in large
scale.
ISSUE: W/N the trial court erred in convicting accused
appellant of the crime of illegal recruitment in large
scale
HELD: “Recruitment and placement" refers to 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.
Illegal recruitment shall mean any act of
canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing,
hiring, or procuring workers and includes referring,
contract services, promising or advertising for
employment abroad, whether for profit or not, when
undertaken by a non-licensee or non-holder of
authority. Provided, That any such non-licensee or non-
holder who, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee
employment abroad to two or more persons shall be
deemed so engaged.
To prove illegal recruitment in large scale, the
prosecution is burdened to prove three (3) essential
elements, to wit: (1) the person charged undertook a
recruitment activity under Article 13(b) or any
prohibited practice under Article 34 of the Labor Code;
(2) accused did not have the license or the authority to
lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of
workers; and (3) accused committed the same against
three or more persons individually or as a group. As
gleaned from the collective testimonies of the
complaining witnesses which the trial court and the
appellate court found to be credible and deserving of
full probative weight, the prosecution mustered the
requisite quantum of evidence to prove the guilt of
accused beyond reasonable doubt for the crime
charged. Indeed, the findings of the trial court, affirmed
on appeal by the CA, are conclusive on this Court absent
evidence that the tribunals ignored, misunderstood, or
misapplied substantial fact or other circumstance.
The failure of the prosecution to adduce in
evidence any receipt or document signed by appellant
where he acknowledged to have received money and
liquor does not free him from criminal liability. Even in
the absence of money or other valuables given as
consideration for the "services" of appellant, the latter
is considered as being engaged in recruitment activities.
It can be gleaned from
the language of Article 13(b) of the Labor Code that the
act of recruitment may be for profit or not. It is
sufficient that the accused promises or offers for a fee
employment to warrant conviction for illegal
recruitment.
41. People v. Gallo (G.R. No. 187730. June 29, 2010)
FACTS: Accused-appellant Gallo and accused Pacardo
and Manta together with Mardeolyn and 9 others, were
charged with syndicated illegal recruitment and 18
counts of estafa committed against eighteen
complainants, including Dela Caza, Guantero and Sare.
The present appeal concerns solely accused-appellants
conviction for syndicated illegal recruitment in Criminal
Case No. 02-206293 and for estafa in Criminal Case No.
02-206297. According to the prosecution, Dela Caza was
introduced by Panuncio to accused-appellant Gallo,
Pacardo, Manta, Mardeolyn, Lulu Mendanes, Yeo Sin
Ung and another Korean national at the office of MPM
Agency located in Malate, Manila. Accused-appellant
Gallo then introduced himself as a relative of
Mardeolyn and informed Dela Caza that the agency was
able to send many workers abroad. Together with
Pacardo and Manta, he also told Dela Caza about the
placement fee of PhP150,000 with a down payment of
PhP45,000 and the balance to be paid through salary
deduction. With accused-appellants assurance that
many workers have been sent abroad, as well as the
presence of the 2 Korean nationals and upon being
shown the visas procured for the deployed workers,
Dela Caza was convinced to part with his money and
paid the agency. After 2 weeks, the said agency moved
and changed their name. After 2 more months of
waiting in vain to be deployed, Dela Caza and the other
applicants decided to take action. The first attempt was
unsuccessful because the agency again moved to
another place. However, with the help of the Office of
Ambassador Seres and the Western Police District, they
were able to locate the new address at Carriedo,
Manila. The agency explained that it had to move in
order to separate those who are applying as
entertainers from those applying as factory workers.
Accused-appellant Gallo, together with Pacardo and
Manta, were then arrested. For his defense, accused-
appellant denied having any part in the recruitment of
Dela Caza. In fact, he testified that he also applied with
MPM Agency for deployment to Korea as a factory
worker. RTC and CA convicted the appellants.
ISSUE: Is the accused-appellant guilty of illegal
recruitment committed by a syndicate?
HELD: To commit syndicated illegal recruitment, three
elements must be established: (1) the offender
undertakes either any activity within the meaning of
recruitment and placement defined under Article 13(b),
or any of the prohibited practices enumerated under
Art. 34 of the Labor Code; (2) he has no valid license or
authority required by law to enable one to lawfully
engage in recruitment and placement of workers; and
(3) the illegal recruitment is committed by a group of
three (3) or more persons conspiring or confederating
with one another.
When illegal recruitment is committed by a syndicate or
in large scale, i.e., if it is committed against three (3) or
more persons individually or as a group, it is considered
an offense involving economic sabotage. Under Art.
13(b) of the Labor Code, recruitment and placement
refers to 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.
42. Sto. Tomas vs Salac GR 152642, Nov. 13, 2012
Fact: On June 7, 1995 Congress enacted Republic Act
(R.A.) 8042 or the Migrant Workers and Overseas
Filipinos Act of 1995 that, for among other purposes,
sets the Government’s policies on overseas
employment and establishes a higher standard of
protection and promotion of the welfare of migrant
workers, their families, and overseas Filipinos in
distress. On January 8, 2002 respondents filed a petition
for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with
application for temporary restraining order (TRO) and
preliminary injunction against petitioners, the DOLE
Secretary, the POEA Administrator, and the Technical
Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA)
Secretary-General before the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
of Quezon City, Branch 96. respondents sought to: 1)
nullify DOLE Department Order 10 (DOLE DO 10) and
POEA Memorandum Circular 15 (POEA MC 15); 2)
prohibit the DOLE, POEA, and TESDA from
implementing the same and from further issuing rules
and regulations that would regulate the recruitment
and placement of overseas Filipino workers (OFWs); and
3) also enjoin them to comply with the policy of
deregulation mandated under Sections 29 and 30 of
Republic Act 8042. The Manila RTC also declared
Section 7 unconstitutional on the ground that its
sweeping application of the penalties failed to make any
distinction as to the seriousness of the act committed
for the application of the penalty imposed on such
violation. As an example, said the trial court, the mere
failure to render a report under Section 6(h) or
obstructing the inspection by the Labor Department
under Section 6(g) are penalized by imprisonment for
six years and one day and a minimum fine of
₱200,000.00 but which could unreasonably go even as
high as life imprisonment if committed by at least three
persons. Apparently, the Manila RTC did not agree that
the law can impose such grave penalties upon what it
believed were specific acts that were not as
condemnable as the others in the lists. The Manila RTC
also invalidated Section 9 of R.A. 8042 on the ground
that allowing the offended parties to file the criminal
case in their place of residence would negate the
general rule on venue of criminal cases which is the
place where the crime or any of its essential elements
were committed. Venue, said the RTC, is jurisdictional in
penal laws and, allowing the filing of criminal actions at
the place of residence of the offended parties violates
their right to due process. Section 9 provides:
Issue: Whether Sections 6, 7, and 9 of Republic Act
8042 valid and constitutional
Held: 1) Section 6 is valid and constitutional. “illegal
recruitment” as defined in Section 6 is clear and
unambiguous and, contrary to the RTC’s finding,
actually makes a distinction between licensed and non-
licensed recruiters. By its terms, persons who engage in
“canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting,
utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers” without the
appropriate government license or authority are guilty
of illegal recruitment whether or not they commit the
wrongful acts enumerated in that section. On the other
hand, recruiters who engage in the canvassing,
enlisting, etc. of OFWs, although with the appropriate
government license or authority, are guilty of illegal
recruitment only if they commit any of the wrongful
acts enumerated in Section 6.
2) Section 7 is valid and constitutional. the RTC did not
agree that the law can impose such grave penalties
upon what it believed were specific acts that were not
as condemnable as the others in the lists. But, in fixing
uniform penalties for each of the enumerated acts
under Section 6, Congress was within its prerogative to
determine what individual acts are equally
reprehensible, consistent with the State policy of
according full protection to labor, and deserving of the
same penalties. It is not within the power of the Court
to question the wisdom of this kind of choice. Notably,
this legislative policy has been further stressed in July
2010 with the enactment of R.A. 10022 which increased
even more the duration of the penalties of
imprisonment and the amounts of fine for the
commission of the acts listed under Section 7. in fixing
such tough penalties, the law considered the unsettling
fact that OFWs must work outside the country’s borders
and beyond its immediate protection. The law must,
therefore, make an effort to somehow protect them
from conscienceless individuals within its jurisdiction
who, fueled by greed, are willing to ship them out
without clear assurance that their contracted principals
would treat such OFWs fairly and humanely. The State
under its police power “may prescribe such regulations
as in its judgment will secure or tend to secure the
general welfare of the people, to protect them against
the consequence of ignorance and incapacity as well as
of deception and fraud.” Police power is “that inherent
and plenary power of the State which enables it to
prohibit all things hurtful to the comfort, safety, and
welfare of society.”
3) Section 9 is valid and constitutional. SEC. 9. states
that Venue. – A criminal action arising from illegal
recruitment as defined herein shall be filed with the
Regional Trial Court of the province or city where the
offense was committed or where the offended party
actually resides at the time of the commission of the
offense: Provided, That the court where the criminal
action is first filed shall acquire jurisdiction to the
exclusion of other courts: Provided, however, That the
aforestated provisions shall also apply to those criminal
actions that have already been filed in court at the time
of the effectivity of this Act. There is nothing arbitrary
or unconstitutional in Congress fixing an alternative
venue for violations of Section 6 of R.A. 8042 that
differs from the venue established by the Rules on
Criminal Procedure. Indeed, Section 15(a), Rule 110 of
the latter Rules allows exceptions provided by laws.
Thus: SEC. 15. Place where action is to be instituted.—
(a) Subject to existing laws, the criminal action shall be
instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or
territory where the offense was committed or where
any of its essential ingredients occurred. (Emphasis
supplied). Section 9 of R.A. 8042, as an exception to the
rule on venue of criminal actions is, consistent with that
law’s declared policy15 of providing a criminal justice
system that protects and serves the best interests of the
victims of illegal recruitment.
43. SUNACE INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT
SERVICES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION et al.
G.R. No. 161757 January 25, 2006
FACTS: Respondent Divina Montehermozo is a domestic
helper deployed to Taiwan by Sunace International
Management Services (Sunace) under a 12-month
contract. Such employment was made with the
assistance of Taiwanese broker Edmund Wang. After
the expiration of the contract, Montehermozo
continued her employment with her Taiwanese
employer Hang Rui Xiong for another 2 years.
When Montehermozo returned to the Philippines, she
filed a complaint against Sunace, Wang, and her
Taiwanese employer before the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC). She alleges that she was
underpaid and was jailed for three months in Taiwan.
She further alleges that the 2-year extension of her
employment contract was with the consent and
knowledge of Sunace. Sunace, on the other hand,
denied all the allegations.
Ruling of the Labor Arbiter and Court of Appeals: The
Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Montehermozo and
found Sunace liable thereof. The National Labor
Relations Commission and Court of Appeals affirmed
the labor arbiter’s decision. Hence, the filing of this
appeal.
ISSUE: Whether or not there is theory of imputed
knowledge between the principal and the agent
HELD: NO. As agent of its foreign principal, [Sunace]
cannot profess ignorance of such an extension as
obviously, the act of its principal extending [Divina’s]
employment contract necessarily bound it,it too is a
misapplication, a misapplication of the theory of
imputed knowledge.
The theory of imputed knowledge ascribes the
knowledge of the agent, Sunace, to the principal,
employer Xiong, not the other way around. The
knowledge of the principal-foreign employer cannot,
therefore, be imputed to its agent Sunace.
There being no substantial proof that Sunace knew of
and consented to be bound under the 2-year
employment contract extension, it cannot be said to be
privy thereto. As such, it and its “owner” cannot be
held solidarily liable for any of Divina’s claims arising
from the 2-year employment extension. As the New
Civil Code provides, Contracts take effect only between
the parties, their assigns, and heirs, except in case
where the rights and obligations arising from the
contract are not transmissible by their nature, or by
stipulation or by provision of law.
Furthermore, as Sunace correctly points out, there was
an implied revocation of its agency relationship with its
foreign principal when, after the termination of the
original employment contract, the foreign principal Ratio Decidendi: A person, for the same acts, may be
directly negotiated with Divina and entered into a new convicted separately of illegal recruitment and estafa.
and separate employment contract in Taiwan. Article
Gist: This is an appeal from the Decision of the CA,
1924 of the New Civil Code provides The agency is
which affirmed the Joint Decision of the RTC, finding
revoked if the principal directly manages the business
accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
entrusted to the agent, dealing directly with third
five counts of Estafa and one count of Large Scale Illegal
persons, thus applies.
Recruitment.
44. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MERCEDITAS
MATHEUS DELOS REYES

G.R. No. 198795, June 7, 2017

Facts: Appellant was charged with six counts of Estafa in

an Information which alleges that accused conspiring
together with other unidentified accused, feloniously
defraud the complainants on different occasions, by
means of false manifestations and fraudulent
representation to the effect that they had the power
and capacity to recruit and employ the complainants for
employment abroad, and could facilitate the processing
of the pertinent papers if given the necessary amount
to meet the requirements thereto, and succeeded in
inducing said complainants to give and deliver, as in fact
gave and delivered to said accused the sum of money,
which amount once in possession, with intent to
defraud, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
misappropriated, misapplied and converted to their
own personal use and benefit, to the damage and
prejudice of the complainants.

For her part, appellant admitted that she was the

Overseas Marketing Director of All Care Travel &
Consultancy, with All Care Travel & Consultancy as its
affiliate. She claimed that she did not know Suratos,
Guillarte, Alayon, Bagay, Jr., and Gloria. She likewise
claimed that she neither signed nor issued any receipt
using the name "Manzie delos Reyes" in favor of the
complainants. She further claimed that she was not
engaged in any recruitment and placement activities.
During the pre-trial, she admitted that she had no
license to recruit workers for overseas employment.

Issue: Whether or not appellant is guilty for the crime of

estafa.

Ruling: Yes. The elements of estafa are: (1) the accused

defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means
of deceit; and (2) the offended party or a third party
suffered damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary
estimation.

Here, appellant deceived private complainants into

believing that she had the authority and capability to
send them abroad for employment, despite her not
being licensed by the POEA to recruit workers for
overseas employment. Because of the assurances given
by accused-appellant, the private complainants parted
with their hard-earned money for the payment of the
agreed placement fee, for which accused-appellant
issued petty cash vouchers and used fictitious names
evidencing her receipt of the payments.