Labor Law Digest Recruitment and Placement

 

36. DELIA D. ROMERO ROMERO,, Petitioner, vs PEOPLE O OF F THE PHILIPPINES, ROMULO pADLAN and ARTURO SIAPNO, Respondents G.R. No. 171644, November 23, 2011

the absence of any receipt or any other documentary evidence proving such.

R OMERO is guilty of ISSUE: Whether or not DELIA D. ROMERO the act of Illegal Recruitment. 

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 De cision of

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

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].

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]. 

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. I srael. Arturo was able to secure the amount neede through relatives re latives 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

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.

was able to work and receive US$800.00 salary per month. After three months of stay in Israel, I srael, 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.

DENIED. Consequently, the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals, affirming the Decision Dec ision 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 o f Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 2018, are hereby here by AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION on the penalty to be imposed.

Meanwhile, sometime in September 2000, Romulo Padlan went to petitioner's stall at Calasiao, Pangasinan to inquire about securing a job in Israel. I srael. 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 t o 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

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari of petitioner Delia D. Romero is hereby

37. Lapasa Lapasaran ran 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. happened. Thereupon, petitioner promised promised to send him back to South Korea, but the promise was never fulfilled. Consequently, Menardo and his sister 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 o f 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, Villarins, but committed only to securing a tourist visa and a twoway airplane ticket for Menardo, for which she received P70,000.00 as payment. She denied having having recruited Menardo Villarin; she likewise denied having promised him employment in South Korea. On February 15, 2005, the RTC rendered a Decision finding finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal recruitment and estafa. CA affirmed with w ith modifications.. Issue: WHETHER OR NOT THE LAWS ON ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT AND ESTAFA ARE APPLICABLE IN THESE CASES

case, Held:  Affirmative on both accounts. In the first case, petitioner was charged with illegal recruitment, recr uitment, defined and penalized by the Labor Code as amended R.A. No. 8042. [14] Illegal recruitment is com committed mitted 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 rec ruit for overseas employment, and the collection from Menardo of various amounts, clearly indicate acts constitutive of illegal illegal recruitment. In the second ca case, se, 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 prej udice 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 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 is not hard to discern: 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 THE PHILIPPINES vs. EDUARDO BALLESTEROS G.R. Nos. 116905-908. August 6, 2002

39. People of the Philippine Philippiness (petitioner) v Jamilosa 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 himself as a recruiter of workers for employment abroad. Appellant told her he could help her get g et 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 reg istered 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 c omplainants seeking advice on how to apply for jobs abroad, lest he be charged as a recruiter, recr uiter, 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. erre d in convicting accused ISSUE: W/N the trial court erred 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, referr als, 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 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 w hen undertaken by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority. Provided, That any such non-licensee or nonholder 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 e ssential 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 t rial 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 rec ruitment activities. It can be gleaned from the language of Article 13(b) of the t he 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 C aza 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 we ll 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, wee ks, the said agency moved and changed their name. After 2 more mo re 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

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

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 ar e applying as entertainers from those applying as factory workers. Accused-appellant Gallo, together with Pacardo and Manta, were then arrested. For his defense, accusedappellant 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.

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 m ere 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 m inimum fine of

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), 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 per sons 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

Republic Act Fact:  On June 7, 1995 Congress enacted Republic (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

₱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 cr iminal cases which is the place where the crime cr ime 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 S ection 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 cle ar and unambiguous and, contrary to the RTC’s finding, actually makes a distinction between licensed and nonlicensed recruiters. By its terms, term s, 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 t he 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 t he 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 ac ts 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

43. SUNACE INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION et al.

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

continued her employment with her Taiwanese employer Hang Rui Xiong for another 2 years.

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

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

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.

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

Ruling of the Labor Arbiter and Court of Appeals: The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Montehermozo and

of deception and fraud.” Police power is “that inherent

found Sunace liable thereof. The National Labor Relations Commission and Court of Appeals affirmed

and plenary power of the State which enables it to prohibit all things hurtful to the comfort, safety, and welfare of society.” 

the labor arbiter’s decision. Hence, the filing of this

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 c ity 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

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

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 t he 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

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.

law’s declared policy15 of providing a criminal justice

stipulation or by provision of law.

system that protects and serves the best be st interests of the victims of illegal recruitment.

There being no substantial proof that Sunace knew of and consented to be bound under the 2-year 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 employment extension. As the New Civil Code provides, Contracts take effect only o nly between the parties, their assigns, and heirs, except in case where the rights and obligations arising from the contract are not transmissible tr ansmissible by their nature, or by

Furthermore, as Sunace correctly points out, there was an implied revocation of its agency relationship with its foreign principal when, after the termination te rmination of the

 

original employment contract, the foreign principal directly negotiated with Divina and entered into a new and separate employment employment contract in Taiwan. Taiwan. Article 1924 of the New Civil Code provides The agency is revoked if the principal directly manages the business entrusted to the agent, dealing directly with third persons, thus applies. 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 t he 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 w as 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 rece ipt 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. act ivities. 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 me ans 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 recr uit 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 w hich accused-appellant issued petty cash vouchers and used fictitious names evidencing her receipt of the payments.

Ratio Decidendi: A person, for the same acts, ac ts, may be convicted separately of illegal recruitment and estafa. Gist: This is an appeal from the Decision De cision of the CA, which affirmed the Joint Decision of the RTC, finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of five counts of Estafa and one count of Large L arge Scale Illegal Recruitment.