6/30/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly The sole issue for the Court's resolution is whether the lower courts erred in convicting accused-appellant Bautista of three counts of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the RPC, and violation of Section 6 of R.A. 8042. The Court's Ruling The appeal is bereft of merit, and we affirm the assailed judgment of the CA with modification on the award of damages. At the outset, it bears noting that an illegal recruiter may be held liable for the crimes of illegal recruitment committed in large scale and estafa without risk of being put in double jeopardy, for as long as the accused has been so charged under separate Informations.[37] In the present case, since accused-appellant Bautista was separately charged for illegal recruitment in large scale and estafa, he may be properly, as he was, prosecuted simultaneously for both crimes. Estafa Against the charge of ten counts of estafa, accused-appellant Bautista counters that in all instances, what were involved were only unfulfilled promises, absent deceit or misrepresentation.[38] He proffers that there was no fraud, but merely a noncompliance of the supposed promise of job placements abroad.[39] This allegation flies in the face of the actual non-realization of said guarantee, and the machinations undertaken by accused-appellant Bautista and his co-accused, in order to induce herein private complainants to part with their money and latch their hopes onto a promise that would remain unfulfilled. Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2 of the RPC is committed by any person who defrauds another by using fictitious name, or falsely pretends to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of similar deceits executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud. In this situational context, the offended party must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means used by accused-appellant Bautista and sustained damages as a result thereof.[40] Here, it is not disputed that private complainants Randy, Rolando and Efren all relied on accused-appellant Bautista's promise that he would be able to arrange for their placements in jobs in South Korea, but that despite payments of varying amounts of fees and the processing of the supposedly required documents, they were unable to leave the country to work abroad as they were assured, and as a consequence, all three suffered damages. These facts squarely fall within the definition of estafa, and belies accused-appellant Bautista's insistence that these were merely cases of benign unfulfilled promises. Instead, and as found by the lower courts, these consisted of a series of deceitful acts that are precisely within the contemplation of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2 of the RPC. Illegal Recruitment https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66754 13/20