4/9/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
695 Phil. 16
FIRST DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 187052, September 13, 2012 ]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MELISSA
CHUA A.K.A. CLARITA NG CHUA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
DECISION
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
Before us is an appeal from the September 15, 2008 Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals
in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01006. The Court of Appeals had affirmed with modification
the Decision[2] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 33, in Criminal Case
No. 03-217999-403. The RTC found appellant Melissa Chua, a.k.a. Clarita Ng Chua,
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal recruitment in large scale and four counts of
estafa. The Court of Appeals modified the penalty imposed upon appellant for each
count of estafa to an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment for 4 years and 2 months
of prision correccional, as minimum, to 13 years of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
Appellant Melissa Chua was charged on May 6, 2003, with the crime of illegal
recruitment in large scale in an Information[3] which alleged:
That on or about and during the period comprised between July 29, 2002
and August 20, 2002, both dates inclusive, in the City of Manila, Philippines,
the said accused, representing herself to have the capacity to contract,
enlist and transport Filipino workers overseas particularly to Taiwan, did then
and there wilfully, unlawfully, for fee, recruit and promise employment/job
placement to REY P. TAJADAO, BILLY R. DA[N]AN,[4] ROYLAN A. URSULUM
and ALBERTO A. AGLANAO without first having secured the required license
from the Department of Labor and Employment as required by law, and
charge or accept directly or indirectly from said complainants various
amounts as placement fees in consideration for their overseas employment,
which amounts are in excess of or greater than that specified in the
schedule of allowable fees prescribed by the POEA, and without valid
reasons and without the fault of said complainants, failed to actually deploy
them and failed to reimburse expenses incurred in connection with their
documentation and processing for purposes of their deployment.
Contrary to law.
Appellant was also charged with four counts of estafa in separate Informations, which,
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55182
1/14