4/9/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Chua was not licensed to recruit workers for overseas employment. Another private complainant, Billy R. Danan, testified that Chua also offered employment abroad but failed to deploy him. He recalled meeting appellant on August 6, 2002 at the Golden Gate Office in Ermita, Manila. Danan inquired about the prospect of finding work in Taiwan as a factory worker, and appellant confirmed there was a standing “job order.” The latter advised Danan to obtain a passport, undergo medical examination, secure an NBI clearance and prepare the amount of P80,000. On August 10, 2002, Danan paid appellant in full as evidenced by a cash voucher signed by the latter. A month passed, however, and he was still unable to leave for Taiwan. Appellant informed Danan that his departure would be re-scheduled because Taiwan had suspended admission of overseas workers until after the festival. After appellant advanced this explanation several times, Danan decided to verify whether she was licensed to recruit. Upon learning otherwise, Danan lodged a complaint for illegal recruitment against appellant with the POEA. The third private complainant, Alberto Aglanao, testified that he met appellant Chua on August 5, 2002. Like Tajadao and Danan, Aglanao applied for work as a factory worker in Taiwan. Appellant similarly assured Aglanao of employment abroad upon payment of P80,000. But despite payment[7] of said amount on August 10, 2002, appellant failed to deploy Aglanao to Taiwan. Roylan Ursulum,[8] the fourth private complainant, testified that he too went to the Golden Gate Office in Ermita, Manila to seek employment as a factory worker. He was introduced by Shirley Montano to appellant Chua. The latter told Ursulum that the first applicants to pay the placement fee of P80,000 shall be deployed ahead of the others. Thus, Ursulum obtained a loan of P80,000 to cover the placement fee, which he allegedly gave appellant in two installments of P40,000 each. As with the rest of the private complainants, Ursulum never made it to Taiwan. Ursulum did not submit proof of payment but presented, instead, ten text messages on his mobile phone supposedly sent by appellant. One of said text messages reads, “Siguro anong laking saya nyo pag namatay na ko.” The prosecution likewise presented as witness Severino Maranan, Senior Labor Employment Officer of the POEA. Maranan confirmed that appellant Chua was neither licensed nor authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment. In support, he presented to the court a certification issued by the POEA to that effect. In her defense, appellant Chua denies having recruited private complainants for overseas employment. According to appellant, she was only a cashier at Golden Gate, which is owned by Marilen Callueng. However, she allegedly lost to a robbery her identification card evidencing her employment with the agency. Appellant denied any knowledge of whether the agency was licensed to recruit workers during her tenure as it has been delisted. In a Decision dated March 28, 2005, the RTC of Manila, Branch 33, found appellant Melissa Chua, a.k.a. Clarita Ng Chua, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55182 3/14