6/7/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
thus in a large scale amounting to economic sabotage but said accused
failed to deploy said complainants and likewise failed to return the money
incurred by them and the documents submitted despite demands, to the
latter's damage and prejudice.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[2]
Accused-appellant was also charged and tried under seven (7) separate informations
for estafa under Article 315 par. 2 (a) of the RPC, to wit:
1) That in or about and sometime during the month of September 2005, in
the City of Makati, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously, defraud complainant MONICA I-IIMAN y
BASAMOT in the following manners, to wit: the said accused by means of
false manifestations and fraudulent representations made prior and
simultaneously with the commission of fraud, to the effect that she have the
capacity to deploy complainant for overseas employment and could facilitate
the necessary papers, in connection therewith if given the necessary amount
and by means of other deceit of similar import, induced and succeeded in
inducing complainant to give and deliver and, in fact, the complainant gave
and delivered to said accused the total amount of Php20,000.00 on the
strength of said manifestation and representation which turned out to be
false, to the damage and prejudice of said complainant in the
aforementioned amount of P20,000.00.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[3]
2) That in or about and sometime during the month of October, 2005, in the
City ofMakati, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the abovenamed accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, defraud complainant JOEY BACOLOD y PORTILLES in the
following manners, to wit: the said accused by means of false manifestations
and fraudulent representations made prior and simultaneously with the
commission of fraud, to the ellect that she have the capacity to deploy
complainant for overseas employment and could facilitate the necessary
papers, in connection therewith if given the necessary amount and by
means of other deceit of similar import, induced and succeeded in inducing
complainant to give and deliver and, in fact, the complainant gave and
delivered to said accused the total amount of Php20,000.00 on the strength
of said manilestation and representation which turned out to be false, to the
damage and prejudice of said complainant in the aforementioned amount of
P20,000.00.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[4]
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61569
2/10