4/13/2021
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
fees from said private complainants, but without valid reasons and through
no fault of said private complainants, accused fail to actually deploy them
abroad; that despite repeated demands to reimburse expenses incurred by
private complainants in connection with their documentation and processing
for purposes of deployment, respondents fail and refuse and continues to fail
and refuse to reimburse the amounts received, to the damage and prejudice
of herein private complainants.
That the aforesaid acts of accused were committed against than (sic) three
(3) persons namely, Liwayway M. Tiglao, Michael B. Custodio, Marlone S.
Papio, Eduardo N. Milanes, Elmer Q. de Mata, Rico H. Dacillo, Victoriano T.
Agcaoili, Jr., and Mylene U. Arevalo, thereby making such acts in large scale,
with accused employing deception and false representations as to theirr (sic)
qualification, license, authority and/or business transaction to make such
placement for overseas work and to actually deploy said private
complainants.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[6]
In CC No. R-PSY-09-00779-CR for violation of Article 315(2)(a) of the RPC, the
Information[7] read:
That sometime during the period from July 2007 to December 2008 or
thereabout, at J. Wardley Building, San Juan Street, Pasay City, and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by
means of deceit, fraudulent acts and false pretenses executed prior to or
simultaneous with the commission of the fraud, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully, and criminally defraud and deceive private complainant ELMER
DE MATA, and misrepresent themselves as having the capacity to contract,
enlist, and transport or actually deploy Filipino workers for employment in
Taiwan and Singapore; demand and receive from said private complainant
de Mata the total amount of NINETY THOUSAND PESOS (P90,000.00) as
payment of private complainant de Mata's application and processing fee,
and by reason of the abovenamed (sic) accused misrepresentation, false
assurance and deceit, complainant de Mata was induced to part with and
deliver the said NINETY THOUSAND PESOS (P90,000.00) to herein accused;
that contrary to the representations and assurances of accused, they fail and
continue to fail to actually deploy said private complainant; that due to the
unjustified failure to actually deploy private complainant de Mata through no
fault of the latter, said private complainant demanded the return of the
amount of NINETY THOUSAND PESOS (P90,000.00); but despite repeated
demands, accused fail and refuse and still fail and refuse to return the same,
to the damage and prejudice of herein complainant ELMER DE MATA.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[8]
Similarly-worded Informations for Estafa were issued involving the seven other private
complainants in the Illegal Recruitment case. The Estafa cases and private
complainants are summarized in the table below:
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66232
2/29