6/9/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
representations and fraudulent allegations that they could facilitate private
complainant's working and travel papers, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully, and feloniously ask, demand and receive from the said
complainant the amount of P80,000.00 as placement fee for the latter's
supposed deployment to Australia as "Apple Picker/Office Worker"; and said
private complainant carried away by said misrepresentations, in fact gave
and delivered to said accused the amount of P80,000.00, which amount
accused in turn misapplied, misappropriated and converted to their own
personal use and benefit, failing, however, to deploy private complainant to
Australia, and despite repeated demands accused failed and refused to do
so, or account for the said amount, to the damage and prejudice of the said
private complainant in the aforesaid amount of P80,000.00.
Contrary to law.[5]
Upon arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty[6] to both charges while her co-accused
remained at large. Trial on the merits thereafter ensued.
Private complainant Josephine R. Palo and her sister Teresa Caraig testified that
sometime in November 2002, the spouses Roberto and Mel Tiongson, agents of Naples
Travel and Tours, introduced Palo to appellant, owner and general manager of Naples,
to discuss employment opportunities in Australia. During their meeting held at the
Naples office in Villaruel Tower, Villaruel Street, Pasay City, appellant and the spouses
Tiongson informed Palo that for a placement fee of P80,000, she can work as an apple
picker in Australia with a monthly salary of $1,400.
Thus, on November 8, 2002, Palo and Caraig went to the Naples office and gave
Roberto Tiongson and Lourdes Chang, operations manager of Naples, P15,000 as first
installment for the placement fee. Palo was issued a voucher[7] signed by Roberto and
Chang stating therein that the P15,000 was for Palo's visa application.
On November 11, 2002, Palo and Caraig returned to the Naples office and paid
P58,500. She was again issued a voucher[8] signed by Roberto and Chang stating
therein that the amount paid was for Palo's visa application. Palo insisted that the
voucher should indicate that her payments were for "placement fees" but they were
able to convince her that it is not necessary because they know her.
After making her payments, she was required to submit her resume and pictures and
was promised that she would be employed within three months.
More than three months passed, however, but Palo was not deployed to Australia.
Neither did she get her Australian visa.
In May 2003, she learned from the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) that Naples
had closed down. NBI likewise informed her that Naples had no license to operate and
deploy workers abroad. Upon advice of the NBI, Palo filed a complaint[9] against
appellant, the spouses Tiongson and Chang.
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/50218
2/8