People vs Recio : 118104-06 : November 28, 1997 : J. Romero : Third...
2 of 6
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/nov1997/118104_06.htm
That on or about May 6, 1992 in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused conspiring and
confederating together and helping each other did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously
defraud ROWENA REYES Y LAPUZ in the following manner, to wit: the said accused by means of false
manifestations and fraudulent representation which they made to said ROWENA REYES Y LAPUZ to the
effect that they had the power and capacity to recruit and employ the latter in DUBAI, Saudi Arabia as
Domestic Helper and could facilitate the processing of the pertinent papers if given the necessary amount
to meet the requiremants (sic) thereof, and by means of other similar deceits, induced and succeeded in
inducing said ROWENA REYES Y LAPUZ to give and deliver, as in fact she gave and delivered to said
accused the amount of P15,000.00 on the strength of said manifestations and representations, said accused
well knowing that the same were false and fraudulent and are made solely to obtain, as in fact they did
obtain the amount of P15,000.00 which amount once in possession, with intent to defraud, wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously misappropriated, misapplied and converted to their own personal use and
benefit, to the damage and prejudice of said ROWENA REYES Y LAPUZ in the aforesaid amount of
P15,000.00, in Philippine Currency.
Contrary to Law.[3]
When arraigned, appellants pleaded not guilty to the charges.
The prosecution proffered the following facts:
Sometime in April 1992, appellants, representing themselves as husband and wife, went to
Cabiao, Nueva Ecija, and befriended complainants Ruel Vicente, Flora Garcia and Rowena
Reyes, among other persons for possible employment abroad for a fee.
Vicente testified that he was assured by appellants of employment in Japan as factory
worker if he paid a placement fee of P50,000.00, an amount which was later increased to
P90,000.00. Thereafter, he went to their purported office at the Talisman Placement Agency
(agency) in General Luna St., Ermita, Manila, to tender a downpayment of P40,000.00, but
Recio instructed him to forward said amount to Valencia at their house in Caloocan City.
Soon after receiving said amount and issuing a receipt therefor, Valencia went to Cabiao
bearing Vicentes Japanese visa. Encouraged by this development, the latter gave her the
additional P50,000.00. When he proceeded to the agency to procure the ticket, however, he was
informed that the processing of the necessary papers and release of the ticket would take a long
time. Because of this, Vicente filed the instant complaint against appellants.
Garcia narrated that she likewise went to the agency for prospective employment in Taiwan.
Subsequently, appellants told her to secure a passport and a certificate that she has undergone
medical examination, which documents she submitted on April 17 and May 5, 1992, respectively.
In the course of the processing of her application, she allegedly paid P4,000.00 for her medical
examination and another P1,000.00 for some undetermined purpose. In both instances, no
receipt was issued to her.
Reyes, for her part, testified that in order to come up with the P15,000.00 amount required
by appellants, she pledged her jewelries and even went as far as mortgaging her ricefield.
Despite such payment, however, she, like the other two complainants mentioned above, was
unable to leave the country.
The defense, on the other hand, relied on the uncorroborated testimonies of appellants who
denied the charges and imputed culpability to each other.
Appellant Recio, a licensed physical therapist, with office at Cuyab Hot Springs in Calamba,
Laguna, testified that he met his co-accused at Tierra Mar Clinic in United Nations Avenue,
Ermita, Manila. On April 5, 1992, he was invited by Valencia to attend a fiesta in Cabiao where
they met Vicente through the latters aunt. He alleged that he never offered Vicente any possible
employment in Japan as factory worker, so he could not have required the latter to give him a
1/25/2016 12:39 AM