People vs Recio : 118104-06 : November 28, 1997 : J. Romero : Third... 3 of 6 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/nov1997/118104_06.htm placement fee of P90,000.00. Recio asserted further that he had no personal relationship with appellant Valencia and that if ever there was any, it would be on a professional basis, as the latter procures clients for him as a therapist. However, he admitted that Vicente went to see him at the agency to tender the amount required but he instructed the latter to pay Valencia at her house in Caloocan City. He feigned ignorance of their transaction or the purpose for which the said amount was intended. Recio likewise admitted meeting Garcia during the Cabiao fiesta but denied discussing with her the possibility of overseas employment and alleged that it was Valencia with whom she had a conversation. In contrast with her co-appellants testimony, Valencia testified that she met Recio at a clinic in U.N. Avenue, Ermita, Manila, where he informed her that he needed twenty-five persons to work in Taiwan. In turn, she alleged that she herself was an applicant and was even promised by Recio a free ticket to Taiwan if she could help him find the requisite number of prospective workers. Soon thereafter, both of them went to Cabiao, where she introduced him to several persons as a recruiter. At this juncture, he began distributing calling cards and urged interested applicants to go to the office indicated therein. Later, he advised the applicants to go instead to the Talisman Agency at 1202 General Luna St., Malate, Manila, because he was already leaving the agency indicated in the calling card. Valencia contended that when she applied for employment abroad with Recio, other applicants followed suit. They went to the agency and met its owner, a certain Jerry Arciaga, who allegedly collected P60,000.00 from her. Subsequently, all of them informed Recio that Arciaga received their supposed placement fees, but he purportedly disclaimed any participation in the transaction. For her failure to send them abroad, the complainants blamed Valencia for introducing Recio to them. She added that when she met Recio in Batangas, she requested him to return the money, but Recio ignored her. Thus, upon learning of his arrest by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), she went over to the NBI office along Taft Avenue and was told therein that she is being implicated because her signature appeared in several receipts of payment issued to the complainants. She insisted that she herself was a victim of Recios fraudulent scheme. In its decision dated October 10, 1994,[4] the trial court convicted appellants in this wise: WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered as follows: 1) In Criminal Case no. 92-108476 finding accused Sixto Recio y Magpantay alias Resty and Zenaida Valencia y de Valencia of illegal recruitment committed in large scale and hereby sentences them to serve the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P100,000.00; 2) In Criminal Case no. 92-108477 finding accused, Sixto Recio y Magpantay and Zenaida Valencia y de Valencia as principals of estafa by means of false pretenses and hereby sentences them to suffer imprisonment of not less than FOUR (4) YEARS, TWO (2) MONTHS as minimum, and not more than SIX (6) YEARS, FIVE (5) MONTHS and ELEVEN (11) DAYS as maximum; 3) And in Criminal Case no. 92-108478 convicting Sixto Recio y Magpantay alias Resty and Zenaida Valencia y de Valencia of the crime of estafa by means of false pretenses as principals and hereby sentences them also to serve the penalty of FOUR (4) YEARS, TWO (2) MONTHS as minimum, and not more than FIVE (5) YEARS, FIVE (5) MONTHS and ELEVEN (11) DAYS as maximum. With costs. SO ORDERED.[5] Before this Court, appellants assail the judgment of conviction arguing that the lower court 1/25/2016 12:39 AM