5/19/2021

E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 233089, June 29, 2020 ]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. LUCILLE
M. DAVID, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
DECISION
INTING, J.:
This is an appeal[1] filed by Lucille M. David (accused-appellant) from the Decision[2]
dated January 16, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07816 that
affirmed the Joint Judgment[3] dated September 15, 2015 of Branch 166, Regional Trial
Court (RTC), Pasig City. The RTC found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the offense of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale in Criminal Case No. 143740,
and the crime of Estafa under paragraph 2(a), Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code
(RPC) in Criminal Case Nos. 143742, 143743, 143744, 143745, and 143747.
The Antecedents
Accused-appellant was charged with
Informations filed on April 6, 2010:

the

following

violations

in

the

following

Criminal Case No. 143740 for Large Scale Illegal Recruitment in violation of
Section 6(l) and (m) of Republic Act No. (RA) 8042[4]
"That sometime in the months of February 2008 to November 2008 or
thereabout, at Block 32, Lot 5, Phase 2-C2, Kaalinsabay Street, Karangalan
Village, Pasig City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused LUCILLE M. DAVID, of Jasin International Manpower
Services, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally recruit, enlist
and promise overseas employment to the private complainants, namely:
CHERRY C. MARCO, JILL R. GRIJALDO, LEILANIE C. PENERA, ADORACION
CASINTAHAN, JOVY MITRA [sic], MABELLA [sic] R. PINEDA AND ERWIN D.
ENRIQUEZ as waitresses and service crew in Canada and the United States,
the said accused thereby charging, exacting and collecting from the said
private complainants amounts ranging from P45,000.00 to P220,000.00,
more or less, and despite the payment of the said fees, the said accused
failed to actually deploy the private complainants without valid reasons as
determined by the Department of Labor and Employment and despite
demand, said accused failed and refused to reimburse the expenses incurred
by the said private complainants in connection with their documentation and
processing for the purpose of their supposed deployment, to the damage
and prejudice of said private complainants.
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66373

1/17

Select target paragraph3