5/19/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Cherry further testified that in 2009, accused-appellant asked her if she wanted to be deployed instead in the US while waiting for the Canadian job order. She agreed, but her US visa application was denied. She wanted to pull out her application and requested for the refund of her money, but she would not contact accused-appellant anymore.[28] She no longer went to accused-appellant's office because she learned through her co-applicants that accused-appellant's office was already closed and padlocked.[29] V. In Criminal Case Nos. 143740 and 143747 Jill testified that in February 2008, she asked her cousin, Cherry to go with her to JASIA and apply as service crew in Canada. Accused-appellant told them that there were vacant slots for service crew in Canada, but also told them that they needed to pay a placement fee in the amount of P90,000.00. Jill then deposited P45,000.00 in accusedappellant's account as she could only pay half. She also gave all her employment requirements with accused-appellant's promise that she will be deployed in Canada before December 2008. However, she was not deployed because according to accusedappellant, there was a problem with the employer in Canada. The accused-appellant then offered her employment in the US and scheduled her for an interview at the US Embassy. However, she was denied a visa because there was proof of employment for her in the US. She then asked for the return of her placement fee which accusedappellant was unable to do.[30] Version of the Accused-Appellant Accused-appellant filed a Demurrer to Evidence (With Prior Leave of Court).[31] However, the RTC denied it with respect to Criminal Case Nos. 143740, 143742, 143743, 143744, 143745, and 143747 in its Order[32] dated April 25, 2014. On the witness stand, accused-appellant testified that she was the sole proprietor of JASIA; and that it was JASIA's practice to collect US$300.00 per applicant for its services only after the applicant was successfully deployed abroad.[33] Accused-appellant further testified that she knows the private complainants; that Jovy went to JASIA to follow-up his job application in Canada which JASIA already forwarded to the employer; that after a few months, Jovy became impatient for the Labor Market Opinion (LMO) to arrive; that consequently, she mentioned to Jovy the ongoing interview conducted by a US employer to which Jovy signified his interest; that she explained to Jovy that if he would withdraw his application in Canada, the cash bond could not be refunded anymore since it was already forwarded to the Canadian employer; and that Jovy, however, did not show up at his scheduled interview in the US Embassy.[34] Accused-appellant furthermore testified that Jovy did not sign an employment contract with Jani King considering that he has not paid a cash bond for his application, and that Jovy signed a contract with New Hope and not with Jani King. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66373 5/17