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