5/19/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly The RTC findings of fact were affirmed by the CA.[61] Further, contrary to accused-appellant's argument, the Court finds that the nondeployment of private respondents was without any fault on their part. As correctly ruled by the CA, white accused-appellant claimed that she delivered the monies paid by Mabelle, Jovy, Cherry, and Jill to the foreign employers as bonds, she failed to prove that the foreign employers received the monies.[62] Furthermore, as to Mabelle, there is no question that she was not deployed either in Canada or the US. While the defense seemingly imputed fault on her as she allegedly failed to pass the interview of the consul at the US Embassy, the Court does not find this fatal to the case of the prosecution.[63] To begin with, while accused-appellant alleged that Mabelle's foreign principal was North American Management, she failed to adduce any evidence to substantiate the allegation.[64] Moreover, while accused-appellant offered in evidence the POEA Certification[65] dated April 6, 2015 stating that there was an approved job order for 40 housekeepers with North American Management as the direct employer, the Certification indicated that the date of approval of the job order for 40 housekeepers with North American Management was April 15, 2009. Thus, there was no approved job order at the time Mabelle deposited her placement fee in accused-appellant's BDO bank account on June 13, 2008. As regards Jovy, the Court agrees with the RTC's factual finding in its Order[66] dated April 25, 2014. The RTC adopted the factual finding in its Joint Judgment-that Jovy was not deployed in Canada despite paying P65,500.00 and signing an employment contract dated April 28, 2009 with Jani King.[67] Moreover, the Court finds that while accused-appellant testified that Jovy signed a contract with New Hope as evidenced by the Contract of Service[68] dated July 2, 2008, a perusal of the contract shows that the contract was not signed by any representative from New Hope.[69] Thus, the Contract of Service has no probative value. More importantly, Jovy convincingly testified that he learned from the POEA that there was no job order listed therein for either Jani King or New Hope. In fact, Jovy's testimony was supported by the POEA Certification[70] dated May 25, 2011. With respect to Adoracion, accused-appellant told Adoracion sometime in November 2008 that she can deploy her for work abroad and that there was already a job order for the US. Thus, Adoracion paid US$800.00 to accused-appellant. However, accusedappellant told her after payment to wait for the job order because she was not included in the first batch. Thus, Adoracion waited.[71] Upon being asked by accused-appellant, Adoracion paid P130,000.00 and P51,000.00 as processing fees at the POEA and as payment for her plane ticket. However, as aptly observed by the RTC which the CA affirmed, Adoracion was not deployed because the ticket given to her by the accusedappellant was outdated and invalid considering that it was dated 2004.[72] Further, as correctly found by the RTC, Adoracion convincingly testified that she was not able to go https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66373 10/17