6/30/2021

E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 240694, September 07, 2020 ]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ERNALYN
PALICPIC Y MENDOZA A.K.A. "ERNALYN MENDOZA," "LYN," AND
"MALYN," ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
DECISION
DELOS SANTOS, J.:
Before the Court is an ordinary Appeal[1] filed by accused-appellant Ernalyn Palicpic y
Mendoza a.k.a "Ermalyn Mendoza," "Lyn," and "Malyn" (appellant) assailing the
Amended Decision[2] dated 30 January 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R.
CR-HC No. 06619, which affirmed with modifications the Decision[3] dated 23 July 2013
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 47, in Criminal Case Nos. 10276564, 10-276565, 10-276566, and 10-276568 convicting appellant of Illegal
Recruitment in Large Scale, as defined and penalized under Section 6(l) and (m) in
relation to Section 7(b) of Republic Act No. (RA) 8042, otherwise known as the Migrant
Workers Overseas Filipino Act of 1995, and three (3) counts of Estafa under Article 315,
paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
The Facts
After appellant was apprehended in an entrapment operation conducted by the
Philippine National Police Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (PNP-CIDG), she
was charged with Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale docketed as Criminal Case No. 10276564, the accusatory portion of which states:
Criminal Case No. 10-276564
That on or about 10:30 in the morning of May 12, 2009 in the City of
Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
accused ERNALYN PALICPIC y MENDOZA a.k.a. ERMALYN MENDOZA,
LYN/MALYN[,] representing herself to have the capacity to contract,
transport, refer, procure and or (sic) enlist workers for employment to Qatar,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously recruit and renew her
promise of overseas employment to four (4) persons, namely: Mary Ann
Tucay, Christopher Yambao, Edgardo Ramirez, and Richard Peroche, without
first securing a license and/or permit to recruit workers for overseas
employment from the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration
(POEA) contemplated under Article 13 9[(f)] of Presidential Decree No.
[442], as amended, otherwise known as the Labor Code of the Philippines.
Further, said accused failed to deploy without valid reason the said workers
and despite said failure to deploy them said accused failed to reimburse the
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66642

1/13

Select target paragraph3