6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly strength of said manifestation and representation which turned out to be false, to the damage and prejudice of said complainant in the aforementioned amount of P20,000.00. CONTRARY TO LAW.[7] 6) That in or about and sometime during the month of February, 2006, in the City of Makati, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, defraud complainant AUGUSTO CEZAR GARCES y ALIMAGNO in the following manners, to wit: the said accused by means of false manifestations and fraudulent representations made prior and simultaneously with the commission of fraud, to the effect that she have the capacity to deploy complainant for overseas employment and could facilitate the necessary papers, in connection therewith if given the necessary amount and by means of other deceit of similar import, induced and succeeded in inducing complainant to give and deliver and, in fact, the complainant gave and delivered to said accused the total amount of Php20,000.00 on the strength of said manifestation and representation which turned out to be false, to the damage and prejudice of said complainant in the aforementioned amount of P20,000.00. CONTRARY TO LAW.[8] 7) That in or about and sometime during the month of February, 2006, in the City of Makati, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, defraud complainant LEYNARD TUTANES y BADIOLA in the following manners, to wit: the said accused by means of false manifestations and fraudulent representations made prior and simultaneously with the commission of fraud, to the effect that she have the capacity to deploy complainant for overseas employment and could facilitate the necessary papers, in connection therewith if given the necessary amount and by means of other deceit of similar import, induced and succeeded in inducing complainant to give and deliver and, in fact, the complainant gave and delivered to said accused the total amount of Php20,000.00 on the strength of said manifestation and representation which turned out to be false, to the damage and prejudice of said complainant in the aforementioned amount of P20,000.00. CONTRARY TO LAW.[9] Accused-appellant pleaded "not guilty" and after trial on the merits, the RTC found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged except for one charge of estafa which was provisionally dismissed by the RTC, upon motion of accused-appellant, without prejudice to reinstatement considering that the subpoena sent to complainant Monica B. Himan had not been duly served upon her person. The elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61569 4/10