4/13/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly The Court also modifies the amount to be awarded to Custodio. As found by the CA, Custodio paid a total of P140,000.00 for his documentation and placement fees.[47] However, in the dispositive portion of the CA Decision, he was awarded only P100,000.00.[48] Thus, the Court modifies his award to P140,000.00. The Estafa cases The Court acquits Rios in the Estafa cases. Rios was charged and convicted for eight counts of Estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the RPC, which provides for one of the modes of committing Estafa: 2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud: (a) By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of other similar deceits. The elements of Estafa by means of false pretenses or deceit were enumerated by the Court in Sy v. People:[49] x x x (a) that there must be a false pretense or fraudulent representation as to his power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions; (b) that such false pretense or fraudulent representation was made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; (c) that the offended party relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means and was induced to part with his money or property; and (d) that, as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.[50] In the instant cases, the element of false pretense or fraudulent representations is lacking. Green Pastures was a duly licensed recruitment agency registered with the POEA, as shown in its License.[51] Moreover, the Job Order Balance Report[52] issued by the POEA shows that Green Pastures had 24 approved job orders for Taiwan for the period 2007-2008. Thus, Rios and Green Pastures possessed the qualifications and business transactions necessary to deploy workers to Taiwan. As held by the CA, the prosecution did not present any document from DOLE during trial to establish the reason for the failure to deploy the private complainants. Thus, it cannot be assumed that the same was due to the fault of the agency. As the main element of false pretense is lacking, the Court acquits Rios of the offense and the penalty therefor is deleted. While it is settled jurisprudence that a person may be separately charged and convicted with Illegal Recruitment under RA 8042 and Estafa under Article 315(2), for the same acts, conviction is not automatic as the said crimes have different elements. In People v. Cortez,[53] the Court held: In this jurisdiction, it is settled that a person who commits illegal recruitment may be charged and convicted separately of illegal recruitment under the Labor Code and estafa under par. 2 (a) of Art. 315 of the Revised https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66232 22/29