5/3/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly willfully, unlawfully and feloniously misappropriated, misapplied and converted to their own personal use and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of said Rolando Rustia in the aforesaid amount of P23,000.00, Philippine Currency."[3] As said indictments were founded on the same facts, the cases were tried jointly. On December 13, 1993, accused-appellants Dioscora Arabia and Francisca Tomas both entered a plea of not guilty to each of the charges,[4] whereupon trial commenced. As can be gleaned from the Informations, accused-appellants Dioscora Arabia and Francisca Tomas promised employment to at least six (6) people, four (4) of whom, namely, Violeta De La Cruz, Remelyn Jacinto, Teresita Lorenzo and Pelagia de la Cruz, appeared in court to testify against them. We adopt the following summary of the evidence for the prosecution by the Office of the Solicitor General, viz: "In October 1992, private complainants Violeta de la Cruz, Remelyn Jacinto, Teresita Lorenzo, Rolando Rustia and Noel de la Cruz were introduced by the latter's mother, private complainant Pelagia de la Cruz, to appellant Dioscora Arabia, a recruiter of job applicants for a factory in Taiwan. They all saw appellants at the residence of Arabia at Block 22, Lot 25, Villanova Subdivision, Quezon City (TSN, July 13, 1994, pp. 4-6). Then and there, appellants convinced them and other applicants to apply for jobs in Taiwan that would give them a monthly pay of P22,000.00 with two (2) months advance salary to boot. Service fees for processing and placement, private complainants were told by appellants Arabia and Tomas, would be P16,000.00 for each of them (Ibid., pp. 6-8). Three (3) days later, appellants themselves went to the Dela Cruz residence where they convinced private complainants to give the amount of P16,000.00 each so that they could leave for Taiwan by December 18, 1992. On November 6, 1992, each of the private complainants, except Roland Rustia who gave P23,000.00, gave P16,000.00 to Arabia at the latter's residence and in the presence of Tomas. Arabia, however, did not issue any receipt upon her assurance that she would not fool them (Ibid., pp. 8-10; August 31, 1994, p. 6). Private complainants were told to prepare for their departure and that the P16,000.00 placement fee would be reimbursed by their employer in Taiwan. Various requirements, such as pictures, passports and bio-data, were submitted by private complainants (Ibid., July 13, 1994, pp. 10-11). On December 18, 1992, however, private complainants were not able to leave for Taiwan because appellants told them that the person who was supposed to accompany them to Taiwan did not arrive. The departure date https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/52758 3/12