Illegal Recruitment
2
Illegal recruitment; estafa. "x x x. We point out that conviction under the Labor Code for illegal recruitment does not preclude punishment under the Revised Penal Code for the crime of estafa.4 We are convinced that the prosecution proved beond reasonable doubt that appellant violated !rticle #$%&'%a' of the Revised Penal Code( as amended( )hich provides that estafa is committed b an person )ho defrauds another b using a *ctitious name; or b falsel pretending to possess po)er( in+uence( ,uali*cations( propert( credit( agenc( business; b imaginar transactions or similar forms of deceit executed prior to or simultaneous )ith the fraud.$ -he appellant s act of falsel pretending to possess po)er and ,uali*cations to deplo the complainants to /ong0ong( even if he did not have the authorit or license for the purpose( undoubtedl constitutes estafa under !rticle #$%&'%a' of the Revised Penal Code. -he elements of deceit and damage are clearl present; the appellant s false pretenses )ere the ver cause that induced the complainants to part )ith their mone. x x x." 1ee 2 P3 PL3 5 -/3 P/ILIPPI631 vs. 73RIC 53R6!6839 7!:RI :3( .R. 6o. #<<&##( 7une 4( &=#4.
-
Upload
ramon-gasgas -
Category
Documents
-
view
11 -
download
0
Transcript of Illegal Recruitment
Illegal recruitment; estafa."x x x.
We point out that conviction under the Labor Code for illegalrecruitment does not preclude punishment under the Revised Penal Code forthe crime of estafa.4 We are convinced that the prosecution proved beyondreasonable doubt that appellant violated Article 315(2)(a) of the RevisedPenal Code, as amended, which provides that estafa is committed by anyperson who defrauds another by using a fictitious name; or by falselypretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit,agency, business; by imaginary transactions or similar forms of deceitexecuted prior to or simultaneous with the fraud.5
The appellants act of falsely pretending to possess power andqualifications to deploy the complainants to Hongkong, even if he did nothave the authority or license for the purpose, undoubtedly constitutes estafaunder Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code. The elements of deceitand damage are clearly present; the appellants false pretenses were the verycause that induced the complainants to part with their money.
x x x."
See -PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JERIC FERNANDEZy JAURIGUE,G.R. No. 199211, June 4, 2014.
