Scribd
Upload
136 views1 page

People v. Melissa Chua

The accused was charged with illegal recruitment and four counts of estafa for recruiting four individuals as overseas workers and collecting placement fees but failing to provide them with employment. She claimed to work for a recruitment agency but it was later found to not exist. The court found her guilty, stating that illegally recruiting workers is a criminal offense regardless of profit motive. The court also found her guilty of estafa through deceit for falsely claiming to have the power to recruit them and collect fees while not intending to provide the promised employment.

Uploaded by

Elaine Belle Ogayon
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
136 views1 page

People v. Melissa Chua

The accused was charged with illegal recruitment and four counts of estafa for recruiting four individuals as overseas workers and collecting placement fees but failing to provide them with employment. She claimed to work for a recruitment agency but it was later found to not exist. The court found her guilty, stating that illegally recruiting workers is a criminal offense regardless of profit motive. The court also found her guilty of estafa through deceit for falsely claiming to have the power to recruit them and collect fees while not intending to provide the promised employment.

Uploaded by

Elaine Belle Ogayon
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

36  

People v. Melissa Chua, G.R. No.187052 (2012)   

Facts: From 29 July 2002 up to 20 August 2002, accused personally met the complainants (Rey
Tajadao, Billy Danan, Roylan Ursulum and Alberto Aglanao) individually and on separate dates
where she represented herself to have the capacity to contract, enlist and transport the
complainants as Filipino Overseas Workers, particularly Taiwan. She personally received various
amounts as placement fees in consideration for their overseas employment and personally issued
receipts to the complainants.
 
Accused represented herself that she is an employee of Gate International (Golden Gate) Office
located in Paragon Tower, Ermita, Manila. She also assured them that the earlier complainants
would be able to pay their placement fees then the earlier that they could leave. After the
complainants completed payment of their placement fees, they were made to sign a contract
containing stipulations as to salary and conditions of work. On several occasions thereafter, they
returned to appellant’s office to follow-up on their application. After several visits, however, they
noticed that all the properties of Golden Gate in its Paragon Tower Office were already gone. Thus,
the complainants filed a complaint for Illegal Recruitment and Estafa against the accused. During
trial, accused denied that she was the one who recruited the complainants and that she is merely a
cashier of Golden Gate.
 
Issue: WON the prosecution was able to sufficiently prove the crime of Illegal Recruitment and
Four counts of Estafa
 
Held: Yes, the accused cannot escape liability by conveniently limiting her participation as a cashier
of Golden Gate. Article 13(b) of the Labor Code and Section 6 of R.A. No. 8042 are unequivocal that
illegal recruitment may or may not be for profit. It is immaterial, therefore, whether appellant
remitted the placement fees to the agency’s treasurer or appropriated them. The same provision
likewise provides that the persons criminally liable for illegal recruitment are the principals,
accomplices and accessories. Just the same, therefore, appellant can be held liable as a principal by
direct participation since she personally undertook the recruitment of private complainants
without a license or authority to do so.
 
It is well-established in jurisprudence that a person may be charged and convicted for both illegal
recruitment and estafa. The reason therefor is not hard to discern: illegal recruitment is malum
prohibitum, while estafa is mala in se. In the first, the criminal intent of the accused is not necessary
for conviction. In the second, such intent is imperative. Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of
the Revised Penal Code is committed by any person who defrauds another by using fictitious name,
or falsely pretends to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or
imaginary transactions, or by means of similar deceits executed prior to or simultaneously with the
commission of fraud.
 
The elements of estafa by means of deceit are the following: (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. 

You might also like