This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2011-06-01 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The affidavit of desistance purportedly executed by Jeffries and Howard does not exonerate Ocden from criminal liability when the prosecution had successfully proved her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In People v. Romero,[23] we held that: The fact that complainants Bernardo Salazar and Richard Quillope executed a Joint Affidavit of Desistance does not serve to exculpate accused-appellant from criminal liability insofar as the case for illegal recruitment is concerned since the Court looks with disfavor the dropping of criminal complaints upon mere affidavit of desistance of the complainant, particularly where the commission of the offense, as is in this case, is duly supported by documentary evidence. | |||||
|
2000-02-08 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| As for the conviction of accused-appellant for estafa on eight (8) counts, we have ruled that the conviction of an accused for illegal recruitment under the Labor Code will not preclude punishment under the Revised Penal Code.[45] The elements of estafa under Art. 315, par. 2, subpar. (a), of the Revised Penal Code are: (a) the accused has defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit and (b) damage by pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party or third person.[46] Clearly it can be seen that both elements were satisfied as accused-appellant, through deceit and abuse of confidence, obtained money from the complainants without fulfilling his promise of securing employment for them in Japan. | |||||