This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-01-10 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| But to prove illegal recruitment, it must be shown that the accused, without being duly authorized by law, gave complainants the distinct impression that he had the power or ability to send them abroad for work, such that the latter were convinced to part with their money in order to be employed.[41] It is important that there must at least be a promise or offer of an employment from the person posing as a recruiter, whether locally or abroad.[42] | |||||
|
2010-03-18 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Well-settled is the rule that the issue of credibility is the domain of the trial court which had the opportunity to observe the deportment and manner of the witnesses as they testified.[52] The findings of facts of a trial court, arrived at only after a hearing and evaluation of the testimonies of witnesses, certainly deserve respect by an appellate court.[53] Unless it plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and value which, if considered, may affect the result of the case, appellate courts will not disturb the findings of the trial court on the issue of credibility of witnesses, it being in a better position to decide the question, having heard and observed the witnesses themselves.[54] | |||||
|
2010-02-05 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Here, it has been sufficiently proven that petitioner represented herself to private complainants as capable of sending them to Italy for employment, even if she did not have the authority or license for the purpose. Undoubtedly, it was this misrepresentation that induced private complainants to part with their hard-earned money in exchange for what they thought was a promising future abroad.[17] The petitioner's act clearly constitutes estafa under the above-quoted provision. | |||||