Practice question
A recruiter falsely claims to have an existing foreign employer authorization and a guaranteed job. Before payment, she shows fabricated documents. The applicant relies on them, pays PHP 40,000, and loses that amount. A separate charge alleges unlicensed recruitment. The recruiter argues that the single payment makes prosecution for both offenses constitutionally impossible. Which is the best response?
- The argument is necessarily correct because one payment can support only one criminal law
- The argument fails merely because the prosecutor used two informations, regardless of the elements
- The argument is incorrect: illegal recruitment and estafa have distinct elements, and liability for each requires independent proof
- The estafa charge must be dropped whenever the applicant is not deployed
- The recruitment charge must be dropped whenever deceit is alleged
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2024/aug2024/gr_235010_2024.html — People v. Valle y Lapurga, GR 235010, August 7, 2024, main decision.
- https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/68766 — People v. Marzan, GR 227093, September 21, 2022, main decision; estafa under Revised Penal Code Article 315(2)(a) and distinct recruitment offenses.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.