GR 209859; (June, 2017) (Digest)
G.R. No. 209859, June 5, 2017
EILEEN P. DAVID, Petitioner, vs. GLENDA S. MARQUEZ, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Glenda Marquez filed a complaint for Illegal Recruitment and Estafa against petitioner Eileen David. Marquez alleged that in March 2005, David recruited her in Kidapawan City for overseas work in Canada, collected placement fees, but failed to secure her employment or return the money. David countered that she was in Canada during the alleged recruitment, as shown by her passport, and denied being in the recruitment business. She claimed the money deposited in her account was merely coursed through her for a friend who was processing the application. David also argued that if any crime occurred, venue should be in Kidapawan City, not Manila, where the Informations were filed.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila denied David’s Motion to Quash, holding it had jurisdiction because the offended party, Marquez, was a resident of Manila at the time of the offense, citing Section 9 of Republic Act No. 8042 (The Migrant Workers Act). The Court of Appeals affirmed this ruling. David elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari, primarily contesting the venue.
ISSUE
Whether the RTC of Manila properly acquired jurisdiction over the criminal cases for Illegal Recruitment and Estafa.
RULING
Yes, the RTC of Manila properly acquired jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed the rulings of the lower courts, emphasizing the special rule on venue for illegal recruitment cases under Section 9 of R.A. 8042. This law explicitly provides that a criminal action for illegal recruitment may be filed with the Regional Trial Court of the province or city where the offense was committed or where the offended party actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense. The law grants the offended party the option to choose between these two venues.
The factual records established that respondent Marquez was a resident of Sampaloc, Manila, at the time the alleged illegal recruitment and estafa were committed. Consequently, her choice to file the case in Manila was legally permissible. The Court rejected David’s argument that the alleged acts occurred solely in Kidapawan City, as the law’s clear disjunctive “or” creates an alternative venue based on the complainant’s residence. This rule is designed to afford protection to overseas Filipino workers. Furthermore, the estafa case, being intrinsically linked to the illegal recruitment as the means of defraudation, falls under the same jurisdictional rule. Therefore, the RTC of Manila committed no error in taking cognizance of the cases.