ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT CASES- LABOR LAW P10,000.00 to P20,000.
P10,000.00 to P20,000.00 without any authority to do so and despite the fact that the same
G.R. No. 168445 November 11, 2005
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,
vs.
CAPT. FLORENCIO O. GASACAO, Appellant.
DECISION
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
This is an appeal from the May 18, 2005 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No.
00800 dismissing the appeal of appellant, Florencio O. Gasacao and affirming the March 5,
2001 Joint Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 218, finding
appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Large Scale Illegal Recruitment in Crim. Case No.
Q-00-94240 and acquitting him of the charge in Crim. Case No. Q-00-94241.
The factual antecedents are as follows:
Appellant was the Crewing Manager of Great Eastern Shipping Agency Inc., a licensed local
manning agency, while his nephew and co-accused, Jose Gasacao, was the President. As the
crewing manager, appellants duties included receiving job applications, interviewing the
applicants and informing them of the agencys requirement of payment of performance or
cash bond prior to deployment.
On August 4, 2000, appellant and Jose Gasacao were charged with Large Scale Illegal
Recruitment defined under Section 6, paragraphs (a), (l) and (m) of Republic Act (RA) No.
8042 or the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, and penalized under
Section 7 (b) of the same law, before the RTC of Quezon City.
The informations read:
In Criminal Case No. Q-00-94240
That sometime in the months of May to December, 1999 or thereabout, in Quezon City,
Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and criminally recruit, enlist and promise overseas employment to
the private complainants, namely, Lindy M. Villamor, Dennis Cabangahan, Erencio C. Alaba,
Victorino U. Caderao, Rommel B. Patolen, Joseph A. Demetria and Louie A. Arca, as overseas
seamen/seafarers, the said accused thereby charging, exacting and collecting from the said
private complainants cash bonds and/or performance bonds in amounts ranging from
is prohibited by the POEA Rules and Regulations, which amount is greater than that specified
in the schedule of allowable fees prescribed by the Secretary of Labor and Employment, and
despite the payment of the said fees, the said accused failed to actually deploy the private
complainants without valid reasons as determined by the Department of Labor and
Employment and despite the failure of deployment, the said accused failed to reimburse the
expenses incurred by the said private complainants in connection with their documentation
and processing for the purpose of their supposed deployment.
CONTRARY TO LAW.3
In Criminal Case No. Q-00-94241
That sometime in the months of September to November 1999 or thereabout, in Quezon
City, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally recruit, enlist and promise overseas
employment to the private complainants, namely, Melvin I. Yadao, Frederick Calambro and
Andy Bandiola, as overseas seamen/seafarers, the said accused thereby charging, exacting
and collecting from the said private complainants cash bonds and/or performance bonds in
amounts ranging from P10,000.00 to P20,000.00 without any authority to do so and despite
the fact that the same is prohibited by the POEA Rules and Regulations, which amount is
greater that that specified in the schedule of allowable fees prescribed by the Secretary
Labor and Employment, and despite the payment of said fees, the said accused failed to
actually deploy the private complainants without valid reasons as determined by the
Department of Labor and Employment and despite the failure of deployment, the said
accused failed to reimburse the expenses incurred by the said private complainants in
connection with their documentation and processing for the purpose of their supposed
deployment.
SO ORDERED.4
Only the appellant was arrested while Jose Gasacao remained at large. When arraigned,
appellant pleaded not guilty to the offense charged. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.
On March 5, 2001, the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 218, rendered its Joint Decision convicting
appellant of Large Scale Illegal Recruitment in Crim. Case No. Q-00-94240 and acquitting him
of the charge in Crim. Case No. Q-00-94241. The dispositive portion of the joint decision
reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
1. In Crim. Case No. Q-00-94240, the prosecution having established the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt, the Court finds Florencio O. Gasacao GUILTY of Large Scale Illegal
Recruitment punishable under Section 7, (b) of R.A. 8042. He is sentenced to suffer life
imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00. He shall also indemnify Dennis C. Cabangahan in
the amount of P8,750.00; Lindy M. Villamor for P20,000.00; Victorino U. Caderao for
P20,000.00; Rommel B. Patolen for P20,000.00; and Erencio C. Alaba for P20,000.00.
Complainants Louie A. Arca and Joseph A. Demetria did not testify.
2. In Crim. Case No. Q-00-94241, complainants Melvin I. Yadao, Frederick Calambro and Andy
Bandiola did not testify. Moreover, the Court believes all these complainants should have
been grouped in just one (1) information. Hence, for failure of the prosecution to prove the
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the Court finds Florencio O. Gasacao NOT
GUILTY of the offense charged.
SO ORDERED.5
Conformably with our pronouncement in People v. Mateo,6 which modified pertinent
provisions of the Rules of Court insofar as they provide for direct appeals from the RTC to the
Supreme Court in cases where the penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment, as in this case, as well as this Courts Resolution dated September 19, 1995,
we resolved on February 2, 2005 to transfer the case to the Court of Appeals for appropriate
action and disposition.7
On May 18, 2005, the Court of Appeals promulgated the assailed Decision, the dispositive
portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.
The appealed Joint Decision dated March 5, 2001 of the trial court in Criminal Case No. Q-00-
94240 is hereby AFFIRMED and UPHELD.
With costs against the accused-appellant.
SO ORDERED.8
Hence, this appeal.
The core issue for resolution is whether error attended the trial courts findings, as affirmed
by the Court of Appeals, that appellant was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
large scale illegal recruitment.
RA No. 8042 defines illegal recruitment as follows:
II. ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT
Sec. 6. DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this Act, illegal recruitment shall mean any act of
canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, procuring workers and
includes referring, contract services, promising or advertising for employment abroad,
whether for profit or not, when undertaken by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority
contemplated under Article 13(f) of Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, otherwise
known as the Labor Code of the Philippines: Provided, that such non-licensee or non-holder
who, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment abroad to two or more persons
shall be deemed so engaged. It shall likewise include the following acts, whether committed
by any persons, whether a non-licensee, non-holder, licensee or holder of authority.
(a) To charge or accept directly or indirectly any amount greater than the specified in the
schedule of allowable fees prescribed by the Secretary of Labor and Employment, or to make
a worker pay any amount greater than that actually received by him as a loan or advance;
....
(l) Failure to actually deploy without valid reason as determined by the Department of Labor
and Employment; and
(m) Failure to reimburse expenses incurred by the workers in connection with his
documentation and processing for purposes of deployment, in cases where the deployment
does not actually take place without the worker's fault. Illegal recruitment when committed
by a syndicate or in large scale shall be considered as offense involving economic sabotage.
Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate carried out by a group of three (3) or
more persons conspiring or confederating with one another. It is deemed committed in large
scale if committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group.
A license is a document issued by the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE)
authorizing a person or entity to operate a private employment agency, while an authority is
a document issued by the DOLE authorizing a person or association to engage in recruitment
and placement activities as a private recruitment entity. However, it appears that even
licensees or holders of authority can be held liable for illegal recruitment should they commit
any of the above-enumerated acts.
Thus, it is inconsequential that appellant committed large scale illegal recruitment while
Great Eastern Shipping Agency, Inc. was holding a valid authority. We thus find that the court
below committed no reversible error in not appreciating that the manning agency was a
holder of a valid authority when appellant recruited the private complainants.
There is no merit in appellants contention that he could not be held liable for illegal
recruitment since he was a mere employee of the manning agency, pursuant to Section 6 of
RA No. 8042 which provides:
The persons criminally liable for the above offenses are the principals, accomplices and
accessories. In case of juridical persons, the officers having control, management or direction
of their business shall be liable.
Contrary to appellants claim, he is not a mere employee of the manning agency but the
crewing manager. As such, he receives job applications, interviews applicants and informs
them of the agencys requirement of payment of performance or cash bond prior to the
applicants deployment. As the crewing manager, he was at the forefront of the companys
recruitment activities.
Private complainant Lindy Villamor testified that it was appellant who informed him that if he
will give a cash bond of P20,000.00, he will be included in the first batch of applicants to be
deployed. Notwithstanding the payment of the cash bond as evidenced by a receipt dated
December 15, 1999 and issued by the appellant, Villamor was not deployed overseas. He
further testified that when he found out that appellant was no longer connected with Great
Eastern Shipping Agency Inc., he confronted Jose Gasacao and showed to him a photocopy of
the receipt. Jose Gasacao gave him the address of the appellant but he failed to recover the
amount from the latter.
Another private complainant, Erencio C. Alaba testified that he applied as a seaman with
Great Eastern Shipping Agency Inc. in May 1999 and submitted all the requirements to
appellant. The latter told Alaba that after payment of a cash bond, he will be deployed within
three months. On June 3, 1999, Alaba gave P10,000.00 to the appellant as evidenced by a
cash voucher which was approved and signed by the appellant in the presence of Alaba.
Afterwards, appellant asked Alaba to have his medical examination. He was also informed
that those who had completed paying the P20,000.00 cash bond will have priority in
deployment. Thus, Alaba gave another P10,000.00 to appellant on August 2, 1999 and was
again informed that he will be deployed in a dredging or supply boat within three months
from August 1999. Despite appellants representations, Alaba was never deployed and was
also unable to recover the amount of the cash bond that he paid.
Private complainant Dennis Cabangahan testified that he applied as a seaman with Great
Eastern Shipping Agency Inc. on July 27, 1999 and paid the cash bond of P19,000.00 as
evidenced by a receipt issued by appellant. The latter informed him that he will be deployed
abroad within three months. As what had happened to the other complainants, Cabangahan
was never deployed overseas nor did he recover his money.
Victoriano Cadirao9 also testified that on August 1, 1999, he applied with the manning agency
for the position of mess man. He submitted his application to appellant who told him to
come back when he has the money to cover the cash bond of P20,000.00. Appellant told him
that the payment of the cash bond is optional, but that his deployment will be fast-tracked if
he pays the cash bond. On August 10, 1999, he gave P20,000.00 to appellant who issued a
receipt. When the promised employment failed to materialize, the appellant told Cadirao to
wait for another dredging vessel. In December 1999, he found out that appellant was no
longer connected with Great Eastern Shipping Agency Inc. so he went to his residence and
demanded the return of his money. Appellant however refused to return the amount of the
cash bond.
On the other hand, Rommel B. Patolen testified that he applied with Great Eastern Shipping
Agency Inc. as an ordinary seaman in May 1999. After complying with the requirements,
appellant told him to report to the agency thrice a week. From May to December 1999,
Patolen reported to the agency as instructed. On December 11, 1999, he gave P20,000.00 to
appellant who acknowledged its receipt. Patolen further testified that he paid the cash bond
because appellant told him that his prospective employer will arrive in December 1999 from
Saudi Arabia with a vessel to accommodate him. He was further advised that he could leave
within three months if he paid the cash bond. However, Patolen was never deployed and
when he found out that appellant was no longer connected with Great Eastern Shipping
Agency Inc., he went to the house of the latter and informed him that he was withdrawing
his application. Appellant asked him to wait for his new agency, Ocean Grandeur, which has
no license yet.
The foregoing testimonies of the private complainants clearly established that appellant is
not a mere employee of Great Eastern Shipping Agency Inc. As the crewing manager, it was
appellant who made representations with the private complainants that he can secure
overseas employment for them upon payment of the cash bond.
It is well settled that to prove illegal recruitment, it must be shown that appellant gave
complainants the distinct impression that he had the power or ability to send complainants
abroad for work such that the latter were convinced to part with their money in order to be
employed.10 Appellants act of promising the private complainants that they will be deployed
abroad within three months after they have paid the cash bond clearly shows that he is
engaged in illegal recruitment.
The trial courts appreciation of the complainants testimonies deserves the highest respect
since it was in a better position to asses their credibility.
Even assuming that appellant was a mere employee, such fact is not a shield against his
conviction for large scale illegal recruitment. In the case of People v. Cabais,11 we have held
that an employee of a company or corporation engaged in illegal recruitment may be held
liable as principal, together with his employer, if it is shown that he actively and consciously
participated in the recruitment process. We further stated that:
In this case, evidence showed that accused-appellant was the one who informed
complainant of job prospects in Korea and the requirements for deployment. She also
received money from them as placement fees. All of the complainants testified that they
personally met the accused-appellant and transacted with her regarding the overseas job
placement offers. Complainants parted with their money, evidenced by receipts signed by
accused Cabais and accused Forneas. Thus, accused-appellant actively participated in the
recruitment of the complainants.12
Clearly, the acts of appellant vis--vis the private complainants, either as the crewing
manager of Great Eastern Shipping Agency Inc. or as a mere employee of the same,
constitute acts of large scale illegal recruitment which should not be countenanced.
We find no reason to deviate from the findings of the trial court that appellant is guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of large scale illegal recruitment. It was established that he
promised overseas employment to five applicants, herein private complainants. He
interviewed and required them to complete and submit documents purportedly needed for
their employment. Although he informed them that it is optional, he collected cash bonds
and promised their deployment notwithstanding the proscription against its collection under
Section 60 of the Omnibus Rules and Regulations Implementing R.A. No. 804213 which state
that:
SEC. 60. Prohibition on Bonds and Deposits. In no case shall an employment agency
require any bond or cash deposit from the worker to guarantee performance under the
contract or his/her repatriation.
We find as flimsy and self serving appellants assertion that he was unaware of the
prohibition against the collection of bonds or cash deposits from applicants. It is an
established dictum that ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith.14
The defense of good faith is neither available.
It is also undisputed that appellant failed to deploy the private complainants without any
valid reason, this notwithstanding his promise to them that those who can pay the cash bond
will be deployed within three months from payment of the same. Such failure to deploy
constitutes a violation of Section 6 (l) of RA No. 8042. Worse, when it became clear that
appellant cannot deploy the private complainants without their fault, he failed to return the
amount of the cash bond paid by them.
Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three or more
persons individually or as a group. In this case, five complainants testified against appellants
acts of illegal recruitment, thereby rendering his acts tantamount to economic sabotage.
Under Section 7 (b) of RA No. 8042, the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of not less
than P500,000.00 nor more than P1,000.000.00 shall be imposed if illegal recruitment
constitutes economic sabotage.
Verily, the trial court and the Court of Appeals correctly found appellant guilty beyond
reasonable of large scale illegal recruitment.
WHEREFORE, the May 18, 2005 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 00800 is
AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 125044 July 13, 1998
IMELDA DARVIN, petitioner,
vs.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
ROMERO, J.:
Before us is a petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. No.
15624 dated January 31, 1996, 1 which affirmed in toto the judgment of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 19, Bacoor, Cavite, convicting accused-appellant, Imelda Darvin for simple
illegal recruitment under Article 38 and Article 39, in relation to Article 13 (b) and (c), of the
Labor Code as amended.
Accused-appellant was charged under the following information:
That on our about the 13th day of April 1992, in the Municipality of Bacoor, Province of
Cavite, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, through fraudulent representation to one Macaria Toledo to the effect that she
has the authority to recruit workers and employees for abroad and can facilitate the
necessary papers in connection thereof, did, then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, hire, recruit and promise a job abroad to one Macaria Toledo, without first
securing the necessary license and permit from the Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration to do so, thereby causing damage and prejudice to the aforesaid Macaria
Toledo.
Contrary to law. 2
The evidence for the prosecution, based on the testimony of private respondent, Macaria
Toledo, shows that sometime in March, 1992, she met accused-appellant Darvin in the
latter's residence at Dimasalang, Imus, Cavite, through the introduction of their common
friends, Florencio Jake Rivera and Leonila Rivera. In said meeting, accused-appellant
allegedly convinced Toledo that by giving her P150,000.00, the latter can immediately
leave for the United States without any appearance before the U.S. embassy. 3 Thus, on
April 13, 1992, Toledo gave Darvin the amount of P150,000.00, as evidenced by a receipt
stating that the "amount of P150,000.00 was for U.S. Visa and Air fare." 4 After receiving
the money, Darvin assured Toledo that she can leave within one week. However, when
after a week, there was no word from Darvin, Toledo went to her residence to inquire
about any development, but could not find Darvin. Thereafter, on May 7, 1992, Toledo
filed a complaint with the Bacoor Police Station against Imelda Darvin. Upon further
investigation, a certification was issued by the Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration (POEA) stating that Imelda Darvin is neither licensed nor authorized to
recruit workers for overseas employment. 5 Accused-appellant was then charged for estafa
and illegal recruitment by the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Cavite.
Accused-appellant, on the other hand, testified that she used to be connected with Dale
Travel Agency and that in 1992, or thereabouts, she was assisting individuals in securing
passports, visa, and airline tickets. She came to know Toledo through Florencio Jake Rivera,
Jr. and Leonila Rivera, alleging that Toledo sought her help to secure a passport, US visa
and airline tickets to the States. She claims that she did not promise any employment in
the U.S. to Toledo. She, however, admits receiving the amount of P150,000.00 from the
latter on April 13, 1992 but contends that it was used for necessary expenses of an
intended trip to the United States of Toledo and her friend, Florencio Rivera 6 as follows.
P45,000.00 for plane fare for one person; P1,500.00 for passport, documentation and other
incidental expenses for each person; P20,000.00 for visa application cost for each person;
and P17,000.00 for services. 7 After receiving the money, she allegedly told Toledo that the
papers will be released within 45 days. She likewise testified that she was able to secure
Toledo's passport on April 20, 1992 and even set up a date for an interview with the US
embassy. Accused alleged that she was not engaged in illegal recruitment but merely acted
as a travel agent in assisting individuals to secure passports and visa.
In its judgment rendered on June 17, 1993, the Bacoor, Cavite RTC found accused-appellant
guilty of the crime of simple illegal recruitment but acquitted her of the crime of estafa.
The dispositive portion of the judgment reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused Imelda Darvin is hereby found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Simple Illegal Recruitment for having committed the
prohibited practice as defined by paragraph (b) of Article 34 and punished by paragraph (c)
of Article 39 of the Labor Code, as amended by PD 2018.
Accused Imelda Darvin is hereby ordered to suffer the prison term of Four (4) years, as
minimum, to Eight (8) years, as maximum; and to pay the fine of P25,000.00.
Regarding her civil liability, she is hereby ordered to reimburse the private complainant the
sum of P150,000.00 and attorney's fees of P10,000.00.
She is hereby acquitted of the crime of Estafa.
SO ORDERED. 8
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court in toto, hence this
petition.
Before this Court, accused-appellant assails the decision of the trial and appellate courts in
convicting her of the crime of simple illegal recruitment. She contends that based on the
evidence presented by the prosecution, her guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
We find the appeal impressed with merit.
Art. 13 of the Labor Code, as amended, provides the definition of recruitment and
placement as:
. . .; b) any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or
procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for
employment locally or abroad, whether for profit or not: Provided, that any person or
entity which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more
persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement.
On the other hand, Article 38 of the Labor Code provides:
a) Any recruitment activities, including the prohibited practices enumerated under Article
34 of this Code, to be undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of authority shall be
deemed illegal and punishable under Article 39 of this Code. The Ministry of Labor and
Employment or any law enforcement officer may initiate complaints under this Article.
xxx xxx xxx
Applied to the present case, to uphold the conviction of accused-appellant, two elements
need to be shown: (1) the person charged with the crime must have undertaken
recruitment activities; and (2) the said person does not have a license or authority to do so.
9
In this case, private respondent, Macaria Toledo alleged that she was offered a job in the
United States as nursing aide 10 by accused-appellant. In her direct examination, she
testified as follows:
Atty. Alejandro:
Q : How did you come to know the accused?
Witness : I was introduced by my two friends. One of whom is my best friend. That
according to them, this accused has connections and authorizations, that she can make
people leave for abroad, sir.
Court : What connections?
Witness : That she has connections with the Embassy and with people whom she can
approach regarding work abroad, your Honor.
xxx xxx xxx
Q : When you came to meet for the first time in Imus, Cavite, what transpired in that
meeting of yours?
A : When I came to her house, the accused convinced me that by means of P150,000.00, I
will be able to leave immediately without any appearance to any embassy, non-
appearance, Sir.
Q : When you mentioned non-appearance, as told to you by the accused, precisely, what
do you mean by that?
A : I was told by the accused that non-appearance, means without working personally for
my papers and through her efforts considering that she is capacitated as according to her I
will be able to leave the country, Sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Atty. Alejandro : What transpired after the accused told you all these things that you will
be able to secure all the documents without appearing to anybody or to any embassy and
that you will be able to work abroad?
Witness : She told me to get ready with my P150,000.00, that is if I want to leave
immediately, Sir.
Atty. Alejandro : When you mentioned kaagad, how many days or week?
Witness : She said that if I will able to part with my P150,000.00. I will be able to leave in
just one week time, Sir.
xxx xxx xxx 11
The prosecution, as evidence, presented the certification issued by the POEA that accused-
appellant Imelda Darvin is not licensed to recruit workers abroad.
It is not disputed that accused-appellant does not have a license or authority to engage in
recruitment activities. The pivotal issue to be determined, therefore, is whether the
accused-appellant indeed engaged in recruitment activities, as defined under the Labor
Code. Applying the rule laid down in the case of People v. Goce, 12 to prove that accused-
appellant was engaged in recruitment activities as to commit the crime of illegal
recruitment, it must be shown that the accused appellant gave private respondent the
distinct impression that she had the power or ability to send the private respondent
abroad for work such that the latter was convinced to part with her money in order to be
so employed.
In this case, we find no sufficient evidence to prove that accused-ppellant offered a job to
private respondent. It is not clear that accused gave the impression that she was capable of
providing the private respondent work abroad. What is established, however, is that the
private respondent gave accused-appellant P150,000.00. The claim of the accused that the
P150,000.00 was for payment of private respondent's air fare and US visa and other
expenses cannot be ignored because the receipt for the P150,000.00, which was presented
by both parties during the trial of the case, stated that it was "for Air Fare and Visa to
USA." 13 Had the amount been for something else in addition to air fare and visa expenses,
such as work placement abroad, the receipt should have so stated.
By themselves, procuring a passport, airline tickets and foreign visa for another individual,
without more, can hardly qualify as recruitment activities. Aside from the testimony of
private respondent, there is nothing to show that accused-appellant engaged in
recruitment activities. We also note that the prosecution did not present the testimonies of
witnesses who could have corroborated the charge of illegal recruitment, such as Florencio
Rivera, and Leonila Rivera, when it had the opportunity to do so. As it stands, the claim of
private respondent that accused-appellant promised her employment abroad is
uncorroborated. All these, taken collectively, cast reasonable doubt on the guilt of the
accused.
This Court can hardly rely on the bare allegations of private respondent that she was
offered by accused-appellant employment abroad, nor on mere presumptions and
conjectures, to convict the latter. No sufficient evidence was shown to sustain the
conviction, as the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish that accused-
appellant indeed engaged in recruitment activities, thus committing the crime of illegal
recruitment.
In criminal cases, the burden is on the prosecution to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, the
essential elements of the offense with which the accused is charged; and if the proof fails
to establish any of the essential elements necessary to constitute a crime, the defendant is
entitled to an acquittal. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of
proof as, excluding the possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty
only is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced
mind. 14
At best, the evidence proffered by the prosecution only goes so far as to create a suspicion
that accused-appellant probably perpetrated the crime charged. But suspicion alone is
insufficient, the required quantum of evidence being proof beyond reasonable doubt.
When the People's evidence fail to indubitably prove the accused' s authorship of the crime
of which he stands accused, then it is the Court's duty, and the accused's right, to proclaim
his innocence. Acquittal, therefore, is in order. 15
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby GRANTED and the decision of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CR No. 15624 dated January 31, 1996, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-
appellant Imelda Darvin is hereby ACQUITTED on ground of reasonable doubt. Accordingly,
let the accused be immediately released from her place of confinement unless there is
reason to detain her further for any other legal or valid cause. No pronouncement as to
costs.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 180926 December 10, 2008
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
LOURDES VALENCIANO y DACUBA, accused-appellant.
DECISION
VELASCO, JR., J.:
This is an appeal from the Decision1 dated July 24, 2007 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-
G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01390 which upheld the Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch
116 in Pasay City in Criminal Case No. 97-9851. The RTC convicted Lourdes Valenciano of the
crime of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale.
The Facts
In May 1996, Lourdes Valenciano, claiming to be an employee of Middle East International
Manpower Resources, Inc., went with one Susie Caraeg to the house of Agapito De Luna, and
told him he could apply for a job in Taiwan. A week later, De Luna went to Valencianos
house, there to be told to undergo a medical examination, with the assurance that if there
were a job order abroad, he would be able to leave. He was also told that the placement fee
for his employment as a factory worker in Taiwan was PhP 70,000.
After passing the medical examination, De Luna paid Valenciano at the latters residence the
following amounts: PhP 20,000 on June 21, 1996; PhP 20,000 on July 12, 1996; and PhP
30,000 on August 21, 1996. The first and last payments were turned over by Valenciano to
Teresita Imperial, who issued the corresponding receipts, and the second payment was
turned over by Valenciano to Rodante Imperial, who also issued a receipt.
Also in May 1996, Valenciano visited the house of Allan De Villa, accompanied by Euziel N.
Dela Cuesta, Eusebio T. Candelaria, and De Luna, to recruit De Villa as a factory worker in
Taiwan. De Villa was also asked for PhP 70,000 as placement fee. He paid Valenciano the
following amounts: PhP 20,000 on May 16, 1996 at Valencianos residence; PhP 20,000 on
May 30, 1996 at the Rural Bank of Calaca, Batangas; PhP 20,000 on July 8, 1996 at
Valencianos residence; and PhP 10,000 on August 14, 1996, also at her residence.
Valenciano turned over the amounts to either Teresita or Rodante. Teresita issued receipts
for the May 16, July 8, and August 14, 1996 payments, while Rodante issued a receipt for the
payment made on May 30, 1996.
On May 20, 1996, Valenciano, accompanied by Rodante and Puring Caraeg, went to the
house of Dela Cuesta to recruit her for employment as a factory worker in Taiwan. Dela
Cuesta paid Valenciano PhP 20,000 as initial payment on May 20, 1996. On May 30, 1996,
she paid Valenciano another PhP 20,000. On August 12, 1996, she paid PhP 15,000, and on
August 21, 1996, she paid PhP 7,000. Valenciano turned the May 20 and 30, 1996 payments
over to Rodante, who issued receipts for these payments. The payments made on August 12
and 21, 1996 were turned over to Teresita, who also issued receipts for them. These
payments were to cover the placement fee and other expenses for the processing of the
requirements for the employment of Dela Cuesta in Taiwan.
On May 1, 1996, Valenciano, with Rodante, Teresita, and Rommel Imperial, went to Lian,
Batangas to recruit workers for employment abroad. Candelaria applied for a job as a factory
worker in Taiwan when Valenciano went to his residence in Lian. Valenciano asked him for an
initial payment of PhP 20,000. On May 30, 1996, Candelaria paid Valenciano PhP 20,000
when she returned to Lian. He then paid PhP 20,000 on June 24, 1996 and PhP 29,000 on July
17, 1996 at Valencianos residence in Manila. These payments were to cover the placement
fee and the expenses for the processing of his passport and other papers connected with his
application for employment as a factory worker in Taiwan. The payments made on May 30
and July 17, 1996 were turned over to Rodante, who issued a receipt for the said payments.
The payment made on June 24, 1996 was turned over by Valenciano to Teresita.
After the payments were made, Valenciano brought the prospective workers to the office of
Middle East International Manpower Resources, Inc. in Pasay City, where they were made to
fill out application forms for their employment as factory workers in Taiwan. The
complainants were introduced to Romeo Marquez, alias "Rodante Imperial," Teresita
Marquez, alias "Teresita Imperial," and Rommel Marquez, alias "Rommel Imperial," whom
Valenciano made to appear as the owners of the employment agency. She assured the
prospective workers that they could leave for Taiwan within one month from the filing of
their applications. During the period material, they have not yet found employment as
factory workers in Taiwan.
Valenciano, Rodante, Teresita, and Rommel were charged with the offense of illegal
recruitment in large scale, as defined under Article 13(b) of Presidential Decree No. (PD) 442,
otherwise known as the Labor Code of the Philippines, as amended, in relation to Art. 38(a),
and penalized under Art. 39(c) of the Code, as amended by PD 1920 and PD 2018. The
Information reads as follows:
That sometime in May, 1996 to August, 1996, or thereabout, in the City of Pasay, Metro
Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, representing to have the capacity, authority or license to contract, enlist and deploy
or transport workers for overseas employment, conspiring, confederating, and mutually
helping each other, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and criminally recruit and promise
to deploy the herein complainants, namely, Agapito R. De Luna, Allan Ilagan De Villa, Euziel
N. Dela Cuesta and Eusebio T. Candelaria, as factory workers in Taiwan, in exchange for
placement, processing and other fees ranging from P62,000.00 to P70,000.00 or a total of
P271,000.00, without first obtaining the required license and/or authority from the
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA).
CONTRARY TO LAW.3
Accused-appellant Valenciano pleaded not guilty and waived the pre-trial. The other three
accused remained at large.
The RTC found accused-appellant guilty, the dispositive portion of the decision reading as
follows:
WHEREFORE, accused Lourdes Valenciano y Dacuba is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the offense of illegal recruitment in large scale as charged in the aforequoted Information;
and she is sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of
P100,000.00.
She is also ordered to indemnify complainants Agapito R. de Luna, Allan Ilagan de Villa, Euziel
N. dela Cuesta and Eusebio T. Candelaria the amounts of P70,000.00, P70,000.00, P62,000.00
and P69,000.00, respectively, as reparation of the damage caused.
No other civil liability may be adjudged against the accused for lack of any factual or legal
basis therefor.
SO ORDERED.4
Accused-appellant appealed to this Court, but the case was transferred to the CA through a
Resolution dated September 6, 2004, following People v. Mateo.5
The CA, in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01390, affirmed the decision of the trial court finding accused-
appellant guilty of the offense charged.
Hence, we have this appeal.
The Issues
Accused-appellant raises the following assignment of errors: (1) the lower court gravely erred
in not acquitting accused-appellant on reasonable doubt; and (2) the lower court gravely
erred in holding that a conspiracy exists between accused-appellant and her co-accused.
The Courts Ruling
The appeal is without merit.
In her defense, accused-appellant claims that she was an ordinary employee of Middle East
International Manpower Resources, Inc., where her other co-accused were the owners and
managers. She also denies receiving payment from the complainants; that had she promised
employment in Taiwan, this promise was made in the performance of her duties as a clerk in
the company. She denies too having knowledge of the criminal intent of her co-accused,
adding that she might even be regarded as a victim in the present case, as she was in good
faith when she made the promise.
Art. 13(b) of the Labor Code reads:
"Recruitment and placement" refers to any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting,
transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract services,
promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not:
Provided, That any person or entity which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee
employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and
placement.
Art. 38(a) and (b) of the Labor Code reads as follows:
(a) Any recruitment activities, including the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34
of this Code, to be undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of authority shall be deemed
illegal and punishable under Article 39 of this Code. x x x
(b) Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall be considered an
offense involving economic sabotage and shall be penalized in accordance with Article 39
hereof.
Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3)
or more persons conspiring and/or confederating with one another in carrying out any
unlawful or illegal transaction, enterprise or scheme defined under the first paragraph
hereof. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three (3)
or more persons individually or as a group.
Art. 39(a) provides that the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of PhP 100,000 shall be
imposed if illegal recruitment constitutes economic sabotage as defined above.
The claim of accused-appellant that she was a mere employee of her other co-accused does
not relieve her of liability. An employee of a company or corporation engaged in illegal
recruitment may be held liable as principal, together with his employer, if it is shown that the
employee actively and consciously participated in illegal recruitment.6 As testified to by the
complainants, accused-appellant was among those who met and transacted with them
regarding the job placement offers. In some instances, she made the effort to go to their
houses to recruit them. She even gave assurances that they would be able to find
employment abroad and leave for Taiwan after the filing of their applications. Accused-
appellant was clearly engaged in recruitment activities, notwithstanding her gratuitous
protestation that her actions were merely done in the course of her employment as a clerk.
Accused-appellant cannot claim to be merely following the dictates of her employers and use
good faith as a shield against criminal liability. As held in People v. Gutierrez:
Appellant cannot escape liability by claiming that she was not aware that before working for
her employer in the recruitment agency, she should first be registered with the POEA. Illegal
recruitment in large scale is malum prohibitum, not malum in se. Good faith is not a defense.7
The claim of accused-appellant that she received no payment and that the payments were
handed directly over to her co-accused fails in the face of the testimony of the complainants
that accused-appellant was the one who received the money. In spite of the receipts having
been issued by her co-accused, the trial court found that payments were directly made to
accused-appellant, and this finding was upheld by the CA. Nothing is more entrenched than
the rule that where, as here, the findings of fact of the trial court are affirmed by the CA,
these are final and conclusive upon this Court.8 And even if it were true that no money
changed hands, money is not material to a prosecution for illegal recruitment, as the
definition of "recruitment and placement" in the Labor Code includes the phrase, "whether
for profit or not." We held in People v. Jamilosa that it was "sufficient that the accused
promises or offers for a fee employment to warrant conviction for illegal recruitment." 9
Accused-appellant made representations that complainants would receive employment
abroad, and this suffices for her conviction, even if her name does not appear on the receipts
issued to complainants as evidence that payment was made.
Neither accused-appellant nor her co-accused had authority to recruit workers for overseas
employment. The Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA), through its
employee, Corazon Aquino, issued on July 8, 1997 the following certification to that effect:
This is to certify that per available records of this Office, MIDDLE EAST INTERNATIONAL
MANPOWER RESOURCES INC., with office address at 2119 P. Burgos St., cor. Gil Puyat Ave.,
Pasay City represented by SAPHIA CALAMATA ASAAD is a licensed landbased agency whose
license expired on October 13, 1996. Per record, said agency has not filed any application for
renewal of license.
Per available records, the names of RODANTE IMPERIAL a.k.a. ROMEO MARQUEZ, TERESITA
IMPERIAL a.k.a. TERESITA MARQUEZ, ROMMEL MARQUEZ a.k.a. ROMMEL IMPERIAL and
LOURDES VALENCIANO do not appear on the list of employees submitted by agency.
This certification is being issued for whatever legal purpose it may serve.10
Another certification dated July 9, 1997 stated that accused-appellant in her personal
capacity was not licensed or authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment and that
any recruitment activities undertaken by her are illegal.11 Accused-appellant could thus point
to no authority allowing her to recruit complainants, as she was not an employee of Middle
East International Manpower Resources, Inc. nor was she allowed to do so in her personal
capacity. Furthermore, she undertook recruitment activities outside the premises of the
office of a licensed recruitment agency, which can only be done with the prior approval of
the POEA, and neither she nor her co-accused had permission to do so, as testified by Aquino
of the POEA.12
Accused-appellant was convicted of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale, and there could be no
other result. As held in Jamilosa:
To prove illegal recruitment in large scale, the prosecution is burdened to prove three (3)
essential elements, to wit: (1) the person charged undertook a recruitment activity under
Article 13(b) or any prohibited practice under Article 34 of the Labor Code; (2) accused did
not have the license or the authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of
workers; and (3) accused committed the same against three or more persons individually or
as a group.13 x x x
The RTC found accused-appellant to have undertaken recruitment activities, and this was
affirmed by the CA. A POEA certification was submitted stating that accused-appellant was
not authorized to recruit applicants for overseas employment, and she did not contest this
certification. In the present case, there are four complainants: De Luna, De Villa, Dela Cuesta,
and Candelaria. The three essential elements for illegal recruitment in large scale are
present. Thus, there can be no other conclusion in this case but to uphold the conviction of
accused-appellant and apply the penalty as imposed by law.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we AFFIRM the appealed CA Decision dated July 24, 2007
in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01390, with no costs.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 173198 June 1, 2011
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
DOLORES OCDEN, Accused-Appellant.
DECISION The Informations in the five other cases for estafa contain substantially the same allegations
as the one above-quoted, except for the private complainants names, the date of
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.: commission of the offense, and the amounts defrauded, to wit:

For Our consideration is an appeal from the Decision1 dated April 21, 2006 of the Court of
Case No. Name of the Private Date of Commission of Amount
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 00044, which affirmed with modification the Decision2 dated
Complainant the Offense Defrauded
July 2, 2001 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Baguio City, Branch 60, in Criminal Case No.
16315-R. The RTC found accused-appellant Dolores Ocden (Ocden) guilty of illegal
recruitment in large scale, as defined and penalized under Article 13(b), in relation to Articles 16318-R Howard C. Golidan Sometime during the 70,000.00
38(b), 34, and 39 of Presidential Decree No. 442, otherwise known as the New Labor Code of period
the Philippines, as amended, in Criminal Case No. 16315-R; and of the crime of estafa under from October to
paragraph 2(a), Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, in Criminal Case Nos. 16316-R, 16318- December 1998
R, and 16964-R.3 The Court of Appeals affirmed Ocdens conviction in all four cases, but
modified the penalties imposed in Criminal Case Nos. 16316-R, 16318-R, and 16964-R,
16350-R Norma Pedro Sometime in May, 1998 65,000.00
The Amended Information4 for illegal recruitment in large scale in Criminal Case No. 16315-R
reads: 16369-R Milan O. Daring Sometime during the 70.000.00
period
That during the period from May to December, 1998, in the City of Baguio, Philippines, and
from November 13,
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there
1998 to
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously for a fee, recruit and promise employment as factory
December 10, 1998
workers in Italy to more than three (3) persons including, but not limited to the following:
JEFFRIES C. GOLIDAN, HOWARD C. GOLIDAN, KAREN M. SIMEON, JEAN S. MAXIMO, NORMA
PEDRO, MARYLYN MANA-A, RIZALINA FERRER, and MILAN DARING without said accused 16964-R Rizalina Ferrer Sometime in September 70,000.00
having first secured the necessary license or authority from the Department of Labor and
Employment.
16966-R Marilyn Mana-a Sometime in September 70,000.006
Ocden was originally charged with six counts of estafa in Criminal Case Nos. 16316-R, 16318- 1998
R, 16350-R, 16369-R, 16964-R, and 16966-R.
All seven cases against Ocden were consolidated on July 31, 2000 and were tried jointly after
The Information in Criminal Case No. 16316-R states: Ocden pleaded not guilty.

That sometime during the period from October to December, 1998 in the City of Baguio,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud JEFFRIES C. GOLIDAN, by way of
false pretenses, which are executed prior to or simultaneous with the commission of the
fraud, as follows, to wit: the accused knowing fully well that she is not (sic) authorized job
recruiter for persons intending to secure work abroad convinced said Jeffries C. Golidan and
pretended that she could secure a job for him/her abroad, for and in consideration of the
sum of 70,000.00 when in truth and in fact they could not; the said Jeffries C. Golidan
deceived and convinced by the false pretenses employed by the accused parted away the
total sum of 70,000.00, in favor of the accused, to the damage and prejudice of the said
Jeffries C. Golidan in the aforementioned amount of SEVENTY THOUSAND PESOS
(70,000,00), Philippine Currency.5
The prosecution presented three witnesses namely: Marilyn Mana-a (Mana-a) and Rizalina
Ferrer (Ferrer), complainants; and Julia Golidan (Golidan), mother of complainants Jeffries
and Howard Golidan.
Mana-a testified that sometime in the second week of August 1998, she and Isabel Dao-as
(Dao-as) went to Ocdens house in Baguio City to apply for work as factory workers in Italy
with monthly salaries of US$1,200.00. They were required by Ocden to submit their bio-data
and passports, pay the placement fee of 70,000.00, and to undergo medical examination.
Upon submitting her bio-data and passport, Mana-a paid Ocden 500.00 for her certificate of
employment and 20,000.00 as down payment for her placement fee. On September 8,
1998, Ocden accompanied Mana-a and 20 other applicants to Zamora Medical Clinic in
Manila for their medical examinations, for which each of the applicants paid 3,000.00.
Mana-a also paid to Ocden 22,000.00 as the second installment on her placement fee.
When Josephine Lawanag (Lawanag), Mana-as sister, withdrew her application, Lawanags
15,000.00 placement fee, already paid to Ocden, was credited to Mana-a.7
Mana-a failed to complete her testimony, but the RTC considered the same as no motion to
strike the said testimony was filed.
Ferrer narrated that she and her daughter Jennilyn were interested to work overseas. About
the second week of September 1998, they approached Ocden through Fely Alipio (Alipio).
Ocden showed Ferrer and Jennilyn a copy of a job order from Italy for factory workers who
could earn as much as $90,000.00 to $100,000.00.8 In the first week of October 1998, Ferrer
and Jennilyn decided to apply for work, so they submitted their passports and pictures to
Ocden. Ferrer also went to Manila for medical examination, for which she spent 3,500.00.
Ferrer paid to Ocden on November 20, 1998 the initial amount of 20,000.00, and on
December 8, 1998 the balance of her and Jennilyns placement fees. All in all, Ferrer paid
Ocden 140,000.00, as evidenced by the receipts issued by Ocden.9
Ferrer, Jennilyn, and Alipio were supposed to be included in the first batch of workers to be
sent to Italy. Their flight was scheduled on December 10, 1998. In preparation for their flight
to Italy, the three proceeded to Manila. In Manila, they were introduced by Ocden to Erlinda
Ramos (Ramos). Ocden and Ramos then accompanied Ferrer, Jennilyn, and Alipio to the
airport where they took a flight to Zamboanga. Ocden explained to Ferrer, Jennilyn, and
Alipio that they would be transported to Malaysia where their visa application for Italy would
be processed.
Sensing that they were being fooled, Ferrer and Jennilyn decided to get a refund of their
money, but Ocden was nowhere to be found. Ferrer would later learn from the Baguio office
of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) that Ocden was not a licensed
recruiter.
Expecting a job overseas, Ferrer took a leave of absence from her work. Thus, she lost
income amounting to 17,700.00, equivalent to her salary for one and a half months. She
also spent 30,000.00 for transportation and food expenses.10
According to Golidan, the prosecutions third witness, sometime in October 1998, she
inquired from Ocden about the latters overseas recruitment. Ocden informed Golidan that
the placement fee was 70,000.00 for each applicant, that the accepted applicants would be
sent by batches overseas, and that priority would be given to those who paid their placement
fees early. On October 30, 1998, Golidan brought her sons, Jeffries and Howard, to Ocden.
On the same date, Jeffries and Howard handed over to Ocden their passports and 40,000.00
as down payment on their placement fees. On December 10, 1998, Jeffries and Howard paid
the balance of their placement fees amounting to 100,000.00. Ocden issued receipts for
these two payments.11 Ocden then informed Golidan that the first batch of accepted
applicants had already left, and that Jeffries would be included in the second batch for
deployment, while Howard in the third batch.
In anticipation of their deployment to Italy, Jeffries and Howard left for Manila on December
12, 1998 and December 18, 1998, respectively. Through a telephone call, Jeffries informed
Golidan that his flight to Italy was scheduled on December 16, 1998. However, Golidan was
surprised to again receive a telephone call from Jeffries saying that his flight to Italy was
delayed due to insufficiency of funds, and that Ocden went back to Baguio City to look for
additional funds. When Golidan went to see Ocden, Ocden was about to leave for Manila so
she could be there in time for the scheduled flights of Jeffries and Howard.
On December 19, 1998, Golidan received another telephone call from Jeffries who was in
Zamboanga with the other applicants. Jeffries informed Golidan that he was stranded in
Zamboanga because Ramos did not give him his passport. Ramos was the one who briefed
the overseas job applicants in Baguio City sometime in November 1998. Jeffries instructed
Golidan to ask Ocdens help in looking for Ramos. Golidan, however, could not find Ocden in
Baguio City.
On December 21, 1998, Golidan, with the other applicants, Mana-a and Dao-as, went to
Manila to meet Ocden. When Golidan asked why Jeffries was in Zamboanga, Ocden replied
that it would be easier for Jeffries and the other applicants to acquire their visas to Italy in
Zamboanga. Ocden was also able to contact Ramos, who assured Golidan that Jeffries would
be able to get his passport. When Golidan went back home to Baguio City, she learned
through a telephone call from Jeffries that Howard was now likewise stranded in Zamboanga.
By January 1999, Jeffries and Howard were still in Zamboanga. Jeffries refused to accede to
Golidans prodding for him and Howard to go home, saying that the recruiters were already
working out the release of the funds for the applicants to get to Italy. Golidan went to Ocden,
and the latter told her not to worry as her sons would already be flying to Italy because the
same factory owner in Italy, looking for workers, undertook to shoulder the applicants travel
expenses. Yet, Jeffries called Golidan once more telling her that he and the other applicants
were still in Zamboanga.
Golidan went to Ocdens residence. This time, Ocdens husband gave Golidan 23,000.00
which the latter could use to fetch the applicants, including Jeffries and Howard, who were
stranded in Zamboanga. Golidan traveled again to Manila with Mana-a and Dao-as. When
they saw each other, Golidan informed Ocden regarding the 23,000.00 which the latters
husband gave to her. Ocden begged Golidan to give her the money because she needed it
badly. Of the 23,000.00, Golidan retained 10,000.00, Dao-as received 3,000.00, and
Ocden got the rest. Jeffries was able to return to Manila on January 16, 1999. Howard and
five other applicants, accompanied by Ocden, also arrived in Manila five days later.
Thereafter, Golidan and her sons went to Ocdens residence to ask for a refund of the money
they had paid to Ocden. Ocden was able to return only 50,000.00. Thus, out of the total
amount of 140,000.00 Golidan and her sons paid to Ocden, they were only able to get back
the sum of 60,000.00. After all that had happened, Golidan and her sons went to the Baguio
office of the POEA, where they discovered that Ocden was not a licensed recruiter.12
The defense presented the testimony of Ocden herself.
Ocden denied recruiting private complainants and claimed that she was also an applicant for
an overseas job in Italy, just like them. Ocden identified Ramos as the recruiter.
Ocden recounted that she met Ramos at a seminar held in St. Theresas Compound, Navy
Base, Baguio City, sometime in June 1998. The seminar was arranged by Aida Comila
(Comila), Ramoss sub-agent. The seminar was attended by about 60 applicants, including
Golidan. Ramos explained how one could apply as worker in a stuff toys factory in Italy. After
the seminar, Comila introduced Ocden to Ramos. Ocden decided to apply for the overseas
job, so she gave her passport and pictures to Ramos. Ocden also underwent medical
examination at Zamora Medical Clinic in Manila, and completely submitted the required
documents to Ramos in September 1998.
After the seminar, many people went to Ocdens house to inquire about the jobs available in
Italy. Since most of these people did not attend the seminar, Ocden asked Ramos to conduct
a seminar at Ocdens house. Two seminars were held at Ocdens house, one in September
and another in December 1998. After said seminars, Ramos designated Ocden as leader of
the applicants. As such, Ocden received her co-applicants applications and documents;
accompanied her co-applicants to Manila for medical examination because she knew the
location of Zamora Medical Clinic; and accepted placement fees in the amount of 70,000.00
each from Mana-a and Ferrer and from Golidan, the amount of 140,000.00 (for Jeffries and
Howard).
Ramos instructed Ocden that the applicants should each pay 250,000.00 and if the
applicants could not pay the full amount, they would have to pay the balance through salary
deductions once they start working in Italy. Ocden herself paid Ramos 50,000.00 as
placement fee and executed a promissory note in Ramoss favor for the balance, just like any
other applicant who failed to pay the full amount. Ocden went to Malaysia with Ramoss
male friend but she failed to get her visa for Italy.
Ocden denied deceiving Mana-a and Ferrer. Ocden alleged that she turned over to Ramos
the money Mana-a and Ferrer gave her, although she did not indicate in the receipts she
issued that she received the money for and on behalf of Ramos.
Ocden pointed out that she and some of her co-applicants already filed a complaint against
Ramos before the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) offices in Zamboanga City and
Manila.13
On July 2, 2001, the RTC rendered a Decision finding Ocden guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the crimes of illegal recruitment in large scale (Criminal Case No. 16315-R) and three
counts of estafa (Criminal Case Nos. 16316-R, 16318-R, and 16964-R). The dispositive portion
of said decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
1. In Criminal Case No. 16315-R, the Court finds the accused, DOLORES OCDEN, GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Recruitment committed in large scale as
defined and penalized under Article 13(b) in relation to Article 38(b), 34 and 39 of the Labor
Code as amended by P.D. Nos. 1693, 1920, 2018 and R.A. 8042. She is hereby sentenced to
suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of 100,000.00;
2. In Criminal Case No. 16316-R, the Court finds the accused, DOLORES OCDEN, GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of estafa and sentences her to suffer an
indeterminate penalty ranging from two (2) years, eleven (11) months and ten (10) days of
prision correccional, as minimum, up to nine (9) years and nine (9) months of prision mayor,
as maximum, and to indemnify the complainant Jeffries Golidan the amount of 40,000.00;
3. In Criminal Case No. 16318-R, the Court finds the accused, DOLORES OCDEN, GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of estafa and sentences her to suffer an
indeterminate penalty ranging from two (2) years, eleven (11) months and ten (10) days of
prision correccional, as minimum, up to nine (9) years and nine (9) months of prision mayor,
as maximum, and to indemnify Howard Golidan the amount of 40,000.00;
4. In Criminal Case No. 16350-R, the Court finds the accused, DOLORES OCDEN, NOT GUILTY
of the crime of estafa for lack of evidence and a verdict of acquittal is entered in her favor;
5. In Criminal Case No. 16369-R, the Court finds the accused, DOLORES OCDEN, NOT GUILTY
of the crime of estafa for lack of evidence and a verdict of acquittal is hereby entered in her
favor;
6. In Criminal Case No. 16964-R, the Court finds the accused, DOLORES OCDEN, GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of estafa and sentences her to suffer an
indeterminate penalty of Four (4) years and Two (2) months of prision correccional, as
minimum, up to Twelve (12) years and Nine (9) months of reclusion temporal, as maximum,
and to indemnify Rizalina Ferrer the amount of 70,000.00; and
7. In Criminal Case No. 16966-R, the Court finds the accused, DOLORES OCDEN, NOT GUILTY
of the crime of estafa for insufficiency of evidence and a verdict of acquittal is hereby
entered in her favor.
In the service of her sentence, the provisions of Article 70 of the Penal Code shall be
observed.14
Aggrieved by the above decision, Ocden filed with the RTC a Notice of Appeal on August 15, Hence, this appeal, in which Ocden raised the following assignment of errors:
2001.15 The RTC erroneously sent the records of the cases to the Court of Appeals, which, in
turn, correctly forwarded the said records to us. I

In our Resolution16 dated May 6, 2002, we accepted the appeal and required the parties to THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT
file their respective briefs. In the same resolution, we directed the Superintendent of the COMMITTED IN LARGE SCALE ALTHOUGH THE CRIME WAS NOT PROVEN BEYOND
Correctional Institute for Women to confirm Ocdens detention thereat. REASONABLE DOUBT.

Ocden filed her Appellant's Brief on August 15, 2003,17 while the People, through the Office II
of the Solicitor General, filed its Appellee's Brief on January 5, 2004.18
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF ESTAFA IN CRIMINAL
Pursuant to our ruling in People v. Mateo,19 we transferred Ocdens appeal to the Court of CASES NOS. 16316-R, 16318-R AND 16[9]64-R.21
Appeals. On April 21, 2006, the appellate court promulgated its Decision, affirming Ocdens
After a thorough review of the records of the case, we find nothing on record that would
conviction but modifying the penalties imposed upon her for the three counts of estafa, viz:
justify a reversal of Ocdens conviction.
[T]he trial court erred in the imposition of accused-appellants penalty.
Illegal recruitment in large scale
Pursuant to Article 315 of the RPC, the penalty for estafa is prision correccional in its
Ocden contends that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she is
maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period. If the amount of the fraud exceeds
guilty of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale. Other than the bare allegations of the
22,000.00, the penalty provided shall be imposed in its maximum period (6 years, 8 months
prosecution witnesses, no evidence was adduced to prove that she was a non-licensee or
and 21 days to 8 years), adding 1 year for each additional 10,000.00; but the total penalty
non-holder of authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers. No
which may be imposed shall not exceed 20 years.
certification attesting to this fact was formally offered in evidence by the prosecution.
Criminal Case Nos. 16316-R and 16318-R involve the amount of 40,000.00 each. Considering
Ocdens aforementioned contentions are without merit.
that 18,000.00 is the excess amount, only 1 year should be added to the penalty in its
maximum period or 9 years. Also, in Criminal Case No. 16964-R, the amount involved is
Article 13, paragraph (b) of the Labor Code defines and enumerates the acts which constitute
70,000.00. Thus, the excess amount is 48,000.00 and only 4 years should be added to the
recruitment and placement:
penalty in its maximum period.
(b) "Recruitment and placement" refers to any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting,
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DISMISSED. The assailed Decision, dated 02 July 2001, of
transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract services,
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Baguio City, Branch 60 is hereby AFFIRMED with the
promising for advertising for employment locally or abroad, whether for profit or not:
following MODIFICATIONS:
Provided, That any person or entity which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee
employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and
1. In Criminal Case No. 16316-R, accused-appellant is sentenced to 2 years, 11 months, and
placement.
10 days of prision correccional, as minimum to 9 years of prision mayor, as maximum and to
indemnify Jeffries Golidan the amount of 40,000.00;
The amendments to the Labor Code introduced by Republic Act No. 8042, otherwise known
as the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, broadened the concept of illegal
2. In Criminal Case No. 16318-R, accused-appellant is sentenced to 2 years, 11 months, and
recruitment and provided stiffer penalties, especially for those that constitute economic
10 days of prision correccional, as minimum to 9 years of prision mayor, as maximum and to
sabotage, i.e., illegal recruitment in large scale and illegal recruitment committed by a
indemnify Howard Golidan the amount of 40,000.00; and
syndicate. Pertinent provisions of Republic Act No. 8042 are reproduced below:
3. In Criminal Case No. 16964-R, accused-appellant is sentenced to 4 years and 2 months of
SEC. 6. Definition. - For purposes of this Act, illegal recruitment shall mean any act of
prision correccional, as minimum to 12 years of prision mayor, as maximum and to indemnify
canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers and
Rizalina Ferrer the amount of 70,000.00.20
includes referring, contract services, promising or advertising for employment abroad,
whether for profit or not, when undertaken by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority
contemplated under Article 13(f) of Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, otherwise
known as the Labor Code of the Philippines: Provided, That any such non-licensee or non-
holder who, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment abroad to two or more
persons shall be deemed so engaged. It shall likewise include the following acts, whether
committed by any person, whether a non-licensee, non-holder, licensee or holder of
authority:
(a) To charge or accept directly or indirectly any amount greater than that specified in the
schedule of allowable fees prescribed by the Secretary of Labor and Employment, or to make
a worker pay any amount greater than that actually received by him as a loan or advance;
(b) To furnish or publish any false notice or information or document in relation to
recruitment or employment;
(c) To give any false notice, testimony, information or document or commit any act of
misrepresentation for the purpose of securing a license or authority under the Labor Code;
(d) To induce or attempt to induce a worker already employed to quit his employment in
order to offer him another unless the transfer is designed to liberate a worker from
oppressive terms and conditions of employment;
(e) To influence or attempt to influence any person or entity not to employ any worker who
has not applied for employment through his agency;
(f) To engage in the recruitment or placement of workers in jobs harmful to public health or
morality or to the dignity of the Republic of the Philippines;
(g) To obstruct or attempt to obstruct inspection by the Secretary of Labor and Employment
or by his duly authorized representative;
(h) To fail to submit reports on the status of employment, placement vacancies, remittance
of foreign exchange earnings, separation from jobs, departures and such other matters or
information as may be required by the Secretary of Labor and Employment;
(i) To substitute or alter to the prejudice of the worker, employment contracts approved and
verified by the Department of Labor and Employment from the time of actual signing thereof
by the parties up to and including the period of the expiration of the same without the
approval of the Department of Labor and Employment;
(j) For an officer or agent of a recruitment or placement agency to become an officer or
member of the Board of any corporation engaged in travel agency or to be engaged directly
or indirectly in the management of a travel agency;
(k) To withhold or deny travel documents from applicant workers before departure for
monetary or financial considerations other than those authorized under the Labor Code and
its implementing rules and regulations;
(l) Failure to actually deploy without valid reason as determined by the Department of Labor
and Employment; and
(m) Failure to reimburse expenses incurred by the worker in connection with his
documentation and processing for purposes of deployment, in cases where the deployment
does not actually take place without the worker's fault. Illegal recruitment when committed
by a syndicate or in large scale shall be considered an offense involving economic sabotage.
Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3)
or more persons conspiring or confederating with one another. It is deemed committed in
large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group.
xxxx
Sec. 7. Penalties.
(a) Any person found guilty of illegal recruitment shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of
not less than six (6) years and one (1) day but not more than twelve (12) years and a fine of
Two hundred thousand pesos (200,000.00) nor more than Five hundred thousand pesos
(500,000.00).
(b) The penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of not less than Five hundred thousand pesos
(500,000.00) nor more than One million pesos (1,000,000.00) shall be imposed if illegal
recruitment constitutes economic sabotage as defined herein.
Provided, however, That the maximum penalty shall be imposed if the person illegally
recruited is less than eighteen (18) years of age or committed by a non-licensee or non-
holder of authority. (Emphasis ours.)
It is well-settled that to prove illegal recruitment, it must be shown that appellant gave
complainants the distinct impression that he had the power or ability to send complainants
abroad for work such that the latter were convinced to part with their money in order to be
employed.22 As testified to by Mana-a, Ferrer, and Golidan, Ocden gave such an impression
through the following acts: (1) Ocden informed Mana-a, Ferrer, and Golidan about the job
opportunity in Italy and the list of necessary requirements for application; (2) Ocden required
Mana-a, Ferrer, and Golidans sons, Jeffries and Howard, to attend the seminar conducted by
Ramos at Ocdens house in Baguio City; (3) Ocden received the job applications, pictures, bio-
data, passports, and the certificates of previous employment (which was also issued by
Ocden upon payment of 500.00), of Mana-a, Ferrer, and Golidans sons, Jeffries and
Howard; (4) Ocden personally accompanied Mana-a, Ferrer, and Golidans sons, Jeffries and
Howard, for their medical examinations in Manila; (5) Ocden received money paid as
placement fees by Mana-a, Ferrer, and Golidans sons, Jeffries and Howard, and even issued
receipts for the same; and (6) Ocden assured Mana-a, Ferrer, and Golidans sons, Jeffries and
Howard, that they would be deployed to Italy.
It is not necessary for the prosecution to present a certification that Ocden is a non-licensee
or non-holder of authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers.
Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042 enumerates particular acts which would constitute illegal
recruitment "whether committed by any person, whether a non-licensee, non-holder,
licensee or holder of authority." Among such acts, under Section 6(m) of Republic Act No.
8042, is the "[f]ailure to reimburse expenses incurred by the worker in connection with his
documentation and processing for purposes of deployment, in cases where the deployment
does not actually take place without the workers fault."
Since illegal recruitment under Section 6(m) can be committed by any person, even by a
licensed recruiter, a certification on whether Ocden had a license to recruit or not, is
inconsequential. Ocden committed illegal recruitment as described in said provision by
receiving placement fees from Mana-a, Ferrer, and Golidans two sons, Jeffries and Howard,
evidenced by receipts Ocden herself issued; and failing to reimburse/refund to Mana-a,
Ferrer, and Golidans two sons the amounts they had paid when they were not able to leave
for Italy, through no fault of their own.
Ocden questions why it was Golidan who testified for private complainants Jeffries and
Howard. Golidan had no personal knowledge of the circumstances proving illegal recruitment
and could not have testified on the same. Also, Jeffries and Howard already executed an
affidavit of desistance. All Golidan wants was a reimbursement of the placement fees paid.
Contrary to Ocdens claims, Golidan had personal knowledge of Ocdens illegal recruitment
activities, which she could competently testify to. Golidan herself had personal dealings with
Ocden as Golidan assisted her sons, Jeffries and Howard, in completing the requirements for
their overseas job applications, and later on, in getting back home from Zamboanga where
Jeffries and Howard were stranded, and in demanding a refund from Ocden of the placement
fees paid. That Golidan is seeking a reimbursement of the placement fees paid for the failed
deployment of her sons Jeffries and Howard strengthens, rather than weakens, the
prosecutions case. Going back to illegal recruitment under Section 6(m) of Republic Act No.
8042, failure to reimburse the expenses incurred by the worker when deployment does not
actually take place, without the workers fault, is illegal recruitment.
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.
Generally, the Court attaches no persuasive value to affidavits of desistance, especially when
it is executed as an afterthought. It would be a dangerous rule for courts to reject
testimonies solemnly taken before the courts of justice simply because the witnesses who
had given them, later on, changed their mind for one reason or another, for such rule would
make solemn trial a mockery and place the investigation of truth at the mercy of
unscrupulous witness.
Complainants Bernardo Salazar and Richard Quillope may have a change of heart insofar as
the offense wrought on their person is concerned when they executed their joint affidavit of
desistance but this will not affect the public prosecution of the offense itself. It is relevant to
note that "the right of prosecution and punishment for a crime is one of the attributes that
by a natural law belongs to the sovereign power instinctly charged by the common will of the
members of society to look after, guard and defend the interests of the community, the
individual and social rights and the liberties of every citizen and the guaranty of the exercise
of his rights." This cardinal principle which states that to the State belongs the power to
prosecute and punish crimes should not be overlooked since a criminal offense is an outrage
to the sovereign State.24
In her bid to exculpate herself, Ocden asserts that she was also just an applicant for overseas
employment; and that she was receiving her co-applicants job applications and other
requirements, and accepting her co-applicants payments of placement fees, because she
was designated as the applicants leader by Ramos, the real recruiter.
Ocdens testimony is self-serving and uncorroborated. Ocdens denial of any illegal
recruitment activity cannot stand against the prosecution witnesses positive identification of
her in court as the person who induced them to part with their money upon the
misrepresentation and false promise of deployment to Italy as factory workers. Besides,
despite several opportunities given to Ocden by the RTC, she failed to present Ramos, who
Ocden alleged to be the real recruiter and to whom she turned over the placement fees paid
by her co-applicants.
Between the categorical statements of the prosecution witnesses, on the one hand, and the
bare denial of Ocden, on the other, the former must perforce prevail. An affirmative
testimony is far stronger than a negative testimony especially when the former comes from
the mouth of a credible witness. Denial, same as an alibi, if not substantiated by clear and
convincing evidence, is negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law. It is
considered with suspicion and always received with caution, not only because it is inherently
weak and unreliable but also because it is easily fabricated and concocted.25
Moreover, in the absence of any evidence that the prosecution witnesses were motivated by not materialize, Julia acted with her sons to secure the partial reimbursement of the
improper motives, the trial courts assessment of the credibility of the witnesses shall not be placement fees.29
interfered with by this Court.26 It is a settled rule that factual findings of the trial courts,
including their assessment of the witnesses credibility, are entitled to great weight and And even though only Ferrer and Golidan testified as to Ocdens failure to reimburse the
respect by the Supreme Court, particularly when the Court of Appeals affirmed such findings. placements fees paid when the deployment did not take place, their testimonies already
After all, the trial court is in the best position to determine the value and weight of the established the fact of non-reimbursement as to three persons, namely, Ferrer and Golidans
testimonies of witnesses. The absence of any showing that the trial court plainly overlooked two sons, Jeffries and Howard.
certain facts of substance and value that, if considered, might affect the result of the case, or
Section 7(b) of Republic Act No. 8042 prescribes a penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of
that its assessment was arbitrary, impels the Court to defer to the trial courts determination
not less than 500,000.00 nor more than 1,000,000.00 if the illegal recruitment constitutes
according credibility to the prosecution evidence.27
economic sabotage. The RTC, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, imposed upon Ocden the
Ocden further argues that the prosecution did not sufficiently establish that she illegally penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of only 100,000.00. Since the fine of 100,000 is
recruited at least three persons, to constitute illegal recruitment on a large scale. Out of the below the minimum set by law, we are increasing the same to 500,000.00.
victims named in the Information, only Mana-a and Ferrer testified in court. Mana-a did not
Estafa
complete her testimony, depriving Ocden of the opportunity to cross-examine her; and even
if Mana-as testimony was not expunged from the record, it was insufficient to prove illegal
We are likewise affirming the conviction of Ocden for the crime of estafa. The very same
recruitment by Ocden. Although Ferrer testified that she and Mana-a filed a complaint for
evidence proving Ocdens liability for illegal recruitment also established her liability for
illegal recruitment against Ocden, Ferrers testimony is competent only as to the illegal
estafa.
recruitment activities committed by Ocden against her, and not against Mana-a. Ocden again
objects to Golidans testimony as hearsay, not being based on Golidans personal knowledge. It is settled that a person may be charged and convicted separately of illegal recruitment
under Republic Act No. 8042 in relation to the Labor Code, and estafa under Article 315,
Under the last paragraph of Section 6, Republic Act No. 8042, illegal recruitment shall be
paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code. We explicated in People v. Yabut30 that:
considered an offense involving economic sabotage if committed in a large scale, that is,
committed against three or more persons individually or as a group. In this jurisdiction, it is settled that a person who commits illegal recruitment may be charged
and convicted separately of illegal recruitment under the Labor Code and estafa under par.
In People v. Hu,28 we held that a conviction for large scale illegal recruitment must be based
2(a) of Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code. The offense of illegal recruitment is malum
on a finding in each case of illegal recruitment of three or more persons, whether individually
prohibitum where the criminal intent of the accused is not necessary for conviction, while
or as a group. While it is true that the law does not require that at least three victims testify
estafa is malum in se where the criminal intent of the accused is crucial for conviction.
at the trial, nevertheless, it is necessary that there is sufficient evidence proving that the
Conviction for offenses under the Labor Code does not bar conviction for offenses punishable
offense was committed against three or more persons. In this case, there is conclusive
by other laws. Conversely, conviction for estafa under par. 2(a) of Art. 315 of the Revised
evidence that Ocden recruited Mana-a, Ferrer, and Golidans sons, Jeffries and Howard, for
Penal Code does not bar a conviction for illegal recruitment under the Labor Code. It follows
purported employment as factory workers in Italy. As aptly observed by the Court of Appeals:
that ones acquittal of the crime of estafa will not necessarily result in his acquittal of the
crime of illegal recruitment in large scale, and vice versa.31
Mana-as testimony, although not completed, sufficiently established that accused-appellant
promised Mana-a a job placement in a factory in Italy for a fee with accused-appellant even
Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code defines estafa as:
accompanying her for the required medical examination. Likewise, Julia Golidans testimony
adequately proves that accused-appellant recruited Jeffries and Howard Golidan for a job in Art. 315. Swindling (estafa). - Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means
Italy, also for a fee. Contrary to the accused-appellants contention, Julia had personal mentioned hereinbelow x x x:
knowledge of the facts and circumstances surrounding the charges for illegal recruitment and
estafa filed by her sons. Julia was not only privy to her sons recruitment but also directly xxxx
transacted with accused-appellant, submitting her sons requirements and paying the
placement fees as evidenced by a receipt issued in her name. Even after the placement did 2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or
simultaneously with the commission of the fraud:
(a) By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications,
property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions; or by means of other similar
deceits.
The elements of estafa are: (a) that the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence
or by means of deceit, and (b) that damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is
caused to the offended party or third person.32
Both these elements are present in the instant case. Ocden represented to Ferrer, Golidan,
and Golidans two sons, Jeffries and Howard, that she could provide them with overseas jobs.
Convinced by Ocden, Ferrer, Golidan, and Golidans sons paid substantial amounts as
placement fees to her. Ferrer and Golidans sons were never able to leave for Italy, instead,
they ended up in Zamboanga, where, Ocden claimed, it would be easier to have their visas to
Italy processed. Despite the fact that Golidans sons, Jeffries and Howard, were stranded in
Zamboanga for almost a month, Ocden still assured them and their mother that they would
be able to leave for Italy. There is definitely deceit on the part of Ocden and damage on the
part of Ferrer and Golidans sons, thus, justifying Ocdens conviction for estafa in Criminal
Case Nos. 16316-R, 16318-R, and 16964-R.
The penalty for estafa depends on the amount of defraudation. According to Article 315 of
the Revised Penal Code:
Art. 315. Swindling (estafa). Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means
mentioned hereinbelow shall be punished by:
1st. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its
minimum period, if the amount of the fraud is over 12,000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000
pesos; and if such amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph
shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional 10,000 pesos;
but the total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases, and
in connection with the accessory penalties which may be imposed and for the purpose of the
other provisions of this Code, the penalty shall be termed prision mayor or reclusion
temporal, as the case may be.
The prescribed penalty for estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, when the
amount of fraud is over 22,000.00, is prision correccional maximum to prision mayor
minimum, adding one year to the maximum period for each additional 10,000.00, provided
that the total penalty shall not exceed 20 years.
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, we take the minimum term from the penalty next
lower than the minimum prescribed by law, or anywhere within prision correccional
minimum and medium (i.e., from 6 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months). 33
Consequently, both the RTC and the Court of Appeals correctly fixed the minimum term in
Criminal Case Nos. 16316-R and 16318-R at 2 years, 11 months, and 10 days of prision
correccional; and in Criminal Case No. 16964-R at 4 years and 2 months of prision
correccional, since these are within the range of prision correccional minimum and
medium.1avvphi1
As for the maximum term under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, we take the maximum
period of the prescribed penalty, adding 1 year of imprisonment for every 10,000.00 in
excess of 22,000.00, provided that the total penalty shall not exceed 20 years. To compute
the maximum period of the prescribed penalty, the time included in prision correccional
maximum to prision mayor minimum shall be divided into three equal portions, with each
portion forming a period. Following this computation, the maximum period for prision
correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum is from 6 years, 8 months, and 21 days to 8
years. The incremental penalty, when proper, shall thus be added to anywhere from 6 years,
8 months, and 21 days to 8 years, at the discretion of the court.34
In computing the incremental penalty, the amount defrauded shall be substracted by
22,000.00, and the difference shall be divided by 10,000.00. Any fraction of a year shall be
discarded as was done starting with People v. Pabalan.35
In Criminal Case Nos. 16316-R and 16318-R, brothers Jeffries and Howard Golidan were each
defrauded of the amount of 40,000.00, for which the Court of Appeals sentenced Ocden to
an indeterminate penalty of 2 years, 11 months, and 10 days of prision correccional as
minimum, to 9 years of prision mayor as maximum. Upon review, however, we modify the
maximum term of the indeterminate penalty imposed on Ocden in said criminal cases. Since
the amount defrauded exceeds 22,000.00 by 18,000.00, 1 year shall be added to the
maximum period of the prescribed penalty (anywhere between 6 years, 8 months, and 21
days to 8 years). There being no aggravating circumstance, we apply the lowest of the
maximum period, which is 6 years, 8 months, and 21 days. Adding the one year incremental
penalty, the maximum term of Ocdens indeterminate sentence in these two cases is only 7
years, 8 months, and 21 days of prision mayor.
In Criminal Cases No. 19694-R, Ferrer was defrauded of the amount of 70,000.00, for which
the Court of Appeals sentenced Ocden to an indeterminate penalty of 4 years and 2 months
of prision correccional, as minimum, to 12 years of prision mayor, as maximum. Upon
recomputation, we also have to modify the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence
imposed upon Ocden in Criminal Case No. 19694-R. Given that the amount defrauded
exceeds 22,000.00 by 48,000.00, 4 years shall be added to the maximum period of the
prescribed penalty (anywhere between 6 years, 8 months, and 21 days to 8 years). There
likewise being no aggravating circumstance in this case, we add the 4 years of incremental
penalty to the lowest of the maximum period, which is 6 years, 8 months, and 21 days. The
maximum term, therefor, of Ocdens indeterminate sentence in Criminal Case No. 19694-R is
only 10 years, 8 months, and 21 days of prision mayor.
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal of accused-appellant Dolores Ocden is DENIED. The Decision
dated April 21, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 00044 is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION to read as follows:
1. In Criminal Case No. 16315-R, the Court finds the accused, Dolores Ocden, GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Recruitment committed in large scale as defined and
penalized under Article 13(b) in relation to Articles 38(b), 34 and 39 of the Labor Code, as
amended. She is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a
fine of 500,000.00;
2. In Criminal Case No. 16316-R, the Court finds the accused, Dolores Ocden, GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of estafa and sentences her to an indeterminate penalty of 2
years, 11 months, and 10 days of prision correccional, as minimum, to 7 years, 8 months, and
21 days of prision mayor, as maximum, and to indemnify Jeffries Golidan the amount of
40,000.00;
3. In Criminal Case No. 16318-R, the Court finds the accused, Dolores Ocden, GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of estafa and sentences her to an indeterminate penalty of 2
years, 11 months, and 10 days of prision correccional, as minimum, to 7 years, 8 months, and
21 days of prision mayor, as maximum, and to indemnify Howard Golidan the amount of
40,000.00; and
4. In Criminal Case No. 16964-R, the Court finds the accused, Dolores Ocden, GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of estafa and sentences her to an indeterminate penalty of 4
years and 2 months of prision correccional, as minimum, to 10 years, 8 months, and 21 days
of prision mayor, as maximum, and to indemnify Rizalina Ferrer the amount of 70,000.00.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 91552-55 March 10, 1994
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
FERNANDO MANUNGAS, JR. y GO @ "PERCY", accused-appellant.
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Rolando Gamalinda for accused-appellant.
NOCON, J.:
This is an appeal by accused-appellant Fernando Manungas, Jr. alias "Percy" from the
decision1 dated October 31, 1989 of the Regional Trial Court of Lingayen, Pangasisnan,
Branch 38 in Criminal Cases Nos. L-3993, L-3994,
L-3996 and L-4000 finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of ESTAFA and
ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT, the dispositive portion of which reads:
In the light of what has been stated and discussed above, the court finds and holds the
accused Fernando Manungas y Go alias "Percy" guilty beyond peradventure of doubt of the
crimes filed against him and conformable thereto, hereby pronounces judgment as follows:
In Criminal Case No. L-3993, the court declares accused, Fernando Manungas y Go alias
"Percy" guilty of estafa for the sum of P16,800.00 as alleged in the information filed against
him and there being no aggravating nor mitigating circumstance, and applying the
Indeterminate Sentence Law in his favor, said accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the
prison term from two (2) years, eleven (11) months and ten years (10) days as minimum to
five (5) years, five (5) months and eleven (11) days of prision correccional as maximum and to
pay the costs of the proceedings.
The court further orders the accused to reimburse the offended party, Wilfrey Mabalot, the
sum of sixteen thousand eight hundred (P16,800.00) pesos which is the amount of money
paid and delivered to him by said complaining witness without subsidiary imprisonment in
case of insolvency.
In Criminal Case No. L-3994, the court likewise declares the accused, Fernando Manungas y
Go alias "Percy" guilty of estafa for the sum of P17,550.00 as charged in the information. And
there being no aggravating nor mitigating circumstance present, and applying the
Indeterminate Sentence Law in his favor, the accused is hereby sentenced to suffer an
indeterminate prison term from two (2) years, eleven (11) months and ten (10) days as
minimum to five (5) years, five (5) months and (11) days of prision correccional as maximum
and to pay the costs of the proceedings.
The court further directs the accused to reimburse the offended party, Danilo Ramirez the
sum of seventeen thousand five hundred fifty (P17,550.00) pesos which the accused took
from the complaint without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
In Criminal Case No. L-3996, the court also declares the accused, Fernando Manungas y Go
alias "Percy" guilty of estafa for eighteen thousand six hundred (P18,600.00) pesos as
charged in the information filed against him. There being no aggravating nor mitigating
circumstance present, and applying the Indeterminate Law in his favor, said accused is
hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate prison term from two (2) years, eleven months
(11) months and ten (10) days as minimum to five (5) years, five (5) months and eleven (11)
days of prision correccional as maximum and to pay the costs of the proceedings.
The court also directs the accused to reimburse the offended party the sum of eighteen
thousand six hundred (P18,600.00) pesos which is the amount paid and delivered by the
offended party to him without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
In Criminal Case No. L-4000, the court likewise holds the accused, Fernando Manungas y Go
alias "Precy" guilty of the crime of Illegal Recruitment on Large Scale as charged in the
information filed against him, defined and penalized under the provisions of Article 39, par.
(a) of Presidential Decree No. 2018 amending Articles 38 and 39 of P.D. No. 442, otherwise
known as the Labor Code of the Philippines, and conformable thereto, hereby sentences the
said accused to suffer the penalty of Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of One Hundred
Thousand (P100,000.00) pesos without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency
pursuant to law.
The accused shall serve the penalties herein imposed against him successively or one after
the other according to their severity.2
Based on the evidence adduced before the trial court, the facts of the case are as follows:
Sometime in April of 1987, accused-appellant Fernando Manungas, Jr. went to Barangay
Legaspi, Tayug, Pangasinan where he stayed in the house of Arturo and Lilia de Vera to
recruit workers for employment abroad. During his stay, accused-appellant was able to
convince complainants Wilfrey Mabalot, Danilo Ramirez, Leonardo Estanoco and Crisanto
Collado to apply as janitors in Saudi Arabia. He told them to bring all the necessary
documents for the processing of their applications to his office in Manila.
On April 29, 1987, complainants went to accused-appellant's office located at Room 611, L
and S Bldg., 1414 Roxas Blvd., Ermita, Manila and paid accused-appellant P250.00 each for
their medical examination. Thereafter, accused-appellant required the complainants to pay,
on various occasions, placement fees and other expenses incurred in the processing of their
papers and issued corresponding receipts for said amounts. The total amount paid by the
complainants to accused-appellant are the following: Wilfrey Mabalot P16,800.00; Danilo
Ramirez P17,550.00, Leonardo Estanoco 18,600.00, and Crisanto Collado 13,300.00
When complainants failed to leave for Saudi Arabia, they requested Luis "Jing" Ramirez, to
verify with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) whether accused-
appellant was licensed to recruit workers for abroad. They subsequently learned that he was
not as shown by the Certification issued by the POEA.3
Thereafter, complaints filed against accused-appellant complaints for Estafa defined under
par. 2(a), Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code and Illegal Recruitment on a Large Scale. In
due course, informations fro three (3) counts of Estafa (Criminal Cases Nos. L-3993, L-3994
and L-3996) and Illegal Recruitment on a Large Scale (Criminal Case No. L-4000) were filed
against accused-appellant before the Regional Trial Court of Lingayen, Pangasinan.
On the other hand, accused-appellant maintained that he was the operations manager of the
ZG Recruitment and Placement Agency, a duly licensed recruitment agency. Sometime in
April 1987, he went to Barangay Legaspi, Tayug, Pangasinan and recruited complainants to
work in Saudi Arabia as janitors. Unfortunately, the job order for the janitorial services was
awarded to Express Placement Agency instead of ZG Recruitment and Placement agency.
Thereafter, accused-appellant transferred complainants' application for overseas
employment to Nora Cunanan of Express Placement Agency. Accused-appellant also turned
over the fees paid by the complainants to Nora Cunanan as evidenced by the receipts4 issued
by the latter. When Nora Cunanan absconded with the money of the complainants, accused-
appellant filed an estafa case against Nora Cunanan after securing a Special Power of
Attorney from the complainants to prosecute and collect their money. However, he was not
able to attend the hearing as he was arrested in connection with the these cases.
Accused-appellant maintains that he did not make false representations to the complainants
when he requited the latter for employment abroad as he had told complainants that he is
only an employee of a licensed recruitment agency in Manila. He further claims that he was
not motivated by any deceitful intentions and had not caused any damage to the
complainants because the amounts of money given to him by the latter were actually spent
for their medical tests and other documents necessary for their overseas employment.
Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code defines "Recruitment and Placement" as:
Any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring
workers, and includes referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for employment,
locally or abroad, whether for profit or not: Provided, That any person or entity which, in any
manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons shall be deemed
engaged in recruitment and placement.
In the instant case, accused-appellant told complainants to submit to him their pictures, birth
certificates, NBI clearances and the necessary documents for the processing of their
employment in Saudi Arabia. Thereafter, accused-appellant collected from each of the
complainants payment for the their respective passport, training fee, placement fee, medical
tests and other sundry expenses which unquestionably constitutes acts of recruitment within
the meaning of the law. Besides, there is illegal recruitment when one gives the impression
of his ability to send a worker abroad5 and there is evidence that accused-appellant had
represented to the complainants that he could send them abroad as janitors in Saudi Arabia.
And because of his representation, complainants gave their hard-earned money to accused-
appellant in consideration of the same representation. As pointed out by the Solicitor
General in his brief:
It may be that at the time appellant recruited private complainants, he was then the
operations manager of the ZGR Placement Agency, a duly licensed recruitment agency. But,
as amply established by the evidence, the recruitment of private complainants was
appellant's own personal undertaking. He did not do it for the agency. This is clearly shown
by the sequence of events that led to the consum[m]ation of the transaction in question.
Thus: it was appellant who talked private complainants into applying for employment
abroad; when private complainants signified their interest, he alone was the one who
informed them of the documents that they have to secure; he too was the one who
demanded and received from them the fees for medical examination, passport,
authentication, training, placement and psycho and AIDS test; also, he was the one who
assured them of employment abroad and of the return of their money in the event of their
non-deployment; moreover, it was he who undertook to inform private complainants of their
departure.
But that is not all. When private complainants failed to receive notice of their departure as
promised them by appellant, they had somebody verify with the POEA if appellant was a
licensed recruiter. This circumstance shows all the more that indeed appellant represented
himself to be the recruiter, otherwise it would have been the status of the agency with which
he allegedly worked for, that private complainants would have requested to be verified.6
As to accused-appellant's claim that he did not misappropriate the money given to him by
the complainants as he had turned over the latters' placement fees to Nora Cunanan, who
subsequently absconded with the complainant's money, the trial court correctly held that:
The version of the defense has the nature of a cock and bull story which is difficult and hard
to accept. It is something that is fantastic and ridiculous. It is within the realm of fiction and
patently a mere fabrication to exculpate the accused from the consequences of his nefarious
and deceitful activities. If it is really true that the complainants were transferred and
accommodated by the agency of Nora Cunanan, why did not the accused and Mrs. Lydia
Zamora who appear to be both intelligent take the necessary prudence and caution of
putting the supposed agreement to transfer in writing considering the amounts of funds
involved in the alleged transfer. Logic and common sense dictate that under such a situation,
the accused and Mrs. Zamora take ordinary care of their concerns. To impress the court that
there was really a transfer made, the accused claimed that there was a estafa case filed
against Mrs. Cunanan before the City Fiscal's Office in Manila. It is however surprising why
Atty. Jose Torrefranca who was engaged by the accused to file the estafa case did not
present any letter-complaint or any charged sheet filed against Mrs. Cunanan. He did not
even mention the Fiscal who investigated the case. More intriguing is the fact that counsel
does not know what happened to the alleged case of estafa after he filed the same. Likewise,
when Mrs. Lydia Zamora declared, she claimed that the case filed against Nora Cunanan was
before the Regional Trial Court and not in the City Fiscal's Office.
Defense also made capital of the special power of atty. executed by the complainants
(exhibit 4) and their letters sent to the accused (exhibits 5, 6, 7 and 8) to convince the court
that the real culprit in the whole mess in Nora Cunanan. The complainants made convincing
explanation why they signed the special power of attorney. Wilfrey Mabalot declared that
when the accused asked him to sign the document, he was told that its purpose is to
facilitate their departure and when he signed the letter exhibit "6" he was just told to sign by
the accused and because the latter was in [a] hurry, he signed without knowing its contents.
He likewise explained that being a mere high school graduate he was not able to understand
the imports of its contents. Danilo Ramirez explained that when he signed the special power
of attorney, he did not read the contents because the accused was in [a] hurry in returning to
Manila and that he sent the three letters to the accused while he was confined in jail because
Manungas asked him to help him (accused) recover the money given to Mrs. Cunanan.
Leonardo Estanoco declared, that he signed exhibit "4" because the accused told him that
the document will be used to facilitate the processing of their papers. He did not understand
its contents because he only understands little English.7
Thus accused-appellant is guilty of the crimes of Estafa and Illegal Recruitment. Under Article
38 of the Labor Code, as amended, the crime of illegal recruitment is qualified when the
same is committed against three (3) or more persons.
A person who violates any of the provisions under Article 13(b) and Article 34 of the Labor
Code can be charged and convicted separately of illegal recruitment and estafa [Revised
Penal Code, Article 315, 2(a)] because illegal recruitment is a malum prohibitum where the
criminal intent of the accused is not necessary for a conviction while estafa is a malum in se
where criminal intent of the accused is necessary for a conviction.
WHEREFORE, finding the accused-appellant guilty of the crimes of estafa and illegal
recruitment in a large scale, decision of the trial court is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 132029 July 30, 2004
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee,
vs.
MARIO ALZONA, appellant.
DECISION
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
Before us is the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals dated July 28, 1997 rendered in CA-G.R. CR
No. 17228, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, the joint decision of the trial court finding appellant MARIO ALZONA guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of illegal recruitment in large scale and sentencing him to suffer
the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P100,000.00 (Criminal Case No. 92-
113702) and estafa (Criminal Case Nos. 92-113706 to 92-113709) is AFFIRMED with
modification in the sense that the penalty which should be imposed upon herein appellant in
Criminal Case No. 92-113709 is the indeterminate penalty of 4 years and 2 months of prision
correccional, as minimum, to 9 years of prision mayor, as maximum.
Pursuant to Section 13(2), Rule 124 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended, let
this case be certified and the entire records thereof be elevated to the Supreme Court for
review.
Costs against the appellant.
SO ORDERED.
On December 4, 1996, an Information for Large Scale Illegal Recruitment against appellant
Mario Alzona, docketed as Criminal Case No. 92-113702 and seven Informations for Estafa
against appellant and his wife, Miranda Alzona, docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 92-113703
to 92-113709, were filed before Branch 1 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila (RTC for
brevity). All eight cases were consolidated and jointly tried by the RTC. However, due to the
failure of private complainants to testify and present their evidence, Criminal Cases Nos. 92-
113703 to 92-113705 were dismissed but only as against appellant Mario Alzona.
In Criminal Case No. 92-113702, the Information charges appellant as follows:
That in (sic) or about and during the period comprised between August 2, 1991 and March
30, 1992, inclusive, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, representing himself
to have the capacity to contract, enlist and transport Filipino workers for employment
abroad, did then and there willfully, and unlawfully, for a fee, recruit and promise
employment/job placement abroad to the following persons, namely: LYDIA C. RAMOS,
MELINDA P. GONZALES, MARCELA R. MERCADO, FERNANDO P. DELA CRUZ, LEONARDO C.
MERCURIO, MARIO REGINO P. DECENA and JAMES M. MAZON, without first having secured
the required license or authority from the Department of Labor.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
In Criminal Cases Nos. 92-113706 to 92-113709, the Informations allege that appellant,
conspiring and confederating with his wife, Miranda Alzona, defrauded private complainants
Fernando Dela Cruz, James Mazon, Leonardo Mercurio and Mario Regino Decena, by means
of false manifestations and fraudulent representation that they had the power and capacity
to recruit and employ the private complainants and could facilitate the processing of the
pertinent papers if given the necessary amount to meet the requirements thereof, and by
means of other similar deceits, induced and succeeded in inducing said private complainants
to give and deliver, as in fact private complainants delivered sums of money to appellant and
his wife, the latter well knowing that their representations were false and fraudulent and
were made solely to obtain sums of money from private complainants, which money, once in
their possession, they misappropriated, misapplied and converted to their own personal use
and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of the private complainants.
Upon arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty to the foregoing charges. Trial ensued.
Accused Miranda Alzona remains at-large.
The facts of the case, as established by the prosecution, are as follows.
Private complainant Mario Regino Decena came to know of appellant because a friend of his,
Goring Rodil, was able to work abroad through the facilitation of appellant. Decena met
appellant at the latters house at 1532 Hizon St., Sta. Cruz, Manila, where appellant asked
him to prepare P38,000.00, inclusive of the P1,000.00 for the passport, so he can leave within
one month. Said amount was supposed to pay for his fare going to Korea where appellant
said he would be employed as a factory worker with a monthly salary of $450.00. Both
appellant and Miranda convinced him to apply for work abroad. He then paid the P1,000.00
for the passport and on February 10, 1992, he paid another P33,000.00, received by
appellant himself. The latter refused to give him a receipt for the amounts he paid. Despite
having paid the total of P34,000.00, appellant failed to send him to work in Korea and also
failed to return his money.2
Another private complainant, Leonardo Mercurio, also went to appellants house in Sta. Cruz,
Manila and applied to appellant and his wife for work abroad. Mercurio and his brother-in-
law, Fernando Dela Cruz, were accompanied by Decena who had also applied to the spouses
Alzona for overseas work. Mercurio talked mainly to appellants wife, Miranda, in the
presence of appellant. She asked him to pay P1,000.00 for the passport. Appellant was
seated around the same table where he and Miranda were talking. Appellant and Miranda
asked Mercurio and his brother-in-law to pay P20,000.00 each on March 30, 1992. Thus, on
March 30, 1992, Mercurio delivered to appellant the amount of P20,000.00 and despite his
request for a receipt, appellant refused to issue one. The total fees being asked for by
appellant was P38,000.00. After receiving the P20,000.00, appellant reminded Mercurio to
pay the balance so he can depart within a week for Korea where appellant promised him
employment as a factory worker with a monthly salary of at least $450.00. Appellant
instructed Mercurio to buy an attach case and a coat and tie. Mercurio was not able to
depart by the first week of April as promised by appellant but he continued to follow-up his
application. Sometime in July of 1992, Mercurio became impatient and demanded from
appellant for the return of his money. On August 21, 1992, Mercurio filed a complaint with
the police against appellant.3
Private complainant Fernando Dela Cruz corroborated the testimony of Mercurio on all
material points. On some of the occasions that he and Mercurio followed-up their
applications, Dela Cruz talked to appellant himself who would always tell him to prepare
because they will soon be leaving for Korea. The last time they went to appellants house, the
Barangay Captain of the place informed them that appellant had already been
apprehended.4
Private complainant James Mazon had a similar experience with appellant and Miranda. After both parties had rested their case, the trial court rendered judgment,10 the dispositive
After having heard that appellant and Miranda were accepting applicants for employment portion of which read as follows:
abroad, Mazon went to appellants residence during the first week of January, 1992.
Appellant and Miranda promised that he would be deployed to Korea where he will be WHEREFORE, this court finds the accused Mario Alzona GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
employed as a factory worker. He was told to pay the placement fee of P38,000.00 inclusive Illegal Recruitment in large scale in Criminal Case No. 92-113702 and of four (4) separate
of charges for the passport. Appellant told Mazon that he was in-charge of booking and crimes of estafa in Criminal Cases Nos. 92-113706, 92-113707, 92-113708 and 92-113709
procuring tickets, while Miranda was the one who made arrangements with regard to the and, as a consequence thereof, sentences him as follows:
application for a job abroad. On January 10, 1992, he gave P15,000.00 to appellant who did
(1) In Criminal Case No. 92-113702, to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a
not issue a receipt. Upon receiving such partial payment, appellant promised him that he
fine of P100,000.00; and
would be deployed within one to two months. He was never deployed to Korea and he heard
from the other private complainants who were also from Mulanay, Quezon, that appellant
(2) In Criminal Cases Nos. 92-113706, 92-113707, 92-113708 and 92-113709, to suffer in each
was already in jail.5
case the indeterminate penalty of one (1) year and eight (8) months of prision correccional
minimum as minimum to five (5) months and eleven (11) days of prision correccional
Risa Balverde, a Licensure Officer III of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration
maximum as maximum.
(POEA) testified that appellant was neither licensed nor authorized by the POEA to recruit
workers for overseas employment.6
Further, the accused shall indemnify the private complainants Fernando dela Cruz, James
Mazon, Leonardo Mercurio and Mario Regino P. Decena the respective sums of P21,000.00,
For his defense, appellant merely denied that he ever met, talked to or received money from
P15,000.00, P21,000.00, and P34,000.00, with interest thereon at the legal rate from judicial
the aforementioned four private complainants; nor had he been involved in illegal
demand until fully paid.
recruitment. He presented the alibi that he, being a jeepney driver, was out of their house
everyday from 7 o clock in the morning to around 9 oclock in the evening, so private
Costs against the accused in all the above-mentioned cases.
complainants could not have talked to him at his house at 1532 Hizon St., Sta. Cruz, Manila.
He, however, admitted that in 1989, he found out that his wife was engaged in recruiting Anent Criminal Cases No. 92-113703, 92-113704 and 92-113705, the same are hereby
workers for abroad. In fact, his wife had been going back and forth to Korea around six times ordered dismissed as against accused Mario Alzona for lack of evidence.
a year since 1990, to accompany people. He stopped being a jeepney driver on July 15, 1992,
because so many people were going to their house.7 No costs.

Appellants daughter, Marites Alzona, corroborated her fathers testimony that he is a SO ORDERED.11
jeepney driver and is out of their house everyday from 6 oclock in the morning to 10 oclock
in the evening, and therefore, private complainants could not have met her father. She Appellant appealed the criminal cases to the Court of Appeals with the following Assignment
admitted that she had seen private complainants talking to her mother at their house of Errors:
beginning August 1991 but she was unaware as to what their purpose was for coming to
I
their house. She would see them at their house around four times a month, but the last time
she saw them was in July 1992. Her mother left for Korea on July 15, 1992 and thereafter, THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT ACCUSED-APPELLANT ILLEGALLY RECRUITED THE
every time private complainants would come looking for her mother, she would be the one COMPLAINANTS.
to talk to them. When she told them that her mother had left for Korea, private complainants
became angry. On August 5, 1992, she and her father were arrested at their house.8 II

Appellants sister, Esther Panday, testified that she owns the jeepney being driven by THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF 4 COUNTS OF ESTAFA
appellant everyday, twelve hours a day. Such being the case, she believed appellant could DESPITE PROSECUTIONS FAILURE TO PROVE THAT HE CONSPIRED WITH HIS WIFE IN
not have engaged in any other sideline such as recruiting workers for abroad.9 DEFRAUDING THE COMPLAINANTS.
Appellant points out that the testimonies of Mercurio, Dela Cruz and Mazon showed that it
was actually only Miranda who transacted with private complainants. Therefore, argues
appellant, there was no sufficient evidence to prove that appellant was acting in
confederation with his wife. Furthermore, appellant claims that private complainants merely
implicated him because they could no longer find Miranda who was the one who recruited
private complainants for overseas employment.
On July 28, 1997, the Court of Appeals rendered its Decision, the decretal portion of which
has been quoted earlier.
First, we tackle the charge of Illegal Recruitment against appellant. Pertinent provisions of
the Labor Code state thus:
Article 13. Definitions. -
...
(b) Recruitment and placement refers to any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting,
transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract services,
promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not:
Provided, that any person or entity which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee
employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and
placement.
...
Article 38. Illegal Recruitment. - (a) Any recruitment activities, including the prohibited
practices enumerated under Article 34 of this Code, to be undertaken by non-licensees or
non-holders of authority shall be deemed illegal and punishable under Article 39 of this Code.
The Department of Labor or any law enforcement officer may initiate complaints under this
Article.
(b) Illegal Recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall be considered
an offense involving economic sabotage and shall be penalized in accordance with Article 39
hereof
Illegal Recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3)
or more persons conspiring and/or confederating with one another in carrying out any
unlawful or illegal transaction, enterprise or scheme defined under the first paragraph
hereof. Illegal Recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three (3)
or more persons individually or as a group, . . .
Article 39. Penalties. (a) The penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of One Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) shall be imposed if illegal recruitment constitutes economic
sabotage as defined herein; . . .
Pursuant to the foregoing, the prosecution must prove the following elements of the crime
of illegal recruitment in large scale, to wit:
(1) the person undertakes any recruitment activity defined under Article 13, paragraph (b), or
any prohibited practice enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code; (2) said person does
not have a license or authority to engage in the recruitment and placement of workers; and
(3) the act is committed against three or more persons, individually or as a group.12
The testimonies of prosecution witnesses, namely: private complainants Decena, Mercurio,
Dela Cruz, and Mazon and Licensure Officer III Balverde, of the POEA, prove that appellant
and his wife Miranda promised overseas employment to private complainants upon payment
of placement fees, without the necessary license therefor. Appellant maintains that he could
not have transacted with private complainants as he was out of their house as a jeepney
driver from 6 oclock in the morning to 9 oclock in the evening, seven days a week. With
these conflicting versions of the parties, it is quite clear that the resolution of this case
revolves around the credibility of witnesses.
We are constrained to scrutinize the entire records of the case and determine whether the
prosecution evidence has proven the existence of all the elements of the crimes of Illegal
Recruitment and Estafa.
It is important to keep in mind the oft-repeated rule that:
. . . where the issue is on credibility, the findings of the trial court will generally not be
disturbed. The trial court has the advantage of hearing the witnesses and observing their
conduct during the trial, circumstances that carry great weight in appreciating credibility. The
trial court is thus in a better position to settle such an issue.13
We have carefully reviewed the records of the case and find no cogent reason to overturn
the factual findings of the trial court, especially its evaluation of the credibility of the
prosecution witnesses, thus: "the testimonies of private complainants . . . given in clear,
logical and straightforward manner, mentioning details of the incidents that could not have
been merely concocted, reflecting spontaneity and sincerity in the narration of events, are
indicative of the truth of what actually happened."14
The testimonies of the four private complainants, viewed in their totality, have indeed
established that appellant and Miranda cooperated with each other in convincing private
complainants to pay them a placement fee of P38,000.00 for employment as factory workers
in Korea, despite the absence of the required license therefor. The alleged segmented
portions of the testimonies of Mercurio, Dela Cruz, and Mazon, quoted by appellant in his
appellants brief, that supposedly would show that only his wife Miranda was involved in
illegal recruitment, were obviously taken out of context. A scrutiny of the entirety of all four
private complainants testimonies would show that sometimes, it would be appellant who
would transact business with private complainants and at other times, it would be
appellants wife Miranda. Most damning for appellant, however, is the fact that all the
private complainants categorically stated that it was appellant who received sums of money
from them and refused to issue a receipt. Such fact shows that he actively engaged in the
recruitment of three or more workers for employment abroad despite the lack of the
necessary license from the POEA, which act constitutes the crime of illegal recruitment in
large scale.
Next, we come to the charges of four separate counts of estafa against appellant. Article 315,
paragraph 2 (a) of the Revised Penal Code provides thus:
ART. 315. Swindling (estafa). Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means
mentioned hereinbelow shall be punished by:
1st. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum
period, if the amount of the fraud is over 12,000 but does not exceed 22,000 pesos, and if
such amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed
in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional 10,000.00; but the total penalty
which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such case, and in connection with
the accessory penalties which may be imposed and for the purpose of the other provisions of
this Code, the penalty shall be termed prision mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may
be.
.........
2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or
simultaneously with the commission of the fraud:
(a) By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications,
property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of other similar
deceits.
...
Verily, the very same evidence proving appellants commission of the crime of illegal
recruitment in large scale also established that appellant and Miranda acted with unity of
purpose in defrauding private complainants by misrepresenting that they (appellant and
Miranda) had the power, influence, agency and business to obtain overseas employment for
private complainants upon payment of a placement fee, which complainants did pay and
deliver to appellant. Thus, private complainants suffered damages to the extent of the
various sums of money they delivered to appellant, i.e., P34,000.00 from Decena, P21,000.00
each from Mercurio and Dela Cruz, and P15,000.00 from Mazon. The prosecution has
established beyond reasonable doubt that appellant is guilty of the four counts of estafa.
The Court of Appeals was correct in modifying the penalty imposed on appellant with regard
to Criminal Case No. 92-113709, competently explaining thus:
We note, however, that the trial court imposed the wrong penalty in Criminal Case No 92-
113709 . . . involving the amount of P34,000.00. Pursuant to Article 315 of the Revised Penal
Code, if the amount defrauded exceeds P22,000.00, the penalty of prision correccional in its
maximum period to prision mayor in the minimum period shall be imposed in its maximum
period (6 years, 8 months and 21 days to 8 years) adding one year for each additional
P10,000.00; but the total penalty shall not exceed 20 years.
The amount defrauded, as stated above, is P34,000.00. Hence, the penalty should be
imposed in the maximum period (6 years, 8 months and 21 days to 8 years) plus one year,
there being only one P10,000.00 in excess of P22,000.00. Applying the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, the maximum penalty should be taken from the aforementioned maximum
period, while the minimum term shall be within the range of the penalty next lower in
degree, i.e., prision correccional in its minimum and medium period which has a duration of
6 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months. Accordingly, the correct penalty should be 4
years and 2 months of prision correccional, as minimum, to 9 years of prision mayor as
maximum.
An appeal in a criminal case opens the entire case for review.15 The typographical error in
the dispositive portion of the decision rendered by the RTC regarding the penalty to be
imposed on appellant in Criminal Cases Nos. 92-113706 to 92-113708 should be corrected
from "one (1) year and eight (8) months of prision correccional minimum as minimum to five
(5) months and eleven (11) days of prision correccional maximum as maximum" to "one (1)
year and eight (8) months of prision correccional as minimum to five (5) years and eleven
(11) days of prision correccional as maximum."
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated July 28, 1997 in CA-G.R. CR No.
17228 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION only as to Criminal Cases Nos. 92-113706 to 92-
113708 where appellant is hereby sentenced in each case, to suffer the indeterminate
penalty of one (1) year and eight (8) months of prision correccional as minimum to five (5)
years and eleven (11) days of prision correccional as maximum.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 101361 November 8, 1993
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
MARY ROSE ONDO @ BABY and SIMEON ORTEGA, accused. MARY ROSE ONDO @ BABY,
accused-appellant.
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Eriberto S. Guerrero, Jr. for accused-appellant.
QUIASON, J.:
This is an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 109, Pasay City, in
Criminal Case No-89-3949, convicting Mary Rose Ondo @ Baby of illegal recruitment.
Appellant and Simeon Ortega were charged with violation of Article 38 of the Labor Code,
committed as follows:
That on or about and sometime from the month of December 1988 to August 1989, in Pasay
City, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping one
another, by falsely representing themselves to have the power and capacity to contract,
enlist and transport workers for employment abroad, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully
and felonously recruit Erlinda Cortez, Fidela Engada, Myra Siguenza, Dulce Garcia and
Emilinda Padua and charged them placement fees and processing fees and promising said
persons non-existing jobs abroad, thus participating to the recruitment, placement of
deployment of said worders under false pretenses. (Rollo, p. 22).
The court a quo accepted, as established by the evidence on record, the version of the
prosecution, which was summarized in the brief of the Solicitor General, as follows:
On January 9, 1989, Perfecta Calderon, the sister and cousin of private complainants
Frederico Calderon and Erlinda Cortez, respectively, received a call from her sister Angelita
Calderon who was in Italy. Angelita instructed her to wait for the call of appellant regarding
the recruitment of her brother Frederico and cousin Erlinda Cortez for jobs in Italy. A few
days thereafter, she received a call from appellant who asked for the passports, pictures and
birth certificates of Frederico and Erlinda so that appellant could process the requisite
documentations for their departure to Italy. Likewise, appellant also demanded the amount
of 5,000 US Dollars (sic) as payment for the plane tickets of both applicants (tsn., pp. 3-4,
may 10, 1990).
On January 15, 1989, appellant called her up telling her to bring the documents (passports,
pictures and Birth Certificates) to appellant's residence at 1754 Lacaba Compound, Tramo
Street, Pasay City, which she did.
At the residence of appellant, Perfecta handed over the documents and the 5,000 US Dollars
(sic) to Simeon Ortega who signed a receipt (Exhs. "J" and "J-1") to evidence payment. Ortega
then handed the money to appellant. Before leaving appellant's residence, Perfecta inquired
for the date of departure of her brother and cousin, but was told by appellant to wait for her
call (tsn., pp. 5-8, may 10, 1989). The call, however, never came, so she demanded for the
return of the money and the documents. Only the documents were returned (tsn., p. 9, May
10, 1990).
Her brother and cousin though were able to leave for and are already working in Italy
through the assistance of another travel agency (tsn., ibid.)
Sometime in December 1988, private complainant Fidela Engada was introduced by her
brother Wilfredo to appellant through a letter. Wilfredo Engada instructed her auntie Lucy
Engada by phone to bring complainant to appellant for the latter to process her papers for
abroad.
On December 28, 1988, private complainant and Lucy Engada went to appellant's residence
in 1754 Lacaba Compound, Tramo Street, Pasay City, where she was introduced to appellant.
Private complainant manifested he desire to go abroad through the help of appellant per her
brother's recommendation. Appellant then intimated to her that the amount P65,000.00 was
needed to defray for all the expenses. Outright, she handed a down payment of P30,000.00
which was duly receipted ([Exhs. "A" to "A-1"] tsn., pp. 5-8, May 2, 1990). Appellant asked for
her passport for processing and told her to get in touch with appellant to ascertain the date
of her departure.
After numerous follow-ups, private complainant was informed by appellant of her departure
on August 18, 1989 and appellant demanded another amount of 200 US Dollars (sic) for the
purchase of her plane ticket for Italy. This event was duly acknowledged by appellant (Exhs.
"B" to "B-1", tsn., pp. 10-11, May 2, 1990).
On August 18, 1989, however, private complainant was not able to depart for Italy. She then
tried to see appellant at her residence but to no avail; appellant could no longer be located.
For four more times she went to appellant's place but with the same result. In her last
attempt though, private complainant met the other victims of appellant and it was then that
they decided to file their complaints with the Pasay City Prosecutor's Office against appellant
through a "Magkasanib na Pahayag" ([Exh. "C"], tsn., pp. 12-14, May 2, 1990).
Private complainant, Dulce Garcia was introduced to appellant through a letter from
appellant's friend, Lilia Gonzales. On the last week of April 1989, appellant called her about
11:00 o'clock (sic) in the evening and introduced herself as a balikbayan from Italy and a
recruiter who could deploy workers for abroad. Private complainant, desirous of trying her
luck abroad, asked what the requirements were. Appellant told her that the amount of
P65,000.00 was needed to pay for the package-deal-arrangement in processing her travel
documents i.e. passports, plan ticket and placement fees (tsn., pp. 14-15, May 10, 1990).
Three days after, appellant called her up again and told her to prepare the necessary
requirements and to go to her (appellant's) address at 1754-A Lacaba Compound, Tramo
Street, Pasay City with the P65,000.00. While at the appellant's residence, she was told that
she could depart on the first week of June 1989. On May 10, 1989, appellant called her up
anew and told her to her (appellant) again at her said residence and bring with her the
necessary documents and the P65,000.00.
In the afternoon of the next day (May 11, 1989), private complainant went to appellant's
residence where she handed the documents and the amount of P53,000.00 in the presence
of Emmanuel Balboa, appellant's boyfriend. Appellant issued a receipt in acknowledgment
therefor (Exhs. "K" to "K-1"), with the entry appearing thereat "received the amount of Fifty-
three Thousand Pesos Payment for plane ticket in going to Italy" (Exh. "K-2"). Appellant then
told her to wait for another call yet. Five days after, appellant called her up and told her to
bring along her Birth Certificate and ID pictures so that she could accompany her to the
Passport Division of the department of Foreign Affairs at the Film center. Private complainant
was further told that her personal appearance at the Passport Division was important. (tsn.,
pp. 16-19, May 10, 1990).
At the Passport Division, private complainant was interviewed, after which appellant told her
to give the balance of the P65,000.00 In the morning of May 22, 1989, she went to
appellant's residence and paid the amount of P11,500.00, which payment was duly receipted
(Exhs. "L" to "L-2") with the entry: "received from Dulce Garcia, P11,510.00 payment for
travel abroad." Appellant then showed private complainant her passport which was never
handed over to her up to now. She was assured though that her departure would be on June
6, 1989 (tsn., pp. 20-21, May 10, 1990). June 6, 1989 came but private complainant was not
able to depart because a day before (June 5, 1989), appellant called her up and told her that
she (appellant) was hospitalized. Her departure was, however, rescheduled for August 8,
1989. On this said scheduled date (August 8, 1989), she was not able to leave because
appellant told her that nobody would fetch her at the airport in Italy. Thus the departure was
again reset for any other day of August. The month of August 1989 passed, but she was not
able to leave. So she demanded for the return of the entire amount of P64,510.00 but
appellant failed to return the money. She, together with the other "victims" of appellant,
decided to file complaints against the latter with the Pasay Fiscal's Office in a "Sinumpaan
Salaysay" (Exhs. "M" to "M-2", tsn., pp. 21-23, May 10, 1990)" (Rollo, pp. 72-79).
After convicting appellant of illegal recruitment, the court a quo sentenced her to life
imprisonment and to pay a fine of P100,000.00 in accordance with Article 39 of the Labor
Code (Decision, p. 19; Rollo, p. 40).
In her appeal, appellant questions the findings of the trial court that she had committed acts
constituting a violation of Article 38 of the Labor Code (Appellant's Brief, pp. 6-7; Rollo, p.
57).
The evidence on record shows that the complainants positively identified appellant as the
one who recruited them for jobs in Italy as domestic helpers and who demanded P65,000.00
from each of them as payment for the facilitation of their travel documents. It was
appellant's promise to complainants of job opportunities abroad that lured them to part with
their money.
In the absence of any proof that the decision of the trial court was based on conjectures or
surmises, the same must be upheld on appeal. The trial court is in a better position to
observe and evaluate the demeanor of the witnesses (People v. Pido, 200 SCRA 45 [1991]).
Devoid of merit is the defense of the appellant that the Felixim Travel Agency was the one
which recruited the complainants. No proof whatsoever was adduced to show that the
officers or employees of said agency had personally transacted with private complainants in
connection with their overseas employment. The complainants themselves had testified that
the Felixim Travel Agency had nothing to do with their transaction with appellant.
We agree with the findings of the court a quo that appellant is guilty of illegal recruitment.
Article 38 of the Labor Code, as amended, provides that:
Illegal Recruitment. (a) Any recruitment activities, including the prohibited practices
enumerated under Article 34 of this Code, to be undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders
of authority shall be deemed illegal and punishable under Article 39 of this Code.
Article 13 (b) of the Labor, Code, defines recruitment and placement as "any act of
canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers and
includes referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for employment locally or
abroad, whether for profit or not.
As can be gleaned from the aforementioned provisions, illegal recruitment has two essential
elements, to wit: (1) the accused must be engaged in the recruitment and placement of
workers, whether locally or overseas and; (2) the accused has not complied with such
guidelines, rules and regulations issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment,
particularly with respect to the securing of license or authority to recruit and deploy workers
either locally or overseas.
These essential elements are present in the case at bench. Appellant promised overseas
employment to the complainants for a fee, which the latter paid. In fact, appellant admitted
that the money she received from the complainants was in connection with the processing of
their visas, passports and plane tickets. She also admitted that she failed to make good her
promise to send them abroad (TSN, October 5, 1990, p. 6).
Appellant is neither licensed nor authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment as
testified by Virginia Santiago of the Inspection Division of the Licensing Board of the
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA).
Appellant insists that being a minor, she should be placed under custody of the barangay
official of Sambol, Lemery, Batangas as provided for by Article 191 of P.D. No. 603.
Article 191 of P.D. 603 provides:
Care of Youthful Offender Held for Examination or Trial. A youthful offender held for
physical and mental examination or trial or pending appeal, if unable to furnish bail, shall be
from the time of his arrest be committed to the care of the Department of Social Services
and Development or the local rehabilitation center or a detention home in the province or
city which shall be responsible for his appearance in court whenever required: Provided, That
in the absence of any such center or agency within a reasonable distance from the venue of
the trial, the provincial, city or municipal jail shall provide quarters for youthful offenders
separate from other detainees. The court may, in its discretion, upon recommendation of the
Department of Social Services and Development or other agency or agencies authorized by
the court, release a youthful offender on recognizance, to the custody of his parents or other
suitable person who shall be responsible for his appearance whenever required. However, in
case of those whose cases fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Military Tribunals, they
may be committed at any military detention or rehabilitation center. (Emphasis supplied)
This issue is mooted in view of the fact that the trial of the appellant was terminated while
her appeal was resolved with this decision. As can be inferred from its wordings, the
provision is operative only during the trial or pending the appeal of the minor-accused.
Nevertheless, the law uses the word "may," which denotes that it is directory in nature and
implies discretion on the part of the trial court to place the minor under the custody of his or
her parents or any suitable person.
Appellant further invokes the provisions of Article192, which she alleges the court a quo
failed to apply to her benefit. Under said Article, the trial court shall suspend the sentencing
and commitment of youthful offenders and instead commit them to the custody of the
Department of Social Services and Development or to any training institution until they shall
have reached 21 years of age.
Again, appellant's contention cannot be sustained.
Said Article provides that it ". . . . shall not apply to a youthful offender who has once enjoyed
suspension of sentence under its provisions or to one who is convicted of an offense
punishable by death or life imprisonment." (Emphasis supplied).
Appellant was convicted by the court a quo of illegal recruitment and was sentenced to
suffer the penalty of life imprisonment. Clearly, her case. falls under the exception provided
for by the Child and Youth Welfare Code.
Under Section 39 of the Labor Code, as amended, the penalty of life imprisonment is
correctly imposed where illegal recruitment is committed in "large scale," which means that
it is committed against three or more persons (People v. Duque, 212 SCRA 607 [1992]). In this
case,appellant victimized Erlinda Cortez, Fidela Engada, Myra Siguenza, Dulce Garcia and
Emilinda Padua.
We noted that appellant was only 16 years of age at the time she committed the offense
(TSN, October 5, 1990, p. 2). If she prosecuted under, the Revised Penal Code, appellant is
entitled to a reduction of the penalty imposed by law by one degree because of the
attendance of the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority (Article 68, Revised Penal
Code). But the benign provisions of the Revised Penal Code are not applicable to offenders
prosecuted and punished under special laws. Likewise, appellant is not entitled to the
benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, which requires the sentencing court to fix a
minimum term within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by law, because
the penalty imposed on her is "life imprisonment" (Act 4103 as amended by Act 4225, Sec.
2).
Under the circumstances, we can only recommend that executive clemency be extended to
her (People v. Beralde, 139 SCRA 426 [1985]; People v. Lagasca, 148 SCRA 264 [1987]; People
v. Mangusan, 189 SCRA 624 [1990]).
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is AFFIRMED in toto but in view of the minority of
appellant at the time she committed the offense, we recommend to the Secretary of Justice
that a case study of appellant be undertaken to determine whether she is deserving of
executive clemency. Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 187730 June 29, 2010
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,
vs.
RODOLFO GALLO y GADOT, Accused-Appellant,
FIDES PACARDO y JUNGCO and PILAR MANTA y DUNGO, Accused.
DECISION
VELASCO, JR., J.:
The Case
This is an appeal from the Decision1 dated December 24, 2008 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in
CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02764 entitled People of the Philippines v. Rodolfo Gallo y Gadot
(accused-appellant), Fides Pacardo y Jungco and Pilar Manta y Dungo (accused), which
affirmed the Decision2 dated March 15, 2007 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 30 in
Manila which convicted the accused-appellant Rodolfo Gallo y Gadot ("accused-appellant")
of syndicated illegal recruitment in Criminal Case No. 02-206293 and estafa in Criminal Case
No. 02-206297.
The Facts
Originally, accused-appellant Gallo and accused Fides Pacardo ("Pacardo") and Pilar Manta
("Manta"), together with Mardeolyn Martir ("Mardeolyn") and nine (9) others, were charged
with syndicated illegal recruitment and eighteen (18) counts of estafa committed against
eighteen complainants, including Edgardo V. Dela Caza ("Dela Caza"), Sandy Guantero
("Guantero") and Danilo Sare ("Sare"). The cases were respectively docketed as Criminal Case
Nos. 02-2062936 to 02-206311. However, records reveal that only Criminal Case No. 02-
206293, which was filed against accused-appellant Gallo, Pacardo and Manta for syndicated
illegal recruitment, and Criminal Case Nos. 02-206297, 02-206300 and 02-206308, which
were filed against accused-appellant Gallo, Pacardo and Manta for estafa, proceeded to trial
due to the fact that the rest of the accused remained at large. Further, the other cases,
Criminal Case Nos. 02-206294 to 02-206296, 02-206298 to 02-206299, 02-206301 to 02-
206307 and 02-206309 to 02-206311 were likewise provisionally dismissed upon motion of
Pacardo, Manta and accused-appellant for failure of the respective complainants in said
cases to appear and testify during trial.
It should also be noted that after trial, Pacardo and Manta were acquitted in Criminal Case
Nos. 02-206293, 02-206297, 02-206300 and 02-206308 for insufficiency of evidence.
Likewise, accused-appellant Gallo was similarly acquitted in Criminal Case Nos. 02-206300,
the case filed by Guantero, and 02-206308, the case filed by Sare. However, accused-
appellant was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case Nos. 02-206293 and
02-206297, both filed by Dela Caza, for syndicated illegal recruitment and estafa,
respectively.
Thus, the present appeal concerns solely accused-appellants conviction for syndicated illegal
recruitment in Criminal Case No. 02-206293 and for estafa in Criminal Case No. 02-206297.
In Criminal Case No. 02-206293, the information charges the accused-appellant, together
with the others, as follows:
The undersigned accuses MARDEOLYN MARTIR, ISMAEL GALANZA, NELMAR MARTIR,
MARCELINO MARTIR, NORMAN MARTIR, NELSON MARTIR, MA. CECILIA M. RAMOS, LULU
MENDANES, FIDES PACARDO y JUNGCO, RODOLFO GALLO y GADOT, PILAR MANTA y DUNGO,
ELEONOR PANUNCIO and YEO SIN UNG of a violation of Section 6(a), (l) and (m) of Republic
Act 8042, otherwise known as the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipino Workers Act of
1995, committed by a syndicate and in large scale, as follows:
That in or about and during the period comprised between November 2000 and December,
2001, inclusive, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused conspiring and
confederating together and helping with one another, representing themselves to have the
capacity to contract, enlist and transport Filipino workers for employment abroad, did then
and there willfully and unlawfully, for a fee, recruit and promise employment/job placement
abroad to FERDINAND ASISTIN, ENTICE BRENDO, REYMOND G. CENA, EDGARDO V. DELA
CAZA, RAYMUND EDAYA, SANDY O. GUANTENO, RENATO V. HUFALAR, ELENA JUBICO, LUPO
A. MANALO, ALMA V. MENOR, ROGELIO S. MORON, FEDILA G. NAIPA, OSCAR RAMIREZ,
MARISOL L. SABALDAN, DANILO SARE, MARY BETH SARDON, JOHNNY SOLATORIO and JOEL
TINIO in Korea as factory workers and charge or accept directly or indirectly from said
FERDINAND ASISTIN the amount of P45,000.00; ENTICE BRENDO P35,000.00; REYMOND G.
CENA P30,000.00; EDGARDO V. DELA CAZA P45,000.00; RAYMUND EDAYA P100,000.00;
SANDY O. GUANTENO P35,000.00; RENATO V. HUFALAR P70,000.00; ELENA JUBICO
P30,000.00; LUPO A. MANALO P75,000.00; ALMA V. MENOR P45,000.00; ROGELIO S.
MORON P70,000.00; FEDILA G. NAIPA P45,000.00; OSCAR RAMIREZ P45,000.00;
MARISOL L. SABALDAN P75,000.00; DANILO SARE P100,000.00; MARY BETH SARDON
P25,000.00; JOHNNY SOLATORIO P35,000.00; and JOEL TINIO P120,000.00 as placement
fees in connection with their overseas employment, which amounts are in excess of or
greater than those specified in the schedule of allowable fees prescribed by the POEA Board
Resolution No. 02, Series 1998, and without valid reasons and without the fault of the said
complainants failed to actually deploy them and failed to reimburse the expenses incurred by
the said complainants in connection with their documentation and processing for purposes
of their deployment.3 (Emphasis supplied)
In Criminal Case No. 02-206297, the information reads:
That on or about May 28, 2001, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused conspiring
and confederating together and helping with [sic] one another, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously defraud EDGARDO V. DELA CAZA, in the following manner, to wit:
the said accused by means of false manifestations and fraudulent representations which they
made to the latter, prior to and even simultaneous with the commission of the fraud, to the
effect that they had the power and capacity to recruit and employ said EDGARDO V. DELA
CAZA in Korea as factory worker and could facilitate the processing of the pertinent papers if
given the necessary amount to meet the requirements thereof; induced and succeeded in
inducing said EDGARDO V. DELA CAZA to give and deliver, as in fact, he gave and delivered to
said accused the amount of P45,000.00 on the strength of said manifestations and
representations, said accused well knowing that the same were false and untrue and were
made [solely] for the purpose of obtaining, as in fact they did obtain the said amount of
P45,000.00 which amount once in their possession, with intent to defraud said [EDGARDO] V.
DELA CAZA, they willfully, unlawfully and feloniously misappropriated, misapplied and
converted the said amount of P45,000.00 to their own personal use and benefit, to the he paid Forty-Five Thousand Pesos (PhP 45,000) to MPM Agency through accused-appellant
damage and prejudice of the said EDGARDO V. DELA CAZA in the aforesaid amount of Gallo who, while in the presence of Pacardo, Manta and Mardeolyn, issued and signed
P45,000.00, Philippine currency. Official Receipt No. 401.

CONTRARY TO LAW.4 Two (2) weeks after paying MPM Agency, Dela Caza went back to the agencys office in
Malate, Manila only to discover that the office had moved to a new location at Batangas
When arraigned on January 19, 2004, accused-appellant Gallo entered a plea of not guilty to Street, Brgy. San Isidro, Makati. He proceeded to the new address and found out that the
all charges. agency was renamed to New Filipino Manpower Development & Services, Inc. ("New
Filipino"). At the new office, he talked to Pacardo, Manta, Mardeolyn, Lulu Mendanes and
On March 3, 2004, the pre-trial was terminated and trial ensued, thereafter.
accused-appellant Gallo. He was informed that the transfer was done for easy accessibility to
clients and for the purpose of changing the name of the agency.
During the trial, the prosecution presented as their witnesses, Armando Albines Roa, the
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) representative and private
Dela Caza decided to withdraw his application and recover the amount he paid but
complainants Dela Caza, Guanteno and Sare. On the other hand, the defense presented as its
Mardeolyn, Pacardo, Manta and Lulu Mendanes talked him out from pursuing his decision.
witnesses, accused-appellant Gallo, Pacardo and Manta.
On the other hand, accused-appellant Gallo even denied any knowledge about the money.
Version of the Prosecution
After two (2) more months of waiting in vain to be deployed, Dela Caza and the other
applicants decided to take action. The first attempt was unsuccessful because the agency
On May 22, 2001, Dela Caza was introduced by Eleanor Panuncio to accused-appellant Gallo,
again moved to another place. However, with the help of the Office of Ambassador Seeres
Pacardo, Manta, Mardeolyn, Lulu Mendanes, Yeo Sin Ung and another Korean national at the
and the Western Police District, they were able to locate the new address at 500 Prudential
office of MPM International Recruitment and Promotion Agency ("MPM Agency") located in
Building, Carriedo, Manila. The agency explained that it had to move in order to separate
Malate, Manila.
those who are applying as entertainers from those applying as factory workers. Accused-
Dela Caza was told that Mardeolyn was the President of MPM Agency, while Nelmar Martir appellant Gallo, together with Pacardo and Manta, were then arrested.
was one of the incorporators. Also, that Marcelino Martir, Norman Martir, Nelson Martir and
The testimony of prosecution witness Armando Albines Roa, a POEA employee, was
Ma. Cecilia Ramos were its board members. Lulu Mendanes acted as the cashier and
dispensed with after the prosecution and defense stipulated and admitted to the existence
accountant, while Pacardo acted as the agencys employee who was in charge of the records
of the following documents:
of the applicants. Manta, on the other hand, was also an employee who was tasked to deliver
documents to the Korean embassy.
1. Certification issued by Felicitas Q. Bay, Director II, Licensing Branch of the POEA to the
effect that "New Filipino Manpower Development & Services, Inc., with office address at
Accused-appellant Gallo then introduced himself as a relative of Mardeolyn and informed
1256 Batangas St., Brgy. San Isidro, Makati City, was a licensed landbased agency whose
Dela Caza that the agency was able to send many workers abroad. Together with Pacardo
license expired on December 10, 2001 and was delisted from the roster of licensed agencies
and Manta, he also told Dela Caza about the placement fee of One Hundred Fifty Thousand
on December 14, 2001." It further certified that "Fides J. Pacardo was the agencys
Pesos (PhP 150,000) with a down payment of Forty-Five Thousand Pesos (PhP 45,000) and
Recruitment Officer";
the balance to be paid through salary deduction.
2. Certification issued by Felicitas Q. Bay of the POEA to the effect that MPM International
Dela Caza, together with the other applicants, were briefed by Mardeolyn about the
Recruitment and Promotion is not licensed by the POEA to recruit workers for overseas
processing of their application papers for job placement in Korea as a factory worker and
employment;
their possible salary. Accused Yeo Sin Ung also gave a briefing about the business and what
to expect from the company and the salary.
3. Certified copy of POEA Memorandum Circular No. 14, Series of 1999 regarding placement
fee ceiling for landbased workers.
With accused-appellants assurance that many workers have been sent abroad, as well as the
presence of the two (2) Korean nationals and upon being shown the visas procured for the
4. Certified copy of POEA Memorandum Circular No. 09, Series of 1998 on the placement fee
deployed workers, Dela Caza was convinced to part with his money. Thus, on May 29, 2001,
ceiling for Taiwan and Korean markets, and
5. Certified copy of POEA Governing Board Resolution No. 02, series of 1998. SO ORDERED.5

Version of the Defense Ruling of the Appellate Court

For his defense, accused-appellant denied having any part in the recruitment of Dela Caza. In On appeal, the CA, in its Decision dated December 24, 2008, disposed of the case as follows:
fact, he testified that he also applied with MPM Agency for deployment to Korea as a factory
worker. According to him, he gave his application directly with Mardeolyn because she was WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 30, in
his town mate and he was allowed to pay only Ten Thousand Pesos (PhP 10,000) as Criminal Cases Nos. 02-206293 and 02-206297, dated March 15, 2007, is AFFIRMED with the
processing fee. Further, in order to facilitate the processing of his papers, he agreed to MODIFICATION that in Criminal Case No. 02-206297, for estafa, appellant is sentenced to
perform some tasks for the agency, such as taking photographs of the visa and passport of four (4) years of prision correccional to ten (10) years of prision mayor.
applicants, running errands and performing such other tasks assigned to him, without salary
SO ORDERED.6
except for some allowance. He said that he only saw Dela Caza one or twice at the agencys
office when he applied for work abroad. Lastly, that he was also promised deployment
The CA held the totality of the prosecutions evidence showed that the accused-appellant,
abroad but it never materialized.
together with others, engaged in the recruitment of Dela Caza. His actions and
representations to Dela Caza can hardly be construed as the actions of a mere errand boy.
Ruling of the Trial Court
As determined by the appellate court, the offense is considered economic sabotage having
On March 15, 2007, the RTC rendered its Decision convicting the accused of syndicated illegal
been committed by more than three (3) persons, namely, accused-appellant Gallo,
recruitment and estafa. The dispositive portion reads:
Mardeolyn, Eleonor Panuncio and Yeo Sin Ung. More importantly, a personal found guilty of
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows: illegal recruitment may also be convicted of estafa.7 The same evidence proving accused-
appellants commission of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale also establishes his
I. Accused FIDES PACARDO y JUNGO and PILAR MANTA y DUNGO are hereby ACQUITTED of liability for estafa under paragragh 2(a) of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
the crimes charged in Criminal Cases Nos. 02-206293, 02-206297, 02-206300 and 02-206308;
On January 15, 2009, the accused-appellant filed a timely appeal before this Court.
II. Accused RODOLFO GALLO y GADOT is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal
Case No. 02-206293 of the crime of Illegal Recruitment committed by a syndicate and is The Issues
hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of ONE
Accused-appellant interposes in the present appeal the following assignment of errors:
MILLION (Php1,000,000.00) PESOS. He is also ordered to indemnify EDGARDO DELA CAZA of
the sum of FORTY-FIVE THOUSAND (Php45,000.00) PESOS with legal interest from the filing
I
of the information on September 18, 2002 until fully paid.
The court a quo gravely erred in finding the accused-appellant guilty of illegal recruitment
III. Accused RODOLFO GALLO y GADOT in Criminal Case No. 02-206297 is likewise found
committed by a syndicate despite the failure of the prosecution to prove the same beyond
guilty and is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of FOUR (4) years of
reasonable doubt.
prision correccional as minimum to NINE (9) years of prision mayor as maximum.
II
IV. Accused RODOLFO GALLO y GADOT is hereby ACQUITTED of the crime charged in Criminal
Cases Nos. 02-206300 and 02-206308. The court a quo gravely erred in finding the accused-appellant guilty of estafa despite the
failure of the prosecution to prove the same beyond reasonable doubt.
Let alias warrants for the arrest of the other accused be issued anew in all the criminal cases.
Pending their arrest, the cases are sent to the archives. Our Ruling

The immediate release of accused Fides Pacardo and Pilar Manta is hereby ordered unless The appeal has no merit.
detained for other lawful cause or charge.
Evidence supports conviction of the crime of Syndicated Illegal Recruitment
Accused-appellant avers that he cannot be held criminally liable for illegal recruitment
because he was neither an officer nor an employee of the recruitment agency. He alleges
that the trial court erred in adopting the asseveration of the private complainant that he was
indeed an employee because such was not duly supported by competent evidence.
According to him, even assuming that he was an employee, such cannot warrant his outright
conviction sans evidence that he acted in conspiracy with the officers of the agency.
We disagree.
To commit syndicated illegal recruitment, three elements must be established: (1) the
offender undertakes either any activity within the meaning of "recruitment and placement"
defined under Article 13(b), or any of the prohibited practices enumerated under Art. 34 of
the Labor Code; (2) he has no valid license or authority required by law to enable one to
lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers;8 and (3) the illegal recruitment is
committed by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring or confederating with one
another.9 When illegal recruitment is committed by a syndicate or in large scale, i.e., if it is
committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group, it is considered an
offense involving economic sabotage.10
Under Art. 13(b) of the Labor Code, "recruitment and placement" refers to "any act of
canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, and
includes referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or
abroad, whether for profit or not".
After a thorough review of the records, we believe that the prosecution was able to establish
the elements of the offense sufficiently. The evidence readily reveals that MPM Agency was
never licensed by the POEA to recruit workers for overseas employment.
Even with a license, however, illegal recruitment could still be committed under Section 6 of
Republic Act No. 8042 ("R.A. 8042"), otherwise known as the Migrants and Overseas Filipinos
Act of 1995, viz:
Sec. 6. Definition. For purposes of this Act, illegal recruitment shall mean any act of
canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers and
includes referring, contract services, promising or advertising for employment abroad,
whether for profit or not, when undertaken by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority
contemplated under Article 13(f) of Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, otherwise
known as the Labor Code of the Philippines: Provided, That any such non-licensee or non-
holder who, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment abroad to two or more
persons shall be deemed so engaged. It shall, likewise, include the following act, whether
committed by any person, whether a non-licensee, non-holder, licensee or holder of
authority:
(a) To charge or accept directly or indirectly any amount greater than that specified in the
schedule of allowable fees prescribed by the Secretary of Labor and Employment, or to make
a worker pay any amount greater than that actually received by him as a loan or advance;
xxxx
(l) Failure to actually deploy without valid reason as determined by the Department of Labor
and Employment; and
(m) Failure to reimburse expenses incurred by the worker in connection with his
documentation and processing for purposes of deployment and processing for purposes of
deployment, in cases where the deployment does not actually take place without the
workers fault. Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall be
considered an offense involving economic sabotage.
Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3)
or more persons conspiring or confederating with one another. It is deemed committed in
large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group.
The persons criminally liable for the above offenses are the principals, accomplices and
accessories. In case of juridical persons, the officers having control, management or direction
of their business shall be liable.
In the instant case, accused-appellant committed the acts enumerated in Sec. 6 of R.A. 8042.
Testimonial evidence presented by the prosecution clearly shows that, in consideration of a
promise of foreign employment, accused-appellant received the amount of Php 45,000.00
from Dela Caza. When accused-appellant made misrepresentations concerning the agencys
purported power and authority to recruit for overseas employment, and in the process,
collected money in the guise of placement fees, the former clearly committed acts
constitutive of illegal recruitment.11 Such acts were accurately described in the testimony of
prosecution witness, Dela Caza, to wit:
PROS. MAGABLIN
Q: How about this Rodolfo Gallo?
A: He was the one who received my money.
Q: Aside from receiving your money, was there any other representations or acts made by
Rodolfo Gallo?
A: He introduced himself to me as relative of Mardeolyn Martir and he even intimated to me
that their agency has sent so many workers abroad.
xxxx
PROS. MAGABLIN Q: Aside from that, was there any other representations which have been made upon you or
make you believe that they can deploy you?
Q: Mr. Witness, as you claimed you tried to withdraw your application at the agency. Was
there any instance that you were able to talk to Fides Pacardo, Rodolfo Gallo and Pilar A: At first I was adamant but they told me "If you do not want to believe us, then we could do
Manta? nothing." But once they showed me the [visas] of the people whom they have deployed
abroad, that was the time I believe them.
A: Yes, maam.
Q: So after believing on the representations, what did you do next Mr. Witness?
Q: What was the conversation that transpired among you before you demanded the return
of your money and documents? A: That was the time that I decided to give the money.

A: When I tried to withdraw my application as well as my money, Mr. Gallo told me "I know xxxx
nothing about your money" while Pilar Manta and Fides Pacardo told me, why should I
withdraw my application and my money when I was about to be [deployed] or I was about to PROS. MAGABLIN
leave.
Q: Do you have proof that you gave the money?
xxxx
A: Yes, maam.
Q: And what transpired at that office after this Panuncio introduced you to those persons
Q: Where is your proof that you gave the money?
whom you just mentioned?
A: I have it here.
A: The three of them including Rodolfo Gallo told me that the placement fee in that agency is
Php 150,000.00 and then I should deposit the amount of Php 45,000.00. After I have
PROS. MAGABLIN:
deposited said amount, I would just wait for few days
Witness is producing to this court a Receipt dated May 28, 2001 in the amount of
xxxx
Php45,000.00 which for purposes of record Your Honor, may I request that the same be
marked in the evidence as our Exhibit "F".
Q: They were the one (sic) who told you that you have to pay Php 45,000.00 for deposit only?
xxxx
A: Yes, maam, I was told by them to deposit Php 45,000.00 and then I would pay the
remaining balance of Php105,000.00, payment of it would be through salary deduction.
PROS. MAGABLIN

Q: That is for what Mr. Witness again?

Q: There appears a signature appearing at the left bottom portion of this receipt. Do you
know whose signature is this?
A: For placement fee.
A: Yes, maam, signature of Rodolfo Gallo.
Q: Now did you believe to (sic) them?
PROS. MAGABLIN
A: Yes, maam.
Q: Why do you say that that is his signature?
Q: Why, why did you believe?
A: Rodolfo Gallos signature Your Honor because he was the one who received the money
A: Because of the presence of the two Korean nationals and they keep on telling me that they
and he was the one who filled up this O.R. and while he was doing it, he was flanked by Fides
have sent abroad several workers and they even showed visas of the records that they have
Pacardo, Pilar Manta and Mardeolyn Martir.
already deployed abroad.
xxxx
Q: So it was Gallo who received your money?
A: Yes, maam.
PROS. MAGABLIN
Q: And after that, what did this Gallo do after he received your money?
A: They told me maam just to call up and make a follow up with our agency.
xxxx
Q: Now Mr. Witness, after you gave your money to the accused, what happened with the
application, with the promise of employment that he promised?
A: Two (2) weeks after giving them the money, they moved to a new office in Makati, Brgy.
San Isidro.
xxxx
Q: And were they able to deploy you as promised by them?
A: No, maam, they were not able to send us abroad.12
Essentially, Dela Caza appeared very firm and consistent in positively identifying accused-
appellant as one of those who induced him and the other applicants to part with their
money. His testimony showed that accused-appellant made false misrepresentations and
promises in assuring them that after they paid the placement fee, jobs in Korea as factory
workers were waiting for them and that they would be deployed soon. In fact, Dela Caza
personally talked to accused-appellant and gave him the money and saw him sign and issue
an official receipt as proof of his payment. Without a doubt, accused-appellants actions
constituted illegal recruitment.
Additionally, accused-appellant cannot argue that the trial court erred in finding that he was
indeed an employee of the recruitment agency. On the contrary, his active participation in
the illegal recruitment is unmistakable. The fact that he was the one who issued and signed
the official receipt belies his profession of innocence.
This Court likewise finds the existence of a conspiracy between the accused-appellant and
the other persons in the agency who are currently at large, resulting in the commission of the
crime of syndicated illegal recruitment.
In this case, it cannot be denied that the accused-appellent together with Mardeolyn and the
rest of the officers and employees of MPM Agency participated in a network of deception.
Verily, the active involvement of each in the recruitment scam was directed at one single
purpose to divest complainants with their money on the pretext of guaranteed
employment abroad. The prosecution evidence shows that complainants were briefed by
Mardeolyn about the processing of their papers for a possible job opportunity in Korea, as
well as their possible salary. Likewise, Yeo Sin Ung, a Korean national, gave a briefing about
the business and what to expect from the company. Then, here comes accused-appellant
who introduced himself as Mardeolyns relative and specifically told Dela Caza of the fact
that the agency was able to send many workers abroad. Dela Caza was even showed several
workers visas who were already allegedly deployed abroad. Later on, accused-appellant
signed and issued an official receipt acknowledging the down payment of Dela Caza. Without
a doubt, the nature and extent of the actions of accused-appellant, as well as with the other
persons in MPM Agency clearly show unity of action towards a common undertaking. Hence,
conspiracy is evidently present.
In People v. Gamboa,13 this Court discussed the nature of conspiracy in the context of illegal
recruitment, viz:
Conspiracy to defraud aspiring overseas contract workers was evident from the acts of the
malefactors whose conduct before, during and after the commission of the crime clearly
indicated that they were one in purpose and united in its execution. Direct proof of previous
agreement to commit a crime is not necessary as it may be deduced from the mode and
manner in which the offense was perpetrated or inferred from the acts of the accused
pointing to a joint purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest. As such,
all the accused, including accused-appellant, are equally guilty of the crime of illegal
recruitment since in a conspiracy the act of one is the act of all.
To reiterate, in establishing conspiracy, it is not essential that there be actual proof that all
the conspirators took a direct part in every act. It is sufficient that they acted in concert
pursuant to the same objective.14
Estafa
The prosecution likewise established that accused-appellant is guilty of the crime of estafa as
defined under Article 315 paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code, viz:
Art. 315. Swindling (estafa). Any person who shall defraud another by any means
mentioned hereinbelow
xxxx
2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or
simultaneously with the commission of the fraud:
(a) By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED for failure to sufficiently show reversible error in the
property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions; or by means of other similar assailed decision. The Decision dated December 24, 2008 of the CA in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No.
deceits. 02764 is AFFIRMED.

The elements of estafa in general are: (1) that the accused defrauded another (a) by abuse of No costs.
confidence, or (b) by means of deceit; and (2) that damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary
estimation is caused to the offended party or third person.15 Deceit is the false SO ORDERED.
representation of a matter of fact, whether by words or conduct, by false or misleading
allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed; and which deceives
or is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it, to his legal injury.

All these elements are present in the instant case: the accused-appellant, together with the
other accused at large, deceived the complainants into believing that the agency had the
power and capability to send them abroad for employment; that there were available jobs
for them in Korea as factory workers; that by reason or on the strength of such assurance,
the complainants parted with their money in payment of the placement fees; that after
receiving the money, accused-appellant and his co-accused went into hiding by changing
their office locations without informing complainants; and that complainants were never
deployed abroad. As all these representations of the accused-appellant proved false,
paragraph 2(a), Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code is thus applicable.1avvphi1

Defense of Denial Cannot Prevail over Positive Identification

Indubitably, accused-appellants denial of the crimes charged crumbles in the face of the
positive identification made by Dela Caza and his co-complainants as one of the perpetrators
of the crimes charged. As enunciated by this Court in People v. Abolidor,16 "[p]ositive
identification where categorical and consistent and not attended by any showing of ill motive
on the part of the eyewitnesses on the matter prevails over alibi and denial."

The defense has miserably failed to show any evidence of ill motive on the part of the
prosecution witnesses as to falsely testify against him.

Therefore, between the categorical statements of the prosecution witnesses, on the one
hand, and bare denials of the accused, on the other hand, the former must prevail.17

Moreover, this Court accords the trial courts findings with the probative weight it deserves
in the absence of any compelling reason to discredit the same. It is a fundamental judicial
dictum that the findings of fact of the trial court are not disturbed on appeal except when it
overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and
substance that would have materially affected the outcome of the case. We find that the trial
court did not err in convicting the accused-appellant.