B.

RECRUITEMENT AND PLACEMENT

FACTS: Gonzales-Flores was found guilty of illegal recruitment as seamen three different
people at the same time and collecting money from them without the necessary
license. The complainants filed a complaint after they tried to follow-up
their applications and nothing happened for three months and they found out from the
POEA that the accused wasn’t licensed. The evidence consisted of the complainant’s
testimonies and testimonies of other witnesses. Accused now argues that the Court didn’t
have enough evidence to convict her.

ISSUE: W/N the Court had enough evidence to convict the accused.

HELD: The SC upholds the conviction. The elements of illegal recruitment in large scale are:
(1) the accused engages in acts of recruitment and placement of workers;

(2) the accused has no license or an authority to recruit and deploy workers, either
locally or overseas; and

(3) the accused commits the unlawful acts against three or more persons,
individually or as a group.

All the conditions are present. The evidence shows that she could do something to get
their applications approved. Accused contends that all she did was to refer the complaints
but the Labor Code, recruitment includes “referral” which is defined as the act of passing
along or forwarding an applicant for employment after initial interview of a
selected application for employment or a selected employer, placement after initial
interview of a selected applicant for employment to a selected employer, placement officer,
or bureau. Also she did more than just make referrals, she actively and
directly enlisted complainants for employment aboard, when promising jobs as
seamen, and collected money.

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. Nos. 138535-38. April 19, 2001]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LUZ GONZALES-FLORES, accused-appellant.

DECISION
MENDOZA, J.:

This is an appeal from the decision[1] of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 77, Quezon City, finding accused-
appellant Luz Gonzalez-Flores guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale and of three counts of estafa against
Felixberto Leongson, Jr., Ronald Frederizo,[2] and Larry Tibor and sentencing her to suffer four prison terms and to
pay indemnity and damages to complainants.

1
 In Criminal Case No. Q-94-59470, the information for estafa against accused-appellant alleged:

That on or about the month of August, 1994, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring together,
confederating with several persons whose true names and true identities have not as yet been ascertained, and
helping one another, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud FELIXBERTO LEONGSON,
JR. y CASTAEDA in the following manner, to wit: the said accused, by means of false manifestations and
fraudulent representation which she made to said complainant to the effect that they had the power and capacity to
recruit and employ complainant abroad as [a] seaman and could facilitate the processing of the requirements thereof,
and by means of other similar deceits, induced and succeeded in inducing said complainant 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 fraudulent and were made solely to obtain,
as in fact they did obtain the amount of P45,000.00, which amount once in possession, with intent to defraud
FELIXBERTO LEONGSON, JR. wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously misappropriated, misapplied and converted to
their own personal use and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of said complainant in the aforesaid amount
of P45,000.00, Philippine Currency.

CONTRARY TO LAW.[3]

In Criminal Case No. Q-94-59471, also for estafa, the information charged:

That on or about the month of August, 1994, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused conspiring together,
confederating with several persons whose true names and true identities have not as yet been ascertained and helping
one another did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud RONALD F[R]EDERI[Z]O Y
HUSENIA in the following manner, to wit: the said accused, by means of false manifestations and fraudulent
representations which they made to said complainant to the effect that they had the power and capacity to recruit and
employ complainant abroad as [a] seaman 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 RONALD F[R]EDERI[Z]O Y HUSENIA to give and deliver, as in fact 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 fraudulent and were made solely to obtain, as in fact they did obtain the
amount of P45,000.00 which amount once in possession, with intent to defraud complainant wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously misappropriated, misapplied and converted to their own personal use and benefit, to the damage and
prejudice of said RONALD F[RE]DERI[Z]O Y HUSENIA in the aforesaid amount of P45,000.00, Philippine
Currency.

CONTRARY TO LAW.[4]

In Criminal Case No. Q-94-59472, another case for estafa, the information averred:

That on or about the month of August, 1994, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring together,
confederating with several persons whose true names and whereabouts have not as yet been ascertained and helping
one another, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud LARRY TIBOR Y MABILANGAN in
the following manner, to wit: the said accused, by means of false manifestations and fraudulent representations
which they made to said complainant to the effect that they had the power and capacity to recruit and employ
complainant abroad as [a] seaman 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 complainant to give and deliver, as in fact gave and delivered to said accused the amount of P38,000.00 on the
strength of said manifestations and representations, said accused well knowing that the same were false and
fraudulent and were made solely to obtain, as in fact they did obtain the amount of P38,000.00 which amount once
in possession, with intent to defraud LARRY TIBOR Y MABILANGAN wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously mis-
appropriated, misapplied and converted to their own personal use and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of said
complainant in the amount of P38,000.00, Philippine Currency.

CONTRARY TO LAW.[5]

2
 On the other hand, in Criminal Case No. Q-94-59473, the information for illegal recruitment in large scale
charged:

That on or about the month of August, 1994, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring together,
confederating with several persons whose true names and whereabouts have not as yet been ascertained and helping
one another, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously canvass, enlist, contract and promise
employment to the following persons, to wit:

1. RONALD F[R]EDERI[Z]O Y HUSENIA

2. LARRY TIBOR Y MABILANGAN
3. FELIXBERTO LEONGSON, JR. Y CASTAEDA

after requiring them to submit certain documentary requirements and exacting from them the total amount
of P128,000.00, Philippine Currency, as recruitment fees, such recruitment activities being done without the
required license or authority from the Department of Labor.

That the crime described above is committed in large scale as the same was perpetrated against three (3) or more
persons individually or as group as penalized under Articles 38 and 39, as amended by P.D. 2018, of the Labor
Code.[6]

When arraigned, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the criminal charges, whereupon the cases were
jointly tried.
The evidence for the prosecution is as follows:
On August 6, 1994, at around 1:00 p.m., complainant Felixberto Leongson, Jr. chanced upon his neighbors,
Cloyd Malgapo, Jojo Bumatay, and accused-appellant, who were talking in front of his house at 68-C East
Riverside, Bgy. Paltok, San Francisco del Monte, Quezon City. Complainant was asked by accused-appellant if he
was interested to work as a seaman in Miami, Florida, United States of America.He replied that he was interested to
work abroad but he had doubts regarding his qualification for the job. Accused-appellant assured him that this was
not a problem because she could fix his application. All he had to do was pay P45,000.00 as processing fee.
Accused-appellant told him that Jojo and Cloyd were departing soon. Complainant told accused-appellant that he
would consider the offer.
That night, accused-appellant came to see Felixberto and reiterated her proposal. Felixberto said he wanted the
job but he only had P10,000.00. Accused-appellant told him the amount would be sufficient as an initial payment.
Accused-appellant came back with Joseph Mendoza, whose brother-in-law, Engr. Leonardo Domingo,
according to accused-appellant, was recruiting seamen. Thereafter, accused-appellant and Mendoza took
complainant, Cloyd, and Jojos wife, Clarita, to a house on Second Street, near Camp Crame in Quezon City, where
the latter were introduced to Andy Baloran.[7] Complainant and his companions were told that Baloran was an
employee of the National Bureau of Investigation and he would take care of processing the applications for
employment. Baloran told complainant and the other job applicants that those who would be employed would be
paid a monthly salary of US$1,000.00, plus tips, and given vacation leaves of 45 days with pay. Baloran asked
complainant to submit his picture, bio-data, and birth certificate, which complainant later did. Accused-appellant
then asked complainant to give her the P10,000.00 as initial payment. Complainant handed her the money and asked
for a receipt, but accused-appellant told him not to worry and assured him that she would be responsible if anything
untoward happened. Complainant, therefore, did not insist on asking accused-appellant for a receipt. Accused-
appellant said she gave the money to Baloran.
Two days later, Baloran and Domingo went to the compound where Felixberto and accused-appellant were
residing and called Felixberto, Cloyd, and Jojo to a meeting. Domingo told the applicants that he was the chief
engineer of the luxury ocean liner where they would embark and repeated to them the salaries and other benefits
which they would receive. He told them not to get impatient.

3
 Accused-appellant later saw complainant to collect the balance of P35,000.00. Complainant was told to give
the money to accused-appellant at Wendys in Cubao, Quezon City on August 12, 1994.
At the appointed date and place, complainant and his wife delivered the amount to accused-appellant who, in
turn, handed it to Baloran. No receipt was, however, issued to Felixberto.
Another meeting was held on August 16, 1994 at the Mandarin Hotel in Makati City by accused-appellant,
Domingo, Baloran, Mendoza, the Leongson spouses, the Malgapo spouses, and Jojo Bumatay.The applicants were
told by Domingo that they would be employed as waiters and attendants in the luxury liner and asked them again to
wait a while.
On August 18, 1994, accused-appellant saw complainant again to collect the P25,000.00 balance. Felixberto
paid the amount to accused-appellant four days later. As in the case of the first two payments, no receipt was given
for the P25,000.00. Accused-appellant told him that she would turn over the amount to Baloran. Although
complainant regularly followed up his application with accused-appellant, he was told each time to have patience
and to just wait for the call from Domingo or from Baloran. But Felixberto never heard from either one of these
two.[8]
Felixbertos testimony was corroborated by his wife, Maria Luz, who said that accused-appellant claimed she
could help her husband get a job as a seamen despite the latters lack of formal training. She knew of the three
payments made to accused-appellant, totalling P45,000.00, and witnessed the last two payments of P10,000.00 at
Wendys, Cubao, and P25,000.00 at accused-appellants residence. Maria Luz said she met Baloran, Mendoza, and
Domingo and discussed with them the job offered to her husband and the salaries and benefits appurtenant thereto. [9]
Complainant Ronald Frederizo, a resident of 68-A East Riverside, San Francisco del Monte, Quezon City, also
testified. According to him, in the morning of August 10, 1994, he received a call from his sister, Elsa Cas, at Far
East Bank, Binondo Branch, Manila, asking him to go home because accused-appellant, their neighbor, was in his
house recruiting seaman for employment abroad. Ronald said that when he arrived home, he was told by accused-
appellant that he had to pay P10,000.00 as initial payment for the processing of his application. Ronald withdrew the
amount from Elsas account. Then, Ronald went with accused-appellant to a house on Second Street near Camp
Crame in Quezon City. On the way to that place, accused-appellant assured him that he would receive a salary of
US$1,000.00. At an apartment on Second Street, Ronald saw his neighbors, complainant Felixberto, Jojo, and
Cloyd. Baloran and Mendoza were also there. Accused-appellant introduced Baloran to Ronald, Cloyd, and
Jojo. She told them that Baloran was going to take care of their applications and that he could pull strings at the
NBI. Ronald paid accused-appellant P10,000.00 for which no receipt was issued. He was assured by accused-
appellant that he would be able to leave for his job abroad in one or two weeks. He was told to be ready with the
balance of P35,000.00 for the plane ticket on August 12, 1994.
Hence, on August 15, 1994, Ronald mortgaged his land in Batangas just so he could pay the P35,000.00
remaining balance. Accused-appellant went to Ronalds house to meet him. Thereafter, Ronald, Elsa, and accused-
appellant took a cab to Mandarin Hotel in Makati City. Accused-appellant told Ronald to have no fear because the
persons whom he was dealing with were her relatives. Elsa gave the P35,000.00 to accused-appellant. Ronald no
longer asked for a receipt because he trusted accused-appellant. At the hotel were Felixberto and his wife, Baloran,
and Domingo. Domingo showed Ronald and Felixberto his identification card and said that he was the captain of a
ship. He told them that they would receive a salary of US$1,000.00 plus other benefits. He also assured them that he
would inform them of developments in their applications through accused-appellant. After the meeting, Ronald went
to his office and tendered his resignation. Ronald followed up his application almost every week but every time he
was told by accused-appellant to be patient[10] because Domingo had not yet called.
Complainant Larry Tibor said that on August 10, 1994, he went to the house of his cousin, Elsa Cas, at 68-A
East Riverside, Bgy. Paltok, San Francisco del Monte, Quezon City, because accused-appellant was there recruiting
seamen to work abroad. Larry was then looking for a job. Accused-appellant introduced herself and told him that
she could get him a job abroad if he had the necessary documents and P45,000.00. Larry said he had only P3,000.00.
He was told by accused-appellant to bring the amount the next day for his fare and certification. As instructed, Larry
paid the amount in the presence of his sister, Junet. He asked for a receipt, but accused-appellant told him to trust
her. Accused-appellant instructed Larry to prepare extra money as his initial payment was insufficient. Larry left for
the province to get a loan. He went to accused-appellants house on August 15, 1994 and paid her an additional
amount of P35,000.00. Again, no receipt was issued to him. Thereafter, accused-appellant took him to Mandarin

4
Hotel where he was introduced to Baloran and Domingo. Larry kept waiting for a call, but none came. He was later
told by accused-appellant that he could not leave yet because Baloran was sick and he had to postpone his trip. [11]
Junet T. Lim, Larrys sister, testified that she was present her when brother paid P3,000.00 to accused-
appellant, although no receipt was issued. She stated that she asked accused-appellant questions to make sure she
could help Larry get a job abroad as a seaman. Janet said accused-appellant was able to convince her that she could
do so. Junet also testified that she accompanied her brother in following up his job application for about three
months until November 1994, when they realized they had been defrauded by accused-appellant, Domingo, and
Baloran.[12]
Realizing that they had been deceived, complainants went to the Baler Police Station 2 in Quezon City on
November 11, 1994 to file their complaints for illegal recruitment and estafa against accused-appellant, Baloran,
Domingo, and Mendoza. Felixberto executed his sworn statement [13] on the same day, while Ronald and Larry gave
their respective statements[14] on November 12, 1994.
On November 14, 1994, complainants went to the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA)
and discovered that accused-appellant and her companions did not have any license or authority to engage in any
recruitment activity.
Felixberto and Ronald asked the court to order accused-appellant to pay them back the placement fees
of P45,000.00 which each of them had paid and moral damages of P200,000.00 for each of them for the shame,
anxiety, and loss of jobs they suffered. They also sought the reimbursement for litigation expenses they each
incurred, amounting to P20,000.00 as attorneys fees and P500.00 per court appearance.Larry, on the other hand,
sought the recovery of the total amount of P150,000.00 for placement fee, travelling expenses from the province to
Manila to follow up his application, and the anguish and shame he suffered. [15]
In her defense, accused-appellant Luz Gonzales-Flores, a resident of 68-B East Riverside, San Francisco del
Monte, Quezon City, testified that she knew Felixberto Leongson, Jr., who was her neighbor and a nephew of the
owner of the house in which they were staying. She came to know Ronald Frederizo and Larry Tibor through Elsa
Cas. Accused-appellant denied having promised complainants overseas employment and having collected money
from them. According to her, she came to know Andy Baloran and Engr. Leonardo Domingo through Joseph
Mendoza, who referred her and her son, Noli, to them in connection with their own applications for overseas
employment. She came to know Joseph Mendoza through Elsa Cas and Felixberto Leongson, Jr.
Accused-appellant claimed that she and Noli agreed to pay Baloran, Domingo, and Mendoza the total sum
of P90,000.00 for their application fees. Since she did not have enough money to cover the amount, she asked her
neighbors and friends to help her get a loan. Felixberto and his wife offered help and introduced her to Jenny
Tolentino, from whom she got a loan of P15,000.00 guaranteed by Felixbertos wife. Accused-appellant said she
used the amount to pay for her and her sons recruitment fees. Accused-appellant claimed that she paid the total
amount of P46,500.00 for her recruitment fee in three installments, i.e., P10,000.00 to Mendoza at her
house, P10,000.00, and P16,500.00 to Baloran at the Mandarin Hotel. She alleged that she also gave them several
pieces of jewelry worth P10,000.00.According to her, no receipts were issued for the money and jewelry she gave.
Accused-appellant said that because Domingo, Baloran, and Mendoza did not make good their promises,
accused-appellant filed a complaint for illegal recruitment and estafa against them on November 7, 1994 in the NBI,
including as her co-complainants Felixberto Leongson, Jr., Ronald Frederizo, Larry Tibor, Eduardo Sibbalucas, Har
Taccad, Romeo Gallardo, Joseph Mendoza, and her son, Noli Flores. [16]
Accused-appellant was investigated by the Baler Police Station 2 on November 11, 1994 as a result of the
complaints filed against her by Felixberto, Ronald, and Larry. Thereafter, she was detained.[17]
On November 24, 1994, she appeared before the NBI accompanied by a policewoman to comply with the
subpoena[18] issued regarding her complaint. According to NBI Agent Jesus Manapat, accused-appellants complaint
was dismissed for lack of merit.[19]
Based on the evidence presented, the trial court rendered its assailed decision on November 23, 1998, the
dispositive portion of which reads:

5
WHEREFORE, the guilt of the accused for illegal recruitment in large scale and estafa in three (3) counts having
been proved beyond reasonable doubt, she is hereby convicted of said crimes and is sentenced:

(1) To suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and pay a fine of P100,000 in Criminal Case No. Q-94-59473;

(2) To suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from FOUR (4) YEARS AND THREE (3) MONTHS of prision
correccional, as minimum, and up to TEN (10) YEARS of prision mayor, as maximum, and to pay the costs in
Criminal Case No. Q-94-59470;

(3) To suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from FOUR (4) YEARS AND THREE (3) MONTHS of prision
correccional, as minimum, and up to TEN (10) YEARS of prision mayor, as maximum, and to pay the costs in
Criminal Case No. Q-94-59471; and

(4) To suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging FOUR (4) YEARS AND THREE (3) MONTHS of prision
correccional, as minimum, and up to NINE (9) YEARS of prision mayor, as maximum, and to pay the costs in
Criminal Case No. Q-94-59472.

The accused is also directed to pay: (a) Ronald Federi[z]o, the amount of P45,000.00 as and by way of actual
damages; (b) Felixberto Leongson, Jr. P45,000.00 as and by way of actual damages; and (c) Larry Tibor, P38,000.00
as and by way of actual damages.

The accused is further directed to pay to the said private complainants moral damages in the sum of TWENTY
THOUSAND PESOS (P20,000.00) each.

SO ORDERED.[20]

Hence, this appeal. Accused-appellant contends that-

I. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN RELYING UPON THE JURISPRUDENCE AND AUTHORITIES
CITED, I.E., PEOPLE VS. COMIA, PEOPLE VS. MANOZCA, PEOPLE VS. HONRADA, PEOPLE
VS. TAN TIONG MENG, PEOPLE VS. VILLAS AND PEOPLE VS. SENDON BECAUSE, WITH
DUE RESPECT, THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AVAILING IN SAID CASES ARE
DIFFERENT AS IN THE PRESENT CASE; AND
II. [THE LOWER COURT] ERRED IN HOLDING THE ACCUSED GUILTY BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT ON THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE
PROSECUTION TAKEN IN THE LIGHT OF THE UNREBUTTED EVIDENCE OF THE
ACCUSED ON VERY MATERIAL POINTS.[21]
The contentions are without merit.
In Criminal Case No. Q-94-59473, accused-appellant was charged with illegal recruitment in large scale, the
essential elements of which are: (1) that the accused engages in acts of recruitment and placement of workers
defined under Art. 13 (b) or in any of the prohibited activities under Art. 34 of the Labor Code; (2) that the accused
has not complied with the guidelines issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment, particularly with respect to
the securing of a license or an authority to recruit and deploy workers, either locally or overseas; and (3) that the
accused commits the unlawful acts against three or more persons, individually or as a group. [22]
In these cases, according to the certification of the POEA, accused-appellant had no license or authority to
engage in any recruitment activities.[23] In fact, this was stipulated at the trial.[24] Accused-appellant claims, however,
that she herself was a victim of illegal recruitment and that she simply told complainants about job opportunities
abroad.
The allegation is untenable. Art. 13 (b) of the Labor Code defines recruitment and placement as referring 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

6
not. The same article further states 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. [25]
The evidence for the prosecution shows that accused-appellant sought out complainants and promised them
overseas employment. Despite their initial reluctance because they lacked the technical skills required of seamen,
complainants were led to believe by accused-appellant that she could do something so that their applications would
be approved. Thus, because of accused-appellants misrepresentations, complainants gave her their
moneys. Accused-appellants companions, Domingo, Baloran, and Mendoza, made her ploy even more plausible.
Accused-appellant contends that all she did was to refer complainants to Domingo, Baloran, and
Mendoza. However, under Art. 13 (b) of the Labor Code, recruitment includes referral, which is defined as the act of
passing along or forwarding an applicant for employment after initial interview of a selected applicant for
employment to a selected employer, placement officer, or bureau. [26] In these cases, accused-appellant did more than
just make referrals. She actively and directly enlisted complainants for supposed employment abroad, even
promising them jobs as seamen, and collected moneys from them.
The failure of complainants to present receipts to evidence payments made to accused-appellant is not fatal to
the prosecution case. The presentation of the receipts of payments is not necessary for the conviction of accused-
appellant. As long as the prosecution is able to establish through credible testimonies and affidavits that the accused-
appellant was involved in the prohibited recruitment, a conviction for the offense can very well be justified. [27] In
these cases, complainants could not present receipts for their payment because accused-appellant assured them she
would take care of their money.
It must be remembered that the trial courts appreciation of complainants testimonies deserves the highest
respect since it was in a better position to assess their credibility. [28] In these cases, complainants testimonies, to the
effect that they paid money to accused-appellant and her companions, Domingo and Baloran, because the latter
promised them overseas employment, were positive, straightforward, and categorical. They maintained their
testimonies despite the lengthy and gruelling cross-examination by the defense counsel. They have not been shown
to have any ill motive to falsely testify against accused-appellant. Naive, simple-minded, and even gullible as they
may have been, it is precisely for people like complainants that the law was made. Accordingly, their testimonies are
entitled to full faith and credit.[29]
In contrast, accused-appellants defense is merely denial. Time and again, this Court has ruled that denial, being
negative evidence which is self-serving in nature, cannot prevail over the positive identification of prosecution
witnesses.[30] Here, complainants positively identified accused-appellant as one of those who represented that they
could be deployed for overseas work upon payment of the fees.
Accused-appellant claims that she herself had to borrow P15,000.00 from Jenny Tolentino, guaranteed by
Maria Luz Leongson, to defray her own and her sons application expenses. The claim has no merit. Maria Luz
Leongson, who is Felixbertos wife, testified that accused-appellant sought her help to guarantee a loan to pay the
tuition fees of her daughter and the rent of the apartment in which she and her family were staying, [31] and not to
finance her and her sons overseas job applications.
Accused-appellant likewise testified that she paid in cash a total of P36,500.00 in three
installments, i.e., P10,000.00 to Mendoza at her house, and P10,000.00 and P16,500.00 to Baloran, at the Mandarin
Hotel. This testimony cannot be deemed worthy of belief. When cross-examined, accused-appellant could not
remember the dates when she allegedly made these payments. For someone who was jobless[32]and looking for
employment, it is very doubtful that she would pay considerable sums of money to strangers without even
remembering at least the month or the year when the same were supposed to have been paid.
Accused-appellant further contends that if she was indeed a conspirator in the illegal recruitment transactions
with complainants, she would not have filed a complaint[33] in the NBI against Domingo and Baloran. The complaint
was, as already stated, dismissed and it is apparent that accused-appellant filed the complaint only to make it appear
that she herself had been the victim of swindling and illegal recruitment. First, the complaint shows that it was filed
on November 7, 1994, even before she was detained at the Baler Police Station 2 upon the sworn statements of
complainants. Complainants were included as complainants in a complaint filed by accused-appellant. Yet, the
complainants were never told, nor did they ever knew, of the complaint until the trial of these cases. Second,
accused-appellant could have easily told them at least of the complaint because Felixberto Leongson, Jr., Ronald
Frederizo and Elsa Cas, a relative of complainant Larry Tibor, were her immediate neighbors. Third, it is also

7
noteworthy that despite her claim that she paid P10,000.00 to Mendoza, accused-appellant made the latter a co-
complainant in the complaint she filed with the NBI.
More importantly, accused-appellants defense is uncorroborated. Not one of the persons she included in her
complaint to the NBI was ever presented in her defense in these cases. Nor did she present Domingo, Baloran, or
Mendoza to corroborate her statements. It is probable that had she presented any of these persons, their testimonies
would have been adverse to accused-appellant.[34]
Direct proof of previous agreement to commit a crime is not necessary as it may be deduced from the mode in
which the offense was perpetrated, or inferred from the acts of the accused which point to a joint purpose and
design.[35] In these cases, the fact is that there was conspiracy among accused-appellant, Domingo, and Baloran in
recruiting complainants for employment overseas. The evidence shows that each had a role in that
conspiracy. Domingo posed as a representative of the luxury liner in recruiting crew for the vessel. Baloran
represented himself as the person who would actually process complainants travel documents, while accused-
appellant acted as a scout for job applicants and a collector of their payments. It was only Mendoza who did not
misrepresent himself as someone capable of helping complainants go abroad nor collect money from them.[36]
In sum, we are of the opinion that the trial court correctly found accused-appellant guilty of illegal recruitment
in large scale. The imposition on accused-appellant of the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P100,000.00 is
thus justified.
Accused-appellant was likewise found guilty of estafa under Art. 315 (2) (a) of the Revised Penal Code
committed -

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.

Both elements of the crime were established in these cases, namely, (a) accused-appellant defrauded
complainant by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit and (b) complainant suffered damage or prejudice
capable of pecuniary estimation as a result.[37] Complainants parted with their money upon the prodding and
enticement of accused-appellant on the false pretense that she had the capacity to deploy them for employment
abroad. In the end, complainants were neither able to leave for work overseas nor did they get their money back,
thus causing them damage and prejudice.[38]
The issues that misappropriation on the part of accused-appellant of the money paid by complainants and their
demand for the same were not sufficiently established are immaterial and irrelevant, conversion and demand not
being elements of estafa under Art. 315 (2) (a) of the Revised Penal Code.
In Criminal Case Nos. Q-94-59470 and Q-94-59471, the amounts involved are both P45,000.00, as testified to
by complainants Felixberto Leongson, Jr. and Ronald Frederizo. Pursuant to Art. 315, par. 1 of the Revised Penal
Code, the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and the ruling in People v. Gabres,[39] the trial court correctly meted
accused-appellant the maximum penalty of ten (10) years of prision mayor in each case. This is so considering that
the maximum penalty prescribed by law for the felony is six (6) years, eight (8) months, and 21 days to eight (8)
years of prision mayor. The amounts involved in these cases exceed P22,000.00 by at least P20,000.00,
necessitating an increase of one (1) year for every P10,000.00. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the
minimum of the sentence is thus from six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision
correccional. The trial court can exercise its discretion only within this period. Thus, the minimum penalty imposed
by the trial court should be reduced to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional.
In Criminal Case No. Q-94-59472, where the amount involved is P38,000.00, the indeterminate sentence
which should be imposed on accused-appellant should range from four (4) years and two (2) months of prision
correccional, as minimum, to nine (9) years of prision mayor, as maximum.
In accordance with the ruling in People v. Mercado,[40] the fact that no receipts were presented to prove the
amounts paid by complainants to accused-appellant does not prevent an award of actual damages in view of the fact

8
that complainants were able to prove by their respective testimonies and affidavits that accused-appellant was
involved in the recruitment process and succeeded in inveigling them to give their money to her. The award of moral
damages should likewise be upheld as it was shown to have factual basis.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 77, Quezon City, finding accused-appellant
guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale and estafa against complainants Felixberto Leongson, Jr., Ronald
Frederizo, and Larry Tibor is AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATIONS that, in the cases for estafa, accused-
appellant is sentenced:
(1) In Criminal Case No. Q-94-59470, to suffer a prison term ranging from four (4) years and two (2) months
of prision correccional, as minimum, to ten (10) years of prision mayor, as maximum;
(2) In Criminal Case No. Q-94-59471, to suffer a prison term ranging from four (4) years and two (2) months
of prision correccional, as minimum, to 10 years of prision mayor, as maximum; and
(3) In Criminal Case No. Q-94-59472, to suffer a prison term ranging from four (4) years and two (2) months
of prision correccional, as minimum, to nine (9) years of prision mayor, as maximum.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 113161 Case Digest

9
G.R. No. 113161, August 29, 1995
People of the Phil., plaintiff-appellee
vs Loma Goce, et. al., accused-appellant
Ponente: Regalado

Facts:
On January 1988, an information for illegal recruitment committed by a
syndicate nd in large scale, punishable under Articles 38 and 39 of the labor
code as amended by PD 2018, filed against Dan and Loma Goce and Nelly Agustin
in the RTC of Manila, alleging that in or about during the period comprised
between May 1986 and June 25, 1987, both dates inclusive in the City of
Manila, the accused conspired and represent themselves to have the capacity
to recruit Filipino workers for employment abroad.

January 1987, a warrant of arrest was issued against the 3 accused but none
of them was arrested. Hence, on February 1989, the RTC ordered the case
archived but issued a standing warrant os arrest against the accused.

Thereafter, knowing the whereabouts of the accused, Rogelio Salado requested

for a copy of the warrant of arrest and eventually Nelly Agustin was
apprehended by the Paranaque Police. Agustin's counsel filed a motion to
revive the case and requested to set a hearing for purpose of due process and
for accused to immediately have her day in court. On the arraignment, Agustin
pleaded not guilty and the trial went on with four complainants testified for
the prosecution and receipts of the processing fees they paid.

Agustin for the defense asserted that Goce couple were licensed recruiters
but denied her participation in the recruitment and denied knowledge of the
receipts as well.

On November 1993, trial court rendered judgment finding that Agustin as a

principal in the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale with sentence of
life imprisonment and pay P100,000.00.

Issues:

Agustin appealed witht the follwing arguments:

(1) her act of introducing the complainants to the couple does not fall
within the meaning of illegal recruitment and placement under Article 13 in
relation to Article 34 of the labor code;

(2) there is no proof of conspiracy and

(3) there is no proof that appellant offered/promised overseas employment to

the complainants.

Ruling:

The testimonial evidence shows that Agustin indeed further committted acts
constitutive of illegal recruitment because, the complainants had a previous
interview with Agustin (as employee of the Goce couple) about fees and papers
to submit that may constitute as referral. Agustin collected the payments of
the complainants as well as their passports, trainning fees, medical tests
and other expenses.On the issue of proof, the court held that the receipts

10
exhibited by the claimants are clear enough to prove the payments and
transaction made.

G.R. No. 113161

August 29, 1995

Facts:

On January 12, 1988, an information for illegal recruitment committed by a syndicate and in large scale, punishable
under Articles 38 and 39 of the Labor Code (Presidential Decree No. 442) as amended by Section 1(b) of
Presidential Decree No. 2018, was filed against spouses Dan and Loma Goce and herein accused-appellant Nelly
Agustin in the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 5, alleging —

That in or about and during the period comprised between May 1986 and June 25, 1987, both dates inclusive, in
the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring and confederating together and helping 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 (1) Rolando Dalida y Piernas, (2) Ernesto Alvarez y Lubangco, (3) Rogelio Salado y Savillo, (4) Ramona
Salado y Alvarez, (5) Dionisio Masaya y de Guzman, (6) Dave Rivera y de Leon, (7) Lorenzo Alvarez y Velayo, and (8)
Nelson Trinidad y Santos, without first having secured the required license or authority from the Department of
Labor.

Four of the complainants testified for the prosecution. Rogelio Salado was the first to take the witness stand and
he declared that sometime in March or April, 1987 he was introduced by Lorenzo Alvarez, his brother-in-law and a
co-applicant, to Nelly Agustin in the latter's residence at Factor, Dongalo, Parañaque, Metro Manila. Representing
herself as the manager of the Clover Placement Agency, Agustin showed him a job order as proof that he could
readily be deployed for overseas employment. Salado learned that he had to pay P5,000.00 as processing fee,
which amount he gave sometime in April or May of the same year. He was issued the corresponding receipt.

Also in April or May, 1987, Salado, accompanied by five other applicants who were his relatives, went to the office
of the placement agency at Nakpil Street, Ermita, Manila where he saw Agustin and met the spouses Dan and
Loma Goce, owners of the agency. He submitted his bio-data and learned from Loma Goce that he had to give
P12,000.00, instead of the original amount of P5,000.00 for the placement fee. Although surprised at the new and
higher sum, they subsequently agreed as long as there was an assurance that they could leave for abroad.

Thereafter, a receipt was issued in the name of the Clover Placement Agency showing that Salado and his aforesaid
co-applicants each paid P2,000.00, instead of the P5,000.00 which each of them actually paid. Several months
passed but Salado failed to leave for the promised overseas employment. Hence, in October, 1987, along with the
other recruits, he decided to go to the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) to verify the real
status of Clover Placement Agency. They discovered that said agency was not duly licensed to recruit job
applicants. Later, upon learning that Agustin had been arrested, Salado decided to see her and to demand the
return of the money he had paid, but Agustin could only give him P500.00.

Ramona Salado, the wife of Rogelio Salado, came to know through her brother, Lorenzo Alvarez, about Nelly
Agustin. Accompanied by her husband, Rogelio, Ramona went to see Agustin at the latter's residence. Agustin

11
persuaded her to apply as a cutter/sewer in Oman so that she could join her husband. Encouraged by Agustin's
promise that she and her husband could live together while working in Oman, she instructed her husband to give
Agustin P2,000.00 for each of them as placement fee, or the total sum of P4,000.00.

Much later, the Salado couple received a telegram from the placement agency requiring them to report to its
office because the "NOC" (visa) had allegedly arrived. Again, around February, or March, 1987, Rogelio gave
P2,000.00 as payment for his and his wife's passports. Despite follow-up of their papers twice a week from
February to June, 1987, he and his wife failed to leave for abroad.

Complainant Dionisio Masaya, accompanied by his brother-in-law, Aquiles Ortega, applied for a job in Oman with
the Clover Placement Agency at Parañaque, the agency's former office address. There, Masaya met Nelly Agustin,
who introduced herself as the manager of the agency, and the Goce spouses, Dan and Loma, as well as the latter's
daughter. He submitted several pertinent documents, such as his bio-data and school credentials.

In May, 1986, Masaya gave Dan Goce P1,900.00 as an initial downpayment for the placement fee, and in
September of that same year, he gave an additional P10,000.00. He was issued receipts for said amounts and was
advised to go to the placement office once in a while to follow up his application, which he faithfully did. Much to
his dismay and chagrin, he failed to leave for abroad as promised. Accordingly, he was forced to demand that his
money be refunded but Loma Goce could give him back only P4,000.00 in installments.

As the prosecution's fourth and last witness, Ernesto Alvarez took the witness stand on June 7, 1993. He testified
that in February, 1987, he met appellant Agustin through his cousin, Larry Alvarez, at her residence in Parañaque.
She informed him that "madalas siyang nagpapalakad sa Oman" and offered him a job as an ambulance driver at
the Royal Hospital in Oman with a monthly salary of about $600.00 to $700.00.

On March 10, 1987, Alvarez gave an initial amount of P3,000.00 as processing fee to Agustin at the latter's
residence. In the same month, he gave another P3,000.00, this time in the office of the placement agency. Agustin
assured him that he could leave for abroad before the end of 1987. He returned several times to the placement
agency's office to follow up his application but to no avail. Frustrated, he demanded the return of the money he
had paid, but Agustin could only give back P500.00. Thereafter, he looked for Agustin about eight times, but he
could no longer find her.

Only herein appellant Agustin testified for the defense. She asserted that Dan and Loma Goce were her neighbors
at Tambo, Parañaque and that they were licensed recruiters and owners of the Clover Placement Agency.
Previously, the Goce couple was able to send her son, Reynaldo Agustin, to Saudi Arabia. Agustin met the
aforementioned complainants through Lorenzo Alvarez who requested her to introduce them to the Goce couple,
to which request she acceded.

Denying any participation in the illegal recruitment and maintaining that the recruitment was perpetrated only by
the Goce couple, Agustin denied any knowledge of the receipts presented by the prosecution. She insisted that the
complainants included her in the complaint thinking that this would compel her to reveal the whereabouts of the
Goce spouses.

On November 19, 1993, the trial court rendered judgment finding herein appellant guilty as a principal in the crime
of illegal recruitment.

12
Issue:

Whether or not Agustin’s act of introducing couple Goce falls within the meaning of illegal recruitment and
placement under Art 13(b) in relation to Art 34 of the Labor Code.

Held:

The testimonial evidence hereon show that she indeed further committed acts constitutive of illegal recruitment.

All four prosecution witnesses testified that it was Agustin whom they initially approached regarding their plans of
working overseas. It was from her that they learned about the fees they had to pay, as well as the papers that they
had to submit. It was after they had talked to her that they met the accused spouses who owned the placement
agency.

As correctly held by the trial court, being an employee of the Goces, it was therefore logical for appellant to
introduce the applicants to said spouses, they being the owners of the agency. As such, appellant was actually
making referrals to the agency of which she was a part. She was therefore engaging in recruitment activity.

There is illegal recruitment when one gives the impression of having the ability to send a worker abroad. It is
undisputed that appellant gave complainants the distinct impression that she had the power or ability to send
people abroad for work such that the latter were convinced to give her the money she demanded in order to be so
employed.

WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment of the court a quo is hereby AFFIRMED in toto, with costs against accused-
appellant Nelly D. Agustin.
SO ORDERED.

13
3. THIRD DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 176264

Appellee, Present:

CARPIO MORALES, J.,

Chairperson,
BRION,
BERSAMIN,
- versus - VILLARAMA, JR., and
SERENO, JJ.

TERESITA TESSIE LAOGO, Promulgated:

Appellant.
January 10, 2011
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

DECISION

VILLARAMA, JR., J.:

This petition assails the July 31, 2006 Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 01664,
which affirmed the Decision[2] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 12, of Malolos, Bulacan in Criminal Case
No. 693-M-2001. The RTC found appellant Teresita Tessie Laogo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of illegal recruitment in large scale.

Appellant Teresita Tessie Laogo was the proprietor and manager of Laogo Travel Consultancy, a travel agency
firm located along Padre Faura Street in Manila. On March 7, 2001, an Information[3] was filed against appellant
and a certain Susan Navarro (Susan) in Malolos, Bulacan charging them of the crime of Illegal Recruitment
(Large Scale). The information reads:

INFORMATION

The undersigned Asst. Provincial Prosecutor accuses Susan Navarro and Tessie [Teresita]
Laogo of the crime of illegal recruitment, penalized under Art. 38 in relation to Art[s]. 34
and 39 of the Labor Code of the Philippines, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1412,
committed as follows:

That in or about and during the months of May and June 2000, in the municipality of Bulacan,
province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused, knowing that they are non-licensee or non-holder of authority from the
Department of Labor to recruit and/or place workers in employment either locally or overseas,
conspiring, confederating together and helping each other, did then and there wi[l]lfully,
unlawfully and feloniously engage in illegal recruitment, placement or deployment activities for a
fee, which they received from complainants Edith Bonifacio-Ulanday, Rogelio Enriquez y
Buenavidez, Billy dela Cruz, Jr. y Fernandez, Dante Lopez y Enriquez, Teodulo dela Cruz y
Mendoza, Edwin Enriquez y Panganiban and Gary Bustillos y de Guzman by recruiting and
promising them job placement abroad, more particularly in Guam, which did not materialize,

14
 without first having secured the required license or authority from the Department of Labor and
Employment.

That the crime is committed in a large scale tantamount to economic sabotage as the
aforementioned seven persons were [recruited] individually or as a group.

Contrary to law.

The charge stemmed from the following set of facts.

Sometime during the second week of March 2000, Susan invited several individuals including six of the
seven complainants namely, Teodulo dela Cruz, Billy dela Cruz, Jr., Dante Lopez, Edwin Enriquez, Rogelio
Enriquez, and Gary Bustillos to her house in Bulacan, Bulacan to celebrate the town fiesta. Appellant was among the
several guests in Susans house during the said occasion.

According to Teodulo dela Cruz, during the fiesta, Gary Bustillos introduced him to Susan as somebody
who could help him find work abroad. Since Susan was Garys aunt, Teodulo immediately trusted Susan. Susan told
him he can apply as assistant cook and can work in Guam, USA. Upon Susans instruction, Teodulo filled up an
application form[4] and gave her P3,000.00 after the latter promised to process his application to work abroad. [5] On
May 22, 2000, Susan accompanied Teodulo to appellants travel agency office in Ermita where he paid an
additional P15,000.00 for his placement fee.[6] A receipt bearing the logo and name of Laogo Travel Consultancy
was issued to him signed by Susan.[7] Months later, when Susans promise to send him abroad remained unfulfilled,
Teodulo, along with several other applicants, went to appellants office and to Susans house to follow up their
application, but the two always told them that their visas have yet to be released.[8]

Similarly, Billy dela Cruz, Jr. also met Susan through Gary, who himself was seeking help from Susan to
work in Guam. At Susans house, Billy saw Dante Lopez, Edwin Enriquez, and Rogelio Enriquez. Like him, the
three were also seeking Susans help to work abroad. [9] Susan introduced Billy to appellant, who promised him that
she will send them abroad within three months.[10] After the meeting, Billy issued to Susan two Metrobank checks,
dated March 11 and May 10, 2000, bearing the amounts P23,000.00 and P44,000.00, respectively, as partial
payment for his placement fee.[11] On May 19, 2000, Billy also went to appellants travel agency in Ermita and
personally handed an additional cash of P6,000.00 to Susan, who thereafter gave the money to appellant. Appellant
issued a corresponding receipt[12] for the P6,000.00 cash bearing her signature and the name and logo of Laogo
Travel Consultancy. After several months, no word was heard from either Susan or appellant. Sensing that
something was wrong, Billy decided to report the matter to the authorities in Bulacan, Bulacan and filed the
complaint against Susan and appellant.[13]

15
Dante Lopez testified that he was also introduced by Gary Bustillos to appellant and Susan. Susan identified herself
as an employee of appellants travel agency. The two told him that they can send him and his companions to Guam
within the span of three months.[14] Lopez paid both accused P6,000.00 to process his papers, covered by a receipt
dated May 19, 2000 showing appellants signature. [15] Appellants promise, however, turned sour after three months.
When he confronted appellant, the latter told him that he would be sent to a different country. Left without a choice,
Lopez waited. Again, the promise remained unfulfilled. [16]

According to Rogelio Enriquez, he also met appellant during the town fiesta when Susan invited him to cook for her
guests. Susan introduced appellant as someone who could send him to work abroad. Eager about the prospect,
Rogelio immediately gave his P3,000.00 cash to Susan for the processing of his visa and employment
documents.[17] He saw Susan hand the money to appellant.[18] A week later, Rogelio gave an additional P900.00 to
Susan.[19] No receipts were issued on both payments since Rogelio failed to complete the required P6,000.00
placement fee.[20] Months passed but Rogelio heard nothing from either Susan or appellant. Apprehensive, Rogelio
verified the status of the Laogo Travel Consultancy with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration
(POEA). From the POEA, Rogelio learned that neither of the accused nor Laogo Travel was licensed to recruit
workers for employment abroad. Aggrieved, Rogelio, together with his six companions, filed the complaint against
Susan and appellant.

Edwin Enriquez also paid P12,000.00 to Susan as processing fee for his application to work in Guam. According to
him, Susans husband and appellant were present when he gave the money to Susan during the town fiesta.[21] Susan
issued a receipt dated May 16, 2000 to Edwin. The receipt contained the logo of Laogo Travel Consultancy and was
signed by Susan with a description which says Payment was for Placement Fee.[22]

Two other persons, namely Edith Bonifacio-Ulanday and Gary Bustillos, Susans nephew, were among the seven
who filed the complaint against Susan and appellant. The two, however, later decided to withdraw their complaints
after executing their respective affidavits of desistance.[23]

On March 15, 2001, warrants of arrest[24] were issued against Susan and appellant. When arraigned,
appellant pleaded not guilty.[25] Susan, meanwhile, remained at large. An alias warrant of arrest[26] was issued by the
trial court against her but to no avail.

During the trial, appellant denied any participation in the illegal activities undertaken by Susan. She insisted that
Susan was not in any way connected with her travel agency and that she confronted the latter when she came to
know of Susans recruitment activities. Appellant claimed that she even had to rename her travel agency to Renz
Consultancy and Employment Services to avoid being associated with Susans recruitment activities.[27]

16
Appellant admitted having met Rogelio at Susans house during the town fiesta, but denied knowing the other
complainants. According to appellant, she came to know Rogelio when Susan specifically identified him as the one
who cooked the dishes after some guests prodded Susan.[28]

Unsatisfied with appellants explanation, the trial court promulgated a Decision [29] finding her guilty of large scale
illegal recruitment. The fallo of the trial courts July 16, 2002 Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, finding herein accused Teresita (Tessie) Laogo y Villamor guilty as principal
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale, she is hereby sentenced
to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and pay a fine of P500,000.00 as imposed by law[;] to
indemnify the private offended parties x x x actual damages, as follows: Teodulo dela
CruzP15,000.00, Billy dela Cruz P73,000.00, Dante Lopez P6,000.00, Rogelio
Enriquez P3,000.00, and Edwin Enriquez P12,000.00[;] and to pay the costs of the proceedings.

In the service of her sentence the said accused, a detention prisoner, shall be credited with the full
time during which she had undergone preventive imprisonment, pursuant to the provisions of Art.
29 of the Revised Penal Code.

Pending the actual apprehension of the other accused Susan Navarro, [who is] still at-large, on the
strength of the warrant of arrest earlier issued, let the record be committed to the archives subject
to recall and reinstatement, should circumstances so warrant for due prosecution against her of this
case.

SO ORDERED.[30]

Appellant filed an appeal before this Court, but said appeal was transferred to the CA following our pronouncement
in People v. Mateo.[31]

In her Appellants Brief[32] before the CA, appellant insisted that she had no hand in the recruitment of the
complainants and maintains that the recruitment activities were made solely upon the initiative of accused Susan
Navarro.[33] Appellant anchored her defense on the testimonies of the complainants who declared that the
transactions and the payments were made not with her but with Susan.[34] Appellant admitted that her consultancy
firm was merely engaged in the business of assisting clients in the procurement of passports and visas, and denied
that her agency was involved in any recruitment activity as defined under the Labor Code, as amended.[35]

On July 31, 2006, the appellate court rendered the assailed decision affirming appellants conviction. [36] The
CA noted that although at times, it was Susan with whom the complainants transacted, the records nevertheless bear
that appellant had a hand in the recruitment of the complainants. The CA pointed out that appellant, together with
Susan, repeatedly assured the private complainants that her consultancy firm could deploy them for overseas
employment,[37] leading the appellate court to conclude that appellant consciously and actively participated in the
recruitment of the complainants.[38]

17
Aggrieved, appellant brought the case to us on appeal, raising the same arguments she had raised at the CA.

We affirm appellants conviction.Recruitment and placement refers to the 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. When a person or entity, in any manner,
offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons, that person or entity shall be deemed engaged in
recruitment and placement.[39]

Article 38(a) of the Labor Code, as amended, specifies that recruitment activities undertaken by non-licensees or
non-holders of authority are deemed illegal and punishable by law. And when the illegal recruitment is committed
against three or more persons, individually or as a group, then it is deemed committed in large scale and carries with
it stiffer penalties as the same is deemed a form of economic sabotage. [40] ……But to prove illegal recruitment, it
must be shown that the accused, without being duly authorized by law, gave complainants the distinct impression
that he had the power or ability to send them abroad for work, such that the latter were convinced to part with their
money in order to be employed.[41] It is important that there must at least be a promise or offer of an employment
from the person posing as a recruiter, whether locally or abroad. [42]

Here, both the trial court and the CA found that all the five complainants were promised to be sent abroad by Susan
and herein appellant[43] as cooks and assistant cooks. The follow up transactions between appellant and her victims
were done inside the said travel agency. Moreover, all four receipts issued to the victims bear the name and logo of
Laogo Travel Consultancy,[44] with two of the said receipts personally signed by appellant herself. [45] Indubitably,
appellant and her co-accused acting together made complainants believe that they were transacting with a legitimate
recruitment agency and that Laogo Travel Consultancy had the authority to recruit them and send them abroad for
work when in truth and in fact it had none as certified by the POEA. [46] Absent any showing that the trial court and
the CA overlooked or misappreciated certain significant facts and circumstances, which if properly considered,
would change the result, we are bound by said findings. [47]Appellants contention that she had to change the name of
her travel agency to disassociate herself with Susans recruitment activities is too lame to deserve serious
consideration. In light of the testimonies of the complainants that appellant with her co-accused promised the0m
employment abroad, we find appellants act of closing Laogo Travel Consultancy and establishing a new one under
her husband’s name[48] as just an afterthought, a belated decision which cannot undo the damage suffered by the
private offended parties. It could indeed hardly be construed as a simple reaction of an innocent person, as it in fact
smacks of a desperate attempt of a guilty individual to escape liability or to confuse and dishearten her victims.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated July 31, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 01664 is AFFIRMED in toto.With costs against the accused-appellant.

18
4. G.R. No. 146964 August 10, 2006

ROSA C. RODOLFO, Petitioner,

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

DECISION

CARPIO MORALES, J.:

Petitioner was charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati for illegal recruitment alleged to
have been committed as follows:

That in or about and during the period from August to September 1984, in Makati, Metro Manila,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused representing herself 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
VILLAMOR ALCANTARA, NARCISO CORPUZ, 1NECITAS R. FERRE, GERARDO H. TAPAWAN and
JOVITO L. CAMA, without first securing the required license or authority from the Ministry of Labor and
Employment. 2

After trial on the merits, Branch 61 of the Makati RTC rendered its Judgment on the case, 3 the decretal
portion of which reads:

In so imposing the penalty, the trial court took note of the fact that while the information reflected the
commission of illegal recruitment in large scale, only the complaint of the two of the five complainants was
proven.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals correctly synthesized the evidence presented by the parties as follows:

[The evidence for the prosecution] shows that sometime in August and September 1984, accused-
appellant approached private complainants Necitas Ferre and Narciso Corpus individually and invited
them to apply for overseas employment in Dubai. The accused-appellant being their neighbor, private
complainants agreed and went to the former’s office. This office which bore the business name "Bayside
Manpower Export Specialist" was in a building situated at Bautista St. Buendia, Makati, Metro Manila. In
that office, private complainants gave certain amounts to appellant for processing and other fees. Ferre
gave P1,000.00 as processing fee (Exhibit A) and another P4,000.00 (Exhibit B). Likewise, Corpus gave
appellant P7,000.00 (Exhibit D). Appellant then told private complainants that they were scheduled to
leave for Dubai on September 8, 1984. However, private complainants and all the other applicants were
not able to depart on the said date as their employer allegedly did not arrive v. Thus, their departure was
rescheduled to September 23, but the result was the same. Suspecting that they were being hoodwinked,
private complainants demanded of appellant to return their money. Except for the refund of P1,000.00 to
Ferre, appellant was not able to return private complainants’ money. Tired of excuses, private
complainants filed the present case for illegal recruitment against the accused-appellant.

To prove that accused-appellant had no authority to recruit workers for overseas employment, the
prosecution presented Jose Valeriano, a Senior Overseas Employment Officer of the Philippine Overseas
Employment Agency (POEA), who testified that accused-appellant was neither licensed nor authorized by
the then Ministry of Labor and Employment to recruit workers for overseas employment.

For her defense, appellant denied ever approaching private complainants to recruit them for employment
in Dubai. On the contrary, it was the private complainants who asked her help in securing jobs abroad. As
a good neighbor and friend, she brought the private complainants to the Bayside Manpower Export

19
Specialist agency because she knew Florante Hinahon, 5 the owner of the said agency. While accused-
appellant admitted that she received money from the private complainants, she was quick to point out
that she received the same only in trust for delivery to the agency. She denied being part of the agency
either as an owner or employee thereof. To corroborate appellant’s testimony, Milagros Cuadra, who was
also an applicant and a companion of private complainants, testified that appellant did not recruit them.
On the contrary, they were the ones who asked help from appellant. To further bolster the defense,
Eriberto C. Tabing, the accountant and cashier of the agency, testified that appellant is not connected
with the agency and that he saw appellant received money from the applicants but she turned them over
to the agency through either Florantino Hinahon or Luzviminda Marcos. 6 (Emphasis and underscoring
supplied) WHEREFORE, PREMISES ABOVE CONSIDERED, the Court finds the accused ROSA C.
RODOLFO as GUILTY of the offense of ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT and hereby sentences her [to]
a penalty of imprisonment of EIGHT YEARS and to pay the costs. 4 (Underscoring supplied)

In light thereof, the appellate court affirmed the judgment of the trial court but modified the penalty
imposed due to the trial court’s failure to apply the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

The appellate court thus disposed:

WHEREFORE, finding no merit in the appeal, this Court DISMISSES it and AFFIRMS the appealed
Decision EXCEPT the penalty x x x which is hereby changed to five (5) years as minimum to seven (7)
years as maximum with perpetual disqualification from engaging in the business of recruitment and
placement of workers. 7(Underscoring supplied)

Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration having been denied, 8 the present petition was filed, faulting the
appellate court

x x x IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONIES OF THE COMPLAINING WITNESSES, [AND]

II

x x x IN FINDING THE PETITIONER-ACCUSED GUILTY WHEN THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO

PROVE HER GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. 9 (Underscoring supplied)

Petitioner bewails the failure of the trial court and the Court of Appeals to credit the testimonies of her
witnesses, her companion Milagros Cuadra, and Eriberto C. Tabing who is an accountant-cashier of the
agency.

Further, petitioner assails the trial court’s and the appellate court’s failure to consider that the provisional
receipts she issued indicated that the amounts she collected from the private complainants were turned
over to the agency through Minda Marcos and Florante Hinahon. At any rate, she draws attention
to People v. Señoron 10 wherein this Court held that the issuance or signing of receipts for placement fees
does not make a case for illegal recruitment.11

RULING

The petition fails.

Articles 38 and 39 of the Labor Code, the legal provisions applicable when the offense charged was
committed, 12provided:

20
ART. 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. x x x

Article 39. Penalties. – x x x x

(c) Any person who is neither a licensee nor a holder of authority under this Title found violating any
provision thereof or its implementing rules and regulations shall, upon conviction thereof, suffer the
penalty of imprisonment of not less than four years nor more than eight years or a fine of not less
than P20,000 nor more than P100,000 or both such imprisonment and fine, at the discretion of the court;

x x x x (Underscoring supplied)

The elements of the offense of illegal recruitment, which must concur, are: (1) that the offender has no
valid license or authority required by law to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers; and
(2) that the offender undertakes any activity within the meaning of recruitment and placement under
Article 13(b), or any prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code. 13 If another
element is present that the accused commits the act against three or more persons, individually or as a
group, it becomes an illegal recruitment in a large scale. 14

Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code defines "recruitment and placement" as "[a]ny 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."
(Underscoring supplied)

That the first element is present in the case at bar, there is no doubt. Jose Valeriano, Senior Overseas
Employment Officer of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, testified that the records of
the POEA do not show that petitioner is authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment. 15 A
Certification to that effect was in fact issued by Hermogenes C. Mateo, Chief of the Licensing Division of
POEA. 16

Petitioner’s disclaimer of having engaged in recruitment activities from the very start does not persuade in
light of the evidence for the prosecution. In People v. Alvarez, this Court held:

Appellant denies that she engaged in acts of recruitment and placement without first complying with the
guidelines issued by the Department of Labor and Employment. She contends that she did not possess
any license for recruitment, because she never engaged in such activity.

We are not persuaded. In weighing contradictory declarations and statements, greater weight must be
given to the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses than to the denial of the defendant. Article
38 (a) clearly shows that illegal recruitment is an offense that is essentially committed by a non-licensee
or non-holder of authority. A non-licensee means any person, corporation or entity to which the labor
secretary has not issued a valid license or authority to engage in recruitment and placement; or whose
license or authority has been suspended, revoked or cancelled by the POEA or the labor secretary. A
license authorizes a person or an entity to operate a private employment agency, while authority is given
to those engaged in recruitment and placement activities.

xxxx

That appellant in this case had been neither licensed nor authorized to recruit workers for overseas
employment was certified by Veneranda C. Guerrero, officer-in-charge of the Licensing and Regulation
Office; and Ma. Salome S. Mendoza, manager of the Licensing Branch – both of the Philippine Overseas

21
Employment Administration. Yet, as complainants convincingly proved, she recruited them for jobs in
Taiwan. 17 (Italics in the original; underscoring supplied)

The second element is doubtless also present. The act of referral, which is included in recruitment, 18 is
"the act of passing along or forwarding of an applicant for employment after an initial interview of a
selected applicant for employment to a selected employer, placement officer or bureau." 19 Petitioner’s
admission that she brought private complainants to the agency whose owner she knows and her
acceptance of fees including those for processing betrays her guilt.

That petitioner issued provisional receipts indicating that the amounts she received from the private
complainants were turned over to Luzviminda Marcos and Florante Hinahon does not free her from
liability. For the act of recruitment may be "for profit or not." It is sufficient that the accused "promises or
offers for a fee employment" to warrant conviction for illegal recruitment. 20 As the appellate court stated:

mx x x Sec. 13(b) of P.D. 442 [The Labor Code] does not require that the recruiter receives and keeps the
placement money for himself or herself. For as long as a person who has no license to engage in
recruitment of workers for overseas employment offers for a fee an employment to two or more persons,
then he or she is guilty of illegal recruitment. 21

Parenthetically, why petitioner accepted the payment of fees from the private complainants when, in light
of her claim that she merely brought them to the agency, she could have advised them to directly pay the
same to the agency, she proferred no explanation.

On petitioner’s reliance on Señoron, 22 true, this Court held that issuance of receipts for placement fees
does not make a case for illegal recruitment. But it went on to state that it is "rather the undertaking of
recruitment activities without the necessary license or authority" that makes a case for illegal
recruitment. 23

A word on the penalty. Indeed, the trial court failed to apply the Indeterminate Sentence Law which also
applies to offenses punished by special laws.

Thus, Section 1 of Act No. 4103 (An Act to Provide for an Indeterminate Sentence and Parole for All
Persons Convicted of Certain Crimes by the Courts of the Philippine Islands; To Create A Board of
Indeterminate Sentence and to Provide Funds Therefor; and for Other Purposes) provides:

SECTION 1. Hereafter, in imposing a prison sentence for an offense punished by the Revised Penal
Code, or its amendments, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence the
maximum term of which shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly
imposed under the rules of the said Code, and the minimum which shall be within the range of the penalty
next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense; and if the offense is punished by any other law,
the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not
exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term
prescribed by the same. (As amended by Act No. 4225) (Underscoring supplied)

While the penalty of imprisonment imposed by the appellate court is within the prescribed penalty for the
offense, its addition of "perpetual disqualification from engaging in the business of recruitment and
placement of workers" is not part thereof. Such additional penalty must thus be stricken off.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals
are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the accessory penalty imposed by it consisting of "perpetual
disqualification from engaging in the business of recruitment and placement of workers" is DELETED.

Costs against petitioner.

22
SO ORDERED.

5.

PEOPLE OF THE G.R. No. 183099

PHILIPPINES,
Appellee, Present:

PUNO, C.J., Chairperson,

CARPIO MORALES,
- versus - LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
BERSAMIN, and
VILLARAMA, JR., JJ.

RACHELLE BALAGAN and Promulgated:

HERMINIA AVILA, February 3, 2010
Appellants.
x-------------------------------------------------x

DECISION

CARPIO MORALES, J.:

From the November 29, 2007 Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals which affirmed with modification the
July 19, 2006 Decision[2] of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 118, Pasay City convicting Rachelle Balagan and
Herminia Avila (appellants) in Criminal Case Nos. 03-2683 and 03-2684, for syndicated illegal recruitment and
estafa, respectively, appellants come to the Court.

The Informations in the cases read:

Criminal Case No. 03-2683

(For Syndicated Illegal Recruitment)

That on or about the period comprising March 21, 2003 to March 28, 2003, in Pasay City, Metro
Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping one another, by falsely representing
themselves to have the capacity to contract, enlist, employ, and recruit workers for overseas
deployment/employment as Factory Worker in Ireland, did then and there willfully, unlawfully,
feloniously, for a fee recruit and promise overseas deployment/employment to private
complainant Michael O. Fernandez without first securing the required license or authority from
the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency.

Contrary to law.[3] (emphasis in the original)

23
 Criminal Case No. 03-2684
(For Estafa)

That on or about the period comprising March 21, 2003 to March 28, 2003, in Pasay City, Metro
Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping one another, defrauded private
complainant Michael O. Fernandez in the following manner to wit: that accused, with deliberate
intent to defraud and deceive and pretending to possess the capacity to contract, enlist and employ
or deploy private complainant as a Factory Worker in Ireland, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously demand and did actually receive from private complainant the total
amount of Php.57,000.00 for and as his supposed work permit, job placement or overseas
deployment and POEA processing fees, knowing said manifestation and representation to be false
and fraudulent and once in possession of said amount and far from complying with their promise
of employment or deployment and despite demands to return the amount paid, accused with intent
to defraud, did misappropriate, misapply and convert to their own personal use and benefit private
complainants Php. 57,000.00, to the damage and prejudice of the said complainant in the total
amount of Php. 57,000.00.

Contrary to law.[4] (emphasis in the original; underscoring supplied)

As summarized by the trial court which is supported by the records of the cases, the evidence for the prosecution and
that for the defense are as follows:

EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION

Fernandez testified that sometime in February 2003, he together with a friend who knows Rosabel
Balagan, mother of Rachel, went to EGI Building located at Gil Puyat Street, Pasay City
purposely to apply for work abroad. Once in the said office, he was able to talk to Rosabel, Rachel
Herminia and some other applicants. He knows that Rachelle and Herminia were clerk and
secretary, respectively, at the said office and they entice people that they could send workers
abroad. The accused asked him if he was really interested in applying for work and when he
answered in the affirmative, Rosabel told him to submit his passport, ID pictures and a bank
account of P500.00. After he had submitted the requirements, Rosabel told him that the amount of
P150,000.00 is needed for deployment to Ireland and he will be able to leave by 28 March
2003. Rachel and Herminia affirmed to him the statements of Rosabel.

On 21 March 2003, he gave P37,000.00 to Rosabel and on the following day additional
P20,000.00, or a total of P57,000.00 out of the P150,000.00 asked by the accused. He was
supposed to give the money personally to Rosabel but the latter told him to hand the same to
Herminia who then issued official receipts nos. 263 and 264 to him. The receipts were signed by
Rosabel.

He and the other complainants whom he got acquainted with were not able to leave the country
on 28 March 2003. He then asked Rosabel to return the money to him but the latter refused to do
so. When he later on went to the POEA he learned that the accused are not licensed to recruit
workers for abroad. Thereafter, he lodged a complaint before the CIDG where he executed his two
(2) affidavits.

24
On cross-examination, he testified that it was Rosabel who promised to send him abroad; that the
family of Rosabel owns the travel agency that recruited him and he has no proof whatsoever that
Rachel and Herminia are business partners of the former; and that Herminia and Cristino were
more than mere employees of Rosabel because they act as her agents.

On additional cross-examination, he admitted that the receipts issued to him were for
documentation purposes only; that he was aware that the office was only a Travel Consultancy;
and that if not for his companion, Kim Folgueras, who referred him to the office of the accused, he
would not have come to know of Rosabel.

On redirect examination, he identified an application for tenant contractor identification card

showing, among others, the names of Rosabel Balagan as General Manager, Herminia Avila as
Secretary, Rachelle Balagan as Clerk, and an advertisement in the souvenir program of San
Manuel Town Fiesta 2003 showing the greetings from Rosabel Travel Consultancy, with the name
of Rosabel as President and General Manager, Herminia as Secretary and Administrative
Assistant, and Rachelle as Clerk and other names of the office staff.

He positively identified Rachel and Herminia. He also identified his two (2) affidavits.

When the prosecution called on Bolivar, the defense stipulated that said witness is a Senior Labor
and Employment officer at the POEA; that Rachel and Herminia were both not authorized by
POEA to engage in the business of recruitment for abroad as evidenced by a certification issued by
said office; and that a license for travel agency is different from that of a recruitment agency.

EVIDENCE OF THE DEFENSE

Herminia denied that she has anything to do with the cases filed by Fernandez, much less with
receipt for the total amount of P57,000.00 which were signed by Rosabel and that she was
connected with Rosabel Travel Consultancy. She alleged that she and her husband Edwin were
also applicants at Rosabel Travel Consultancy as evidenced by an official receipt issued by
Rosabel which shows that they paid said office for their travel to Australia. To further support her
claim, she also presented her passport.

She further testified that she met Fernandez at the boarding house and often saw him when the
latter was following up his application at the agency; that she was included as an accused so that
Fernandez could use her in going after Rosabel who at that time was not yet arrested; and since
she was then living in the boarding house of Rosabel, Fernandez suspected that she might know
where Rosabel was hiding.

On cross-examination, she readily identified the name and picture appearing in the advertisement
in the souvenir program of San Manuel Town Fiesta 2003 as hers and admitted that she has no
conflict or misunderstanding whatsoever with Fernandez.

Like Herminia, Rachel denied Fernandez accusation and that allegation that she received the total
amount of P57,000.00; that she had conspired with Herminia; that she was connected with
Rosabel Travel Consultancy; that she has any position in the said agency; and that she ever talked
to any of its clients. She identified the signatures on the receipts to be that of her mother
Rosabel. She testified that she only met Fernandez in the courtroom.

Again, like Herminia, Rachel admitted that her name and picture appear on the Tenants
Contractors Identification and Souvenir Program of San Manuel Town Plaza. [5] (italics,
underscoring and capitalization in the original)

25
By Decision of July 19, 2006, the trial court, as reflected earlier, convicted appellants of the crimes charged,
disposing as follows:

WHEREFORE, all the foregoing considered, Rachelle Balagan and Herminia Avila are hereby
found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Syndicated Illegal Recruitment in
Criminal Case No. 03-2683 and Estafa in Criminal case No. 03-2684. Accordingly, they are
hereby sentenced to suffer the following penalties:

1. In Criminal Case No. 03-2863- LIFE IMPRISONMENT and a FINE of One Million Pesos
(P1,000,000.00), each the maximum penalty under the law because the crime was committed by
non-licensees or non-holders of authority; and

2. In Criminal Case No. 03-2864-Indeterminate imprisonment of four (4) years and two (2)
months of prision correccional medium, as minimum, to eleven (11) years of prision
mayormaximum, as maximum. The accused are also ordered to indemnify Michael Fernandez the
sum of Fifty Seven Thousand Pesos (P57,000.00) with legal interest form the time of the filing of
the information.

In the meantime, let the cases be archived with respect to Arnel Cristino. Let an alias warrant be
issued against him.

Cost against the accused.[6] (italics and capitalization in the original; underscoring supplied)

As reflected too earlier, the appellate court affirmed the trial courts decision. It modified the penalty imposed in the
case for estafa, however.

In the case for Syndicated Illegal Recruitment, the appellate court credited the position of the Office of the
Solicitor General that the prosecution failed to establish that the illegal recruitment was committed by a
syndicate.[7] It instead found appellants culpable of Simple Illegal Recruitment.
Modifying the penalty imposed, in the case for Estafa, the appellate court, citing People v. Logan,[8] thus
disposed in the two cases:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing disquisitions, the appealed decision of

the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 118 is AFFIRMED with the following
MODIFICATIONS:

(1) In Criminal Case No. 03-2683, appellants Rachelle Balagan and Herminia Avila are
found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Simple Illegal Recruitment
only, and are each sentenced to suffer a prison term of six (6) years and one (1) day,
as minimum, to twelve (12) years, as maximum, and to pay a fine of P200,000.00
(2) In Criminal Case No. 03-2684, appellants Rachelle Balagan and Herminia Avila are
found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa and are each
sentenced to suffer a prison term of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision
correccional, as minimum, to nine (9) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as
maximum and is ORDERED to indemnify Michael O. Fernandez in the amount of

26
 Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php57,000.00) . (capitalization, emphasis and italics in the
original; underscoring supplied)

Hence, the present appeal.

After a review of the records of the cases, the Court affirms the Decision of the appellate court but modifies
the penalty it imposed in the case for Estafa, following People v. Temporada[9] which instructs:

The prescribed penalty for estafa under Article 315, par. 2(d) of the RPC, when the amount defrauded
exceeds P22,000.00, is prision correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum. The minimum
term is taken from the penalty next lower or anywhere within prision correccional minimum and
medium (i.e., from 6 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months). Consequently, the RTC correctly
fixed the minimum term for the five estafa cases at 4 years and 2 months of prision
correccional since this is within the range of prision correccional minimum and medium.

On the other hand, the maximum term is taken from the prescribed penalty of prision
correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum in its maximum period, adding 1 year of
imprisonment for every P10,000.00 in excess of P22,000.00, provided that the total penalty shall
not exceed 20 years. However, the maximum period of the prescribed penalty of prision
correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum is not prision mayor minimum as apparently
assumed by the RTC. To compute the maximum period of the prescribed penalty, prision
correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum should be divided into three equal portions of
time each of which portion shall be deemed to form one period in accordance with Article 65 of
the RPC. Following this procedure, the maximum period of 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.

In computing the incremental penalty, the amount defrauded shall be subtracted by P22,000.00, and the
difference shall be divided by P10,000.00. Any fraction of a year shall be discarded as was done
starting with the case of People v. Pabalan in consonance with the settled rule that penal laws
shall be construed liberally in favor of the accused. The doctrine enunciated in People v.
Emerito, insofar as the fraction of a year was utilized in computing the total incremental penalty
should, thus, be modified. In accordance with the above procedure, the maximum term of the
indeterminate sentences imposed by the RTC should be as follows:

In Criminal Case No. 02-208372, where the amount defrauded was P57,600.00, the RTC
sentenced the accused to an indeterminate penalty of 4 years and 2 months of prision
correccional as minimum, to 9 years and 1 day of prision mayor as maximum. Since the amount
defrauded exceeds P22,000.00 by P35,600.00, 3 years shall be added to the maximum period of
the prescribed penalty (or added to any where from 6 years, 8 months and 21 days to 8 years, at
the discretion of the court). The lowest maximum term, therefore, that can be validly imposed is 9
years, 8 months and 21 days of prision mayor, and not 9 years and 1 day of prision
mayor.[10] (italics in the original; emphasis and underscoring supplied)

WHEREFORE, the assailed November 29, 2007 Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION in that in the case for Estafa, each appellant is sentenced to suffer a prison term of four (4) years
and two (2) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to nine (9) years, eight (8) months, and twenty-one (21)
days of prision mayor, as maximum.

27
In all other respects, the Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.SO ORDERED.

6. People of the Philippines vs. Domingo Panis

GR No. L–58674–77, July 11, 1990

FACTS:

On January 9, 1981, four information were filed in the in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Zambales and
Olongapo City alleging that herein private respondent Serapio Abug, "without first securing a license from the
Ministry of Labor as a holder of authority to operate a fee-charging employment agency, did then and there
wilfully, unlawfully and criminally operate a private fee charging employment agency by charging fees and
expenses (from) and promising employment in Saudi Arabia" to four separate individuals. Abug filed a motion to
quash contending that he cannot be charged for illegal recruitment because according to him, Article 13(b) of the
Labor Code says there would be illegal recruitment only "whenever two or more persons are in any manner
promised or offered any employment for a fee.”

Denied at first, the motion to quash was reconsidered and granted by the Trial Court in its Orders dated June 24,
1981, and September 17, 1981. In the instant case, the view of the private respondents is that to constitute
recruitment and placement, all the acts mentioned in this article should involve dealings with two or more persons
as an indispensable requirement. On the other hand, the petitioner argues that the requirement of two or more
persons is imposed only where the recruitment and placement consists of an offer or promise of employment to
such persons and always in consideration of a fee.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Article 13(b) of the Labor Code provides for the innocence or guilt of the private respondent of the
crime of illegal recruitment

COURT RULING:

The Supreme Court reversed the CFI’s Orders and reinstated all four information filed against private respondent.

The Article 13(b) of the Labor Code was merely intended to create a presumption, and not to impose a condition
on the basic rule nor to provide an exception thereto.

Where a fee is collected in consideration of a promise or offer of employment to two or more prospective workers,
the individual or entity dealing with them shall be deemed to be engaged in the act of recruitment and placement.
The words "shall be deemed" create the said presumption.

28