FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. Nos. 115150-55. September 27, 1996.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , plaintiff-appellee, vs . REYDANTE

CALONZO Y AMBROSIO , accused-appellant.

The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.

Renato Dilag and Violeta M. Perena (PAO) for accused-appellant.

SYLLABUS

1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; TESTIMONY OF A WITNESS; DENIAL CANNOT

PREVAIL OVER THE POSITIVE ASSERTIONS OF THE COMPLAINANT. — The absence of
evidence as to an improper motive actuating the principal witnesses of the prosecution
strongly tends to sustain no improper motive existed and their testimony is worthy of full
faith and credit. Accused-appellant's denial cannot prevail over the positive assertions of
complainants who had no motive to testify falsely against her except to tell the truth.
2. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; LABOR CODE; ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT;
DEFINED. — Illegal recruitment in large scale is committed when a person "(a) undertakes
any recruitment activity de ned under Article 13 (b) or any prohibited practice enumerated
under Article 34 of the Labor Code; (b) does not have a license or authority to lawfully
engage in the recruitment and placement of workers; and (c) commits the some against
three or more persons, individually or as a group."
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; CONVICTION UNDER THE LABOR CODE DOES NOT PRECLUDE
PUNISHMENT UNDER OTHER STATUTES. — As regards the conviction of Calonzo for
estafa on ve (5) counts we ruled in People v. Turda G.R. Nos. 97044-46, 6 July 1994, 233
SCRA 713, that recruitment of persons for overseas employment without the necessary
recruiting permit or authority from the POEA constitutes illegal recruitment; however,
where some other crimes or felonies are committed in the process, conviction under the
Labor Code does not preclude punishment under other statutes.
4. CRIMINAL LAW; ELEMENTS OF ESTAFA. — In People v. Romero, G.R. Nos.
103385-88, 26 July 1993, 224 SCRA 755, we said that the elements of estafa were: (a) that
the accused defrauded another by abuse of con dence or by means of deceit, and (b) that
damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party or
third person.

DECISION

BELLOSILLO , J : p

REYDANTE CALONZO Y AMBROSIO was charged with Illegal Recruitment in Large

Scale and ve (5) counts of Estafa by Bernardo Miranda, Danilo de los Reyes, Elmer
Clamor, Belarmino Torregrosa and Hazel de Paula. On 5 April 1994 the Regional Trial Court
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 of Pasig found the accused guilty as charged and sentenced —
1. In Criminal Case No. 98850 for Estafa, to suffer an indeterminate prison
term of eleven (11) years, eleven (11) months and (11) days of prision mayor to
fteen (15) years, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days of reclusion
temporal, to reimburse the complainant-victim Bernardo Miranda in the amount of
P120,000.00 and to pay the costs.

2. In Criminal Case No. 98851 for Estafa, to suffer an indeterminate prison

term of eleven (11) years, eleven (11) months and eleven (11) days of prision
mayor to fteen (15) years, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days of
reclusion temporal, to reimburse the complainant-victim Danilo de los Reyes in
the amount of P120,000.00 and to pay the costs.

3. In Criminal Case No. 98852 for Estafa, to suffer an indeterminate prison

term of eleven (11) years, eleven (11) months and eleven (11) days of prision
mayor to fteen (15) years, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days of
reclusion temporal, to reimburse the complainant-victim Elmer Clamor in the
amount of P120,000.00 and to pay the costs.

4. In Criminal Case No. 98853 for Estafa, to suffer an indeterminate prison

term of nine (9) years, eleven (11) months and eleven (11) days of prision mayor
to thirteen (13) years, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days of reclusion
temporal, to reimburse the complainant-victim Belarmino Torregrosa in the
amount of P100,000.00 and to pay the costs.

5. In Criminal Case No. 98854 for Estafa, to suffer an indeterminate prison

term of eleven (11) years, eleven (11) months and eleven (11) days of prision
mayor to fteen (15) years, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days of
reclusion temporal, to reimburse the complainant-victim Hazel de Paul in the
amount of P120,000.00 and to pay the costs.
6. In Criminal Case No. 98855 for Illegal Recruitment (Large Scale), to
suffer the penalty of life imprisonment, to pay a ne of One Hundred Thousand
Pesos (P100,000.00) and to pay the costs.

In the successive service of his sentences, the accused shall be credited in

full with the period of his preventive imprisonment.

The above terms shall also be subject to the application of the Three-Fold
Rule. 1

Accused-appellant in this appeal assails his conviction by the trial court. He claims
that the court below erred in disregarding the testimony of Nenita Mercado, an employee
of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA), who categorically stated
that their records indicated that Calonzo never processed complainants' applications for
employment abroad. He concludes from that fact alone that he cannot be deemed to have
engaged in the recruitment of workers for employment abroad.
As regards the estafa cases, accused-appellant contends that the court a quo erred
in giving credence to the testimonies of prosecution witnesses considering that the
amounts claimed to have been collected by him did not correspond to the amounts
indicated in the receipts presented by the complaining witnesses.
The antecedents: Sometime in February 1992 Danilo de los Reyes and his brother-in-
law Belarmino Torregrosa met Reydante Calonzo in the house of Loreta Castañeda at No.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 10 P. Burgos Street, Pasig, Metro Manila. In that meeting Calonzo lost no time in informing
them that he could provide them employment abroad, particularly Italy, for a fee. Calonzo
was so glib and persuasive that De los Reyes and Torregrosa were quickly convinced to
cast their lot with him. Upon returning home they took stock of their assets and resources
and came up with the gures su cient for the processing of their applications for
employment abroad. Two months after their initial meeting, or on 13 April 1992, De los
Reyes gave Calonzo P50,000.00. He also pledged the Ford Fiera of his brother-in-law to
Calonzo for P70,000.00 in order to come up with the P120,000.00 processing fee
imposed by Calonzo. The latter then informed De los Reyes of his "scheduled" departure
for Italy on 29 April 1992. However, despite the lapse of the period, De los Reyes and
Torregrosa remained in the Philippines although their recruiter reiterated his promise to
send them to Italy.
On May 1 1992, instead of sending them to Italy, they were billeted at Aloha Hotel
along Roxas Boulevard. The following day, or on 2 May 1992, they boarded a plane that
was supposed to take them to Italy. But Calonzo had another destination in mind. They
landed in Bangkok instead where their visas for Italy, according to Calonzo, would be
processed. They stayed at P.S. Guest Hotel for one and a half months. While in Bangkok
the accused again collected money from them purportedly to defray the expenses for their
visas. They also incurred expenses for food and accommodation, and for overstaying, De
los Reyes had to pay 2800 bahts to the immigration authorities only to discover to their
utter dismay that Calonzo had already returned to the Philippines.
In their helplessness in a foreign land they sought the help of Loreta Castañeda by
calling her up in Manila. Castañeda promptly fetched them from Bangkok and brought
them back to the Philippines. The day following their arrival they went to the o ce of
Calonzo on Padre Faura. Despite their frustrations in Bangkok Calonzo still insisted that he
would send them to Italy as he promised. In their naivete which was no match to the
unmitigated audacity of Calonzo, De los Reyes and Torregrosa still clung to the promises
of Calonzo hoping against hope that the latter would still ful ll them. However the
promises remained unful lled so they looked again for Calonzo. But this time their quarry
had already absconded.
They veri ed from the POEA whether Calonzo or his R. A. C. Business Agency was
duly authorized and licensed to recruit people for employment abroad. The POEA certi ed
t h a t R. A. C. Business Agency was not licensed to recruit workers for overseas
employment.
Torregrosa substantiated the above account. He testi ed that he gave Calonzo a
total of P100,000.00. On cross-examination however he stated that he gave such amount
on 27 April 1992 and not on 13 April 1992 as testi ed to by De los Reyes. But the date
appearing on the receipt marked Exhibit A is 13 April 1992. Torregrosa also claimed that
while in Bangkok he gave Calonzo an additional amount of US$100.00.
On her part, Hazel de Paula testi ed that she rst met appellant and the other
complainants at the house of Loreta Castañeda at No. 10 P. Burgos Street, Pasig, Metro
Manila. Convinced that she would eventually be employed in Italy as a domestic helper she
gave Calonzo P120,000.00. Unlike the other complaining witnesses, she was not able to y
to Bangkok on 2 May 1992 as her passport was not yet available. She left only on 6 May
1992 where she was met by Calonzo at the airport and brought to the P.S. Guest Hotel
where her companions who had arrived earlier were already billeted. She said that while in
Bangkok Calonzo asked money again from her.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Elmer Clamor, a 28-year old resident of Gen. Trias, Cavite, was similarly situated with
Hazel de Paula. Clamor narrated that he gave Calonzo P120,000.00 for the latter's
commitment to send him to Italy, and in fact while in Bangkok he gave Calonzo US$250.00
more.
Bernardo Miranda, a construction worker from Talisay, Batangas, was another victim
of Calonzo. Lured by the latter's assurances that he would be sent to Italy, he gave Calonzo
a total of P120,000.00 for the processing of his application for work in Italy. But, like all the
rest of them, Miranda only reached Bangkok. The promised job, his hard-earned money
and Calonzo himself eventually disappeared.
Senior Labor Employment O cer Nenita Mercado of the POEA con rmed that
neither Reydante Calonzo nor his R. A. C. Business Agency was authorized to recruit
workers for employment abroad.
Reydante Calonzo tells us his own story. He admits being engaged in the
consultancy business through his R. A. C. Business Agency but denies any involvement in
recruitment activities. He admits knowing Loreta Castañeda and Leticia Solis as the two
have sought his assistance regarding their real estate business. He denies knowing the
complaining witnesses except Danilo de los Reyes and Belarmino Torregrosa who once
visited him in his o ce. While he disclaims the receipts presented by the prosecution as
official receipts of his R. A. C. Business Agency he admits that the signatures thereon were
similar to his.
We frustrate the expectations of the accused. Article 13, par. (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 pro t 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.

Illegal recruitment is specifically defined in Art. 38 of the Code thus —

(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 . . .
(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
de ned under the rst paragraph hereof. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed
in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a
group.

All the ve (5) complaining witnesses met each other for the rst time at the house
of Loreta Castañeda. They were not in any way acquainted with one another prior to that
meeting save for Danilo de los Reyes and his brother-in-law Belarmino Torregrosa. They all
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 came from different places, yet, they were all united in pointing to Calonzo as the person
who enticed them to apply for employment abroad. Of course, Calonzo could not explain
what motivated the complaining witnesses to le these cases against him. The most that
Calonzo could do on the witness stand was to deny all the charges against him. Alas, his
denial is at most lame and cannot prevail over the positive assertions of the complaining
witnesses. In People v. Villafuerte 2 we ruled —
. . . The absence of evidence as to an improper motive actuating the
principal witnesses of the prosecution strongly tends to sustain no improper
motive existed and their testimony is worthy of full faith and credit. Accused-
appellant's denial cannot prevail over the positive assertions of complainants
who had no motive to testify falsely against her except to tell the truth.

Illegal recruitment in large scale is committed when a person "(a) undertakes any
recruitment activity de ned under Article 13(b) or any prohibited practice enumerated
under Article 34 of the Labor Code; (b) does not have a license or authority to lawfully
engage in the recruitment and placement of workers; and (c) commits the same against
three or more persons, individually or as a group." 3 The testimony of complainants
evidently showed that Calonzo was engaged in recruitment activities in large scale. Firstly,
he deluded complainants into believing that jobs awaited in Italy by distinctly impressing
upon them that he had the facility to send them for work abroad. He even showed them his
passport to lend credence to his claim. To top it all, he brought them to Bangkok and not
to Italy. Neither did he have any arrangements in Bangkok for the transfer of his recruits to
Italy. Secondly, POEA likewise certi ed that neither Calonzo nor R. A. C. Business Agency
was licensed to recruit workers for employment abroad. Appellant admitted this fact
himself. Thirdly, appellant recruited ve (5) workers thus making the crime illegal
recruitment in large scale constituting economic sabotage.
In his attempt to exculpate himself, although belatedly, Calonzo denies having
received money from the complainants. But as against their positive testimonies, this
denial of appellant is worthless and at most self-serving. All the complaining witnesses
testi ed that they gave their money to Calonzo through Loreta Castañeda who in turn gave
the amounts to Calonzo in their presence. In support thereof complainants even presented
receipts issued by the R. A. C. Business Agency with Calonzo's signature a xed thereon.
Nobody corroborated Calonzo's denial. Even Loreta who could have con rmed such denial
testi ed that all the amounts given by the complainants were turned over by her to
Calonzo. The attempt of the defense at reinforcing such denial proved futile when it
presented Carmeo Alix to testify that appellant owned another import-export business as
it had no relevance to his defense.
As regards the conviction of Calonzo for estafa on ve (5) counts we ruled in People
v. Turda 4 that recruitment of persons for overseas employment without the necessary
recruiting permit or authority from the POEA constitutes illegal recruitment; however,
where some other crimes or felonies are committed in the process, conviction under the
Labor Code does not preclude punishment under other statutes. In People v. Romero 5 we
said that the elements of estafa were: (a) that the accused defrauded another by abuse of
con dence or by means of deceit, and (b) that damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary
estimation is caused to the offended party or third person. Corollarily, Art. 315 of the
Revised Penal Code provides for its penalty thus —
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 P12,000 but does
not exceed P22,000, and if such amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalty
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one
year for each additional P10,000; but the total penalty which may be imposed
shall not exceed twenty years. In such a 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.
In the case before us, we are convinced that Calonzo defrauded complainants
through deceit. They were obviously misled into believing that he could provide them
employment in Italy. As a result, the ve (5) complainants who desperately wanted to
augment their income and improve their lot parted with their hard-earned money. In Crim.
Cases Nos. 98850, 98851, 98852 and 98854 the amount defrauded of each complainant
was P120,000.00. In consonance with Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code, the imposable
penalty is prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum
period the range of which is four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day, to ve (5)
years, ve (5) months and ten (10) days as minimum, while the medium period is from ve
(5) years, ve (5) months and eleven (11) days, to six (6) years, eight (8) months and
twenty (20) days, and the maximum is six (6) years, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21)
days, to eight (8) years. Since the amount of P120,000.00 was defrauded in each case, the
maximum penalty should be taken from the maximum period of the penalty prescribed,
plus one (1) year for every P10,000.00 in excess of P22,000.00 which, in these four (4)
cases is equivalent to nine (9) additional years. Hence, the maximum imposable penalty
should be fteen (15) years, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days, to seventeen (17)
years of reclusion temporal medium. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the
minimum penalty shall be within the range of the penalty next lower in degree to that
prescribed in the Code, i.e., prision correccional minimum to prision correccional medium
in any of its periods. Prision correccional minimum to prision correccional medium ranges
from six (6) months and one (1) day, to four (4) years and two (2) months. Clearly, the
penalty imposed by the court below in each of the aforesaid cases, which is eleven (11)
years, eleven (11) months and eleven (11) days of prision mayor medium, to fteen (15)
years, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days of reclusion temporal medium, is
properly within the range of the imposable penalty.
The same principle would apply to Crim. Case No. 98853 where the amount
defrauded was P100,000.00. The trial court therefore correctly imposed the penalty of
nine (9) years, eleven (11) months and eleven (11) days of prision mayor medium, to
thirteen (13) years, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days of reclusion temporal
minimum, which is properly within the range of the imposable penalty.
WHEREFORE, the judgment of the court a quo nding accused-appellant REYDANTE
CALONZO Y AMBROSIO guilty of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale in Crim. Case No.
98855 (G.R. No. 115155), and of Estafa in Crim. Case No. 98850 (G.R. No. 115150), Crim.
Case No. 98851 (G.R. No. 115151), Crim Case No. 98852 (G.R. No. 115152), Crim Case
No. 98853 (G.R. No. 115153) and Crim. Case No. 98854 (G.R. No. 115154) as well as the
corresponding penalties imposed by the court a quo is AFFIRMED, with costs against
accused-appellant.
In the service of the various prison terms herein imposed upon accused-appellant,
the provisions of Art. 70 of the Revised Penal Code shall be observed.
SO ORDERED.
Padilla, Vitug, Kapunan and Hermosisima, JJ., concur.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Footnotes

1. Decision penned by Judge Martin S. Villarama Jr., RTC-Br. 156, Pasig City; Rollo, pp. 34-35.
2. G.R. Nos. 93723-27, 6 May 1994, 232 SCRA 225, 236.
3. People v. Comia, G.R. No. 109761, 1 September 1994, 236 SCRA 193.
4. G.R. Nos. 97044-46, 6 July 1994, 233 SCRA 713.
5. G.R. Nos. 103385-88, 26 July 1993, 224 SCRA 755.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com