THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. Nos. 116905-908. August 6, 2002]

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

BALLESTEROS, accused-appellant.

DECISION
CARPIO, J.:

The Case

This is an appeal from the Decision  dated July 6, 1994 of the Regional Trial Court
[1]

of Manila, Branch 49, in Criminal Cases Nos. 93-121321, 93-121322, 93-121323 and
93-121324, convicting appellant Eduardo Ballesteros (Appellant for brevity) of the
crimes of illegal recruitment in large-scale and estafa. The trial court sentenced
appellant to life imprisonment plus three indeterminate penalties ranging from two
years, eleven months and ten days of prision correccional as minimum to nine years,
eight months and one day of prision mayor as maximum.

The Charge

On May 26, 1993, the Assistant City Prosecutor of Manila filed an

Information  charging appellant with the crime of illegal recruitment in large-scale,
[2]

 docketed as Criminal Case No. 93-121321, as follows:

[3]

That on or about May 23, 1992, November 27, 1992 and January 3, 1993, in the City
of Manila, Philippines, the said accused representing himself to have the capacity to
contract, enlist and transport Filipino workers for employment abroad, did then and
there wilfully and unlawfully for a fee, recruit and promise employment job
placement in Japan to the following persons: Arnel Viloria y Viloria, Santiago
Ricamonte y Leocario and Nenita Sorita y Ramos, without first having secured the
required license or authority from the Department of Labor.

Contrary to law.

The Assistant City Prosecutor also charged appellant, based on the same incident,
of three counts of estafa committed on each of the private complainants under Criminal
Cases Nos. 93-121322,  93-121323  and 93-121324.  The Informations were identical,
[4] [5] [6]

except for the name of the private complainants, as follows:

That on or about May 23, 1992, the accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously defraud ARNEL VILORIA Y VILORIA in the following manner, to
wit: the said accused, by means of false manifestations and fraudulent representation
which he/they/she made to said ARNEL VILORIA Y VILORIA to the effect that he
had the power and capacity to recruit and employ ARNEL VILORIA Y VILORIA
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 ARNEL VILORIA Y VILORIA to give and
deliver, as in fact he gave and delivered to said accused the amount of P50,000.00 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 he
did obtain the amount of P50,000.00 which amount once in his possession, with intent
to defraud, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously misappropriated, misapplied and
converted to his own personal use and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of said
ARNEL VILORIA Y VILORIA in the aforesaid amount of P50,000.00, Philippine
Currency.

Contrary to law.

Arraignment and Plea

Upon arraignment on June 18, 1983 for each of the charges, appellant, assisted by
counsel de parte, entered a plea of Not Guilty to all the charges. Trial then followed.

The Trial

The prosecution presented as its witnesses the three private complainants, Arnel
Viloria (Viloria for brevity), Santiago Ricamonte (Ricamonte for brevity), and Nenita
Sorita (Sorita for brevity), as well as SPO4 Benjamin Lotivio. The defense presented
appellant as its lone witness.

Version of the Prosecution

The facts  of the case are as follows:

[7]

Santiago Ricamonte, Arnel Viloria and Nenita Sorita all dreamt of seeking greener
pastures in foreign shores. It was most unfortunate for them to have fallen into the
deceptive acts and machinations of the appellant who lured them into a false sense of
security with promises of foreign employment in Japan.
Santiago Ricamonte was a driver at the Monte Merchandizing when he thought of
applying as a construction worker in Japan. Ricky de la Torre (hereinafter dela Torre),
who was a cousin of Ricamontes friend, introduced him to Engineer Jose Mendoza, a
recruiter of workers to Japan. On November, 1992, dela Torre and Mendoza brought
Ricamonte to an office in the Army and Navy Club, located at T. M. Kalaw St., Manila,
and introduced him to appellant, Cecilia Legarbes Zabala (hereinafter Zabala) and
Alfredo Hunsayan, Jr. (hereinafter Hunsayan).When inside the office, Ricamonte saw,
on one of the tables, a name plate bearing the name of Judge Cornejo. He found out
that the office belonged to a former fiscal named Crisanto Cornejo, who was on
vacation at that time, and who allowed the appellant to hold office there while he was
away. 
Once introduced, Ricamonte was informed of each of the persons duties in that
office. He found out that Zabala was in charge of arranging papers of recruits to Japan
while Hunsayan was the one who had contacts in Japan and that both of them were
associated in the business of recruiting workers for employment in Japan. The appellant
told Ricamonte that there was a job offer in Japan and that Zabala knew everything
about the recruitment. The appellant also impressed upon Ricamonte that the
recruitment of persons for employment in Japan was a transaction of people with money
so that if he did not have any money, he might as well forget setting foot in Japan. The
appellant added that Ricamonte needed to prepare P80,000.00 for the processing of his
employment papers and his plane ticket.
On November 23, 1992, in the office of the appellant, Ricamonte gave P20,000.00,
as the first installment of his payment, to de la Torre who counted the money and
thereafter gave it to Zabala who then issued a receipt for the amount (Exhibits A and
3). The appellant and Mendoza were present and witnessed the transaction. Ricamonte
thereafter signed an application for employment which would be allegedly sent by
Zabala to his prospective employer in Japan.
On another occasion, Ricamonte again went to the office of the appellant to give an
additional P50,000.00. The same process was followed. The money was given to
Zabala who issued a receipt for the amount while the appellant, Mendoza, dela Torre,
and Hunsayan were present as witnesses. Zabala then told him that his visa would be
released soon and asked him to return on a specified date.
When Ricamonte returned to the office of the appellant on the specified date,
Zabala was nowhere to be found. He asked the appellant, who was in the office at that
time, where Zabala was, but the appellant told him that he had nothing to do with
Zabala and that it was up to him to look for her. When Ricamonte returned to the office
of the appellant sometime in December 1992, he found the office already padlocked.
Nenita Sorita was 56 years old and had already worked in Bahrain for some time,
when she, too, was promised an employment in Japan.
On April, 1992, Soritas nephew and niece borrowed money from her and asked her
to pay the money to a certain recruitment agency where she met Engineer
Mendoza. Mendoza offered Sorita a job in Japan but she initially refused since she was
not yet interested at that time. However, it was not long after that first conversation
when she gave in to the offer of employment in a garment factory in Japan. Mendoza
showed her a letter of invitation from his contact in Japan for persons to work there and
assured her that this contact person would be responsible for everything.
Convinced, Sorita paid P10,000.00 to Mendoza for the processing of her papers
and her visa for which Mendoza signed a receipt (Exhibits G and 6). He was able to get
a passport for Sorita as a tourist but still, after a long wait, failed to send her to Japan.
Mendoza told Sorita that he had a misunderstanding with his Japanese contact so he
could not procure employment for her in Japan but, nevertheless, assured her that he
had friends who could secure employment for her in Japan.
So, on November 20, 1992, Mendoza brought Sorita to the house of the appellant in
Singalong, Manila where she met Cecilia Legarbes Zabala. The appellant and Zabala
told Sorita that she would have to pay P60,000.00 for the processing of her employment
papers, visa and her plane tickets to and from Japan. However, the P10,000.00 which
she had earlier paid Mendoza would be deducted from the amount. After laying down
the terms and conditions of their agreement, Sorita was asked to deliver the money to
the office of the appellant at the Army and Navy Club.
On January 3, 1993, Sorita went to the office of the appellant with only
P21,500.00. This notwithstanding, the appellant and Mendoza instructed her to give the
money to Zabala. Once inside the office, Sorita saw the name plate of Judge Cornejo
on one table and that of the appellant, Captain on another table. After giving them the
P21,000.00, Sorita told the three that she could not produce the rest of the money
because the person who was supposed to buy her personal properties, the proceeds of
which she would use to pay the balance of her recruitment fee, failed to do
so. Nevertheless, the three told Sorita to bring her personal properties to the office so
that they could buy them from her for P30,000.00.
On the same day, Sorita brought her personal properties to the office of the
appellant consisting of: 1 Ladies ring with Tampok; 1 wedding band; a 24 karat
necklace; 1 14 colored TV (Goldmaster brand); and 1 Sony Walkman (Exhibits 5 and
H). The appellant, Zabala and Mendoza were still there when Sorita arrived. Zabala
then gave Sorita a signed receipt for the cash amount of P21,000.00 and her personal
properties (Exhibits H and 5). However, Zabala instructed Sorita to bring her Sony
Walkman and television to the house of the appellant where he himself received the
items. Sorita, however, never got any receipt for the items since Zabala assured her
that there was no more problem. Zabala then told her that she would procure a tourist
visa for her and enable her to work as a TNT (tago ng tago) in Japan and guaranteed
her that she, together with the others, would endeavor to bring her to Japan.
However, the day of Soritas departure never came. Like Ricamonte, when she
returned to the office of the appellant, the office was already padlocked.
Arnel Viloria was a 5  year Engineering student at the Technological Institute of the
th

Philippines when he fell into the same employment trap.

 Vilorias mother and Nenita Sorita were close friends. On one occasion when Viloria
went to the house of Sorita, he met Engineer Jose Mendoza. About a month thereafter,
because of Mendozas incessant efforts, Viloria was convinced to apply for a
construction job in Japan. It was also upon the prodding of Mendoza that Viloria no
longer enrolled for the incoming semester in school.
On November 23, 1992, Viloria, together with his parents and Sorita, went to the
office of the appellant at the Army and Navy Club to apply as a construction worker in
Japan. Once there, Mendoza introduced Viloria to the appellant and Zabala and
informed him that these people were his associates and that Zabala was the one
responsible for the processing and approval of his employment application. The
appellant informed Viloria that he had to pay P80,000.00 for his employment papers and
plane ticket. Viloria paid the total amount of P50,000.00 in three installments for which
he was given receipts by Zabala (Exhibits M-3, L, M, J) and was also given the same
assurance that he would soon be leaving for Japan.
However, as the same story goes, when Viloria returned to the office of the
appellant to claim his visa and employment papers, the office was already
closed. Viloria then inquired from the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration if
the appellant, Zabala and Mendoza were licensed to procure workers for employment in
Japan and was informed that they were not.Upon learning this, Viloria tried to contact
the appellant but, naturally, the latter refused to see him. When Viloria finally managed
to talk to the appellant over the telephone, the appellant got mad at him and told him
that he had nothing to do with his problem.
Finally, Santiago Ricamonte, Arnel Viloria and Nenita Sorita, after conferring with
each other and realizing that they were defrauded, executed a Joint Affidavit of
Complaint against the appellant with the Western Police District (Exhibit D) on May 11,
1993.
On the same date, members of the Western Police District arrested the
appellant. After the Inquest Investigation, the Investigator recommended that the
appellant be charged of estafaand illegal recruitment (large-scale) (Exhibit 0-2). Two
days after the appellant was arrested, Cecilia Zabala was also arrested upon
information received by the police that she was staying at the Arevalo Building in
Manila. The police found the passports of Arnel Viloria and Santiago Ricamonte and the
receipts signed by the appellant (Exhibits E and E-2) in her possession and turned them
over to Viloria and Ricamonte. An Inquest Investigation was conducted on May 14,
1993. However, a month thereafter, Zabala managed to escape from the Western
Police and is, up to now, still at large.

Version of the Defense

The facts,  according to the defense, are as follows:

[8]

Appellant categorically denies having recruited or having been involved in the

recruitment of the offended parties to Japan. He, however, admits that he and Mendoza
were once close friends, having worked together in a vessel, appellant as the Captain,
and Mendoza, as his Engineer. However, appellant claims that the relations between
them became strained when Mendoza refused to repay appellant for his expenses in
the baptism of Mendozas son.
Appellant narrates that he was the Chairman of the Board of Directors of PSBN
Marine Salvage, Inc., a company he established, with offices at No. 2336 Espiritu St.,
Singalong, Manila, which was also his residence at that time. Appellant claims that his
relations with Mendoza became further strained when he found out that the latter
tampered with his companys Articles of Incorporation by erasing the name of one of the
Directors and replacing it with his own (Exhibits 19 and 19-B).
Appellant also states that he transferred his office to the Army and Navy Club upon
the permission of a former Assistant City Fiscal Crisanto Cornejo, who originally rented
the office, and who was on vacation at that time. Appellant claims that he arranged to
pay for the rentals of the office, in exchange for its use since Cornejo was three months
in arrears in its payment.
Appellant narrates that sometime in November 1992, Mendoza, Zabala, and
Almonte arrived in his office and sought to rent one table for a monthly rental of
P2,000.00. He claims that Mendoza and Zabala were brokers besides being engaged in
the recruitment of workers for employment abroad. However, appellant claims that he
never meddled in their business and tended to his own. Appellant also asserts that
Cornejo knew of this arrangement and insisted that money transactions should not be
done inside the office. Accordingly, whenever Mendoza, Zabala and Almonte had
business conferences with their clients, they went to the canteen inside the club, about
25 meters away from the office.
It was also in November 1992, on different occasions, that Sorita, Viloria and
Ricamonte, who were applicants for employment abroad, were brought to the office by
Mendoza and the other recruiters. In the process, appellant admitted that he advised
the three that if they had no money or somebody to finance their employment abroad
they might as well forget any plans of working abroad.
Appellant says that Mendoza and the others paid the rent for the use of the table
promptly for the first three months or until January 1993 (Exhibit Q-4). Appellant signed
two receipts acknowledging the payment of the rent. At one point, one of the applicants,
Sorita, delivered to his house a television set and a Sony walkman. Appellant was
surprised by this act, but claims, that on the same day, Zabala took the said
items. Sorita told him that Zabala had already signed the receipt for the said goods.
Sometime in January or February of 1993, the office of the appellant was padlocked
for non-payment of rent for 6 months. Subsequently, appellant entered into a contract
for shipping services with a new company.
On May 3, 1993, appellant claims that police operatives of the Western Police
District sought his help in locating Mendoza, Zabala, and Alfredo Hunsayan, Jr., for
defrauding Sorita, Viloria and Ricamonte. Appellant agreed to help and informed them
where Zabala could be found. After two days, Zabala was arrested by the police but
managed to escape after a month.Appellant, however, claims that, in spite of the help
he gave to the police, he was still placed under arrest and charged for the crime of
illegal recruitment (large-scale) and estafa.

Ruling of the Trial Court

The trial court accorded full faith and credence to the testimony of the private
complainants. The trial court was convinced, beyond a shadow of doubt, that they
testified in a spontaneous, straight-forward and sincere manner, bereft of the
affectations and tell-tale signs of perjured and/or rehearsed witnesses.  The trial court
[9]

held that appellant was in cahoots with Cecilia Legarbes Zabala, Jose Mendoza, Perla
Almonte, Ricky de la Torre and Alfredo Hunsayan, Jr. in recruiting private complainants
for employment in Japan. The trial court found that appellant received various sums of
money and personal properties from the private complainants as placement fees,
expenses for processing of employment papers, issuance of visas to Japan and for
purchase of plane tickets.
After trial on the merits, the trial court convicted appellant of illegal recruitment in
large-scale and three counts of estafa, stating that:[10]

In view of the foregoing disquisitions of the Court, judgment is hereby rendered

against the Accused as follows:

1. In People versus Eduardo Ballesteros, Criminal Case No. 93-121321, the

Accused is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
illegal recruitment defined in Article 13 (b) in relation to Article 38 of the
Labor Code as amended and hereby meted the penalty of life imprisonment
and to pay a fine of P100,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case
of insolvency;

2. In People versus Eduardo Ballesteros, Criminal Case No. 93-121322, the

Accused is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of Estafa defined in Article 315, paragraph 2 (a) of the Revised Penal Code
and hereby meted an indeterminate penalty of from Two (2) Years, Eleven
(11) Months and Ten (10) Days of Prision Correccional as Minimum, to
Eight (8) Years, Eight (8) Months and One (1) Day of Prision Mayor as
Maximum, and ordered to refund to Arnel Viloria the amount
of P50,000.00, with interests thereon, at the legal rate from November 23,
1992 until the said amount is paid in full;

3. In People versus Eduardo Ballesteros, Criminal Case Number 93-121323,

the Accused is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of Estafa defined in Article 315 (2) (a) of the Revised Penal Code and
hereby meted an indeterminate penalty of from Two (2) Years, Eleven (11)
 Months and Ten (10) Days of Prision Correccional as Minimum, to Eight
(8) Years, Eight (8) Months and One (1) Day of Prision Mayor as
Maximum and ordered to refund to Santiago Ricamonte the amount of
P50,000.00 plus interests thereon at the legal rate from November 27,
1992, until the said amount is paid in full;

4. In People versus Eduardo Ballesteros, Criminal Case Number 93-121324 ,

the Court found the Accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of Estafa defined in Article 315 (2) (a) of the Revised Penal Code and
hereby sentences the Accused to an indeterminate penalty of from Two (2)
Years, Eleven Months and Ten (10) Days of Prision Correccional, as
Minimum, to Nine (9) Years, Eight (8) Months and One (1) Day of Prision
Mayor, as Maximum, and to refund to Nenita Sorita the amount of
P31,000.00 and to return to her the following described properties:

1 Ladies ring with tampok

1 Wedding band
1 Necklace 24 karat
1 TV colored 14 Goldmaster brand
1 Sony Walkman

and if he is unable to do so, or refuses to do so, to pay to her the value thereof in the
amount of P30,000.00, said amounts with interests thereon at the legal rate from
January 3, 1993, up to the time the said amounts are paid in full.

The Accused shall be entitled to the full credit of his detention at the City Jail of
Manila provided that he agreed to abide by and comply strictly with the rules and
regulations of the said Jail. With costs against the Accused.

SO ORDERED.

In view of the penalty of life imprisonment, the appellant filed his appeal directly with
this Court.

Issues

The appeal is anchored on the following assigned errors: 

I

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE ACCUSED

CONSPIRED WITH CECILIA LEGARBES ZABALA, ENGINEER JOSE
MENDOZA, PERLA ALMONTE, RICKY DE LA TORRE AND ALFREDO
HUNSAYAN, JR., THE ALLEGED RECRUITERS, IN COMMITTING THE
CRIME OF ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT ALLEGED IN THE INFORMATIONS.
II

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON

RECORD ADDUCED BY THE ACCUSED THAT PRIVATE COMPLAINANTS
ARNEL VILORIA, SANTIAGO RICAMONTE AND NENITA SORITA, HAD
ANY DEVIOUS OR ILL-MOTIVE TO FABRICATE THE CHARGES AGAINST
THE ACCUSED.
III

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO THE

TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION NOTWITHSTANDING
THE INCREDIBLE AND UNBELIEVABLE TESTIMONIES OF THE
PROSECUTION WITNESSES.
IV

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE COMPLAINTS BY

THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANTS BROUGHT AGAINST THE ACCUSED WERE
MERELY AN AFTERTHOUGHT, AND THAT THE COMPLAINANTS
TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT OF THE SAME WERE UNCONVINCING AND
IMPLAUSIBLE AND FALL SHORT OF THE REQUIRED PROOF BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT.
V

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT GIVING WEIGHT TO ACCUSEDS CLAIM

THAT THE FACT THAT THE GROUP OF CECILIA LEGARBES ZABALA HAD
SUBLEASED A PORTION OF THE OFFICE AT THE ARMY AND NAVY CLUB
FROM THE ACCUSED AS CARETAKER OF THE OFFICE DOES NOT MEAN
THAT ACCUSED HAD KNOWLEDGE OR PARTICIPATION IN THEIR
BUSINESS ACTIVITIES AS THEIR TRANSACTIONS WERE NOT DONE IN
THE OFFICE BUT IN THE CANTEEN OF THE CLUB.
VI

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN PLACING HEAVY RELIANCE ON THE

RECEIPTS, EXHIBITS E AND E-2, SHOWING THAT ACCUSED RECEIVED
COMMISSIONS FROM CECILIA LEGARBES ZABALA AND OTHERS, AND IN
NOT HOLDING THAT THE SAID RECEIPTS WERE NOT FOR COMMISSIONS
AS INDICATED IN THE RECEIPTS BUT WERE ACTUALLY RECEIPTS OF
PAYMENT OF RENTALS OF THE SAID PERSONS OF A PORTION OF THE
OFFICE FOR ABOUT THREE (3) MONTHS.
VII

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING, WITHOUT VALID, SUFFICIENT,

CONVINCING AND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, THAT THE
AFOREMENTIONED RECEIPTS, EXHIBITS E AND E-2, CONFIRMED THE
PROSECUTIONS CLAIM THAT THE ACCUSED WAS DIRECTLY INVOLVED
IN THE ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE SAID CECILIA
LEGARBES ZABALA AND OTHERS CONSIDERING THAT ACCUSED HAD
NEVER ENGAGED AND HAD NOT ACTUALLY ENGAGED IN ILLEGAL
RECRUITMENT ACTIVITIES.
VIII

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT ACCUSED WAS NOT
GUILTY OF ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT (LARGE-SCALE) CONSIDERING ITS
ADMISSION THAT THE PROSECUTION HAS NOT ADDUCED ANY
EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THE ACCUSED RECEIVED FROM CECILIA
LEGARBES ZABALA ANY CASH AMOUNT FROM THE PAYMENTS OF
PLACEMENT FEES BY PRIVATE COMPLAINANT NENITA
SORITA. MOREOVER, FURTHER PROOF THAT ACCUSED HAD NEVER
ENGAGED AND HAS NOT ACTUALLY ENGAGED IN ILLEGAL
RECRUITMENT IS PLAIN AND EVIDENT FROM THE UNIFORM
TESTIMONIES OF THE COMPLAINANTS THAT ACCUSED HAD NEVER
RECEIVED MONEY AS ALLEGED PLACEMENT FEES PERSONALLY FROM
THE SAID COMPLAINING WITNESSES.
IX

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE ACCUSED IS NOT
GUILTY OF ESTAFA.
X

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED OF THE

CRIMES OF ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT (LARGE-SCALE) AND THREE (3)
COUNTS OF ESTAFA AND IN NOT ACQUITTING HIM OF THE CRIMES
CHARGED, THE SAME NOT HAVING BEEN PROVED BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT. [11]
 The thrust of the appeal is twofold. First, the trial court erred in finding appellant
responsible for the illegal recruitment of the complaining witnesses and in finding that
there was conspiracy between appellant and his alleged cohorts. Second, the trial court
erred in convicting appellant of estafa despite the failure of the prosecution to prove his
guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The Courts Ruling

We find no reason to reverse appellants conviction. Hence, we affirm but with

modification.
Illegal Recruitment In Large-Scale
Article 13, par. (b), of the Labor Code defines recruitment and placement as:

(b) Recruitment and placement refer to any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting,
transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract
services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for
profit or not; Provided, that any person or entity which, in any manner, offers or
promises for a fee employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in
recruitment and placement.

Illegal recruitment is specifically defined in Article 38 of the same Code thus: 

Article 38. Illegal Recruitment:

(a) Any recruitment activities, including the prohibited practices enumerated under

Article 34 of this Code, to be undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of
authority shall be deemed illegal and punishable under Article 39 of this Code. x x x.
(b) Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large-scale shall be
considered an offense involving economic sabotage and shall be penalized in
accordance with Article 39 hereof.

Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of

three (3) or more persons conspiring and/or confederating with one another in
carrying out any unlawful or illegal transaction, enterprise or scheme defined under
the first paragraph hereof. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large-scale if
committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group.

We have held that to constitute illegal recruitment in large-scale, three elements

must concur:

1. The accused undertook any recruitment activity defined under Art. 13 (b) or any
prohibited practice enumerated under Art. 34 of the Labor Code.
2. He did not have the license or the authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment
and placement of workers.

3. He committed the same against three or more persons, individually or as a group. [12]

The prosecution sufficiently established the foregoing elements in the instant

case. First, as found by the trial court:

The Accused represented to and assured Santiago Ricamonte that, indeed, there was a
job offer for a construction worker in Japan and even told the latter to prepare and pay
the amount of P80,000.00, payable in installments for the processing of his papers for
his employment in Japan and his plane ticket to Japan. The Accused even impressed
on Santiago Ricamonte that the matter of employment of workers in Japan was a
transaction only of people with money and unless the applicant has the amount
demanded of him, he could not possibly procure employment in Japan. Santiago
Ricamonte gave and paid to Cecilia Legarbes Zabala the amount of P20,000.00 on
November 23, 1992, and the amount of P30,000.00 on December 3, 1992, in the
presence of the Accused in the latters office at the Army and Navy Club where Cecilia
Legarbes Zabala signed the Receipts (Exhibits A and B). Santiago Ricamonte relied
on the assurances and representations of the Accused and his cohorts and was
impressed by the office of the Accused. After all, on one of the tables was the name
plate of Judge Cornejo. The Court cannot then begrudge Santiago Ricamonte into
trusting the Accused and his cohorts and in believing that they would not deceive and
defraud him. [13]

Second, there is no need to show that appellant represented himself as a licensed

recruiter since it is enough to show that he did not possess the requisite authority or
license to undertake recruitment activities.  The prosecution established that the
[14]

Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) did not authorize or license

appellant and his cohorts to engage in recruitment Activities.  Despite the absence of
[15]

such authority or license, appellant recruited the complainants.

The appellant need not have expressly represented that he had authority or license
from POEA. It is sufficient that appellant gave the impression that he could find jobs for
complainants in Japan, inducing complainants to agree to pay him recruitment fees.
 On several occasions, this Court has held that there is illegal recruitment when one,
[16]

without authority or license to do so, represents to others that he could send workers
abroad for employment. [17]

Assuming arguendo that appellant did not actually receive any fee, his

representations that he had the capacity to secure employment for private complainants
made him liable for illegal recruitment since he had no authority or license from the
POEA.  In the recent case of People v. Arabia,  we held that:
[18] [19]
While it may be true that complainants herein were not able to present receipts to
prove that they in fact paid the placement fee of P16,000.00 each to accused Arabia
with accused Tomas witnessing the payment, it has been ruled that the absence of
receipts in a criminal case for illegal recruitment does not warrant acquittal of
the accused and is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. As long as the
witnesses had positively shown through their respective testimonies that the
accused is the one involved in the prohibited recruitment, he may be convicted of
the offense despite absence of receipts. (People v. Goce 247 SCRA 780; People v.
Senden 228 SCRA 489; People v. Naparan 225 SCRA 714; People v. Pabala 262
SCRA 553). (Emphasis supplied)

Clearly, the actual receipt of a fee is not an element of the crime.

Third, since there are at least three victims in this case, appellant thus committed
large-scale illegal recruitment.
Appellant also argues that the prosecution failed to prove that he conspired with the
others in the commission of the crime of illegal recruitment and estafa. We find no
cogent reason to disturb the findings of the lower court that there was conspiracy
among appellant, Cecilia Legarbes Zabala, Jose Mendoza, Perla Almonte, Ricky de la
Torre and Alfredo Hunsayan, Jr. The evidence on record indubitably shows that there
was a delineation of roles among the appellant and his cohorts, but with a common
design and a unity of purpose. As aptly pointed out by the trial court:

The Accused was at the forefront, not merely as a passive onlooker as the Accused
wanted the Court to believe in the recruitment of the Private Complainants. xxx In
November, 1992, the Accused, Cecilia Legarbes Zabala and Jose Mendoza, agreed to
the use the office (sic) of former Assistant City Fiscal of Pasay City as their base of
operations or office in their recruitment activities. Jose Mendoza and Ricky de la
Torre looked for applicants who sought employment in Japan, Cecilia Legarbes
Zabala was the one tasked to receive the sums of money paid by the recruits signed
and issued Receipts for said amounts. The Accused, on the other hand, fixed the
amounts to be paid by the recruits and directly negotiated and transacted with them
and received his commissions from Cecilia Legarbes Zabala from the payments of the
recruits. All the actuations of the Accused, Cecilia Legarbes Zabala, Jose Mendoza,
Perla Almonte and Ricky de la Torre, were geared and designed to achieve a common
purpose or objective the recruitment of persons for employment in Japan and eke out
sums of money from them although the Accused was not authorized to recruit workers
for employment abroad. Under the circumstances, it is abundantly clear that the
Accused conspired with Jose Mendoza, Cecilia Legarbes Zabala, Perla Almonte,
Ricky de la Torre and Alfredo Hunsayan, Jr. and that, therefore, the Accused is liable
for the wrongful acts and its consequences. [20]
 Direct proof of previous agreement to commit a crime is not necessary.  Such  [21]

previous agreement may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense
was perpetrated, or inferred from the acts of the accused which point to a joint purpose
and design, concerted action and community of interest. [22]

In his attempt to exculpate himself, appellant denies having received money from
private complainants. However, as against the positive assertion of complainants, the
appellants denial is worthless and at most self-serving. Private complainants testified
that Cecilia Legarbes Zabala signed and issued receipts for the cash amount and other
personal properties complainants turned over as payment for processing their
employment applications abroad. The documentary evidence of the prosecution shows
that appellant received his commission from recruitment fees paid by the private
complainants. Exhibits E and E-2, which bear appellants signature, establish this fact, to
wit:

December 3, 1992

Received the amount of four thousand five hundred pesos (P4,500.00) from Cely
Zabala as commission.  (Emphasis supplied)
[23]

and

December 7, 1992

Received the amount of Two Thousand Pesos from Cely Zabala

as commission (P2,000.00).  (Emphasis supplied)
[24]

These receipts show no indication that the amounts were accepted as payment for
the rental of the Army and Navy Club office space as alleged by appellant. On the
contrary, the testimonial and documentary evidence establish beyond any doubt that
appellant received the amounts stated as commission for his participation in the illegal
recruitment activities. As correctly observed by the trial court:

When he testified before the Court, the Accused resolutely claimed that he was issued
Receipts for the rentals of Jose Mendoza and Cecilia Legarbes Zabala and the
Accused readily referred to the Receipts, Exhibits E And E-2 bearing his
signatures. Ironically, instead of buttressing his stance, the Receipts, Exhibits E and E-
2, in fact, belied said claim and placed his defense in a quagmire of
inconsistency. For, as can be easily gleaned from said Receipts, the amounts of
P4,500.00 and P2,000.00 mentioned therein were the commissions of the Accused
from Cecilia Legarbes Zabala which he received from her and not rentals xxx.

xxx
The Court found the claim of the Accused puerile and preposterous. The Accused is a
businessman, a Captain of a vessel no less. If the amounts were, in fact, rental
payments, the Accused, for sure, should have refused to sign the Receipt and should
have insisted, before he signed the Receipts, that the same be stated therein in
unequivocal terms. And then again, the Accused has not enlightened the Court why
Cecilia Legarbes Zabala would have the temerity and audacity to place the word
commission in the Receipts instead of placing the word rental or the motive of Cecilia
Legarbes Zabala in placing commission in the Receipts. After all, the Accused even
allowed her and her companions to rent his office.

On the other hand, the Receipts, Exhibits E and E-2 galvanized the case of the
Prosecution and confirmed its claim that, indeed, the Accused was directly involved in
the illegal recruitment activities of Cecilia Legarbes Zabala, more particularly the
recruitment of the Private Complainants to Japan. This is so because, as the Receipts
indubitably show, the Accused received, from Cecilia Legarbes Zabala, the said
amounts of P4,500.00 and P2,000.00 as his commission for the recruitment of
Santiago Ricamonte and Arnel Viloria. Indeed, the evidence of the Prosecution shows
that Cecilia Legarbes Zabala received, from Santiago Ricamonte, the amount of
P30,000.00 on December 3, 1992 (Exhibit B). Arnel Viloria paid to Cecilia Legarbes
Zabala, on December 7, 1992, the amount of P10,000.00 (Exhibit M). The payments
were made in the presence of the Accused. It was precisely on December 3, 1992
when the Accused received P4,500.00 from Cecilia Legarbes Zabala as his
commission and on December 7, 1992, when the Accused received, from Cecilia
Legarbes Zabala, the amount of P2,000.00 as his commission. The only logical
conclusion is that the amounts given to the Accused by Cecilia Legarbes Zabala on
those dates must have come from the amounts paid by Santiago Ricamonte and Arnel
Viloria on those dates respectively. The Accused has not adduced a morsel of
evidence that the Accused transacted business with third persons as agent of Cecilia
Legarbes Zabala for which he was entitled to said amounts as commissions from her. [25]

We find no reason to disturb the findings of the trial court, which is in the best
position to appreciate complainants truthfulness, honesty and candor.  As against the
[26]

positive and categorical testimonies of the complainants, appellants mere denial cannot
prevail.
[27]

In light of these established facts, appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of

one count of illegal recruitment in large-scale. The appellant should suffer the penalty of
life imprisonment and a fine of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) for the
crime of illegal recruitment in large-scale under Article 39(a) of the Labor Code. [28]

Conviction for Estafa
The trial court also did not err in finding appellant guilty of estafa. It is well-settled
that a person, for the same acts, may be charged and convicted separately of the crime
of illegal recruitment under the Labor Code and estafa under paragraph 2(a) of Article
315 of the Revised Penal Code.  Illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum where the
[29]

criminal intent of the accused is not necessary for conviction, while estafa is malum in

se where the criminal intent of the accused is necessary for conviction.  In other words,
[30]

a person convicted under the Labor Code may also be convicted of offenses punishable
by other laws for the same acts.
The elements of estafa are as follows: (1) the accused defrauded another by abuse
of confidence or by means of deceit; and (2) the offended party or a third party suffered
damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation.  In the instant case, the
[31]

prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant and his cohorts Cecilia
Legarbes Zabala, Jose Mendoza, Perla Almonte, Ricky de la Torre and Alfredo
Hunsayan, Jr. deceived private complainants into believing that they had the authority
and capability to send complainants to Japan for employment. Because of the
assurances given by appellant and his cohorts, private complainants parted with their
hard-earned money in exchange for what they thought was a promising future abroad.
The acts of appellant and his cohorts constitute estafa punishable under Article 315,
paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code. 
The penalty for estafa depends on the amount of the defraudation.  Article 315 of
[32]

the Revised Penal Code provides:

Art. 315. Swindling (estafa).- Any person who shall defraud another by any of the
means mentioned hereinbelow shall be punished by:

1st. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its
minimum period, if the amount of the fraud is over 12,000 pesos but does not exceed
22,000 pesos, and if such amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this
paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each
additional 10,000 pesos; but the total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed
twenty years. In such cases, and in connection with the accessory penalties which may
be imposed and for the purpose of the other provisions of this Code, the penalty shall
be termed prision mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be.

2nd. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if the
amount of the fraud is over 6,000 pesos but does not exceed 12,000 pesos.

3rd. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in

its minimum period, if such amount is over 200 pesos but does not exceed 6,000
pesos; and

4th. By arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods, if such amount does not
exceed 200 pesos, provided that in the four cases mentioned, the fraud be committed
by any of the following means:
xxx

2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior
to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud:

(a) By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence,

qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions; or by
means of other similar deceits.

xxx

We ruled in People v. Gabres  that: 

[33]

The fact that the amounts involved in the instant case exceed P22,000.00 should not
be considered in the initial determination of the indeterminate penalty; instead, the
matter should be so taken as analogous to modifying circumstances in the imposition
of the maximum term of the full indeterminate sentence. This interpretation of the law
accords with the rule that penal laws should be construed in favor of the accused.
Since the penalty prescribed by law for the estafa charge against accused-appellant
is prision correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum, the penalty next lower
would then be prisioncorreccional minimum to medium. Thus, the minimum term of
the indeterminate sentence should be anywhere within six (6) months and one (1) day
to four (4) years and two (2) months while the maximum term of the indeterminate
sentence should at least be six (6) years and one (1) day because the amounts involved
exceeded P22,000.00, plus an additional one (1) year for each additional P10,000.00.

In addition, appellant is liable to indemnify the private complainants in the amounts

which they respectively paid him and his cohorts: P50,000.00 to Arnel Viloria;
P50,000.00 to Santiago Ricamonte; and P31,000.00 to Nenita Sorita plus P30,000.00
as reparation  for her unrecovered personal properties. Hence, pursuant to Article 315
[34]

of the Revised Penal Code and our ruling in Gabres, the penalties imposed on appellant
for estafa should be modified as follows:
In Criminal Case Nos. 93-121322 and 93-121323 (which pertain to private
complainant Arnel Viloria and Santiago Ricamonte), the amount involved is P50,000.00.
 The minimum term of the indeterminate penalty, as fixed by the trial court, is two (2)
[35]

years, eleven (11) months and ten (10) days of prision correccional, which is within the
lawful range of the allowable minimum period of the indeterminate sentence, while the
maximum term is six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor plus a period of two (2)
years (an additional of one year for every P10,000.00 in excess of P22,000.00), or a
maximum of eight (8) years and one day of prision mayor.
In Criminal Case No. 93-121324 (pertaining to private complainant Nenita Sorita),
the total amount involved is P61,000.00. The minimum term of the indeterminate
penalty is two (2) years, eleven (11) months and ten (10) days of prision
correccional (which is within the lawful range of the allowable minimum period of the
indeterminate sentence) while the maximum term is nine (9) years and one day
of prision mayor.
WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision dated July 6, 1994 of the Regional Trial Court
of Manila, Branch 49, finding appellant EDUARDO BALLESTEROS guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crimes of Illegal Recruitment in Large-Scale in Criminal Case
No. 93-121321 and of Estafa in Criminal Cases Nos. 93-121322 to 93-121324, is
AFFIRMED with the following modifications:
1. In Criminal Case No. 93-121322 (for estafa involving P50,000.00), appellant is
sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of two (2) years, eleven (11) months
and ten (10) days of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and one
day of prision mayor, as maximum, and ordered to refund Arnel Viloria the sum of
P50,000.00 with legal interest from November 23, 1992 until the amount is fully
paid.
2. In Criminal Case No. 93-121323 (for estafa involving P50,000.00), appellant is
sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of two (2) years, eleven (11) months
and ten (10) days of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and one
day of prision mayor, as maximum, and ordered to refund Santiago Ricamonte the
sum of P50,000.00 with legal interest from November 27, 1992 until the amount is
fully paid.
3. In Criminal Case No. 93-121324 (for estafa involving a total of
P61,000.00), appellant is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of two (2)
years, eleven (11) months and ten (10) days ofprision correccional, as minimum, to
nine (9) years and one day of prision mayor, as maximum, and ordered to pay
Nenita Sorita the sum of P31,000.00 plus P30,000.00 as reparation for the
unrecovered personal properties, all with legal interest from January 3, 1993 until
the amount is fully paid.
4. In Criminal Case No. 93-121321 (for illegal recruitment in large-scale), appellant is
sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment, and to pay a fine of
P100,000.00.
SO ORDERED.