FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 213034. August 12, 2015.]
BARTOLOME GILBUENA Y ESGANA, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedAugust 12, 2015 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 213034(Bartolome Gilbuena y Esgana v. People of the Philippines). — This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. It assails the Decision 1 dated 9 January 2014 issued by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 35024 affirming with modification the conviction of appellant for the crimes of estafa and illegal recruitment. 2 The petition also challenges the CA Resolution 3 dated 9 June 2014 denying appellant's motion for reconsideration.
THE FACTS OF THE CASE
On 23 March 2012, the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 15 (RTC) rendered a Decision 4 finding appellant guilty of three counts of estafa and two counts of illegal recruitment. In Criminal Case Nos. 08-260119 and 08-260120 for estafa, appellant was sentenced to suffer the penalty of four years and two months of prision correccional as minimum to 20 years of reclusion temporal as maximum for each count. He was also ordered to indemnify complainants Regina Arevalo and Yvonne Desesto in the amounts of P150,000 and P172,000, respectively.
In Criminal Case No. 08-260121 for estafa, the RTC sentenced appellant to suffer the penalty of three years and one day of prision correccional as minimum to 12 years and one day of reclusion temporal as maximum. He was ordered to indemnify complainant Constancia Fuerte in the amount of P100,000. In Criminal Case Nos. 08-260122 and 08-260123 for illegal recruitment, appellant was sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of six years and one day to eight years plus a fine of P200,000 for each count.
On appeal, the CA issued the assailed Decision and increased the penalty in Criminal Case No. 08-260121 for estafa to four years and two months of prision correccional as minimum to 15 years of reclusion temporal as maximum.
ISSUE
For the Court's resolution is whether the CA erred in affirming the conviction of appellant for the crimes of estafa and illegal recruitment.
THE RULING OF THE COURT
We deny the petition for lack of merit.
In the instant petition for review, appellant claims he never represented to complainants that he had the power, qualification or influence to send workers abroad. He explained that he was just an employee of El Ruah Travel and Consultancy and Management Services (El Ruah), which only offers services for securing travel visas and plane tickets. While he admits having received payments from complainants, he claims that those payments covered consultation fees, charges for visa assistance and cost of plane tickets. According to appellant, the persons who introduced complainants to him were the ones who had misrepresented him as having the power and the capacity to send workers abroad.
It is well-settled that respect, if not conclusive effect, is accorded to the findings of the trial court — its assessment of witness testimonies, evaluation of the evidence, and calibration of the probative weight thereof — as well as its conclusions anchored on those findings. 5 When these findings are affirmed by the appellate court, they are generally binding upon us. 6
There is no reason to depart from this rule. Contrary to the allegation of appellant that he was a mere employee, both the RTC 7 and the CA 8 found that he was the owner and proprietor of El Ruah as evidenced by a certification from the Department of Trade and Industry. EcTCAD
Furthermore, based on the consistent testimonies of complainants, appellant actively recruited them for employment abroad, and the amounts that they paid were undoubtedly in the form of placement fees. Complainants presented cash vouchers issued by appellant as proof of their payments. 9 Also, Yvonne Desesto presented in evidence a Contract of Employment executed by her and appellant regarding her deployment abroad. 10 Despite their compliance with all the requirements and payments required by appellant, complainants were never able to leave the country.
More important, the certification issued by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration stated that appellant did not have a license to recruit persons for overseas work. 11
Clearly, the RTC and the CA correctly found appellant guilty of the crime of estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code committed as follows:
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 a fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions; or by means of other similar deceits. (Emphasis supplied)
Furthermore, considering that he is not licensed to recruit people for employment abroad, appellant engaged in illegal recruitment, defined under Republic Act No. 8042 as follows:
SECTION 6. Definition. — For purposes of this Act, illegal recruitment shall mean any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers and includes referring, contract services, promising or advertising for employment abroad, whether for profit or not, when undertaken by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority contemplated under Article 13(f) of Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, otherwise known as the Labor Code of the Philippines: Provided, That any such non-licensee or non-holder who, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment abroad to two or more persons shall be deemed so engaged. (Emphasis supplied)
For the same acts, an individual may be charged and convicted separately of the crimes of estafa and illegal recruitment. 12
The CA did not err in increasing the penalty in Criminal Case No. 08-260121. That penalty is within the periods prescribed by established jurisprudence on the matter of computing the penalty for the crime of estafa where the amount defrauded exceeds P22,000. 13
However, the imposition of interest on the amounts defrauded from complainants is in order. Citing Nacar v. Gallery Frames14 in People v. Villanueva, 15 we ruled that interest at the rate of 12% per annum should be imposed on the defrauded amount from the date the Information was filed until 30 June 2013, and interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 1 July 2013 until full satisfaction. So must it be in this case.
WHEREFORE, the assailed Court of Appeals Decision dated 9 January 2014 and Resolution dated 9 June 2014 in CA-G.R. CR No. 35024 is AFFIRMED, subject to the MODIFICATION that the amounts of P150,000, P172,000 and P100,000 due Regina Arevalo, Yvonne Desesto and Constancia Fuerte, respectively, shall earn interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the filing of the Information on 24 March 2008 until 30 June 2013, and interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 1 July 2013 until full satisfaction.
SO ORDERED." HSAcaE
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETA
Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 36-49. The Decision issued by the Court of Appeals Fourteenth Division was penned by Associate Justice Franchito N. Diamante, with Associate Justices Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles concurring.
2. Violation of Section 6 (a), (l) and (m) of Republic Act No. 8042 (Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995).
3. Rollo, pp. 51-53.
4. Id. at 74-91.
5. People v. Naelga, 615 Phil. 539 (2009); Novicio v. People, 585 Phil. 673 (2008); People v. Flores, 462 Phil. 330 (2003); People v. Lorenzo, 460 Phil. 37 (2003); People v. Pedrigal, 458 Phil. 195 (2003); People v. Manuel, G.R. No. 92503, 8 July 1991, 198 SCRA 818.
6. Soriamont Steamship Agencies, Inc. v. Sprint Transport Services, Inc., 610 Phil. 291 (2009); Pantranco North Express, Inc. v. Standard Insurance Company, Inc., 493 Phil. 616 (2005); Ilusorio v. CA, 441 Phil. 335 (2002); ADR Shipping Services, Inc. v. Gallardo, 437 Phil. 634 (2002).
7. Rollo, p. 87.
8. Id. at 46.
9. Id. at 82-83.
10. Id. at 81, 83.
11. Id. at 46.
12. People v. Ballesteros, 435 Phil. 205 (2002).
13. In People v. Temporada (594 Phil. 680, 714-715 [2008]), the Court said:
The prescribed penalty for estafa under Article 315, par. 2(d) of the RPC, when the amount defrauded exceeds P22,000, is prisión correccional maximum to prisión mayor minimum. The minimum term is taken from the penalty next lower or anywhere within prisión 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 prisión correccional since this is within the range of prisión correccional minimum and medium.
On the other hand, the maximum term is taken from the prescribed penalty of prisión correccional maximum to prisión mayor minimum in its maximum period, adding 1 year of imprisonment for every P10,000 in excess of P22,000, provided that the total penalty shall not exceed 20 years. . . . To compute the maximum period of the prescribed penalty, prisión correccional maximum to prisión 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 prisión correccional maximum to prisión 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, and the difference shall be divided by P10,000. 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.
14. G.R. No. 189871, 13 August 2013, 703 SCRA 439.
15. G.R. No. 163662, 25 February 2015.