SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 197808. January 25, 2016.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. NORMA DELA CRUZ ALIAS "LYDIA DELA CRUZ, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 25 January 2016 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 197808 (People of the Philippines v. Norma Dela Cruz alias "Lydia Dela Cruz"). — We decide the appeal filed by appellant Norma Dela Cruz assailing the decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated October 22, 2010 in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 03636.
The CA decision affirmed the September 24, 2008 decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 15, Manila, finding the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of one (1) count of illegal recruitment in large scale and three (3) counts of estafa in Criminal Case Nos. 05-236139 to 05-236142, respectively.
The prosecution charged the appellant, Roger Collado, Roberto "Bobby" Garcia, Sonia Dizon, and Vicky Visda with one (1) count of illegal recruitment in large scale by a syndicate and three (3) counts of estafa before the RTC, docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 05-236139 to 05-236142, respectively. 3
Only the appellant was arrested; the other accused remained at large. On arraignment, the appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges.
In its decision dated September 24, 2008, the RTC convicted the appellant of the crimes of illegal recruitment in large scale (1 count) 4 and estafa (3 counts). It essentially held that the appellant promised or offered employment for a fee to private complainants Lorna Cubero, Marygen Hontiveros, and Zimra Laarni Bertumen. It also found unbelievable the appellant's claim that she was just a mere applicant for overseas work and not a recruiter of the three private complainants.
For the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale in Criminal Case No. 05-236139, the RTC sentenced the appellant to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment. It also ordered her to pay a P500,000.00 fine. ISHCcT
For the crimes of estafa, the RTC sentenced the appellant to an indeterminate sentence of: (a) one year, eight months and twenty-one days, as minimum, to five years, five months and eleven days, as maximum, in Criminal Case No. 05-236140; (b) one year, eight months and twenty-one days, as minimum, to eleven years, as maximum, in Criminal Case No. 05-236141; and (c) one year, eight months and twenty-one days, as minimum, to nine years, as maximum, in Criminal Case No. 05-236142.
The RTC also ordered the appellant to pay private complainants Lorna Cubero, Marygen Hontiveros, and Zimra Laarni Bertumen the amounts of P20,000.00, P53,000.00, and P40,000.00, respectively, in Criminal Case Nos. 05-236140 to 05-236142.
On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC decision. It held that Cubero, Hontiveros, and Bertumen positively identified the appellant as the person who (a) promised and offered them employment abroad in exchange for a placement fee; (b) collected the necessary documents from them for processing — such as passports, resumés, and medical certificates; and (c) discussed with them the nature of their work as well as their expected salaries in Brunei. The CA also ruled that the appellant had no license or authority to engage in recruitment activities.
The CA further held that the appellant misled the complainants into believing that she had the means to find overseas employment for the complainants. The CA added that the elements of deceit and damage had been shown since it was the appellant's false representations that made the complainants part with their money.
In her brief and supplemental brief, the appellant essentially argued that the prosecution failed to prove that she had no authority to recruit workers for overseas employment. The appellant also maintained that she did not conspire with the other agents to convince the private complainants to part with their money.
The People of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, countered that the appellant was properly convicted of illegal recruitment in large scale because she undertook recruitment activities against three persons without any license to recruit persons for overseas work. It added that the appellant's self-serving and uncorroborated denial cannot stand against the straightforward testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
The People also maintained that the appellant was guilty of estafa since she led the complainants to believe that she possessed the power, means, and legal qualifications to provide them with work in Brunei; and that this fraudulent misrepresentation was the very cause that induced the victims to part with their money.
The issue presented before us is whether the prosecution was able to prove the appellant's guilt of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale (1 count) and estafa (3 counts) with moral certainty.
Our Ruling
We affirm the appellant's convictions.
Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale
Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code defines recruitment and placement as "any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers; and includes referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not." In the simplest terms, illegal recruitment is committed by persons who, without authority from the government, give the impression that they have the power to send workers abroad for employment purposes. 5
Article 38 of the Labor Code, on the other hand, defines illegal recruitment as "any recruitment activities, including the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34, to be undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of authority." The term "recruitment and placement" refers to any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, including 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. The law imposes a higher penalty when the illegal recruitment is committed by a syndicate or in large scale as it is considered an offense involving economic sabotage. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring and/or confederating with one another in carrying out any unlawful or illegal transaction, enterprise, or scheme. It is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group. 6
We point out that illegal recruitment under Article 38 of the Labor Code encompasses recruitment activities for both local and overseas employment. However, illegal recruitment under this article is limited to recruitment activities undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of authority. 7
The crime of illegal recruitment in large scale is thus committed when the following elements concur: (1) the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable one to engage lawfully in recruitment and placement of workers; (2) he or she undertakes either any activity within the meaning of "recruitment and placement" defined under Article 13, paragraph b, or any prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code; and (3) that the accused commits the acts against three or more persons, individually or as a group. 8
Notably, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8042 broadened the concept of illegal recruitment under the Labor Code and provided stiffer penalties, especially for those that constitute economic sabotage, i.e., Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale and Illegal Recruitment Committed by a Syndicate. 9 Part II of R.A. No. 8042 defines and penalizes illegal recruitment for employment abroad, whether undertaken by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority or by a licensee or holder of authority. 10 CAacTH
To prove illegal recruitment, it must be shown that appellant gave complainants the distinct impression that he had the power or ability to send complainants abroad for work such that the latter were convinced to part with their money in order to be employed. 11 In the present case, the presented evidence sufficiently established that the appellant engaged in large-scale illegal recruitment.
First, the appellant did not have any license to recruit persons for overseas work. Eraida Dumigpi, a Senior Labor and Employment Officer of the Licensing Division of the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA), testified that the appellant was a clerk at the Reliance International Services and Enterprises whose license to conduct recruitment activities expired on June 29, 1992. The POEA also issued a certification stating that Sunlight Business Center/Sunlight Travel Tours, represented by the appellant and her other co-accused, is not licensed to recruit workers for overseas employment, and that "any recruitment activity undertaken [by them] is deemed illegal." 12
Second, the three complainants satisfactorily proved that the appellant gave the impression that she had the power or ability to secure work for the private complainants, and had promised them that there were jobs available in Brunei. Accordingly, the appellant's misrepresentations convinced the complainants to part with their money in order to be employed abroad.
What are the established facts?
Hontiveros testified that on October 21, 2003, Roger Collado accompanied her to their office at the Sunlight Business Center at Pedro Gil Street, Ermita, Manila, to process her application. When they arrived there, Collado introduced her to Bobby Garcia, Vicky Visda, and the appellant. The appellant introduced herself as the head of the agency, and offered her the position of accounting clerk in Brunei. The appellant then asked for her resumé, original medical certificate, full body picture, and a P60,000.00 placement fee. The appellant told Hontiveros not to worry since she would personally "escort" the applicants to Brunei. Hontiveros gave the amounts of P20,000.00 and P33,000.00 to Collado on October 23 and 26, 2003, respectively. After Collado handed these amounts to the appellant, Visda issued a 'petty cash voucher' to her.
Cubero declared on the witness stand that Collado accompanied her to the same office at the Sunlight Business Center on October 22, 2003, and introduced her to the appellant, Visda and Garcia. The appellant offered her a job as an office or accounting clerk in Brunei, and then told her that she would be receiving $400 to $500 as monthly compensation. The appellant then asked for her passport, resumé, and P20,000.00 as placement fee. After Cubero handed the P20,000.00 to the appellant, the latter instructed Visda to issue a petty cash voucher. The appellant assured Cubero that the employment contract would be signed in Brunei when they arrive there.
Bertumen, for her part, narrated that Fe Gonzales brought her to the Sunlight Business Center on October 17, 2003, and introduced her to the appellant. The appellant told Bertumen that there was a job opening for a cashier in Brunei, and then asked for her passport; she also asked for a P55,000.00 placement fee. Bertumen gave P40,000.00 to Gonzales who, in turn, handed this amount to the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant issued a petty cash voucher to Bertumen.
Hontiveros, Cubero and Bertumen all testified that they left for Brunei on October 26, 2003, with eight other applicants. According to them, the appellant accompanied them to Brunei to act as their guide. Before boarding, the appellant lent them P5,000.00 as "show money;" she also told them that their visas were only tourist visas because their employment contract would be signed in Brunei. When they arrived in Brunei, the appellant and three of their companions were detained by immigration officials. The complainants asked the appellant for her contact person in Brunei, but they failed to get in touch with this person. The complainants stayed at the airport until a fellow Filipina offered them shelter at her place. The complainants returned to Manila after two weeks, and then filed a complaint with the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI).
Finally, there are three victims in this case which makes the appellant liable for large-scale illegal recruitment. Cubero, Hontiveros, and Bertumen were recruited individually on different occasions. The law applies whether the workers were recruited individually or as a group.
The appellant was properly convicted of estafa.
It is settled that a person may be charged and convicted separately of illegal recruitment under R.A. No. 8042, in relation to the Labor Code, and estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2 (a) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. 13
There are three ways of committing estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2 (a) of the Revised Penal Code, viz.: (1) by using a fictitious name; (2) by falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions; and (3) by means of other similar deceits. Under this class of estafa, the element of deceit is indispensable. 14 Thus, 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. 15
In the present case, the appellant led private complainants Cubero, Hontiveros, and Bertumen to believe that she possessed the power and qualifications to provide them with work abroad, when in fact she was not licensed or authorized to do so. The appellant even discussed to them the nature of their respective jobs in Brunei, as well as the amount of their expected salaries; she even assured them that a job was already waiting for them in Brunei. The complainants failed to secure the return of their money. The elements of deceit and damage are clearly present; the appellant's false pretenses were the very cause that induced the complainants to part with their money. IAETDc
The appellant's defenses
We are unpersuaded by the appellant's claim that she was a mere applicant for overseas work at the Sunlight Business Center, and not a recruiter. Hontiveros, Cubero, and Bertumen all positively identified her as the person who: promised them employment abroad; explained the nature of their work and their corresponding salaries; asked for documentary requirements such as resumés, photos, and medical certificates; asked for their placement fees; and either directly or ultimately received the placement fees they paid.
Both the RTC and the CA found the testimonies of these witnesses credible and convincing, and we will not disturb their factual findings in the absence of any showing that their rulings had been arrived at arbitrarily. Notably, the appellant failed to present any evidence to substantiate her claim that she was recruited as a domestic helper in Brunei by Garcia. The records also showed that she signed some of the petty cash vouchers issued to the complainants. Simply put, the appellant's mere denial cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimonies of the complainants.
The Proper Penalties and Indemnities
a. Criminal Case No. 05-236139 (Illegal Recruitment in large scale)
Illegal recruitment is considered an offense involving economic sabotage if committed in large scale, that is, committed against three or more persons individually or as a group. Corollarily, Section 7 of R.A. No. 8042 further provides that the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of not less than P500,000.00 nor more than P1,000,000.00 shall be imposed if illegal recruitment constitutes economic sabotage. This section further provides that the maximum penalty shall be imposed if committed by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority. We thus increase the fine from P500,000.00 to P1,000,000.00. 16
b. Criminal Case Nos. 05-236140 to 05-236142 (Estafa)
Under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, when the amount of fraud is over P12,000.00 but not exceeding P22,000.00, the penalty imposed is prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period, i.e., from 4 years, 2 months and 1 day to 8 years. Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum term shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Revised Penal Code, which is prision correccional in its minimum to medium period. The time included in this penalty is from 6 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months. When the amount of fraud exceeds P22,000.00, the penalty shall be imposed in its maximum period, and adding one year for every P10,000.00 in excess of P22,000.00. However, the total penalty imposed should not exceed 20 years.
Applying these principles, the CA correctly affirmed the indeterminate penalties imposed by the RTC in Criminal Case Nos. 05-236140 to 42 since they are within the range provided for by law. We, however, reduce the interest imposed on the damages to be paid from twelve percent (12%) to six percent (6%) per annum.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we AFFIRM the decision of the Court of Appeals dated October 22, 2010, in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 03636 with the following MODIFICATIONS: (1) the fine is INCREASED from P500,000.00 to P1,000,000.00 in Criminal Case No. 05-236139; and (2) the legal interest of the amounts to be paid by the appellant is REDUCED from twelve percent (12%) to six percent (6%) per annum from the time of demand until the amounts are fully paid.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 2-6; penned by Associate, Justice Magdangal M. De Leon, and concurred in by Associate Justices Mario V. Lopez and Rodil Zalameda.
2. Records, pp. 193-198; penned by Judge Mercedes Posada-Lacap.
3. The Information in Criminal Case No. 05-236139 charged the appellant, Roger Collado, Roberto "Bobby" Garcia, Sonia Dizon and Vicky Visda of illegal recruitment in large scale by a syndicate; while the Information in Criminal Case No. 05-236140 charged them with the crime of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2 (a) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. The two other Informations for estafa (Criminal Case No. 05-236141 and Criminal Case No. 05-236142) are similarly worded except for the names of the complainants, job description, and the amount of money exacted.
4. The RTC noted that the body of the Information in Criminal Case No. 05-236139 did not allege conspiracy among the five accused.
5. See People v. Gallemit, et al., G.R. No. 197539, June 2, 2014, 724 SCRA 359, 375, citing People v. Alvarez, 436 Phil. 255, 265 (2002).
6. See People v. Fernandez, G.R. No. 199211, June 4, 2014, 725 SCRA 152, 156.
7. See also People of the Philippines v. Alelie Tolentino a.k.a. "Alelie Tolentino y Hernandez," G.R. No. 208686, July 1, 2015.
8. See People v. Billaber, 465 Phil. 726, 728 (2004).
9. Supra note 5, at 376.
10. Supra note 7.
11. People v. Rea, et al., G.R. No. 197049, June 10, 2013, 698 SCRA 191, 217-218.
12. Records, p. 28.
13. People v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 173792, August 31, 2011, 656 SCRA 382, 410.
14. People v. Olermo, 454 Phil. 147, 166 (2003).
15. People v. Ballesteros, 435 Phil. 205, 228 (2002).
16. We point out that the offense was committed in 2003. R.A. No. 10022 (An Act Amending R.A. No. 8042 . . .) took effect in 2010.