SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 211197. September 28, 2016.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. TESSIE L. PEREDO, defendant-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 28 September 2016 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 211197 — People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, v. Tessie L. Peredo,1 defendant-appellant.
After a careful review of the records of the case, the Court finds the appeal to be lacking in merit. We adopt the findings of facts of the trial court as affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA).
We agree with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the CA that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt all the elements for the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale.
Recruitment and placement refers to the act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not. When a person or entity, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons, that person or entity shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement.
Article 38(a) of the Labor Code, as amended, specifies that recruitment activities undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of authority are deemed illegal and punishable by law. And when the illegal recruitment is committed against three or more persons, individually or as a group, then it is deemed committed in large scale and carries with it stiffer penalties as the same is deemed a form of economic sabotage.
But to prove illegal recruitment, it must be shown that the accused, without being duly authorized by law, gave complainants the distinct impression that he had the power or ability to send them abroad for work, such that the latter were convinced to part with their money in order to be employed. It is important that there must at least be a promise or offer of an employment from the person posing as a recruiter, whether locally or abroad. 2 cTDaEH
In the case at bench, there is no dispute that appellant Teresa L. Peredo does not have the license or authority from the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) to recruit and deploy workers abroad. We also find no cogent reason to deviate from the uniform findings of the RTC and the CA that appellant promised private complainants Juliet Depalog (Depalog), Venus Toyoken (Toyoken), Fressian Silot (Silot), and Tuazon Marconi (Marconi) with jobs abroad, particularly in Spain and Korea. She impressed upon the private complainants that she had the power and capacity to send them abroad to work. Appellant's misrepresentation induced private complainants to part with their money (P50,000.00 for Depalog, P60,000.00 for Toyoken, P110,000.00 for Silot, and P40,000.00 for Marconi) supposedly as payment for the processing of their documents and visas. The handwritten receipts issued by appellant proved that she received the monies. However, appellant reneged on her promise and failed to deploy private complainants to their work overseas. Worse, she failed to refund their monies despite demand, save for the P30,000.00 she returned to Toyoken.
The fact that the receipts did not particularly state that the monies were received as placement fees for work abroad is immaterial. The circumstances of the case as well as the tenor of the individual receipts proved beyond reasonable doubt that the amounts were intended to defray expenses for documentation and work visas. Moreover, the act of recruitment or placement may be committed whether for profit or not. What is essential is that appellant made representations that she had the power and capacity to recruit when in fact she is not so authorized or licensed. Besides, it has already been ruled that presentation of receipts is not essential in illegal recruitment cases. "[T]he failure to present receipts for money that was paid in connection with the recruitment process will not affect the strength of the evidence presented by the prosecution as long as the payment can be proved through clear and convincing testimonies of credible witnesses" 3 as in this case.
Moreover, if the illegal recruitment is committed against three or more persons, individually or as a group, it is deemed committed in large scale. Here, appellant illegally recruited the four private complainants. As such, the illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale. There is no merit in appellant's contention that if at all, she should only be held liable for simple illegal recruitment, not illegal recruitment in large scale, since her transaction with private complainant Silot as shown in the acknowledgement receipt, was one of loan. First, the receipt marked as Exh. "H" 4 for the amount of P100,000.00 specifically mentioned that the same would be used to pay for Silot's working contract for Spain as a domestic helper. 5 Second, even if we disregard this Exh. "H," it must be recalled that Silot paid appellant another P10,000.00 as shown in Exh. "I" 6 wherein appellant wrote in her own handwriting that the same was Silot's advance payment for documentation and visa processing. 7 Third, even if we totally disregard Silot, records would still show that appellant illegally recruited the three other private complainants. Incidentally, appellant was charged and prosecuted under one Information for all four private complainants. To stress, to constitute illegal recruitment in large scale, it must be committed against three or more persons, whether individually or as group. Thus, even without Silot, appellant already committed illegal recruitment in large scale as against the other three private complainants. cSaATC
The RTC and the CA correctly imposed the penalty of life imprisonment on appellant. However, the fine of P100,000.00 must be increased since it is below the minimum set by law. Article 7 (b) of Republic Act No. 8042 or the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 provides that the "penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of not less than Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) shall be imposed if illegal recruitment constitutes economic sabotage" such as in the case of illegal recruitment in large scale. Thus, we are increasing the fine to P500,000.00. Moreover, appellant must be ordered to return the following amounts: P50,000.00 to Depalog, P30,000.00 to Toyoken, 8 P110,000.00 to Silot, and P40,000.00 to Marconi. 9
WHEREFORE, we ADOPT the findings of facts of the trial court as affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The appeal is DISMISSED. The assailed March 26, 2013 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04648 which affirmed the May 1, 2010 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, Branch 60, in Crim. Case No. 29122-R finding appellant Tessie L. Peredo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale and sentencing her to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS in that the fine is increased to P500,000.00 and appellant is ordered to refund P50,000.00 to Juliet Depalog, P30,000.00 to Venus Toyoken, P110,000.00 to Fressian Silot and P40,000.00 to Tuazon Marconi.
SO ORDERED.(Carpio, J., on official leave; Brion, J., designated as Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2374 dated September 14, 2016)"
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Also referred to as Tess Peredo in some parts of the records.
2. People v. Laogo, 654 Phil. 24, 32-33 (2011).
3. Romero v. People, 677 Phil. 151, 164 (2011).
4. Records, p. 18.
5. Id.
6. Id. at 19.
7. Id.
8. P60,000.00 amount paid less P30,000.00 amount returned.
9. See Romero v. People, supra note 3 at 167.