SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 212630. October 17, 2016.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LINDA SERRANO Y DAMIAN, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 17 October 2016 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 212630 — People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Linda Serrano y Damian, accused-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.
We agree with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt all the elements for the crimes of illegal recruitment in large scale and three counts of estafa.
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. 1
Both the RTC and CA correctly found appellant Linda Serrano y Damian guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale and three counts of estafa. The three private complainants, namely Wendell Agaran y Pagala, Franklin Pagaling y Aganon and Gaudencio Rodriguez y Edu categorically testified that appellant, together with Nenita 2 Ambatali (Nenita) who remains at large, went to their barrio in Badoc, Ilocos Norte and made representations that they have the capacity and authority to recruit workers for deployment to Guam, USA. They impressed upon the private complainants that they could deploy them abroad in three weeks for a fee. Enticed by appellant's promises, private complainants travelled all the way from Badoc, Ilocos Norte to appellant's office at 38 Victoria Avenue, Tatalon, Quezon City. Thereat, they parted with their hard-earned monies happily anticipating their eventual deployment to Guam. However, weeks passed without them having been deployed abroad. They repeatedly inquired from appellant who only gave recycled excuses and promises. Finally, they learned that appellant had been arrested based on the complaint of the other applicants. Private complainants demanded from appellant the return of their monies but to no avail.
People v. Domingo3 instructs that:
To prove illegal recruitment in large scale, the prosecution must prove three essential elements, to wit: (1) the person charged undertook a recruitment activity under Article 13(b) or any prohibited practice under Article 34 of the Labor Code; (2) he/she did not have the license or the authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers; and (3) he/she committed the prohibited practice against three or more persons individually or as a group. 4 DHESca
Clearly, the acts of appellant as above-described constitute illegal recruitment punishable under Article 38 of the Labor Code. It is also in large scale as the same was committed against at least three persons. Moreover, a representative from the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration testified that appellant is neither licensed nor authorized to recruit workers for deployment overseas.
The fact that no receipt was issued by appellant is not fatal to the prosecution's cause; appellant could still be convicted of illegal recruitment despite non-presentation of receipts by private complainants, viz.:
That no receipt or document in which appellant acknowledged receipt of money for the promised jobs was adduced in evidence does not free him of liability. For even if at the time appellant was promising employment no cash was given to him, he is still considered as having been engaged in recruitment activities, since Article 13(b) of the Labor Code states that the act of recruitment may be for profit or not. It suffices that appellant promised or offered employment for a fee to the complaining witnesses to warrant his conviction for illegal recruitment. 5
Likewise, both the RTC and CA correctly convicted appellant of estafa. It has long been settled that a person may be convicted of illegal recruitment and estafa at the same time.
As to the conviction of appellant for two counts of estafa, it is well established that a person may be charged and convicted of both illegal recruitment and estafa. People v. Comila, enlightens:
. . . The reason therefor is not hard to discern: illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum, while estafa is malum in se. In the first, the criminal intent of the accused is not necessary for conviction. In the second, such an intent is imperative. Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code, is committed by any person who defrauds another by using fictitious name, or falsely pretends to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of similar deceits executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of fraud. . . .
Appellant, who did not have the authority or license to recruit and deploy, misrepresented to the complaining witnesses that he had the capacity to send them abroad for employment. This misrepresentation, which induced the complaining witnesses to part off with their money for placement and medical fees, constitutes estafa under Article 315, par. 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code. 6
"The elements of estafa by means of deceit are the following: (a) that there must be a false pretense or fraudulent representation as to his power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions; (b) that such false pretense or fraudulent representation was made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; (c) that the offended party relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means and was induced to part with his money or property; and (d) that, as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage." 7 It is settled that "the same pieces of evidence which establish appellant's liability for illegal recruitment in large scale likewise confirm her culpability for estafa." 8 As adverted above, appellant represented herself as having the capacity to send private complainants to work abroad; that in fact, appellant had no license or authority to recruit workers for deployment abroad; that because of such false pretenses, private complainants were induced to part with their monies; that private complainants were not actually deployed; and neither were they reimbursed of their monies. TEHIaD
At this juncture, it must also be mentioned that appellant escaped from detention way back in 1991 when she was given a temporary one-day medical pass. She managed to elude arrest for 12 years and was re-arrested only in 2003. Certainly, this stunt does not augur well on her part.
WHEREFORE, we ADOPT the findings of facts of the trial court as affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The appeal is DISMISSED. The assailed September 20, 2013 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03503 which affirmed the February 11, 2008 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 215, finding appellant Linda Serrano y Damian guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale in Criminal Case No. Q-90-14931 and three counts of estafa in Criminal Case Nos. Q-90-14932, Q-90-14933, and Q-90-14934, is AFFIRMED. cCHITA
SO ORDERED.(Leonen, J., on official leave)"
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. People v. Laogo, 654 Phil. 24, 32-33 (2011).
2. Also referred to as Benita in some parts of the records.
3. 602 Phil. 1037 (2009).
4. Id. at 1045.
5. Id. at 1045-1046. Emphasis in the original.
6. Id. at 1046-1047. Emphasis in the original.
7. People v. Chua, 602 Phil. 16, 32 (2012).
8. Id. at 31.