That in or about and during the period comprised between __________,11 inclusive, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring and confederating and helping with one Julius Martinez who was previously charged [with] the same offense before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch ___, docketed under Criminal Case No[s]. 94-139797 to 139803 did then and there willfully and feloniously defraud __________12 in the following manner, to wit: the said accused, by means of false manifestations and fraudulent representations which she/he/they made to said __________13 to the effect that he had the power and capacity to recruit and employ as factory worker in Korea 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 __________14 to give and deliver, as in fact he/she/they gave and delivered to said accused the amount of __________15 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 she/he/they did obtain the amount of __________16 which amount once in her/his/their possession, with intent to defraud, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously misappropriated, misapplied and converted to her/his/their own personal use and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of said __________17 in the aforesaid amount of __________18 Philippine Currency.
Contrary to law.
That in or about and during the period comprised between February 1993 and July, 1994, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring and confederating together and helping one another, representing themselves to have the capacity to contract, enlist and transport Filipino workers for employment abroad, did then and there willfully and unlawfully for a fee recruit and promise employment/job placement abroad to the following persons, to wit: NELSON LAPLANO, CRIZALDO FERNANDEZ Y MARTINEZ, WALTER ISUAN Y ORTIZ, NECITO SERQUINA20 Y TUVERA, DOMINADOR ILASIN21, ARNULFO SUYAT Y LOYOLA, and VIVENCIO22 MARTINEZ Y CORNELIO without first having secured the necessary license or authority from the Department of Labor and Employment (POEA).The cases were raffled to Branch 3 of the RTC of Manila. Thereafter, warrants of arrest24 were issued against the three accused. However, the same were served only against appellant25 and Julius Martinez26 whereas accused Jenilyn Martinez remains at large.
Contrary to law.23]
For failure of the complaining witnesses, Nelson Laplano y Malapit, Crizaldo Fernandez y Martinez, and Walter Isuan y Ortiz, to appear at today's trial, despite personal service of notice of this setting, as prayed for by the accused' counsel and without objection from the public prosecutor, insofar as Crim. Case No. 95-143312, 95-143314, and 95-143316 are concerned, the same are hereby PROVISIONALLY DISMISSED, with the express consent of accused Maritess Martinez y Dulay only. With costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.31
x x x Maritess was not licensed to recruit workers for overseas employment by the POEA. She is directly accountable to complainants as the recipient of the money. Besides, no one from Imperial Agency was even presented to show that it was the entity handling the recruitment. They relied on her representations that she could send them abroad to work. x x x32
WHEREFORE, accused Julius Martinez is acquitted while accused Maritess Martinez is FOUND GUILTY of estafa on 4 counts and illegal recruitment. She is hereby sentenced to an imprisonment of from 10 years, 8 months and 21 days to 11 years, 11 months and 10 days of prision mayor for 4 counts of estafa. Further, she shall suffer an imprisonment of from 5 years, 5 months and 11 days to 6 years, 8 months and 20 days of prision correccional for illegal recruitment.
Accused shall also indemnify private complainants for actual damages, as follows: P40,000.00 to Dominador Ilacin, P40,000.00 to Necito Serquiña, P55,000.00 to Vivencio Martinez, and P45,000.00 to Arnulfo Suyat; and to pay the costs.
SO ORDERED.33
Accordingly, the Court modifies the penalties imposed by the trial court, viz:
In Criminal Case No. 95-143311, the amount involved is P30,000.00 ([appellant] having returned to complainant Dominador Ilacin the amount of P10,000.00). The minimum term of the indeterminate sentence should be four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional and the maximum term should be eight (8) years of prision mayor.
In Criminal Case No. 95-143313, the amount involved is P40,000.00. The minimum term of the indeterminate sentence should be four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional and the maximum term should at least be eight (8) years of prision mayor plus a period of one (1) year [one (1) year for each additional P10,000.00] or a total maximum period of nine (9) years of prision mayor.
In Criminal Case No. 95-143315, the amount involved is P39,000.00 ([appellant] having returned to complainant Vivencio Martinez the amount of P16,000.00). The minimum term of the indeterminate sentence should be four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional and the maximum term should be at least eight (8) years of prision mayor plus a period of one (1) year [one (1) year for each additional P10,000.00] for a total maximum period of nine (9) years of prision mayor.
In Criminal Case No. 95-143317, the amount involved is P29,000.00 ([appellant] having returned to complainant Arnulfo Suyat the amount of P16,000.00). The minimum term of the indeterminate sentence should be four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional and the maximum term should be eight (8) [years] of prision mayor.
In Criminal Case No. 95-143318, large scale illegal recruitment is punishable with life imprisonment and a fine of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (Article 39, Labor Code).
The amount of actual damages awarded to the three complainants is modified there being partial payments made by the appellant, viz:1) Dominador Ilacin - P30,000.00
2) Vivencio Martinez - P39,000.00
3) Arnulfo Suyat - P29,000.00
WHEREFORE, considering that the imposable penalty in Criminal Case No. 95-143318 (Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale) is life imprisonment consistent with Section 13, paragraph (b), Rule 124 of the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, the Court hereby certifies this case and elevates the entire records to the Honorable Supreme Court for the mandated review.
SO ORDERED.41
IssuesI.
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED PALPABLE ERROR IN NOT FINDING [THAT] THE PROSECUTION EVIDENCE IS INSUFFICIENT TO PROVE THE GUILT OF THE [APPELLANT].II.
THE COURT OF APPEALS DECIDED [THE CASE] IN A WAY PROBABLY NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW OR WITH THE APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THIS HONORABLE COURT.42
(b) "Recruitment and placement" refers 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.
x x x Even if [appellant] did no more that "suggest" to complainants where they could apply for overseas employment, her act constituted "referral" within the meaning of Article 13(b) of the Labor Code (People v. Ong, 322 SCRA 38). Referral is the act of passing along or forwarding of an applicant for employment after an initial interview of a selected applicant for employment to a selected employer, placement officer or bureau. (People v. Goce, 247 SCRA 780).45
ART. 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 authority46 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.
From the testimonies of the complainants, it is clearly shown that [appellant] did more than just make referrals. It was [appellant] whom they approached regarding their plans of working overseas. It was [appellant] who collected the fees and receipts [therefor] were issued in her name. It was x x x [appellant] from whom they learned what papers or documents to submit. Despite the denial, [appellant], nevertheless, failed to explain why recruitment activities were done in her residence. Likewise, she failed to present Milagros Lopez, one of the staff of Imperial, to whom she allegedly turned over the money she collected from the complainants or any officer from the recruitment agency to prove that she was merely a conduit thereof. x x x47
In this case, [appellant] misrepresented herself to the complainants as one who can make arrangements for job placements in South Korea as factory workers. By reason of her misrepresentations, false assurances, and deceit, complainants were induced to part with their money. The recruits waited for at least a year, only to realize that they were hoodwinked, as no jobs were waiting for them abroad.
Criminal liability for estafa already committed is not affected by the fact that [appellant] returned a portion of their money. Compromise or novation of contract pertains and affects only the civil aspect of the case. Estafa is a public offense that must be prosecuted and punished by the Court in its motion even though complete reparation should have been made of the damage suffered by the offended party. x x x 50
The prescribed penalty for estafa under Article 315, par. 2(d) of the RPC, when the amount defrauded exceeds P22,000.00, is prision correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum. The minimum term is taken from the penalty next lower or anywhere within prision 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 prision correccional since this is within the range of prision correccional minimum and medium.
On the other hand, the maximum term is taken from the prescribed penalty of prision correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum in its maximum period, adding 1 year of imprisonment for every P10,000.00 in excess of P22,000,00, provided that the total penalty shall not exceed 20 years. However, the maximum period of the prescribed penalty of prision correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum is not prision mayor minimum as apparently assumed by the RTC. To compute the maximum period of the prescribed penalty, prision correccional maximum to prision 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 prision correccional maximum to prision 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 P22,000.00, and the difference shall be divided by P10,000.00. 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. x x x52
Endnotes:
1 People v. Africa, G.R. No. 176638, December 2, 2009. (Unsigned Resolution)
2 CA rollo, pp. 101-113; penned by Associate Justice Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Bernardo P. Abesamis and Edgardo F. Sundiam.
3 Records, pp. 378-381; penned by Judge Antonio I. De Castro.
4 Id. at 2-3.
5 Id. at 8-9.
6 Id. at 14-15.
7 Id. at 18-19.
8 Id. at 45-46.
9 Id. at 50-51.
10 Id. at 57-58.
11 February 9, 1993 and February 24, 1993 for Criminal Case No. 95-143311, id. at 2; February 5, 1993 for Criminal Case No. 95-143312, id. at 8; November 29, 1993 and February 8, 1994 for Criminal Case No. 95-143313, id. at 14; October 26, 1993 for Criminal Case No. 95-143314, id. at 18; February 4, 1993 and August 14, 1994 for Criminal Case No. 95-143315, id. at 45; February 8, 1993 for Criminal Case No. 95-143316, id. at 50; and November 1993 and July 1994 for Criminal Case No. 95-143317, id. at 57.
12 Dominador Ilacin y Pascua for Criminal Case No. 95-143311, id. at 2; Nelson Laplano y Malapit for Criminal Case No. 95-143312, id. at 8; Necito Serquina y Tuvera for Criminal Case No. 95-143313, id. at 14; Crizaldo Fernandez y Martinez for Criminal Case No. 95-143314, id. at 18; Vevencio Martinez y Cornelio for Criminal Case No. 95-143315, id. at 45; Walter Isuan y Ortiz for Criminal Case No. 95-143316, id. at 50; and Arnulfo Suyat y Loyola for Criminal Case No. 95-143317, id. at 57.
13 Id.
14 Id.
15 P40,000.00 in Criminal Case No. 95-143311, id. at 2; P25,000.00 in Criminal Case No. 95-143312, id. at 8; P40,000.00 95-143313, id. at 14; P40,000.00 in Criminal Case No. 95-143314, id. at 18; P55,000.00 in Criminal Case No. 95-143315, id. at 45; P23,000.00 in Criminal Case No. 95-143316, id. at 50; and P45,000.00 in Criminal Case No. 95-143317, id. at 57.
16 Id.
17 Supra note 12.
18 Supra note 15.
19 Records, pp. 61-62.
20 Sometimes spelled as "Serquiña" in the records.
21 Sometimes spelled as "Ilacin" in the records.
22 Sometimes spelled as "Vevencio" in the records.
23 Records, p. 61.
24 Id. at 78-79.
25 Id. at 89.
26 Id. at 92.
27 Id. at 110.
28 Id. at 124.
29 Id. at 1.
30 Id. at 182, 186, 191, 195.
31 Id. at 203; penned by Judge Antonio I. De Castro.
32 Id. at 380.
33 Id. at 381. Underscoring in the original text.
34 CA rollo, p. 54.
35 Id.
36 Id.
37 Id. at 55.
38 Id. at 110.
39 Id.
40 Id.
41 Id. at 112-113.
42 Rollo, p. 14.
43 Id. at 16.
44 Id. at 15.
45 CA rollo, p. 110.
46 This has been amended by Republic Act (RA) No. 8042 or the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, which considers as illegal recruiter even a licensee or holder of authority who commits acts prohibited under Article 34 of the Labor Code. Moreover, the failure to deploy recruits is also considered as illegal recruitment under Section 6 of RA 8042.
47 CA rollo, p. 110.
48 See People v. Temporada, G.R. No. 173473, December 17, 2008, 574 SCRA 258, 279.
49 Id. at 282-283.
50 CA rollo, p. 111.
51 Supra note 48.
52 Id. at 283-284.