THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 196784, January 13, 2016
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MA. FE TORRES SOLINA A.K.A. MA. FE BAYLON GALLO, Accused-Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
PERALTA, J.:
Accused-appellant Ma. Fe Torres Solina a.k.a. Ma. Fe Bay Ion Gallo appeals her case to this Court after the Court of Appeals (CA) in its Decision1 dated March 11, 2010 affirmed with modification her conviction beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale under Republic Act No. 8042, otherwise known as the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 (R.A. 8042) imposing the penalty of life imprisonment and ordered to pay a. fine in the amount of =P200,000.00 with subsidiary liability in case of insolvency and six (6) counts of Estafa under Article 315 (2) (a) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), imposing the indeterminate penalty of one (1) year, eight (8) months and twenty (20) days prision correccional, as minimum, to five (5) years, five (5) months and eleven (11) days of prision mayor, as maximum, for each count and ordered to return to each complainant the amount of P20,000.00 as actual damages, handed clown by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 147, in Makati City.
Accused-appellant was arraigned and tried under an Information dated June 16, 2006 charging her of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale under R.A. 8042, thus:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
That in or about and sometime during the period from September, 2005 up to February 2006, in the City of Makati, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, representing herself to have capacity to contract, enlist, transport and refer workers for employment abroad, did then and there, without any license or authority, recruit for overseas employment and for a fee, the following complainants, to wit:MONICA B. HIMANthus in a large scale amounting to economic sabotage but said accused failed to deploy said complainants and likewise failed to return the money incurred by them and the documents submitted despite demands, to the latter's damage and prejudice.
ERWIN B. DELA VEGA
GLADYS Z. REMORENTO
JOEY P. BACOLOD
MARLON B. DELA CRUZ
AUGUSTO A. CEZAR GARCES
LEYNARD B. TUTANES
CONTRARY TO LAW.2ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
cralawlawlibrary
1) That in or about and sometime during the month of September 2005, in the City of Makati, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, defraud complainant MONICA I-IIMAN y BASAMOT in the following manners, to wit: the said accused by means of false manifestations and fraudulent representations made prior and simultaneously with the commission of fraud, to the effect that she have the capacity to deploy complainant for overseas employment and could facilitate the necessary papers, in connection therewith if given the necessary amount and by means of other deceit of similar import, induced and succeeded in inducing complainant to give and deliver and, in fact, the complainant gave and delivered to said accused the total amount of Php20,000.00 on the strength of said manifestation and representation which turned out to be false, to the damage and prejudice of said complainant in the aforementioned amount of P20,000.00.
CONTRARY TO LAW.3
2) That in or about and sometime during the month of October, 2005, in the City ofMakati, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, defraud complainant JOEY BACOLOD y PORTILLES in the following manners, to wit: the said accused by means of false manifestations and fraudulent representations made prior and simultaneously with the commission of fraud, to the ellect that she have the capacity to deploy complainant for overseas employment and could facilitate the necessary papers, in connection therewith if given the necessary amount and by means of other deceit of similar import, induced and succeeded in inducing complainant to give and deliver and, in fact, the complainant gave and delivered to said accused the total amount of Php20,000.00 on the strength of said manilestation and representation which turned out to be false, to the damage and prejudice of said complainant in the aforementioned amount of P20,000.00.
CONTRARY TO LAW.4
3) That in or about and sometime during the month of October, 2005, in the City ofMakati, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, defraud complainant MARLON DEL A CRUZ y BOLESA in the following manners, to wit: the said accused by means of false manifestations and fraudulent representations made prior and simultaneously with the commission of fraud, to the effect that she have the capacity to deploy complainant for overseas employment and could facilitate the necessary papers, in connection therewith if given the necessary amount and by means of other deceit of similar import, induced and succeeded in inducing complainant to give and deliver and, in fact, the complainant gave and delivered to said accused the total amount of Php20,000.00 on the strength of said manifestation and representation which turned out to be false, to the damage and prejudice of said complainant in the aforementioned amount of P20,000.00.
CONTRARY TO LAW.5
4) That in or about and sometime during the month of November, 2005, in the City ofMakati, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, defraud complainant ERWIN DELA VEGA y BRIONES in the following manners, to wit: the said accused by means of false manifestations and fraudulent representations made prior and simultaneously with the commission of fraud, to the effect that she have the capacity to deploy complainant for overseas employment and could facilitate the necessary papers, in connection therewith if given the necessary amount and by means of other deceit of similar import, induced and succeeded in inducing complainant to give and deliver and, in fact, the complainant gave and delivered to said accused the total amount of Php20,000.00 on the strength of said manifestation and representation which turned out to be false, to the damage and prejudice of said complainant in the aforementioned amount of P20,000.00.
CONTRARY TO LAW.6
5) That in or about and sometime during the month of November, 2005, in the City of Fvfakati, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, defraud complainant GLADYS REMORENTO y ZAMORA in the following manners, to wit: the said accused by means of false manifestations and fraudulent representations made prior and simultaneously with the commission of fraud, to the effect that she have the capacity to deploy complainant for overseas employment and could facilitate the necessary papers, in connection therewith if given the necessary amount and by means of other deceit of similar import, induced and succeeded in inducing complainant to give and deliver and, in fact, the complainant gave and delivered to said accused the total amount of Php20,000.00 on the strength of said manifestation and representation which turned out to be false, to the damage and prejudice of said complainant in the aforementioned amount of P20,000.00.
CONTRARY TO LAW.7
6) That in or about and sometime during the month of February, 2006, in the City of Makati, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, defraud complainant AUGUSTO CEZAR GARCES y ALIMAGNO in the following manners, to wit: the said accused by means of false manifestations and fraudulent representations made prior and simultaneously with the commission of fraud, to the effect that she have the capacity to deploy complainant for overseas employment and could facilitate the necessary papers, in connection therewith if given the necessary amount and by means of other deceit of similar import, induced and succeeded in inducing complainant to give and deliver and, in fact, the complainant gave and delivered to said accused the total amount of Php20,000.00 on the strength of said manifestation and representation which turned out to be false, to the damage and prejudice of said complainant in the aforementioned amount of P20,000.00.
CONTRARY TO LAW.8
7) That in or about and sometime during the month of February, 2006, in the City of Makati, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, defraud complainant LEYNARD TUTANES y BADIOLA in the following manners, to wit: the said accused by means of false manifestations and fraudulent representations made prior and simultaneously with the commission of fraud, to the effect that she have the capacity to deploy complainant for overseas employment and could facilitate the necessary papers, in connection therewith if given the necessary amount and by means of other deceit of similar import, induced and succeeded in inducing complainant to give and deliver and, in fact, the complainant gave and delivered to said accused the total amount of Php20,000.00 on the strength of said manifestation and representation which turned out to be false, to the damage and prejudice of said complainant in the aforementioned amount of P20,000.00.
CONTRARY TO LAW.9cralawlawlibrary
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is rendered in these cases as follows:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
1. In Crim. Case No. 06-1275, finding herein accused Ma. Fe Torres Solina a.k.a. Ma. Fe Baylon Gallo, Guilty Beyond Reasonable Doubt of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale and sentencing her to suffer the indeterminate penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day as minimum to eight (8) years as maximum, and to pay a fine in the amount of P200,O00.O0 with subsidiary liability in case of insolvency;
2. In Crim. Cases Nos. 06-1277 to 06-1282, finding the said accused Ma. Fe Torres Solina a.k.a. Ma. Fe Baylon Gallo, Guilty Beyond Reasonable Doubt of six (6) counts of Estafa under Art. 315, par. 2 (a), Revised Penal Code, and sentencing her to suffer for each count, the indeterminate penalty of one (1) year, eight (8) months, and twenty (20) days prision correccional as minimum to five (5) years, five (5) months, and eleven (11) days of prision mayor as maximum; to return to each private complainant, namely, Joey P. Bacolod, Marlon B. dela Cruz, Erwin B. Dela Vega, Gladys Z. Remorento, Augusto Cezar A. Garces, and Leynard B. Tutanes, the amount of P20,000.00 as actual damages.
SO ORDERED.
Makati City, October 30, 2007.10ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
cralawlawlibrary
WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, the instant appeal is hereby DENTED. However, the assailed Decision dated 30 October 2007 is MODIFIED in that the appellant is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT as penalty for the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale and is ordered to pay a line in the amount of P200,000.00 with subsidiary liability in case of insolvency. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
cralawlawlibrary
I.
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN REJECTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT'S DEFENSE.II.
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PROVE HER GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.cralawlawlibrary
First off, the first element is admittedly present. Appellant had no license to recruit or engage in placement activities and she herself had admitted to her lack of authority to do so. The Certification dated 7 April 2006 issued by 1he POHA also undeniably establishes this fact.
In like manner, the second and third elements also obtain in this case. On separate occasions and under different premises, appellant met with and herself recruited the private complainants, six (6) in number, giving them the impression that she had the capability to facilitate applications for employment as factory workers in Japan. All these complainants testified that appellant had promised them employment for a fee amounting to P2(),000.00. Their testimonies corroborate each other on material points, such as the amount exacted by appellant as placement fee, the country of destination, the training that they had to undergo to qualify for employment and the submission of documentary requirements needed for the same. The private complainants were positive and categorical in testifying that they personally met the appellant and that she asked for, among others, the payment of placement fees in consideration for the promised employment in Japan.15ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
cralawlawlibrary
Be that as it may, this Court finds reversible error on the part of the trial court respecting the penalty imposed on the appellant for the crime of large scale illegal recruitment. Under the last paragraph of Section 6 of R.A. 8042, illegal recruitment shall be considered an offense involving economic sabotage if committed in large scale, viz., committed against three or more persons individually or as a group. In the present case, six (6) private complainants testified against appellant's acts of illegal recruitment, thereby rendering her acts tantamount to economic sabotage. Under Section 7 (b) of R.A. 8042, 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.cralawlawlibrary
Endnotes:
1 Penned by Associate Justice Josefina Guevara-Salonga, with the Associate Justices Pampio A. Abarinlos and Jane Aurora C. Lantion, concurring; rollo, pp. 2-13.
2 CA rollo, p. 9.
3Id. at 11.
4Id. at 12.
5Id. at 13.
6Id. at 14.
7Id. at 15.
8Id. at 16.
9Id. at 17.
10Id. at 32.
11Id. at 33.
12Id. at 130-131.
13Id. at 40-67 (for accused-appellant); 84-108 (for the OSG).
14 [A]ny 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 or placement.
15Rollo, p. 126.
16People v. Ghurbia, 369 Phil. 942, 953 (1999).
17People v. Gallemit, G.R. No. 197539, June 2, 2014, 724 SCRA 359, 382.
18People v. Arnaiz, G.R. No. 205153, September 9, 2015.
19People v. Lazaro, Jr., 619 Phil. 235, 254 (2009).
20People v. Sabadlab, 679 Phil. 425, 438 (2012).