SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 214500, June 28, 2017
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v, MICHELLE DELA CRUZ,*** Accused-Appellants.
D E C I S I O N
PERALTA,**J.:
Before this Court is an appeal from the Decision1 dated July 2, 2013 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 04935. The CA affirmed the Decision2 dated October 21, 2010 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City in Criminal Cases Nos. 05-412 to 415, which convicted appellant Michelle Dela Cruz of illegal recruitment in large scale and estafa.
Appellant was charged with illegal recruitment in large scale and three (3) counts of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code. The Informations against appellant read:
Criminal Case No. 05-412 for Illegal Recruitment (Large Scale):The prosecution presented the three (3) private complainants as witnesses to prove the crime of Illegal Recruitment on Large Scale, namely: Armely Aguilar-Uy (Aguilar-Uy), Sheryl Reformado (Reformado), Adona Lavaro (Lavaro), and Rosalina Rosales (Rosales) from the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA).
That in or about and sometime from September 21, 2004 to February 18, 2005, in the City of Makati, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused not being authorized by the POEA of the Department of Labor and Employment to recruit workers for overseas employment, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously promise and recruit the following complainants, to wit:
ARMELY AGUILAR UY,
SHERYL AGUILAR REFORMADO
& ADONA LUNA QUINES LAVARO
for an overseas job placement abroad and in consideration of said promise, said complainants paid and delivered the total amount of Php300,000.00 as processing fees of their papers, but despite said promise, accused failed to deploy complainants and despite demand to reimburse/return the amount which complainants paid as processing fees, accused did then and there refuse and fail to reimburse/return to said complainants the aforesaid amount, thus in large scale amounting to economic sabotage, in violation of the aforecited law.
Contrary to law.3
Criminal Case No. 05-413 for Estafa under Art. 315, par. 2(a) of the RPC.
That in or about and sometime from September 21, 2004 to February 18, 2005, in the City of Makati, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud complainant ARMELY AGUILAR UY in the following manner, to wit: The said accused by means of false manifestation and fraudulent representation prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud which she made to the complainant to the effect that she have a power and capacity to recruit workers for the employment of complainant as Domestic Helper in Korea and could facilitate the necessary papers to meet the requirements and by means of other deceit of similar import induced and succeeded in inducing complainant to give and deliver in the total amount of Php 100,000.00, the accused knowing fully well that the same was false and fraudulent and was made only to obtain, as in fact the accused obtained the amount of Php 100,000.00, which the accused applied and used for her own personal use and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of the said complainant ARMELY AGUILAR UY.
Contrary to law.4
Criminal Case No. 05-414 for Eslafa under Art. 315, par. 2(a) of the RPC.
That in or about and sometime from September 21, 2004 to February 18, 2005, in the City of Makati, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud complainant ADONA LUNA QUINES LAVARO in the following manner, to wit: The said accused by means of false manifestation and fraudulent representation prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud which she made to the complainant to the effect that she have a power and capacity to recruit workers for the employment of complainant as Domestic Helper in Korea and could facilitate the necessary papers to meet the requirements and by means of other deceit of similar import induced and succeeded in inducing complainant to give and deliver in the total amount of Php 100,000.00, the accused knowing fully well that the same was false and fraudulent and was made only to obtain, as in fact the accused obtained the amount of Php 100,000.00, which the accused applied and used for her own personal use and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of the said complainant ADONA LUNA QUINES LAVARO.
Contrary to law.5
Criminal Case No. 05-415 for Estafa under Art. 315, par. 2(a) of the RPC.
That in or about and sometime from September 21, 2004 to February 18, 2005, in the City of Makati, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud complainant SHERYL AGUILAR REFORMADO in the following manner, to wit: The said accused by means of false manifestation and fraudulent representation prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud which she made to the complainant to the effect that she have a power and capacity to recruit workers for the employment of complainant as Domestic Helper in Korea and could facilitate the necessary papers to meet the requirements and by means of other deceit of similar import induced and succeeded in inducing complainant to give and deliver in the total amount of Php 100,000.00, the accused knowing fully well that the same was false and fraudulent and was made only to obtain, as in fact the accused obtained the amount of Php100,000.00, which the accused applied and used for her own personal use and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of the said complainant SHERYL AGUILAR REFORMADO.
Contrary to law.6
Meanwhile, prosecution witness, Rosalina Rosales testified that as per Certification32 issued by Noriel Devanadera, Director IV, Licensing and Regulation Office, POEA, appellant Dela Cruz is not authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment during the year 2005 up to the present. Rosales was the one who prepared the Certification signed by Director Devanadera.
Amount Date Given Payment Details P 40,000.0020 09/21/04 Received by Accused Michelle Dela Cruz P 20,000.0021 09/27/04 Listed as payment with alleged signature of Accused Michelle Dela Cruz in a green notebook22 P 20,000.0023 10/04/04 Listed as payment with alleged signature of Accused Michelle Dela Cruz in a green notebook P 30,000.0024 10/09/04 Listed as payment with alleged signature of Accused Michelle Dela Cruz in a green notebook P 4,000.0025 10/13/04 Listed as payment with alleged signature of Accused Michelle Dela Cruz in a green notebook P 2,80026 10/12/04 Listed as payment with alleged signature of Accused Michelle Dela Cruz in a green notebook P 8,000 or $14427 10/04/04 Listed as payment with alleged signature of Accused Michelle Dela Cruz in a green notebook P 10,000.0028 10/15/04 Deposited in the Metrobank account of Norlita Hinagpis P 10,000.0029 10/15/04 Deposited in the Equitable PCIBank account of Mario Castillo P 4,000.0030 11/12/04 Deposited in the Metrobank account of Norlita Hinagpis P 2,000.0031 01/05/05 Deposited in the Metrobank account of Norlita Hinagpis P 150,800.00 TOTAL
WHEREFORE, in Criminal Case No. 05-412, this Court finds the accused Michelle Dela Cruz guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Article 38 (b) of the Labor Code, as amended, in relation to Article 13 (b) and 34 of the same Code (Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale) and hereby sentences her to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and pay a fine of P500,000.00.The RTC was unconvinced by the defense of alibi and denial interposed by appellant. The trial court relied on the testimony of Rosalina Rosales of the Licensing Division of the POEA who confirmed that appellant is not licensed to recruit workers for overseas employment. It likewise accorded greater weight to the testimonies of private complainants who positively identified appellant as the person who recruited them for employment in South Korea and received the placement fees.
Accused is further ordered to pay complainant Armely Aguilar-Uy the amount of P40,000.00 as actual or compensatory damages.
In Criminal Case No. 05-413, this Court finds the accused Michell Dela Cruz guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa under Article 315, par. 2 (a) of the Revised Penal Code and hereby sentences her to a prison term ranging from two (2) years, eleven (11) months and eleven (11) days of prision correccional as minimum up to eight (8) years of prision mayor as maximum.
In Criminal Cases Nos. 05-414 and 05-415, accused Michelle Dela Cruz is hereby ACQUITTED of the crime charged for insufficiency of evidence.
SO ORDERED.38
Appellant avers that she cannot be held criminally liable for illegal recruitment because she merely assisted private complainants in processing their travel documents without any promise of employment. She asserts that the prosecution failed to establish whether she actually undertook any recruitment activity or any prohibited practice enumerated under Art. 13 (b) or Art. 34 of the Labor Code.I
WHETHER THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PROVE HER GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.II
WFIETHER THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT'S VERSION AND INSTEAD RELYING HEAVILY ON THE PROSECUTION'S VERSION.
SEC. 6. Definition. - For purposes of this Act, illegal recruitment shall mean any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers and includes referring, contract services, promising or advertising for employment abroad, whether for profit or not, when undertaken by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority contemplated under Article 13 (f) of Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, otherwise known as the Labor Code of the Philippines: Provided, That any such non-licensee or non-holder who, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment abroad to two or more persons shall be deemed so engaged. It shall likewise include the following acts, x x x:Thus, in order to hold a person liable for illegal recruitment, the following elements must concur: (1) the offender undertakes any of the activities within the meaning of "recruitment and placement" under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code, or any of the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code (now Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042) and (2) the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable him to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers. In the case of illegal recruitment in large scale, as in this case, a third element is required: that the offender commits any of the acts of recruitment and placement against three or more persons, individually or as a group.
x x x x
Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring or confederating with one another. It is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group.
Direct-examination ofArmely Aguilar-Uy:Thus, considering the foregoing, we can conclude that all three elements of illegal recruitment in large scale are present in the instant case. To recapitulate: First, appellant engaged in recruitment when she represented herself to be capable of deploying workers to South Korea upon submission of the pertinent documents and payment of the required fees; Second, all three (3) private complainants positively identified appellant as the person who promised them employment as domestic helpers in Korea for a fee; and Third, Rosalina Rosales of the Licensing Division of the POEA, testified that as per Certification issued by Noriel Devanadera, Director IV, Licensing and Regulation Office, appellant is not licensed or authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment. Clearly, the existence of the offense of illegal recruitment in large scale was duly proved by the prosecution.
A. I was informed by this Michelle del a Cruz that she has twelve (12) visas with her and she still needs two more persons to go to Korea and during that time on September 20 she even called me and asked information regarding myself so that our papers will be sent to Korea for authentication.
Q. You mentioned that you were called by Michelle dela Cruz. In what manner were you called?
A. Through [cellphone].
Q. What did the two of you talk about?
A. She asked me to give my name and age, the name of my niece Sheryl because according to her she needs to authenticate the papers.
Q. And would you kindly tell this Honorable Court what is the purpose of the authentication of the papers and the documents which you just mentioned?
A. For us to be able to go to Korea.
Q. And after you were told through telephone call made by the accused asking for your names and documents for proper authentication with the Korean Embassy, what did you do next, Madame Witness?
A. After that [cellphone] call from her that evening she told me to prepare the money and bring it so that we can meet each other the next day.
Q. Will you tell the Honorable Court what is the money for?
A. That money is for the expenses needed to be paid for us to go to Korea.
Q. And that would be how much, Madame Witness?
A. P100,000.00
Q. And were you able to give that said amount of P100,000.00?
A. We were not able to give the full amount at once. We gave the said amount on various dates and different places.
Q. And would you kindly tell this Honorable Court in what manner and under what circumstances were you able to give the amount of P100,000.00 to the said accused?
A. Other payments by giving the money personally to her and the others we deposited the money in the bank.41
x x x x
Q. When was the last payment which you made?
A. December 5, 2004, additional payment for our tickets.
Q. After the last payment which you made, which you claimed you made a total payment of P200,000.00, would you kindly tell this Honorable Court what happened after you made the last payment?
A. She made several schedules for our departure and she even told us to bring our things. I gave a condition to her that we will not bring our things unless she will show to us our visa.
Q. And what is the reaction of the said accused when you told her unless she can be able to produce the visa?
A. She agreed and told us that she is going to show us the visa.
Q. And was she able to show you your visa as promised?
A. No, sir.42
x x x x
Q. Going back to your previous testimony that the said visa is for going to Korea and you were being recruited to work as what?
A. Domestic Helper.
Q. And how much did said accused tell you on how much you are going to receive as your salary?
A. P50,000.00 for eight (8) hours plus overtime pay so we could earn P80,000.00 per month.43
Cross-examination ofSheryl Reformado:
Q. And it was this Alvin Palomares who knows Michelle dela Cruz and was the one who indorsed Michelle to Maggie dela Cruz?
A. I am not familiar with the story, what I am aware of was that she told us that Maggie Dela Cruz, that this Michelle Dela Cruz came from Korea and she is looking for workers to work there.
x x x x
Q. And she told you that money will be required for the facilitation for the processing of these papers, so that you will be able to get the tourist visa for Korea?
A. She told us she needs the money to get the document and so we can travel and work abroad in Korea.
Q. But this document was a requirement for the procurement of the tourist visa, is that right?
A. Yes ma'am. She told us that she is into direct hiring.44
x x x x
Re-direct examination of Sheryl Reformado:
Q. And when these documents were given to you, what were these documents for, according to the accused?
A. According to her, those documents are needed for us to work abroad.
x x x x
Re-cross examination ofSheryl Reformado:
Q. You for yourself to determine whether it is genuine or fake?
A. Yes ma'am. We were able to examine. We examined those documents, we were always asking her if we will not encounter any problem as to those documents, she told us none, because the consul in the Philippines and the consul in Korea knows about the document and she told us that those were just formality, so that we can work abroad.45
Direct-examination of Adona Lavaro:
Q. What, if any, did you talk about?
A. On August 4, Michelle called up informing me that her employer needs domestic helper and from that time on she used to call me several times.
Q. And after being told or being informed that there is that need for domestic helpers in Korea, what was your reaction, if any?
A. I made some thinking and because of several calls from her, I decided to accept the offer.46
x x x x
Q. And you said a while ago, "'napapayag ka.'" What do you mean by napapayag ka?
A. I was encouraged to accept the job she was offering because of her good words and promises. She told me that the work will be from Monday to Friday and the salary would be P40,000.00 plus and I can have a part time job. And because of that I asked her about the fees and the other requirements. And she told me that I have to give a partial payment. According to her, I can give P40,000.00.47
Cross-examination of Adona Lavaro:
Q. You never insisted from her for you to get your... you never insisted that you be deployed to Korea?
A. No. more because she was always asking for money and gives us several promises that we will be able to work for Korea.48
SEC. 7. Penalties. -As the crime was committed in large scale, it is an offense involving economic sabotage and is punishable by life imprisonment and a fine of not less than P500,000.00 nor more than P1,000,000.00. The trial court, thus, aptly imposed the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00.
(a) Any person found guilty of illegal recruitment shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of not less than six (6) years and one (1) day but not more than twelve (12) years and a fine of not less than Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00) nor more than Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00).
(b) The penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of not less than Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) nor more than One million pesos (P1,000,000.00) shall be imposed if illegal recruitment constitutes economic sabotage as defined herein.
Provided, however, That the maximum penalty shall be imposed if the person illegally recruited is less than eighteen (18) years of age or committed by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority.
1. In Criminal Case No. 05-412, the Court finds appellant Michelle Dela Cruz GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Recruitment committed in large scale. She is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment, and ordered to pay a fine of P500,000.00;SO ORDERED.
2. In Criminal Case No. 05-413, the Court finds appellant Michelle Dela Cruz GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of estafa and sentences her to an indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to seven (7) years, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days of prision mayor, as maximum.
3. Appellant Michelle Dela Cruz is likewise ordered to indemnify private complainant Armely Aguilar Uy in the amount of Forty Thousand Pesos (P40,000.00) as actual damages, with legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this decision, until the said amount is fully paid.
Endnotes:
** Acting Chairperson, per Special Order No. 2445 dated June 16, 2017.
*** Also spelled "dela Cruz" in some parts of the records.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang, with Associate Justices Ricardo R. Rosario and Leoncia R. Dimagiba, concurring; rollo, pp. 2-16.
2 CA rollo, pp. 39-46.
3 Records, pp. 2-3.
4Id. at 6-7.
5Id. at 10-11.
6Id. at 14-15.
7Id. at 333.
8Id.
9 Exhibit "F," id. at 141.
10 Records, p. 35.
11Id. at 110.
12Id. at 111.
13Id. at 115.
14Id. at 120.
15Id. at 125-126.
16Id. at 128.
17Id. at 269.
18Id. at 251.
19Id. at 133-135.
20Id. at 136.
21 Exhibit "B-1," id. at 146.
22Id.
23 Exhibit "B-2 ," id.
24 Exhibit "B-3 ," id.
25 Exhibit "B-4 ," id.
26 Exhibit "B-5 ," id.
27 Exhibit "B-6 ," id.
28 Exhibit "D," id. at 139.
29 Exhibit "C," id. at 138.
30 Exhibit "E," id. at 140.
31 Exhibit "B " id. at 137.
32 Exhibit "H," id. at 144.
33 Records, pp. 328-330.
34Id. at 334-338.
35Id. at 338-339.
36Id. at 341-342.
37Id. at 343-344.
38 CA rollo, p. 46.
39Supra note 1.
40REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8042: AN ACT TO INSTITUTE THE POLICIES OF OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT AND ESTABLISH A HIGHER STANDARD OF PROTECTION AND PROMOTION OF THE WELFARE OF MIGRANT WORKERS. THEIR FAMILIES AND OVERSEAS FILIPINOS IN DISTRESS AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
41 TSN, December 12, 2005, pp. 7-9.
42Id. at 24-25.
43Id. at 34.
44 TSN, May 8, 2006, pp. 158-160.
45Id. at 72-173.
46 TSN, June 14, 2006, p. 202.
47Id. at 203.
48 TSN, September 4, 2006, p. 279. (Emphasis ours)
49People v. Colorado, G.R. No. 215715 (Resolution), [August 31, 2016].
50People v. Daud, et al., 734 Phil. 698, 718 (2014).
51People v. Ocden, 665 Phil. 268, 289 (2011).
52People v. Chua, 695 Phil. 16, 31 (2012).
53Id. at 32.
54 See C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc. v. Undersecretary Español, 559 Phil. 826, 837 (2007); People v. Señoron, 334 Phil. 932, 940 (1997); People v. Sanchez, 353 Phil. 536, 549 (1998).
55People v. Saley, 353 Phil. 897, 932 (1998).
56 Records, p. 136.