SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 227505, October 02, 2017
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ERLINDA RACHO Y SOMERA, Accused-Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Before the Court is an ordinary appeal1 filed by accused-appellant Erlinda Racho y Somera (Racho) assailing the Decision2 dated October 15, 2015 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06932, which affirmed the Decision3 dated May 28, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 62 (RTC) in Criminal Case Nos. 05-1935, 05-1938, 05-1941, 05-1943, 05-1945, 05-1948, 05-1949, and 05-1951 convicting Racho of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale, as defined and penalized under Section 6 (l) and (m), in relation to Section 7 (b) of Republic Act No. (RA) 8042,4 otherwise known as the Migrant Workers Overseas Filipino Act of 1995, and six (6) counts of Estafa under Article 315 paragraph 2 (a) of the Revised Penal Code.
Racho was also charged with sixteen (16) counts6 of Estafa, of which only six (6) cases prospered and eventually, were appealed before the Court. The Informations for these six (6) cases are similarly worded, except for the details pertaining to the date of commission of the offense, name of the complainant, job recruited for, and the amount involved. Among others, the accusatory portion of the Information7 for Criminal Case No. 05-1938 involving the complainant Odelio C. Gasmen (Odelio) reads:CRIMINAL CASE NO. 05-1935
That in or about during [sic] the period from November, 2004 up to February 07, 2005 or prior thereto, in the City of Makati, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there without first obtaining a license or authority to recruit workers for overseas employment from the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously recruit and promise employment/job placement and collect fee[s] from complainants Bernardo Pena, Arsenio N. Sevania, Maximo V. Gambon, Simeon Adame Filarca, Vincent B. Baidoz. Odelio C. Gasmen, Cirilo A. Arruejo, Romeo E. Torres, Renato P. Velasco, Rex D. Villaruz,Celso V. Doctolero, Renato L. Pescador, Rodolfo C. Pagal, William D. Villaruz, Franklin B. Delizo[,] and Dominador S. Pena as contract workers, without any license/authority from the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) or by the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) to recruit workers for overseas employment.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
The variations in the Informations for the other five (5) criminal cases, i.e., Criminal Case Nos. 05-1941, 05-1945, 05-1948, 05-1949, and 05-1951, are summarized below:CRIMINAL CASE NO. 05-1938
That on or about the 26th of November, 2004 or prior thereto, in Makati, The Philippines, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud one Odelio C. Gasmen in the following manner, to wit: The said accused by false pretenses or fraudulent acts committed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud, to the effect that she can recruit workers for overseas employment and deploy complainant as construction worker in East Timor for a fee of Php100,000.00, which representation [she] well knew to be false and was only made to induce the aforementioned complainant to give and deliver, as in fact the said complainant gave and delivered, to her the said amount of [Php100,000.00], to the damage and prejudice of the said Odelio C. Gasmen in the aforementioned amount of Php100,000.00.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
All of the cases against Radio were consolidated and tried jointly.8 On May 24, 2011, Racho was arraigned and pleaded not guilty to all the charges against her.9
Criminal Case No. Date of Commission of the Offense Complainant Job Recruited For Amount Involved 05-1941 January 13, 2005 Simeon Adame Filarca (Simeon) Carpenter P80,000.00 05-1945 January 13, 2005 Bernardo Peña (Bernardo) Plumber/electrician P80,000.00 05-1948 January 17, 2005 Renato L. Pescador (Renato) Carpenter P100,000.00 05-1949 January 18, 2005 William D. Villaruz (William) Contract worker P80,000.00 05-1951 February 24, 2005 Rodolfo C. Pagal (Rodolfo) Contract worker P60,000.00
Section 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, contact 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, whether committed by any person, whether a non-licensee, non-holder, licensee or holder of authority:The elements of the offense are: (a) the offender has no valid license or authority to enable him to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers; (b) he undertakes any of the activities within the meaning of "recruitment and placement" under Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code or any prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code (now Section 6 of RA 8042); and (c) he commits the same against three or more persons, individually or as a group.33 Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall be considered an offense involving economic sabotage.34
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. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Article 315. Swindling (estafa). - Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned herein below x x x:Under this provision, Estafa by means of deceit is committed when these elements concur: (a) the accused used fictitious name or false pretense that he possesses power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or other similar deceits; (b) he used such deceitful means prior to or simultaneous with the commission of the fraud; (c) the offended party relied on such deceitful means to part with his money or property; and (d) the offended party suffered damage.41
x x x x
2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud:
(a) By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions; or by means of other similar deceits.
x x x x
[W]e agree with the appellate court that the same pieces of evidence which establish appellant's liability for illegal recruitment in large scale likewise confirm her culpability for estafa.Records show that Racho defrauded Odelio, Simeon, Bernardo, Renato, and Rodolfo by representing that she can provide them with jobs in East Timor even though she had no license to recruit workers for employment abroad. She even collected the irrelevant documents and placement fees of varying amounts. Although complainants were able to fly to East Timor, they remained unemployed there due to Racho's failure to obtain their working visas. When they returned to the country and looked for Racho, complainants could not locate her to recover the amounts they paid. Undeniably, the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Racho committed Estafa against the five (5) complainants.
It is well-established in jurisprudence that a person may be charged and convicted for both illegal recruitment and estafa. The reason therefor is not hard to discern: illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum, while estafa is mala in se. In the first, the criminal intent of the accused is not necessary for conviction. In the second, such intent is imperative. Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2 (a) 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.43
Criminal Case No. Amount Defrauded Minimum Penalty Maximum Penalty 05-1938 P100,000.00 Four (4) months of arresto mayor One (1) year and one (1) month of prision correccional 05-1941 P80,000.00 Four (4) months of arresto mayor One (1) year and one (1) month of prision correccional 05-1945 P80,000.00 Four (4) months of arresto mayor One (1) year and one (1) month of prision correccional 05-1948 P100,000.00 Four (4) months of arresto mayor One (1) year and one (1) month of prision correccional 05-1951 P35,000.00 Six (6) months of arresto mayor
(a) In Criminal Case No. 05-1938, four (4) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to one (1) year and one (1) month of prision correccional, as maximum;(3) Moreover, Racho is ORDERED to pay the following complainants actual damages in these amounts: (a) P100,000.00 to Odelio Gasmen; (b) P80,000.00 to Simeon Filarca; (c) P80,000.00 to Bernardo Pena; and (d) P100,000.00 to Renato Pescador; and (e) P35,000.00 to Rodolfo Pagal. These monetary awards are subject to interest at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum from the filing of the Informations on October 18, 2005 until June 30, 2013, and six percent (6%) per annum from July 1, 2013 until full payment.
(b) In Criminal Case No. 05-1941, four (4) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to one (1) year and one (1) month of prision correccional, as maximum;
(c) In Criminal Case No. 05-1945, four (4) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to one (1) year and one (1) month of prision correccional, as maximum;
(d) In Criminal Case No. 05-1948, four (4) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to one (1) year and one (1) month of prision correccional, as maximum; and
(e) In Criminal Case No. 05-1951, six (6) months of arresto mayor.
Endnotes:
1 See Notice of Appeal dated November 2, 2015; rollo, pp. 15-16.
2 Id. at 2-14. Penned by Associate Justice Jose C. Reyes, Jr. with Associate Justices Stephen C. Cruz and Ramon Paul L. Hernando concurring.
3 CA rollo, pp. 44-59. Penned by Judge Selma Palacio Alaras.
4 Entitled "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," approved on June 7, 1995.
5 CA rollo, p. 23.
6 Id. at 24-39.
7 Id at. 26.
8Rollo, p. 4.
9 Id. See also records, pp. 140-141.
10 Records, pp. 186 and 193.
11 See rollo, p. 4.
12 See Order dated September 17, 2012; records, pp. 204-205.
13 See rollo, p. 7.
14 See id. at 4-7.
15 See RTC's Order dated August 14, 2012 (records, p. 203) which reads:Considering that the witnesses, the private complainants in this case were duly notified for several times but failed to appear, the prosecution is given fifteen (15) days from today to formally offer its evidence. The defense is given ten (!0) days from receipt of the formal offer to file their comment/opposition, thereafter, the incident is submitted for resolution. The defense likewise moved that considering the failure of the prosecution to offer evidence in some cases, let those cases be considered PROVISIONALLY DISMISSED.16 Records, pp. 204-205.
The Court holds in abeyance the ruling on the motion until such time it has identified the cases where there was no evidence offered by the prosecution. (Emphases supplied)
17 These were the cases that were provisionally dismissed: Criminal Case Nos. 05-1936, 05-1937, 05-1939, 05-1940, 05-1942. 05-1944, 05-1946, 05-1947, and 05-1950. (See id.)
18Rollo, p.1.
19 CA rollo, pp. 44-59.
20 See id. at 58-59. Pursuant to Article 315 of the RPC in relation to the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the RTC imposed indeterminate penalties summarized as follows:(Emphases supplied).
Crim. Case No. Minimum Penalty Maximum Penalty 05-1938Two (2) years, eleven (11) months, and eleven (11) days of prision correccional Thirteen (13) years, eight (8) months, and twenty one (21) days of reclusion temporal 05-1941Two (2) years, eleven (11) months, and eleven (11) days of prision correccional Eleven (11) years, eight (8) months, and twenty one (21) days of prision mayor 05-1945Two (2) years, eleven (11) months, and eleven (11) days of prision correccional Eleven (11) years, eight (8) months, and twenty one (21) days of prision mayor 05-1948Two (2) years, eleven (11) months, and eleven (11) days of prision correccional Thirteen (13) years, eight (8) months, and twenty one (21) days of reclusion temporal 05-1949Two (2) years, eleven (11) months, and eleven (11) days of prision correccional Eleven (11) years, eight (8) months, and twenty one (21) days of prision mayor 05-1951Two (2) years, eleven (11) months, and eleven (11) days of prision correccional Nine (9) years, eight (8) months, and twenty one (21) days of prision mayor
21 See id.(Emphases supplied).
Crim. Case No. Complainant Amount 05-1938 Odelio C. Gasmen P100,000.00 05-1941 Simeon Adame Filarca P80,000.00 05-1945 Bernardo Peña P80,000.00 05-1948 Renato L. Pescador P100,000.00 05-1949 William D. Villaruz P80,000.00 05-1951 Rodolfo C. Pagal P60,000.00
22 See id. at 58-59.
23 Id. at 59.
24 See id. at 52-55.
25 See id. at 55-56.
26 See Notice of Appeal dated June 9, 2014; records, p. 480.
27Rollo, pp. 2-14.
28 Id. at 13-14.
29 See id. at 10-13.
30 See Ramos v. People, G.R. Nos. 218466 and 221425, January 23, 2017.
31 Id.
32 Entitled "AN ACT ADJUSTING THE AMOUNT OR THE VALUE OF PROPERTY AND DAMAGE ON WHICH A PENALTY IS BASED AND THE FRNES IMPOSED UNDER THE REVISED PENAL CODE, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE ACT NO. 3815, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS 'THE REVISED PENAL CODE', AS AMENDED," approved on August 29, 2017.
33People v. Daud, 734 Phil. 698, 715 (2014).
34 See Section 6 (m) of RA 8042.
35 Records, p. 256.
36People v. Lalli, 675 Phil. 126, 150 (2011).
37 See People v. Molina, G.R. No. 207811, June 1, 2016, 792 SCRA 14, 29.
38 Entitled "AN ACT AMENDING REPUBLIC ACT NO, 8042, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE MIGRANT WORKERS AND OVERSEAS FILIPINOS ACT OF 1995, AS AMENDED, FURTHER IMPROVING THE STANDARD OF PROTECTION AND PROMOTION OF THE WELFARE OF MIGRANT WORKERS, THEIR FAMILIES AND OVERSEAS FILIPINOS IN DISTRESS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," lapsed into law on March 8, 2010 without the signature of the President, in accordance with Section 27 (1), Article VI, of the 1987 Constitution.
39 Although Section 7 of RA 8042 has been amended by Section 6 of RA 10022, which amendment increased the penalty in RA 8042, the old penalty still applies considering that the crime was committed from 2004 to 2005 when RA 8042 had yet to be amended and thus, was still in effect. (See People v. Lalli, supra note 36, at 151.)
40 Section 7. Penalties. -
x x x x
(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.
x x x x (Underscoring supplied)
41Lopez v. People, 715 Phil. 839, 847 (2013).
42 695 Phil. 16 (2012).
43 Id. at 31.
44 Records, p. 35.
45 See TSN, October 24, 2011, p. 91.
46PNOC Shipping and Transport, Corp. v. CA, 358 Phil. 38, 43 (1998).
47 Section 100. Retroactive Effect. - This Act shall have retroactive effect to the extent that it is favorable to the accused or person serving sentence by final judgment. (Emphasis supplied)
48People v. Derilo, 338 Phil. 350, 379 (1997).
49 Summarized as follows:50 The relevant provision, as amended, reads:
Crim. Case No. Complainant Amount 05-1938 Odelio C. Gasmen P100,000.00 05-1941 Simeon Adame Filarca P80,000.00 05-1945 Bernardo Peña P80,000.00 05-1948 Renato L. Pescador P100,000.00 05-1951 Rodolfo C. Pagal P35,000.00SEC. 85. Article 315 of the same Act, as amended by Republic Act No. 4885. Presidential Decree No. 1689, and Presidential Decree No. 818, is hereby further amended to read as follows:51 Pertinently, Section 1 of Act No. 4103, or ISL, provides:"ART. 315. Swindling (estafa). - Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow shall be punished by:
x x x x
"3rd. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period, if such amount is over Forty thousand pesos (P40,000) but does not exceed One million two hundred thousand pesos (P1,200,000).
"4th. By arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods, if such amount does not exceed Forty thousand pesos (P40,000): x x x
x x x xSection 1. Hereafter, in imposing a prison sentence for an offense punished by the Revised Penal Code, or its amendments, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of the said Code, and to a minimum which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense; x x x. (Underscoring supplied)52 Section 2 of the ISL reads:SEC. 2. This Act shall not apply to x x x those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year x x x.(See also People v. Mancera, 108 Phil. 785, 787-788 (1960); and Humilde v. Pablo, A.M. No. 604-CFI, February 20, 1981, 102 SCRA 731, 732.)
53 716 Phil. 267 (2013).
54 See id. at 281-283. See also People v. Villanueva, 755 Phil. 28, 40 (2015).