Anniban vs. People

A person may be convicted of both illegal recruitment and estafa arising from the same set of facts, provided the prosecution establishes (1) the absence of a valid POEA license or authority and (2) the undertaking of recruitment activities as defined under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code or Section 6 of R.A. No. 8042, and separately proves the four elements of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code.

Lee Saking and private complainant Jan Denver Palasi met at a car repair shop in La Trinidad, Benguet, where Palasi was having his Mitsubishi Delica van repaired. Saking held himself out as someone who could facilitate overseas employment in Australia as a grape or apple picker, subject to the payment of a placement fee. Republic Act No. 8042, the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, as amended by R.A. No. 10022, criminalizes recruitment activities undertaken by persons without a license or authority from the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 10951, penalizes estafa committed through false pretenses or fraudulent representations.

Jan Denver Palasi met Lee Saking at a car repair shop where Palasi was having his Mitsubishi Delica van repaired. Saking represented that he was looking for people interested to work in Australia as grape and apple pickers, with a required placement fee of ₱300,000.00. Palasi signified interest in applying. Short of funds, he offered his van as payment. Saking agreed but required an additional ₱100,000.00 in cash. To proceed with the application, Palasi filled out forms and handed them, together with his passport, to Saking. Palasi subsequently paid the ₱100,000.00 in installments — ₱35,000.00, ₱20,000.00, and ₱50,000.00 — across multiple transactions. No official receipt was issued for any payment. Saking once brought Palasi to Practice Agency, the office supposedly processing the papers, but made him wait in the car.

After Saking collected the entire ₱100,000.00, Palasi could no longer contact him. At around June 2013, Palasi went to Practice Agency to inquire on the status of his papers, only to be told that he had no pending application. He then went to the POEA, which confirmed that Saking had no license to recruit workers for overseas employment. To make matters worse, Palasi discovered that Saking had taken his Delica van from the car repair shop without his knowledge or consent. Although the van was part of the payment for the placement fee, it was agreed that the vehicle would only be taken with the owner's consent. Palasi was eventually able to recover the van from a certain Ernesto Buya, who had purchased it from Saking.

The prosecution's last witness, mechanic Alberto Silvada, testified that Saking requested to test drive the vehicle but never returned it to the shop. Silvada confirmed that Palasi did not authorize him to release the vehicle to Saking, and that he did not actually hear Saking and Palasi conversing about the sale. Silvada also testified that Saking promised his son, Ordona Silvada, a job in Australia. The defense waived its right to present evidence. The RTC found Saking guilty of illegal recruitment and estafa but acquitted him of carnapping. The CA affirmed the RTC decision in toto. Saking elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45.

• Authentication of POEA Certification: Saking argued that the POEA certification stating he was not a licensed recruiter was unauthenticated because its signatory, Director Lucia L. Villamayor, had already retired at the time of issuance, and the prosecution's witness, Atty. Oropillo-Simon, had no legal custody of the document as it was issued by the POEA Central Office, contrary to Rule 132, Section 24 of the Revised Rules of Court.
• Absence of Promise of Employment: Saking maintained that the prosecution failed to prove he made a promise that he alone could give Palasi work as an apple or grape picker, asserting that he made Palasi understand the papers would be processed by Practice Agency and that he was only a middleman or conduit.
• Credibility of Complainant: Saking argued that Palasi was not a credible witness due to inconsistencies in his narration about going to Practice Agency, and that Palasi admitted he had never gone to the Australian embassy.
• Lack of Receipts: Saking asserted that the elements of illegal recruitment and estafa were not present because Palasi's testimony regarding deceit was unsubstantiated, as Palasi did not produce receipts to support his claims of payment and damage.

• Procedural Impropriety: Palasi insisted that the Petition raised questions of fact inappropriate for a Rule 45 proceeding.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: Palasi argued that all elements of illegal recruitment and estafa were proven without a scintilla of doubt.
• Admissibility of POEA Certification: Palasi countered that the certification issued by retired POEA Director Villamayor was a public document, hence its entries are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated, and that a POEA certification is not even indispensable in proving illegal recruitment activities.
• Immateriality of Inconsistencies: Palasi maintained that the inconsistencies in his testimony had nothing to do with the elements of the crime, and that the facts clearly established Saking gave him a distinct impression of having the power or ability to send him abroad for work.

• Illegal Recruitment: Whether the CA correctly affirmed the RTC's conviction of Saking for illegal recruitment under Sections 6 and 7 of R.A. No. 8042, as amended.
• Estafa: Whether the CA correctly affirmed the RTC's conviction of Saking for estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code.
• Penalties: Whether the penalties imposed by the CA should be modified in light of R.A. No. 10022 and R.A. No. 10951.

• Illegal Recruitment: Yes. Both elements were proven: Saking had no valid POEA license or authority, and he undertook recruitment activities by advertising and promising employment abroad for a placement fee.
• Estafa: Yes. All four elements were present: Saking falsely pretended to possess the power to facilitate overseas employment, the pretense was made prior to and simultaneously with the collection of fees, Palasi relied on the misrepresentation and parted with his money and van, and Palasi suffered damage.
• Penalties: Yes, modified. The penalty for illegal recruitment was adjusted to 12 years and 1 day to 14 years and a fine of ₱1,000,000.00 pursuant to R.A. No. 10022; the penalty for estafa was adjusted to 2 months and 1 day of arresto mayor to 1 year and 1 day of prision correccional pursuant to R.A. No. 10951.

• Illegal Recruitment: The Court emphasized that in a Rule 45 petition, it does not review factual questions, and the factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the CA, are binding and entitled to utmost respect. The first element — absence of a valid license — was established by the POEA certification and the testimony of the POEA Regional Extension Unit coordinator. Saking's challenge to the certification's authenticity failed because, under Rule 130, Section 23, entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated, and under Section 7, the contents of a document in the custody of a public officer may be proved by a certified copy. The prosecution established that Atty. Oropillo-Simon issued the certification in her official capacity after verifying the information through the internal POEA messaging platform. The second element — undertaking recruitment activities — was satisfied by Palasi's testimony that Saking told him he needed workers for Australia and required a placement fee of ₱300,000.00. Saking's admission in the petition that he represented to Palasi the existence of a job opportunity in Australia confirmed that he held himself out as someone who could, at the very least, process placement for overseas work. The Court rejected Saking's factual claims about who initiated the conversation and whether he alone had the power to deploy, as these were factual matters beyond the scope of review. Inconsistencies in Palasi's testimony regarding Practice Agency were deemed minor and collateral, reinforcing rather than weakening credibility.

• Estafa: The Court applied the doctrine that the same set of facts establishing illegal recruitment may also support a conviction for estafa, because illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum while estafa is mala in se, requiring criminal intent. All four elements of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) were present: (1) Saking falsely pretended to possess the power to help Palasi work in Australia; (2) the false pretense was executed prior to and simultaneously with the collection of fees; (3) Palasi relied on the misrepresentation in good faith, parting with his van and ₱100,000.00; and (4) Palasi suffered damage. The Court rejected Saking's argument that the absence of receipts negated the element of damage, citing People vs. Gonzales-Flores for the principle that receipts are not indispensable in proving damage in illegal recruitment and estafa cases. Credible testimonies suffice, especially where the accused's illegal and illegitimate operations would naturally preclude the issuance of receipts. The trial court's appreciation of Palasi's testimony, having had the opportunity to assess credibility firsthand, was entitled to the highest respect.

• Penalties: For illegal recruitment, the Court applied Section 7(a) of R.A. No. 8042 as amended by R.A. No. 10022, which provides imprisonment of 12 years and 1 day to 20 years and a fine of ₱1,000,000.00 to ₱2,000,000.00. With no modifying circumstances and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court imposed 12 years and 1 day to 14 years and a fine of ₱1,000,000.00. For estafa, the defrauded amount of ₱85,000.00 falls under the third penalty category of Article 315 as amended by R.A. No. 10951 (over ₱40,000.00 but not exceeding ₱1,200,000.00), warranting arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period. Following People vs. Mandelma, with no mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the maximum penalty was set at 1 year and 1 day of prision correccional, and the minimum at 2 months and 1 day of arresto mayor. Legal interest of 6% per annum was imposed on the ₱85,000.00 from filing of the Information until finality, and 6% per annum on the total amount from finality until full payment, pursuant to Nacar vs. Gallery Frames.

• Elements of Illegal Recruitment — To sustain a conviction for illegal recruitment under R.A. No. 8042 in relation to the Labor Code, the prosecution must establish two elements: (1) the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable one to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers; and (2) the offender undertakes any of the activities within the meaning of recruitment and placement defined in Article 13(b) of the Labor Code, or any of the prohibited practices enumerated under Section 6 of R.A. No. 8042. Both elements were proven: Saking lacked a POEA license, and he advertised and promised employment abroad for a placement fee.

• Dual Conviction for Illegal Recruitment and Estafa — A person may be charged and convicted for both illegal recruitment and estafa arising from the same facts, because illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum (where criminal intent is not necessary) while estafa is mala in se (where criminal intent is imperative). The same set of facts establishing liability for illegal recruitment may be the basis of culpability for estafa.

• Elements of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) — The elements are: (1) a false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means; (2) such false pretense was made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; (3) the offended party relied on the false pretense and was induced to part with money or property; and (4) as a result, the offended party suffered damage. All four were satisfied by Saking's misrepresentation of his ability to facilitate overseas employment, Palasi's reliance thereon, and the resulting loss of ₱100,000.00 and his vehicle.

• Binding Factual Findings in Rule 45 — Factual findings of the trial court, particularly when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding upon the Supreme Court and entitled to utmost respect and finality, absent palpable error warranting reversal. This principle limits the scope of review in a Petition for Review on Certiorari, which is generally confined to questions of law.

• Inconsistencies in Testimony — Inconsistencies in testimony referring only to minor details and collateral matters do not affect the substance of a witness's declaration, veracity, or the weight of testimony; such inconsistencies reinforce rather than weaken credibility and suggest the witness is telling the truth.

• Receipts Not Indispensable — The failure of a complainant to present receipts evidencing payments is not fatal to the prosecution's case in illegal recruitment and estafa. As long as the prosecution establishes through credible testimonies and affidavits that the accused was involved in the prohibited recruitment, a conviction can be justified, particularly where the accused's illegal operations would naturally preclude the issuance of receipts.

• Public Documents as Prima Facie Evidence — Under Rule 130, Section 23, documents consisting of entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. Under Section 7, when the original of a document is in the custody of a public officer, its contents may be proved by a certified copy issued by the public officer in custody thereof.

• "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." — This passage articulates the doctrinal basis for dual conviction, explaining the distinct legal characters of the two offenses that permit cumulative prosecution from the same facts.

• "The failure of complainants to present receipts to evidence payments made to accused-appellant is not fatal to the prosecution case. The presentation of the receipts of payments is not necessary for the conviction of accused-appellant. As long as the prosecution is able to establish through credible testimonies and affidavits that the accused-appellant was involved in the prohibited recruitment, a conviction for the offense can very well be justified." — This quotation, drawn from People vs. Gonzales-Flores and applied in the case, establishes the principle that receipts are not indispensable to prove payment and damage in illegal recruitment and estafa prosecutions.

• "Time and again this Court has held that inconsistencies in the testimony of witnesses when referring only to minor details and collateral matters do not affect either the substance of their declaration, their veracity, or the weight of their testimony. Such inconsistencies reinforce rather than weaken their credibility and suggest that they are telling the truth." — This is the canonical formulation of the doctrine on minor inconsistencies in witness testimony, frequently cited in Philippine jurisprudence on credibility.

• People vs. Racho, 819 Phil. 137 (2017) — Followed. Established that a person may be charged and convicted for both illegal recruitment and estafa, as illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum while estafa is mala in se.
• People vs. Gonzales-Flores, 408 Phil. 855 (2001) — Followed. Held that the failure to present receipts is not fatal to the prosecution's case in illegal recruitment and estafa; credible testimonies suffice to establish payment and damage.
• People vs. Estrada, 826 Phil. 894 (2018) — Followed. Articulated the two elements of illegal recruitment under R.A. No. 8042 in relation to the Labor Code.
• Franco vs. People, 658 Phil. 600 (2011) — Followed. Enumerated the four elements of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code.
• People vs. Mandelma, G.R. No. 238910, July 20, 2022 — Followed. Provided guidance on computing the penalty for estafa under Article 315 as amended by R.A. No. 10951, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
• Nacar vs. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267 (2013) — Followed. Basis for imposing 6% per annum legal interest on the monetary award from finality of judgment until full payment.
• Sumalpong vs. Court of Appeals, 335 Phil. 1218 (1997) — Followed. Doctrine on minor inconsistencies in witness testimony not affecting credibility.

• Section 6, R.A. No. 8042 (Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995), as amended by R.A. No. 10022 — Defines illegal recruitment as any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers, including referring, contract services, promising or advertising for employment abroad, when undertaken by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority. Applied to establish that Saking, having no POEA license, engaged in illegal recruitment by promising and advertising employment abroad for a fee.
• Section 7, R.A. No. 8042, as amended by Section 6 of R.A. No. 10022 — Provides the penalties for illegal recruitment: imprisonment of 12 years and 1 day to 20 years and a fine of ₱1,000,000.00 to ₱2,000,000.00. Applied to modify the penalty imposed by the CA, resulting in an indeterminate sentence of 12 years and 1 day to 14 years and a fine of ₱1,000,000.00.
• Article 315, paragraph 2(a), Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 10951 — Penalizes estafa committed by falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business, or imaginary transactions. Applied to convict Saking, with the penalty adjusted to 2 months and 1 day of arresto mayor to 1 year and 1 day of prision correccional, given the defrauded amount of ₱85,000.00.
• Rule 130, Section 23, Rules of Court — Provides that documents consisting of entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. Applied to uphold the admissibility and probative value of the POEA certification.
• Rule 130, Section 7, Rules of Court — Provides that when the original of a document is in the custody of a public officer, its contents may be proved by a certified copy issued by the public officer in custody thereof. Applied to sustain the authentication of the POEA certification through the POEA coordinator.
• Article 13(b), Labor Code — Defines recruitment and placement as any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers, including referring, contract services, promising, or advertising for employment. Applied as the statutory basis for the second element of illegal recruitment.

Leonen, SAJ (Chairperson), Lazaro-Javier, M. Lopez, and Kho, Jr., JJ., concurred.