People of the Philippines vs. Inovero

A person who conspires in illegal recruitment committed in large scale is equally criminally liable with the other conspirators and is solidarily liable to the victims for the return of the amounts paid as placement, training, and processing fees, regardless of the extent of her participation or actual receipt of the amounts.

HARVEL International Talent Management and Promotion (HARVEL) maintained an office at Unit 509 Cityland Condominium, Makati City, and represented itself as recruiting caregivers for Japan. Maricar B. Inovero was charged alongside Ma. Harleta Velasco y Briones, Marissa Diala, and Berna M. Paulino. The Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 (Republic Act No. 8042) governs overseas recruitment and penalizes illegal recruitment, with large-scale illegal recruitment classified as economic sabotage. The POEA Licensing Branch is the government office that certifies whether an entity or person is authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment.

HARVEL International Talent Management and Promotion (HARVEL) maintained an office at Unit 509 Cityland Condominium, Makati City, and held itself out as recruiting caregivers for Japan. Maricar B. Inovero was charged with Ma. Harleta Velasco y Briones, Marissa Diala, and Berna M. Paulino for illegal recruitment and estafa. Only Inovero was arrested and prosecuted; the other accused remained at large.

Sometime in December 2002, Teresa Marbella applied for the position of janitress at HARVEL. She was required to submit documents and to pay a total of P20,000.00 as processing fee. After paying, Diala and Inovero promised her and the other applicants deployment in three months or in June 2003, but the promised deployment never materialized, and she later learned that HARVEL was not licensed to recruit workers.

On February 7, 2003, Danilo Brizuela went to HARVEL's office in Makati to inquire about the requirements and hiring procedure for a caregiver in Japan. Diala told him the amount required as processing fee and the documents to be submitted. On March 7, 2003, he submitted the required documents and payments, which Paulino received. He underwent training and medical examination and attended an orientation conducted by Inovero, who advised him and his batchmates on what clothes to wear on the day of departure and assured them of deployment in the first week of June 2003. On the eve of his supposed pre-departure orientation seminar, however, Paulino texted him that the seminar was cancelled because Inovero, who had the applicants' money, did not show up. He was not deployed, and his money was not returned as promised. On cross-examination, Brizuela testified that Inovero conducted the orientation and represented to the applicants that she was often at the Japanese Embassy expediting their visas.

On May 20, 2003, Novesa Baful, together with her sister-in-law, went to HARVEL upon learning that recruitment for caregivers to Japan was ongoing. She met Inovero, Velasco, and Diala, and saw Inovero conducting a briefing on the applicants. Diala directed her to submit certain documents, to pay P2,500.00 as training fee and P30,000.00 as placement and processing fees, and to undergo physical examination. On June 6, 2003, after complying with the requirements and paying Diala P18,000.00 and P10,000.00, Baful was promised deployment within two to three months. Inovero briefed her and her co-applicants on what to wear on the day of departure. She was never deployed and later found out that HARVEL was not licensed to deploy workers for overseas employment.

On May 22, 2003, Rosanna Aguirre went to HARVEL to apply as a caregiver in Japan. Diala informed her that Inovero was one of the owners of HARVEL and that Velasco was its President. Aguirre paid P35,000.00 and submitted her documents, the receipt of which Diala acknowledged. Despite undergoing medical examination and several training seminars, she was not deployed to Japan, and she found out that HARVEL was not licensed to recruit workers. On May 28, 2003, Annaliza Amoyo also went to HARVEL to apply as a caregiver in Japan. Diala required her to submit certain documents, to undergo training and medical examination, and to pay P35,000.00 as placement and processing fees. After complying, she was never deployed as promised.

Mildred Versoza, a Labor and Employment Officer at the POEA Licensing Branch, testified that she prepared a Certification certifying that neither HARVEL nor Inovero was authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment as per the records of their office. In her defense, Inovero denied the allegations. She claimed that she was the niece of Velasco, the owner of HARVEL, but denied working there. She explained that she worked for her uncle, Velasco's husband, as an office assistant, and that two or three times a week she went to HARVEL on errands for her uncle, mainly serving food and refreshments during orientations. She denied receiving any money from the complainants or issuing receipts therefor.

The RTC acquitted Inovero of five counts of estafa but convicted her in Criminal Case No. 04-1562 of illegal recruitment in large scale. The CA affirmed, finding that Inovero conducted orientations and briefings, informed applicants of their salary and what to wear upon deployment, did not correct Diala's representation that she was one of HARVEL's owners, represented herself as expediting the release of the applicants' working visas for Japan, and had no license or authority to recruit for overseas employment as certified by the POEA. The CA concluded that Inovero committed illegal recruitment in large scale by giving the complainants the impression that she could send them abroad for employment despite having no license or authority to do so.

• Insufficiency of Evidence: Inovero contended that the trial court gravely erred in finding her guilty of the crime charged despite the prosecution's failure to establish her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• Lack of Employment with HARVEL: She insisted that she had not been an employee of HARVEL at any time and could be faulted only for her association with the supposed illegal recruiters.
• Transactions with Diala: She maintained that in all stages of the complainants' recruitment for overseas employment by HARVEL, the complainants had transacted only and directly with Diala.
• Insufficiency of POEA Certification: She argued that the POEA certification that she was not a licensed recruiter was not positive proof that she engaged in illegal recruitment.
• Defense of Denial: She denied complicity, claimed she merely ran errands for her uncle and served food and refreshments during orientations, and denied receiving money or issuing receipts.

• Sufficiency of Evidence for Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale: Whether the CA erred in affirming Inovero's conviction for illegal recruitment in large scale despite her claim that she was not an employee of HARVEL and that the complainants transacted only with Diala.
• Probative Value of POEA Certification: Whether the POEA certification that Inovero was not licensed to recruit for overseas employment was sufficient positive proof that she engaged in illegal recruitment.
• Conspiracy and Defense of Denial: Whether Inovero's denial and mere association with HARVEL could overcome the complainants' positive testimony and negate her participation in a conspiracy to commit illegal recruitment.
• Civil Liability and Solidarity: Whether Inovero should be held civilly liable, solidarily with her co-accused, for the amounts paid by the complainants, including interest, even though the RTC and CA did not adjudicate civil liability and the complainants did not appeal.

• Sufficiency of Evidence for Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale: No. The conviction was affirmed; the prosecution established the elements of illegal recruitment in large scale under Section 6 and Section 7 of Republic Act No. 8042, including acts of recruitment against three or more persons without license.
• Probative Value of POEA Certification: No. The certification proved lack of license; it was not the sole evidence, as complainants positively testified to Inovero's acts of recruitment.
• Conspiracy and Defense of Denial: No. Denial is weak and cannot prevail over positive assertions; conspiracy was established by her overt acts with co-accused.
• Civil Liability and Solidarity: Yes. As co-conspirator, Inovero is solidarily liable for restitution of amounts paid, plus 6% interest per annum from finality until full payment.

• Sufficiency of Evidence for Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale: The CA affirmed the RTC's factual findings, and the Supreme Court generally relies on such findings because the trial court had direct access to the evidence and observed the witnesses' demeanor. The appellant did not persuasively demonstrate clear error in the appreciation of evidence. The elements of illegal recruitment in large scale are: (1) the accused engaged in acts of recruitment and placement of workers as defined under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code or in any prohibited activities under Article 34; (2) the accused did not comply with the guidelines issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment on securing a license or authority to recruit and deploy workers; and (3) the unlawful acts were committed against three or more persons. The evidence showed that Inovero conducted orientations and briefings, informed applicants of salary and clothing for deployment, did not correct the representation that she was an owner of HARVEL, represented herself as expediting visas, and was not licensed. These acts gave the complainants the impression that she could send them abroad for employment. Thus, the conviction was affirmed.

• Probative Value of POEA Certification: The POEA certification by Versoza established that neither HARVEL nor Inovero was authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment. It was not the sole basis for conviction; the complainants positively testified to Inovero's specific acts of recruitment. The certification supplied the element of lack of license or authority, while the testimonies established the acts of recruitment against three or more persons.

• Conspiracy and Defense of Denial: Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it under Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code. Inovero's overt acts with her co-accused—conducting orientations, briefing applicants, and participating in the recruitment process—demonstrated a common design to recruit the complainants without authority. Her denial was inherently weak and unreliable; denial is a negation of a fact and does not prevail over affirmative assertions. To be considered, denial must be substantiated by clear and convincing evidence. The complainants' positive and credible testimony outweighed her mere denial. Thus, conspiracy and her criminal liability were established beyond reasonable doubt.

• Civil Liability and Solidarity: Every person criminally liable is also civilly liable under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, and this applies to violations of special laws through Article 10 of the Revised Penal Code. Civil liability includes restitution, reparation of damage caused, and indemnification for consequential damages under Article 104 of the Revised Penal Code. Under Section 1, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court, the civil action for recovery of civil liability arising from the offense is deemed instituted with the criminal action unless waived, reserved, or instituted separately. Illegal recruitment involving transfer of funds is inherently in fraud of the victims, so civil liability includes the return of amounts paid as placement, training, and processing fees. Although the RTC and CA omitted civil liability, the Supreme Court, as the final reviewing tribunal, has the authority and duty to correct the omission even if the complainants did not appeal; Section 2, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court requires the judgment of conviction to state the civil liability. As a co-conspirator, Inovero's liability is solidary. Article 1207 of the Civil Code provides that solidary liability exists when the law or nature of the obligation requires it. A co-conspirator's civil liability is similar to that of a joint tortfeasor under Article 2194 of the Civil Code; joint tortfeasors are solidarily liable for the resulting damage, each liable as a principal for the entire injury, with no contribution and no pro rata apportionment. Thus, Inovero is solidarily liable for the amounts paid by the complainants regardless of whether she actually received them or whether her co-accused remain untried. Under Article 2211 of the Civil Code, interest may be adjudicated in criminal proceedings in the court's discretion; the Court imposed 6% per annum from finality until full payment.

• Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale — Illegal recruitment in large scale has the following elements: (1) the accused engaged in recruitment and placement of workers as defined under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code or any prohibited activities under Article 34; (2) the accused did not comply with the guidelines on securing a license or authority to recruit and deploy workers; and (3) the unlawful acts were committed against three or more persons. The Court applied this to Inovero, finding she gave complainants the impression she could send them abroad despite having no license, against five complainants.
• Conspiracy — Under Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code, conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. The Court found Inovero conspired with her co-accused based on her overt acts in the recruitment process, making her equally criminally liable.
• Denial as a Defense — Denial is inherently weak and unreliable; it does not prevail over positive assertions and must be substantiated by clear and convincing evidence. The Court rejected Inovero's denial in light of the complainants' credible testimony.
• Civil Liability Ex Delicto — Every person criminally liable is also civilly liable; civil liability includes restitution, reparation, and indemnification. The civil action is deemed instituted with the criminal action unless waived, reserved, or separately instituted. The Court corrected the lower courts' omission and awarded actual damages for fees paid.
• Solidary Liability of Co-Conspirators — Co-conspirators are solidarily liable for the civil liability arising from the crime, similar to joint tortfeasors under Article 2194 of the Civil Code. Each is liable for the entire damage, and no contribution or pro rata apportionment is allowed. The Court held Inovero solidarily liable regardless of the extent of her participation or actual receipt of the amounts.
• Duty of Courts to Determine Civil Liability — Under Section 2, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court, a judgment of conviction must state the civil liability or damages caused by the wrongful act or omission unless enforcement by separate civil action has been reserved or waived. The Court reminded trial and appellate courts to avoid omitting reliefs to which parties are entitled and corrected the omission even without an appeal by the complainants.
• Interest as Damages in Criminal Proceedings — Under Article 2211 of the Civil Code, interest may be adjudicated in criminal proceedings in the discretion of the court. The Court imposed 6% per annum on the actual damages from finality until full payment.

• "The several accused in illegal recruitment committed in large scale against whom the State establishes a conspiracy are each equally criminally and civilly liable. It follows, therefore, that as far as civil liability is concerned each is solidarily liable to the victims of the illegal recruitment for the reimbursement of the sums collected from them, regardless of the extent of the participation of the accused in the illegal recruitment." — This opening passage states the core ruling on the equal criminal and solidary civil liability of co-conspirators in large-scale illegal recruitment.
• "In simplest terms, illegal recruitment is committed by persons who, without authority from the government, give the impression that they have the power to send workers abroad for employment purposes." — This passage, quoted from the CA, supplies the operative definition of illegal recruitment applied to Inovero's conduct.
• "Denial, essentially a negation of a fact, does not prevail over an affirmative assertion of the fact. Thus, courts – both trial and appellate – have generally viewed the defense of denial in criminal cases with considerable caution, if not with outright rejection." — This passage explains why Inovero's denial could not overcome the complainants' positive testimony.
• "It is, indeed, a basic tenet of our criminal law that every person criminally liable is also civilly liable." — This passage anchors the Court's correction of the lower courts' failure to adjudicate civil liability.

• People vs. Bensig, G.R. No. 138989, September 17, 2002, 389 SCRA 182, 194 — Cited in support of the rule that denial, as a negation of a fact, does not prevail over affirmative assertions and is viewed with caution or outright rejection.
• Bacolod vs. People, G.R. No. 206236, July 15, 2013, 701 SCRA 229 — Cited for the duty of courts to prescribe proper penalties and determine civil liability in judgments of conviction under Section 2, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court; the Court relied on it to correct the lower courts' omission.
• Far Eastern Shipping Company vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 130068, October 1, 1998, 297 SCRA 30, 84 — Cited for the rule that where concurrent causes produce an injury, each wrongdoer is responsible for the entire result and liable as though her acts were the sole cause.
• Lafarge Cement Philippines, Inc. vs. Continental Cement Corporation, G.R. No. 155173, November 23, 2004, 443 SCRA 522, 545 — Cited for the rule that joint tortfeasors are not liable pro rata and are jointly and severally liable for the whole amount.
• Sison vs. People, G.R. No. 187229, February 22, 2012, 666 SCRA 645, 667 — Cited for the award of interest as damages under Article 2211 of the Civil Code in criminal proceedings.
• Malvar vs. Kraft Food Phils., Inc., G.R. No. 183952, September 9, 2013; Chan, Jr. vs. Iglesia ni Cristo, Inc., G.R. No. 160283, October 14, 2005, 473 SCRA 177, 186 — Cited for the definition of joint tortfeasors as those who command, instigate, promote, encourage, advise, countenance, cooperate in, aid or abet the commission of a tort, or approve of it after it is done for their benefit.

• Section 6, Republic Act No. 8042 (Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995) — Defines illegal recruitment; Inovero was charged and convicted under this provision.
• Section 7, Republic Act No. 8042 — Penalizes illegal recruitment in large scale as economic sabotage; the RTC imposed life imprisonment and a P500,000.00 fine under Sections 6 and 7.
• Article 13(b), Labor Code — Defines recruitment and placement of workers; cited as part of the first element of illegal recruitment in large scale.
• Article 34, Labor Code — Lists prohibited activities; cited as part of the first element of illegal recruitment in large scale.
• Article 8, Revised Penal Code — Defines conspiracy; applied to hold Inovero equally liable with her co-accused.
• Article 100, Revised Penal Code — Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable; applied to impose civil liability despite the special law.
• Article 10, Revised Penal Code — Makes the Revised Penal Code supplementary to special laws; used to apply Article 100 to illegal recruitment under Republic Act No. 8042.
• Article 104, Revised Penal Code — Civil liability includes restitution, reparation of damage caused, and indemnification for consequential damages; applied to require return of fees.
• Section 1, Rule 111, Rules of Court (2000) — Civil action for recovery of civil liability arising from the offense is deemed instituted with the criminal action unless waived, reserved, or instituted prior; applied to allow the award of civil damages in the criminal case.
• Section 2, Rule 120, Rules of Court — Requires a judgment of conviction to state the civil liability or damages caused by the wrongful act or omission unless reserved or waived; the Court used this to correct the lower courts' omission.
• Article 1207, Civil Code — Solidary liability exists when expressly stated by law or required by the nature of the obligation; applied to co-conspirators.
• Article 2194, Civil Code — Joint tortfeasors are solidarily liable for the resulting damage; applied to Inovero as a co-conspirator.
• Article 2211, Civil Code — Interest as part of damages may be adjudicated in criminal proceedings in the court's discretion; applied to impose 6% per annum from finality.
• Article 1170 and Article 1171, Civil Code — Persons guilty of fraud in the performance of obligations are liable for damages, and responsibility arising from fraud is demandable in all obligations; cited because illegal recruitment involving transfer of funds is inherently in fraud of the victims.
• Section 8, Rule 117, Rules of Court — Provisional dismissal becomes permanent after two years for offenses punishable by imprisonment of more than six years without revival; applied to the dismissed cases.

Sereno, C.J., Leonardo-De Castro, Villarama, Jr., and Reyes, JJ., concur.