People of the Philippines vs. Marissa Bayker

An illegal recruiter may be held liable for both illegal recruitment committed in large scale and estafa, without risk of being placed in double jeopardy, provided that the accused has been charged under separate informations. The two crimes are entirely distinct from each other, not only because they are punished under different statutes but also because their elements differ.

Marissa Bayker was charged together with Nida Bermudez and Lorenz Langreo, the latter two being the operators of GNB Marketing Agency, an entity engaged in the placement of workers. The complainants — Virgilio Caniazares, Reynaldo Dahab, and Basilio Miparanum — were applicants for overseas employment who dealt with Bayker in the course of seeking deployment abroad. The statutory backdrop is Republic Act No. 8042, the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, which defines illegal recruitment and, under Section 6(m), classifies illegal recruitment committed by a syndicate or in large scale as an offense involving economic sabotage, prescribing for it the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of not less than P500,000.00 nor more than P1,000,000.00.

In January 2001, Virgilio Caniazares and Reynaldo Dahab met Marissa Bayker at the house of a friend in Makati City, where she represented herself as recruiting workers for overseas employment, probably as hotel porters in Canada. On January 27, 2001, Caniazares went to her residence in Pembo, Makati City and paid P4,000.00 for his medical examination, and she accompanied him to the Medical Center in Ermita, Manila for that purpose. On that same date, Dahab met her at the Guadalupe branch of Jollibee and paid P2,500.00 for his medical examination; a week later he underwent a three-day training in Mandaluyong City for which he paid another P2,500.00, after which she demanded a placement fee of P25,000.00. Unable to raise the amount, he never saw her again, and Caniazares soon called him to urge that he complain against Bayker at the PNP-CIDG.

On March 30, 2001, Bayker went to Caniazares's house to inform him that he would instead be deployed as a seaman, but that he had to pay P6,000.00 more; he paid the amount, for which she issued a receipt. Two weeks later she called him about his deployment on April 21, 2001. On the promised date, he went to her office at GNB Marketing in Makati but no one was around, so he proceeded to her house, where she told him that his seaman's application would not push through. The two then went to her office with all his certificates of employment, and it was there that she introduced him to her manager, Nida Bermudez, who promised his deployment in Hongkong within two weeks. Because he was never deployed, he went to the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration and learned that Bayker, Bermudez, and Lorenz Langreo had not been issued any license to recruit and place people overseas; he then charged all of them with illegal recruitment and estafa before the PNP-CIDG in Camp Crame, Quezon City.

Basilio Miparanum, Caniazares's cousin, met Bayker when Caniazares brought her to his house to borrow money for his placement fee. On that occasion she told Miparanum that she could help him find work abroad and that he could even leave ahead of Caniazares if he had the money. Convinced, he went to her residence on April 11, 2001 to apply as a seaman. On April 17, 2001, he delivered P6,000.00 to her for his seaman's book, and she asked for an additional P6,000.00 for the same book and P40,000.00 as placement fee. On April 20, 2001, he went to her office, where he met Bermudez; he handed P46,000.00 to Bayker, but it was Bermudez who issued the corresponding receipt. Bayker and Bermudez told him to wait for his deployment to Hongkong as an ordinary seaman within two weeks. When he followed up after two weeks, he was instead made to undergo training, for which he paid P2,700.00 for his certificate. Sensing that he was being defrauded, Miparanum filed his complaint at the PNP-CIDG.

In July 2001, the complainants went to Camp Crame to file their complaints against Bayker, Bermudez, and Langreo. PO3 Raul Bolido, together with SPO4 Pedro Velasco and Team Leader Police Inspector Romualdo Iringan, conducted an entrapment operation, preparing ten marked P100.00 bills dusted with ultraviolet powder and giving them to Miparanum. On July 23, 2001, the entrapment team proceeded with Miparanum to Jollibee-Guadalupe, where he was to meet Bayker; she was arrested immediately upon receiving the marked bills. The PNP Crime Laboratory examined her person for traces of ultraviolet powder, and the examination yielded a positive result.

Bayker denied the charges and pointed to Langreo and Bermudez as the persons who had operated GNB Marketing Agency. She claimed that she had met Miparanum at Jollibee-Guadalupe only for the purpose of bringing him to Bermudez, and that she had refused to receive the money he was handing to her because she had not demanded it, but that four policemen suddenly arrested her and one of them rubbed his arm against her forearm. The defense presented Adelaida Castel, who testified that she had known Bayker for almost five years, that she had been present during the meeting between Bayker and Caniazares and had not heard Bayker represent herself as a legitimate recruiter, that she had been present when Miparanum delivered the P40,000.00 to Bermudez, and that before the entrapment Caniazares had called their house three times to ask Bayker to accompany him to Bermudez's house; and Edith dela Cruz, who testified that she had known Bayker since March 2001 as a co-worker in a handicraft factory, that it was Langreo who had been the recruiter because he had recruited her own daughter, and that she knew nothing about the transactions between Bayker and the complaining witnesses. Dahab subsequently recanted his testimony and stated that he had only requested assistance from Bayker regarding his medical examination, that he had voluntarily paid P5,000.00 to her, and that she had then paid the amount to the Medical Center for his medical examination.

The trial court and the Court of Appeals both found that Bayker had personally promised the complainants overseas employment as hotel porters or seafarers despite having no license or authority from the POEA, that she had accompanied them to their respective medical examinations at their own expense, and that she had brought them to GNB Marketing and introduced them to her co-accused. Both courts likewise treated only the sum of P40,000.00 as the amount defrauded in the estafa case, although the records showed that Miparanum had paid an aggregate of P54,700.00.

• Limited Participation and Denial: The accused-appellant, Marissa Bayker, insisted on her innocence and pointed to Lorenz Langreo and Nida Bermudez as the persons who had directly engaged in illegal recruitment, arguing that her own participation had been limited to signing the receipts as a witness and to receiving payments for the medical examinations.
• Weakness of the Prosecution's Evidence: She assigned as error the lower court's finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the crimes charged despite the alleged patent weakness of the prosecution's evidence.
• Exculpatory Weight of the Defense: She assigned as error the lower court's failure to give exculpatory weight to the defense she interposed.
• Retraction by Dahab: She argued that the RTC and the CA had unreasonably disregarded the recantation by complainant Reynaldo Dahab, and that had the evidence been limited to the testimonies of Caniazares and Miparanum, she would have been liable only for simple illegal recruitment rather than illegal recruitment committed in large scale.

• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the conviction of the accused-appellant for the crimes of illegal recruitment in large scale and estafa.
• Exculpatory Weight of the Defense: Whether the lower court erred in not giving exculpatory weight to the defense interposed by the accused-appellant.
• Retraction by Dahab: Whether the lower court erred in not giving weight and credence to the retraction made by complainant Reynaldo Dahab.
• Double Jeopardy: Whether the conviction of the accused-appellant for illegal recruitment committed in large scale precluded her liability for estafa, or placed her in double jeopardy.
• Penalties: Whether the penalties imposed for illegal recruitment committed in large scale and for estafa were in accordance with law.
• Civil Liabilities: Whether the civil liabilities decreed by the lower courts should be corrected to reflect the actual aggregate amount defrauded and to include interest.

• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Yes. The conviction for illegal recruitment in large scale and estafa was affirmed, the prosecution having established the elements of both crimes beyond reasonable doubt.
• Exculpatory Weight of the Defense: No. Denial and self-serving assertions cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of the complainants, who had no ill motive to testify falsely against the accused-appellant.
• Retraction by Dahab: No. Recantation is generally not regarded by the courts, and Dahab's recantation did not weaken or diminish the prosecution's case against the accused-appellant.
• Double Jeopardy: No. Double jeopardy could not result from prosecuting and convicting the accused-appellant for both crimes, they being entirely distinct from each other both in the statutes punishing them and in their elements.
• Penalties: The penalties were modified. The fine for illegal recruitment was increased to P500,000.00, and the indeterminate penalty for estafa was fixed at four years and two months of prision correccional, as minimum, to nine years, eight months and 21 days of prision mayor, as maximum.
• Civil Liabilities: The awards were corrected. The accused-appellant must indemnify Caniazares P6,000.00, Dahab P2,500.00, and Miparanum P54,700.00, plus interest of 6% per annum from the finality of the decision until full payment.

• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Illegal recruitment is committed by a person who (a) undertakes any recruitment activity defined under Article 13(b) or any prohibited practice enumerated under Article 34 and Article 38 of the Labor Code, and (b) does not have a license or authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers. It is committed in large scale when committed against three or more persons individually or as a group. The Court of Appeals properly affirmed the conviction because the accused-appellant had committed acts of recruitment against at least three persons — Caniazares, Dahab, and Miparanum — despite not having been duly licensed or authorized by the POEA for that purpose. Her insistence on her very limited participation did not advance her cause, since the State established that she had personally promised foreign employment either as hotel porters or as seafarers to the complainants despite having no license or authority to recruit. The records made it clear that her participation was anything but limited: she herself accompanied the complainants to their respective medical examinations at their own expense, and she herself brought them to GNB Marketing and introduced them to her co-accused. The evidence established that, without any license or authority, she promised the complainants overseas employment, required them to undergo medical examination and training, and collected fees or payments from them while repeatedly assuring them that they would be deployed abroad. Even assuming that she never received any payment from the complainants, actual receipt of a fee is not an essential element of the crime of illegal recruitment but is only one of the modes for its commission; in any event, all the private complainants positively identified her as the person who recruited them and exacted money from them.

• Exculpatory Weight of the Defense: The accused-appellant's denial of participation in the illegal recruitment activities of Bermudez and Langreo did not gain traction from her charging her co-accused with sole responsibility for the recruitment of the complainants. Based on the testimonial narration of the complainants regarding their recruitment, she was unqualifiedly depicted as having the primary and instrumental role in recruiting them for overseas placement from the inception. Her claim of having been only casually associated with GNB Marketing did not preclude her criminal liability, because even the mere employee of a company or corporation engaged in illegal recruitment could be held liable, along with the employer, as a principal in illegal recruitment once it was shown that he had actively and consciously participated therein. This follows from the breadth of recruitment and placement, which includes any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, as well as referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not.

• Retraction by Dahab: Dahab's supposed recantation — to the effect that he had only sought the assistance of the accused-appellant for his medical examination — by no means weakened or diminished the prosecution's case. Its being made after he had lodged his complaint with the PNP-CIDG, in which he supplied the details of his transactions with her, and after he had testified in court directly incriminating her, rendered it immediately suspect. It should not be more weighty than his first testimony against her, which was replete with details. That it was the later testimony did not necessarily cancel the first testimony, on account of the possibility of its being obtained by coercion, intimidation, fraud, or other means to distort or bend the truth. Recantation is a frequent occurrence in criminal proceedings and, as a general rule, is not well regarded by the courts due to its nature as the mere afterthought of the witness; to be given any value or weight, it should still be subjected to the same tests for credibility, in addition to being received with caution. Otherwise, the criminal proceedings in which sworn testimony has been given would be rendered a mockery and put at the mercy of the unscrupulous witness, leaving without value not only the sanctity of the oath taken but also the solemn rituals and safeguards of the judicial trial. It is a dangerous rule to reject testimony taken before a court of justice simply because the witness who gave it later changed his mind for one reason or another.

• Double Jeopardy: The conviction for illegal recruitment committed in large scale did not preclude personal liability for estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code on the ground of double jeopardy. The elements of estafa as charged are: (1) the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit; and (2) the offended party, or a third party, suffered damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation. Illegal recruitment committed in large scale requires different elements. Double jeopardy could not result from prosecuting and convicting the accused-appellant for both crimes, considering that they were entirely distinct from each other not only in being punished under different statutes but also in their elements being different. The active representation by the accused-appellant of having the capacity to deploy Miparanum abroad despite not having the authority or license to do so from the POEA constituted deceit as the first element of estafa; her representation induced the victim to part with his money, resulting in damage, which is the second element. Considering that the damage resulted from the deceit, the affirmance of her guilt for estafa as charged was in order.

• Penalties: The penalty for illegal recruitment committed in large scale, pursuant to Section 7(b) of Republic Act No. 8042, is life imprisonment and a fine of not less than P500,000.00 nor more than P1,000,000.00. In light of that provision, the Court of Appeals patently erred in reducing the fine to P100,000.00, and the fine was accordingly increased to P500,000.00. As to estafa, Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code prescribes prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period if the amount of the fraud is over P12,000.00 but does not exceed P22,000.00, and provides that if the amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalty shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional P10,000.00, but the total penalty shall not exceed twenty years. The RTC took into consideration only the sum of P40,000.00, and the CA concurred, yet the records revealed that Miparanum paid not only P40,000.00 but the aggregate sum of P54,700.00 — the P6,000.00 for the seaman's book, the additional P6,000.00 for the seaman's book, the P40,000.00 placement fee, and P2,700.00 for his training certificate. That aggregate is the determinant of the penalty. Because the prescribed penalty does not consist of three periods, it is divided into three equal portions, each portion forming a period, with the maximum period being imposed; the floor of the maximum period — six years, eight months and 21 days — is fixed in the absence of any aggravating circumstance or any showing of the greater extent of the evil produced by the crime, to which is added the incremental penalty of one year for every P10,000.00 in excess of P22,000.00, or three years in all, yielding a total of nine years, eight months and 21 days of prision mayor as the maximum of the indeterminate sentence. The minimum is taken from prision correccional in its minimum period to prision correccional in its medium period, the penalty next lower to that prescribed by Article 315, which the Court of Appeals correctly fixed at four years and two months of prision correccional.

• Civil Liabilities: The civil liabilities as decreed by the RTC and upheld by the CA were corrected to reflect the actual aggregate amount to be restituted to Miparanum at P54,700.00. In addition, the accused-appellant was obliged to pay interest of 6% per annum on the respective sums due to each of the complainants, reckoned from the finality of the decision until full payment, considering that the amount to be restituted became determinate only through the adjudication.

• Illegal Recruitment — Elements — Illegal recruitment is committed by a person who (a) undertakes any recruitment activity defined under Article 13(b) or any prohibited practice enumerated under Article 34 and Article 38 of the Labor Code, and (b) does not have a license or authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers. Both elements were established against the accused-appellant, who promised overseas employment and collected fees without any POEA license or authority.
• Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale as Economic Sabotage — Under Section 6(m) of Republic Act No. 8042, illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large scale is considered an offense involving economic sabotage; it is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three or more persons individually or as a group. The accused-appellant's acts of recruitment against three complainants brought her within this classification.
• Actual Receipt of a Fee Is Not an Essential Element of Illegal Recruitment — Actual receipt of a fee is not an essential element of the crime of illegal recruitment but is only one of the modes for its commission. Thus, even assuming that the accused-appellant never received any payment from the complainants, her conviction for illegal recruitment would still stand, especially since all the complainants positively identified her as the person who recruited them and exacted money from them.
• Liability of a Mere Employee as Principal in Illegal Recruitment — Even the mere employee of a company or corporation engaged in illegal recruitment may be held liable, along with the employer, as a principal in illegal recruitment once it is shown that he actively and consciously participated in the illegal recruitment. The accused-appellant's claim of merely casual association with GNB Marketing did not preclude her liability.
• Scope of Recruitment and Placement — Recruitment and placement include any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, as well as referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not. This breadth supported the finding that the accused-appellant's acts, including accompanying the complainants to medical examinations and introducing them to her co-accused, constituted recruitment.
• Recantation — Recantation by a witness is a frequent occurrence in criminal proceedings and, as a general rule, is not well regarded by the courts due to its nature as the mere afterthought of the witness. To be given any value or weight, it must still be subjected to the same tests for credibility, in addition to being received with caution. A later recantation does not necessarily cancel the witness's earlier testimony, given the possibility that it was obtained by coercion, intimidation, fraud, or other means to distort or bend the truth. It is a dangerous rule to reject testimony taken before a court of justice simply because the witness later changed his mind.
• Double Jeopardy — Distinct Offenses Under Separate Informations — No double jeopardy results from prosecuting and convicting an accused for both illegal recruitment in large scale and estafa where the offenses are entirely distinct from each other, not only because they are punished under different statutes but also because their elements are different, provided the accused has been charged under separate informations.
• Estafa Under Article 315(2)(a), Revised Penal Code — Elements — The elements of estafa as charged are: (1) the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit; and (2) the offended party, or a third party, suffered damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation. The accused-appellant's representation of a capacity to deploy the victim abroad despite lacking POEA authority constituted deceit, and the victim's parting with his money constituted the damage.
• Penalty for Estafa with Incremental Penalty — Where the prescribed penalty does not consist of three periods, the penalty is divided into three equal portions, each portion forming a period, and the maximum period is imposed. The floor of the maximum period is fixed at six years, eight months and 21 days in the absence of any aggravating circumstance or showing of the greater extent of the evil produced by the crime, to which is added one year for every P10,000.00 in excess of P22,000.00, subject to the total penalty not exceeding twenty years.
• Interest on Civil Liability — Interest of 6% per annum is imposed on the sums due to each complainant, reckoned from the finality of the decision until full payment, where the amount to be restituted became determinate only through the adjudication.

• "An illegal recruiter can be liable for the crimes of illegal recruitment committed in large scale and estafa without risk of being put in double jeopardy, provided that the accused has been so charged under separate informations." — This is the ponencia's opening statement of the core ruling and the case's principal contribution to jurisprudence on the concurrence of illegal recruitment and estafa.
• "Double jeopardy could not result from prosecuting and convicting the accused-appellant for both crimes considering that they were entirely distinct from each other not only from their being punished under different statutes but also from their elements being different." — This states the ratio decidendi on the double jeopardy issue, grounding the distinctness of the offenses in both their statutory sources and their elements.
• "Recantation by a witness is nothing new, for it is a frequent occurrence in criminal proceedings. As a general rule, it is not well regarded by the courts due to its nature as the mere afterthought of the witness. To be given any value or weight, it should still be subjected to the same tests for credibility in addition to its being subject of the rule that it be received with caution." — This is the canonical formulation of the Court's treatment of recantation, explaining why Dahab's retraction did not diminish the prosecution's case.
• "The active representation by the accused-appellant of having the capacity to deploy Miparanum abroad despite not having the authority or license to do so from the POEA constituted deceit as the first element of estafa. Her representation induced the victim to part with his money, resulting in damage that is the second element of the estafa." — This passage applies the elements of estafa to the facts and explains why the same acts could sustain liability for estafa alongside illegal recruitment.

• Nasi-Villar vs. People, G.R. No. 176169, November 14, 2008, 571 SCRA 202 — Cited as authority for the elements of illegal recruitment, which the Court applied in affirming the conviction.
• People vs. Ortiz Miyake, G.R. Nos. 115338-39, September 16, 1997, 279 SCRA 180 — Cited, together with Nasi-Villar, for the definition and elements of illegal recruitment.
• People vs. Fernandez, G.R. No. 199211, June 4, 2014, 725 SCRA 152 — Cited in connection with the statutory definition of illegal recruitment committed in large scale under Section 6(m) of Republic Act No. 8042.
• People vs. Cabais, G.R. No. 129070, March 16, 2001, 354 SCRA 553 — Cited for the rule that even a mere employee of a company engaged in illegal recruitment may be held liable as a principal once shown to have actively and consciously participated in the illegal recruitment.
• People vs. Domingo, G.R. No. 181475, April 7, 2009, 584 SCRA 669 — Cited, with Francisco vs. NLRC, for the rule that recantation is generally not well regarded and must be subjected to the same tests for credibility and received with caution.
• Francisco vs. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 170087, August 31, 2006, 500 SCRA 690 — Cited alongside People vs. Domingo on the treatment of recantations.
• Flores vs. People, G.R. Nos. 93411-12, July 20, 1992, 211 SCRA 622 — Cited for the rule that it is dangerous to reject testimony taken before a court of justice simply because the witness later changed his mind, as such a rule would make a solemn trial a mockery.
• People vs. Tolentino, G.R. No. 208686, July 1, 2015 — Cited as authority for the elements of estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code.
• People vs. Ocden, G.R. No. 173198, June 1, 2011, 650 SCRA 124 — Cited in connection with the computation of the incremental penalty and the fixing of the floor of the maximum period.

• Section 6(m), Republic Act No. 8042 (Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995) — Defines illegal recruitment and provides that illegal recruitment committed by a syndicate or in large scale is an offense involving economic sabotage, and that illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three or more persons individually or as a group. Applied to classify the accused-appellant's acts against three complainants as large-scale illegal recruitment.
• Section 7(b), Republic Act No. 8042 — Prescribes the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of not less than P500,000.00 nor more than P1,000,000.00 where illegal recruitment constitutes economic sabotage. Applied to increase the fine imposed on the accused-appellant from P100,000.00 to P500,000.00.
• Article 13(b), Labor Code — Defines recruitment and placement as any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, including referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not. Applied to characterize the accused-appellant's acts as recruitment activity.
• Articles 34 and 38, Labor Code — Enumerate the prohibited practices constituting illegal recruitment. Cited as the statutory basis for the first element of the offense.
• Article 315(2)(a), Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes estafa committed with abuse of confidence or by means of deceit, and fixes the penalty according to the amount of the fraud, with an incremental penalty of one year for each additional P10,000.00 over P22,000.00, subject to a total penalty not exceeding twenty years. Applied to recompute the indeterminate sentence based on the aggregate amount of P54,700.00.
• Article 64, Rule 7, Revised Penal Code — Provides that within the limits of each period, the courts shall determine the extent of the penalty according to the number and nature of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and the greater or lesser extent of the evil produced by the crime. Applied to fix the floor of the maximum period at six years, eight months and 21 days.
• Article 65, Revised Penal Code — Governs the division of a penalty into three periods where the prescribed penalty does not consist of three periods. Applied in dividing the prescribed estafa penalty into three equal portions and imposing the maximum period.
• Section 13, Article VIII, 1987 Constitution — Requires the certification by the Chief Justice that the conclusions in the decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division. Invoked in the appended certification signed by Chief Justice Sereno.

Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno (Chief Justice), Teresita J. Leonardo-de Castro, Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, and Francis H. Jardeleza.