People vs. Calonzo

A person who, without a license or authority from the POEA, promises employment abroad to three or more persons for a fee and collects money from them is liable for illegal recruitment in large scale, and may simultaneously be convicted of estafa where the same acts constitute deceit and damage under the Revised Penal Code.

Reydante Calonzo operated a consultancy business under the name R.A.C. Business Agency, which was not licensed by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) to recruit workers for overseas employment. Five complainants — Bernardo Miranda, Danilo de los Reyes, Elmer Clamor, Belarmino Torregrosa, and Hazel de Paula — came from different localities and did not know one another prior to meeting at the house of Loreta Castañeda in Pasig, Metro Manila, where they first encountered Calonzo. The Labor Code, particularly Articles 13(b), 38, and 39, defines and penalizes recruitment activities undertaken by non-licensees, with illegal recruitment in large scale — committed against three or more persons — treated as an offense involving economic sabotage punishable by life imprisonment.

Sometime in February 1992, Danilo de los Reyes and his brother-in-law Belarmino Torregrosa met Reydante Calonzo at the house of Loreta Castañeda at No. 10 P. Burgos Street, Pasig, Metro Manila. In that meeting, Calonzo informed them that he could provide them employment abroad, particularly in Italy, for a fee. Calonzo was persuasive enough that De los Reyes and Torregrosa were quickly convinced. On 13 April 1992, De los Reyes gave Calonzo P50,000.00 and pledged his brother-in-law's Ford Fiera for P70,000.00 to come up with the P120,000.00 processing fee. Calonzo informed De los Reyes of a "scheduled" departure for Italy on 29 April 1992, but the departure never materialized, though Calonzo reiterated his promise.

On 1 May 1992, instead of being sent to Italy, De los Reyes and Torregrosa were billeted at Aloha Hotel along Roxas Boulevard. The following day, they boarded a plane that was supposed to take them to Italy, but they landed in Bangkok, where Calonzo said their visas for Italy would be processed. They stayed at P.S. Guest Hotel for one and a half months. While in Bangkok, Calonzo again collected money from them purportedly for visa expenses, and they incurred additional costs for food, accommodation, and overstaying penalties — De los Reyes paying 2,800 bahts to immigration authorities — only to discover that Calonzo had already returned to the Philippines. Stranded in a foreign country, they called Loreta Castañeda in Manila, who fetched them from Bangkok and brought them back to the Philippines. The day after their arrival, they went to Calonzo's office on Padre Faura, where Calonzo still insisted he would send them to Italy. The promises remained unfulfilled, and when they sought him out again, Calonzo had already absconded.

Hazel de Paula similarly met Calonzo and the other complainants at Castañeda's house. Convinced that she would be employed in Italy as a domestic helper, she gave Calonzo P120,000.00. Her passport was not yet available on 2 May 1992, so she left only on 6 May 1992, met by Calonzo at the airport and brought to P.S. Guest Hotel where her companions were already billeted. While in Bangkok, Calonzo asked her for additional money. Elmer Clamor, a 28-year-old resident of Gen. Trias, Cavite, gave Calonzo P120,000.00 for the same commitment to send him to Italy, and while in Bangkok gave an additional US$250.00. Bernardo Miranda, a construction worker from Talisay, Batangas, gave Calonzo P120,000.00 for processing his application for work in Italy, but like the others, he only reached Bangkok before the promised job, his money, and Calonzo all disappeared.

Torregrosa testified that he gave Calonzo a total of P100,000.00, though on cross-examination he stated the amount was given on 27 April 1992 rather than 13 April 1992 as De los Reyes testified; the receipt marked Exhibit A bears the date 13 April 1992. Torregrosa also claimed he gave Calonzo an additional US$100.00 while in Bangkok. Senior Labor Employment Officer Nenita Mercado of the POEA confirmed that neither Calonzo nor his R.A.C. Business Agency was authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment. The complainants verified this certification from the POEA after Calonzo absconded.

Calonzo admitted being engaged in the consultancy business through R.A.C. Business Agency but denied any involvement in recruitment activities. He admitted knowing Loreta Castañeda and Leticia Solis, who had sought his assistance regarding their real estate business. He denied knowing the complaining witnesses except De los Reyes and Torregrosa, who once visited his office. While he disclaimed the receipts presented by the prosecution as official receipts of R.A.C. Business Agency, he admitted that the signatures thereon were similar to his. The trial court found the positive testimonies of the five complainants, corroborated by receipts bearing Calonzo's signature and the POEA certification of non-licensure, sufficient to establish both illegal recruitment in large scale and estafa beyond reasonable doubt.

• Illegal Recruitment: Petitioner argued that the trial court erred in disregarding the testimony of Nenita Mercado, a POEA employee, who stated that their records indicated Calonzo never processed the complainants' applications for employment abroad. He concluded from this fact alone that he could not be deemed to have engaged in the recruitment of workers for employment abroad.
• Estafa: Petitioner contended that the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses because the amounts claimed to have been collected by him did not correspond to the amounts indicated in the receipts presented by the complaining witnesses.

• Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale: Whether the acts of Calonzo constituted illegal recruitment in large scale under Articles 13(b) and 38 of the Labor Code.
• Estafa: Whether Calonzo is guilty of five counts of estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code for defrauding the complainants through deceit.

• Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale: Yes. All three elements were satisfied: Calonzo undertook recruitment activities as defined under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code, he lacked the required license or authority from the POEA, and he committed the acts against five persons, satisfying the "large scale" requirement.
• Estafa: Yes. The elements of estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code — defrauding another by means of deceit and causing damage capable of pecuniary estimation — were established by the complainants' positive testimonies and the receipts bearing Calonzo's signature.

• Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale: Article 13(b) of the 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; any person or entity which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons is deemed engaged in recruitment and placement. Article 38 declares recruitment activities by non-licensees illegal, and illegal recruitment committed against three or more persons constitutes large scale, an offense involving economic sabotage. The Court found that Calonzo deluded complainants into believing that jobs awaited them in Italy by impressing upon them that he had the facility to send them abroad, even showing them his passport and bringing them to Bangkok under the pretense of processing visas. The POEA certified that neither Calonzo nor R.A.C. Business Agency was licensed to recruit workers for overseas employment, a fact Calonzo himself admitted. He recruited five workers, satisfying the "three or more persons" requirement. His denial of having received money from the complainants was rejected as self-serving and worthless against the positive testimonies of the five complainants, who testified that they gave their money to Calonzo through Loreta Castañeda, who in turn turned the amounts over to Calonzo in their presence. The receipts issued by R.A.C. Business Agency bearing Calonzo's signature corroborated their accounts, and Castañeda herself testified that all amounts were turned over to Calonzo. The absence of any showing of improper motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses further strengthened their credibility.

• Estafa: Citing People vs. Turda, the Court reaffirmed that conviction under the Labor Code for illegal recruitment does not preclude punishment under other statutes where other felonies are committed in the process. The elements of estafa, as stated in People vs. Romero, are: (a) that the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit, and (b) that damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party or third person. The complainants were misled into believing Calonzo could provide them employment in Italy, and as a result, they parted with their hard-earned money. In Criminal Cases Nos. 98850, 98851, 98852, and 98854, the amount defrauded from each complainant was P120,000.00; in Criminal Case No. 98853, the amount was P100,000.00. Under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, where the amount of fraud exceeds P22,000.00, the penalty prescribed is prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period, with one year added for each additional P10,000.00, the total penalty not to exceed twenty years. For the P120,000.00 cases, nine additional years were added to the maximum period, yielding a maximum imposable penalty of fifteen years, eight months, and twenty-one days to seventeen years of reclusion temporal medium. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum penalty falls within the range of prision correccional minimum to prision correccional medium. The trial court's imposed penalties were found to be properly within the imposable ranges. The discrepancy between Torregrosa's testimony on the date of payment and the date on the receipt was not deemed fatal, as the receipt itself bore the date of 13 April 1992.

• Elements of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale — Illegal recruitment in large scale is committed when: (a) the accused undertakes any recruitment activity defined under Article 13(b) or any prohibited practice enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code; (b) the accused does not have a license or authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers; and (c) the accused commits the same against three or more persons, individually or as a group. All three elements were found present in Calonzo's conduct toward the five complainants.
• Distinction Between Illegal Recruitment and Estafa — Conviction for illegal recruitment under the Labor Code does not preclude punishment for estafa under the Revised Penal Code where the same acts constitute the felonies defined therein. The two offenses are distinct, and the elements of each must be independently established.
• Credibility of Positive Testimonies Over Denial — Where prosecution witnesses have no improper motive to testify falsely, their positive assertions prevail over the bare denial of the accused. The absence of evidence as to an improper motive actuating the principal witnesses strongly tends to sustain that no improper motive existed and their testimony is worthy of full faith and credit.

• "The absence of evidence as to an improper motive actuating the principal witnesses of the prosecution strongly tends to sustain no improper motive existed and their testimony is worthy of full faith and credit. Accused-appellant's denial cannot prevail over the positive assertions of complainants who had no motive to testify falsely against her except to tell the truth." — This passage, quoting People vs. Villafuerte, articulates the doctrinal basis for rejecting the accused's denial in favor of the complainants' positive identification, a principle central to the Court's affirmance of the conviction.
• "Illegal recruitment in large scale is committed when a person '(a) undertakes any recruitment activity defined under Article 13(b) or any prohibited practice enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code; (b) does not have a license or authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers; and (c) commits the same against three or more persons, individually or as a group.'" — This passage sets out the three-element test for illegal recruitment in large scale, which the Court applied to sustain the conviction under the Labor Code.
• "where some other crimes or felonies are committed in the process, conviction under the Labor Code does not preclude punishment under other statutes." — This passage, drawn from People vs. Turda, establishes the principle that illegal recruitment and estafa may simultaneously arise from the same facts and be separately punished, a key rationale for affirming all six convictions.

• People vs. Villafuerte, G.R. Nos. 93723-27, 6 May 1994, 232 SCRA 225 — Followed for the proposition that the absence of improper motive on the part of prosecution witnesses strengthens their credibility, and that the accused's denial cannot prevail over their positive assertions.
• People vs. Comia, G.R. No. 109761, 1 September 1994, 236 SCRA 193 — Cited as the source of the three-element formulation for illegal recruitment in large scale.
• People vs. Turda, G.R. Nos. 97044-46, 6 July 1994, 233 SCRA 713 — Followed for the rule that conviction for illegal recruitment under the Labor Code does not preclude punishment for other felonies, such as estafa, committed in the process.
• People vs. Romero, G.R. Nos. 103385-88, 26 July 1993, 224 SCRA 755 — Cited for the elements of estafa: (a) defrauding another by abuse of confidence or deceit, and (b) damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation.

• 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; any person or entity offering or promising for a fee employment to two or more persons is deemed engaged in recruitment and placement. Applied to characterize Calonzo's promises of employment in Italy as recruitment activity.
• Article 38, Labor Code — Declares recruitment activities by non-licensees or non-holders of authority illegal; defines illegal recruitment by a syndicate or in large scale as an offense involving economic sabotage, with large scale committed against three or more persons. Applied to classify Calonzo's conduct as illegal recruitment in large scale constituting economic sabotage.
• Article 315, Revised Penal Code — Prescribes the penalty for estafa where the amount of fraud exceeds P12,000.00, with one year added for each additional P10,000.00 beyond P22,000.00, the total penalty not to exceed twenty years. Applied to compute the proper indeterminate penalties for each estafa count based on the amounts defrauded.
• Article 70, Revised Penal Code — Governs the successive service of sentences. Applied in the dispositive portion to regulate the service of the multiple prison terms imposed.

Padilla, Vitug, Kapunan, and Hermosisima, Jr., JJ., concurred.