People vs. Dejolde, Jr.

Illegal recruitment in large scale is established when an unlicensed person recruits three or more complainants for overseas employment for a fee, and the defense of denial cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of credible prosecution witnesses; where RA 10951 adjusts the amount thresholds under Article 315 of the RPC, the penalty for estafa must be modified accordingly, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law to the amended ranges.

Moises Dejolde, Jr. was engaged in a business involving the processing of visa applications for individuals seeking to travel to the United Kingdom. The charges against him arose under Presidential Decree Nos. 19 and 2018 and Republic Act No. 8042 (Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995) for illegal recruitment, and under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code for estafa. During the pendency of the appeal, Congress enacted Republic Act No. 10951 on August 29, 2017, entitled "An Act Adjusting the Amount or the Value of Property and Damage on Which a Penalty is Based, and the Fines Imposed under the Revised Penal Code," which altered the penalty thresholds for estafa under Article 315 of the RPC and necessitated a re-examination of the penalties imposed by the Court of Appeals.

Sometime between January 2007 and March 2007, in Baguio City, Moises Dejolde, Jr. recruited several individuals — Fraulein Edoc, Naty Loman, Jessie Doculan, Olivia Gabol, Rosieline Marcos, and Jerry Diwangan — promising them employment as caregivers in the United Kingdom. He charged each of them ₱450,000.00 for the processing of their visas and the cost of plane fares. Naty Loman paid appellant ₱400,000.00, while Jessie Doculan handed over ₱450,000.00. Appellant represented to both complainants that he had the power, capacity, and influence to secure valid travel papers and documents enabling them to enter the United Kingdom legally.

The complainants later discovered that the visas appellant had provided were fake and that he was not authorized by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration to engage in recruitment. They demanded the return of their money. Appellant returned only ₱50,000.00 to Naty and ₱10,000.00 to Jessie, leaving unpaid balances of ₱350,000.00 and ₱440,000.00, respectively. Three informations were filed against appellant: one for illegal recruitment committed in large scale under Article 13(b) in relation to Articles 38(b), 34, and 39 of Presidential Decree Nos. 19 and 2018 and RA No. 8042, and two for estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code. Appellant pleaded not guilty to all charges.

At trial, the prosecution presented the testimonies of private complainants Naty Loman, Jessie Doculan, and Roseliene Marcos, who testified consistently that appellant had recruited them for overseas employment, collected substantial sums for visa processing and plane fares, and failed to deploy them. Appellant, for his part, denied that he had recruited the complainants for employment as caregivers. He testified that he was engaged in the business of processing student visa applications for those who wished to study in the United Kingdom, that the sums he received were for school tuition fees and the processing of student visas, and that he was unable to process their applications or refund their money because he was arrested. The RTC found the prosecution's version credible and convicted appellant on all charges; the CA affirmed with modification, increasing the fine for illegal recruitment. The Supreme Court found no reason to disturb the lower courts' factual findings, but modified the estafa penalties in light of RA 10951.

• Denial of Recruitment: Appellant denied that he recruited private complainants to work as caregivers in the United Kingdom, maintaining that his business involved processing student visa applications for those who wanted to study in the United Kingdom.
• Legitimate Purpose of Funds: Appellant argued that the sums of money he received from private complainants were for the payment of school tuition fees and the processing of student visas, not for overseas employment placement.
• Inability to Refund: Appellant asserted that he was unable to process their applications or refund their money because he was arrested.

• Sufficiency of Prosecution Evidence: Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant committed illegal recruitment in large scale and two counts of estafa.
• Credibility of Defense of Denial: Whether appellant's defense of denial can prevail over the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
• Modification of Estafa Penalties under RA 10951: Whether the penalties imposed by the Court of Appeals for the two counts of estafa should be modified in light of the enactment of RA 10951.

• Sufficiency of Prosecution Evidence: Yes. The prosecution proved through the positive testimonies of private complainants that appellant recruited them for employment as caregivers in the United Kingdom and collected money from them without the necessary license or authority from the POEA.
• Credibility of Defense of Denial: No. The defense of denial is inherently weak and cannot prevail over the affirmative declarations of credible witnesses, especially where it is unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence.
• Modification of Estafa Penalties under RA 10951: Yes. The penalties for estafa must be modified pursuant to RA 10951, which adjusted the amount thresholds under Article 315 of the RPC, such that for amounts over ₱40,000.00 but not exceeding ₱1,200,000.00, the penalty is arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period.

• Sufficiency of Prosecution Evidence: The Court reviewed the records and found that the prosecution, through its witnesses, established that appellant recruited private complainants for employment as caregivers in the United Kingdom and collected money from them in the process. The elements of illegal recruitment in large scale — recruitment of three or more persons, for a fee, without the necessary license or authority from the POEA — were satisfied. The elements of estafa — false pretenses or fraudulent representations made prior to or simultaneously with the fraud, inducing the complainants to part with their money, resulting in damage — were likewise established by the evidence of appellant's false representations that he could secure valid travel documents and his subsequent misappropriation of the funds received.

• Credibility of Defense of Denial: The Court views the defense of denial with disfavor, especially when unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence. Denial is inherently weak as self-serving negative evidence that cannot be given more evidentiary weight than the affirmative declarations of credible witnesses. Moreover, the Court accords great respect to the factual findings of trial courts, which are in the best position to assess the credibility of witnesses having had the opportunity to observe their demeanor during trial. The RTC's factual findings, as affirmed by the CA, were therefore undisturbed.

• Modification of Estafa Penalties under RA 10951: In view of the recent enactment of RA 10951, the penalties imposed by the CA for the two counts of estafa required modification. Article 315 of the RPC, as amended by RA 10951, now provides that the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed if the amount involved is over ₱40,000.00 but does not exceed ₱1,200,000.00. Since the amounts defrauded were ₱440,000.00 and ₱350,000.00, both falling within this range, and there being no mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the maximum penalty was set at one year and one day of prision correccional. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum term was set at arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods, yielding an indeterminate penalty of two months and one day of arresto mayor, as minimum, to one year and one day of prision correccional, as maximum, for each count of estafa. An interest rate of 6% per annum was likewise imposed on the actual damages from the date of finality of the Resolution until full payment.

• Defense of Denial as Inherently Weak — The defense of denial is viewed with disfavor by the Court, especially when not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence. It is inherently weak as self-serving negative evidence that cannot be given more evidentiary weight than the affirmative declarations of credible witnesses. In this case, appellant's bare denial that he recruited complainants for overseas employment — countered by the positive and consistent testimonies of three private complainants — was insufficient to overcome the prosecution's case.

• Respect for Factual Findings of Trial Courts — Factual findings of trial courts are accorded great respect because they are in the best position to assess the credibility of witnesses, having had the opportunity to observe their demeanor during trial. The Court found no reason to disturb the RTC's factual findings, which had been affirmed by the CA, that appellant was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged.

• Effect of RA 10951 on Pending Cases — RA 10951, which adjusted the amount or value of property and damage on which penalties under the RPC are based, applies to pending cases, requiring modification of penalties imposed under Article 315 of the RPC where the amounts involved fall within the amended thresholds. The Court applied the amended penalty ranges retroactively, reducing the estafa penalties from the higher ranges previously imposed by the CA.

• "The appeal is bereft of merit." — This terse pronouncement opens the Court's ruling on the merits, signaling that the conviction would be affirmed, with only the estafa penalties subject to modification under RA 10951.

• "Appellant's defense of mere denial could not prevail over the positive testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses as the Court often views with disfavor the defense of denial, especially if it is not substantiated by any clear and convincing evidence." — This passage articulates the controlling doctrine on the evidentiary weight of denial as a defense, explaining why the appellant's version was rejected.

• "It is an inherently weak defense as it is a self-serving negative evidence that cannot be given more evidentiary weight than the affirmative declarations of credible witnesses." — This is the canonical formulation of the principle that denial, as negative and self-serving evidence, is inferior to the affirmative testimony of credible witnesses — a doctrine frequently cited in Philippine criminal jurisprudence.

• "in view of the recent enactment of RA 10951, there is a need to modify the penalties imposed by the CA insofar as the two counts of estafa ... are concerned." — This passage establishes the Court's basis for applying RA 10951 retroactively to pending appeals, adjusting the estafa penalties to conform with the amended amount thresholds under Article 315 of the RPC.

• People vs. Chua, 695 Phil. 16 (2012) — Cited by the CA as basis for increasing the fine for illegal recruitment in large scale to ₱1,000,000.00 pursuant to Section 7 of RA 8042. The Supreme Court did not disturb this modification.

• People vs. Monteron, 428 Phil. 401, 409 (2002) — Cited for the proposition that the defense of denial is viewed with disfavor, especially when unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence.

• People vs. Nelmida, 694 Phil. 529, 564 (2012) — Cited for the principle that denial is inherently weak as self-serving negative evidence that cannot be given more weight than the affirmative declarations of credible witnesses.

• People vs. Tolentino, 762 Phil. 592, 613 (2015) — Cited for the settled rule that factual findings of trial courts are accorded great respect because they are in the best position to assess the credibility of witnesses.

• Article 13(b) in relation to Articles 38(b), 34, and 39, Presidential Decree Nos. 19 and 2018; Section 7, Republic Act No. 8042 (Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995) — These provisions define and penalize illegal recruitment in large scale. The Court affirmed the conviction, finding that appellant recruited six persons for overseas employment for a fee without the necessary license or authority from the POEA. The fine of ₱1,000,000.00 imposed by the CA pursuant to Section 7 of RA 8042 was sustained.

• Article 315, Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 10951 — Article 315 penalizes estafa committed by means of false pretenses or fraudulent acts. RA 10951, enacted on August 29, 2017, adjusted the amount thresholds: for amounts over ₱40,000.00 but not exceeding ₱1,200,000.00, the penalty is arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period. The Court applied this amended range to reduce the estafa penalties, imposing an indeterminate sentence of two months and one day of arresto mayor, as minimum, to one year and one day of prision correccional, as maximum, for each count.

• Indeterminate Sentence Law — Applied in determining the minimum and maximum terms of the indeterminate penalty for estafa. The minimum term was drawn from arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods (one month and one day to four months), and the maximum term from prision correccional in its minimum period (one year and one day), given the absence of mitigating or aggravating circumstances.

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno (Chairperson), Associate Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Associate Justice Francis H. Jardeleza, and Associate Justice Noel Gimenez Tijam concurred in the Resolution. No separate concurring opinions were written.