People vs. Dela Concepcion

The absence of receipts issued by the accused in an illegal recruitment case is not fatal to their conviction if the prosecution establishes, through credible evidence, that the accused has engaged in illegal recruitment.

Mary Jane Dela Concepcion y Valdez, using aliases, represented herself as having the capacity to deploy workers abroad. From 2012 to 2014, she promised jobs in Italy and New Zealand to more than 30 individuals, collected placement and processing fees ranging from P15,000.00 to P80,000.00 per person, but failed to deploy any of them or return the money. She was charged with multiple counts of illegal recruitment under Republic Act No. 8042, as amended, and estafa under the Revised Penal Code.

• Nature of the Case: The accused-appellant was charged with multiple counts of illegal recruitment and estafa for promising overseas employment to numerous individuals, collecting fees, and failing to deploy them or reimburse the expenses.
• Prosecution's Version: Private complainants testified that accused-appellant, using aliases, met them at public places like Jollibee or restaurants. She promised jobs as caregivers, housekeepers, or factory workers in Italy or New Zealand with high monthly salaries. She collected fees for medical exams, document processing (e.g., DFA authentication, translation), and placement, ranging from P15,000.00 to P80,000.00. Payments were made in cash, via bank deposit, or by check. After payment, accused-appellant became unreachable or gave excuses, and no deployment occurred. One complainant (Oberez) received an acknowledgment receipt; others did not.
• Defense's Version: Accused-appellant denied recruiting anyone. She claimed she merely assisted complainants introduced by her co-accused, Villareal, in processing documents like medical exams and DFA authentication for a fee. She denied promising employment and stated she gave some money to Villareal.
• Lower Court Findings: The RTC found the prosecution's witnesses credible and their testimonies sufficient to prove illegal recruitment and estafa beyond reasonable doubt. The defense of mere document assistance was rejected.

• Insufficiency of Evidence: Petitioner argued that the prosecution failed to prove all elements of the crimes charged. She maintained that the complainants' allegations were bare and their affidavits were pro forma.
• Absence of Recruitment Activity: Petitioner contended that she did not engage in recruitment as defined by law. She insisted she only assisted in processing documents and did not give the distinct impression she had the power to deploy workers abroad, citing Darvin v. Court of Appeals.
• Lack of Receipts: Petitioner argued that the absence of receipts for most complainants was fatal to proving payment, a key element of the offenses.

• Credible Testimonial Evidence: Respondent countered that the consistent and credible testimonies of multiple private complainants sufficiently established that petitioner engaged in illegal recruitment activities and received payments, making the absence of receipts non-fatal, as held in People v. Alvarez.
• Elements Proven: Respondent argued that all elements of illegal recruitment (lack of license, performance of recruitment acts, and commission against three or more persons for large scale) and estafa (deceit, reliance, and damage) were proven through the complainants' detailed accounts.
• Non-Reimbursement as Illegal Recruitment: Respondent emphasized that under RA 10022, failure to reimburse expenses when deployment does not take place without the worker's fault constitutes illegal recruitment.

• Illegal Recruitment: Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant, a non-licensee, engaged in recruitment activities as defined by law and committed the same against three or more persons.
• Estafa: Whether the elements of estafa by means of deceit—false pretense, reliance by the offended party, and resulting damage—were sufficiently established.
• Evidentiary Weight: Whether the absence of receipts for most complainants is fatal to the prosecution's case.

• Illegal Recruitment: The conviction was upheld. All elements were present: (1) accused-appellant had no license or authority to recruit; (2) she performed recruitment acts by promising employment abroad and collecting fees for processing and deployment, giving the impression she had the capacity to deploy; and (3) she committed these acts against more than three persons, constituting large-scale illegal recruitment. The credible testimonies of the complainants, detailing the promises and payments, were sufficient proof.
• Estafa: The conviction was affirmed. The false pretenses—accused-appellant's representations that she could legally deploy workers—induced the complainants to part with their money. Reliance on these pretenses was evident, and damage resulted from the non-deployment and non-reimbursement of fees.
• Evidentiary Weight: The absence of receipts was not fatal. Following People v. Alvarez, the crime of illegal recruitment is proved by engagement in recruitment activities without a license, not by the issuance of receipts. The clear and convincing testimonial evidence of credible witnesses sufficed to establish the payments.

• Absence of Receipts in Illegal Recruitment — The absence of receipts issued by the accused is not fatal to a conviction for illegal recruitment, provided the prosecution establishes through credible testimonial evidence that the accused engaged in recruitment activities without the necessary license or authority. The crime is consummated by the engagement in prohibited recruitment acts, not by the mere signing of receipts.
• Elements of Estafa under Article 315(2(a) of the Revised Penal Code — The elements are: (a) a false pretense or fraudulent representation as to power, influence, qualifications, etc.; (b) such pretense was made prior to or simultaneous with the fraud; (c) the offended party relied on the pretense and was induced to part with money or property; and (d) the offended party suffered damage thereby.

• "The absence of receipts issued by the accused in an illegal recruitment case is not fatal to their conviction if the prosecution establishes, through credible evidence, that the accused has engaged in illegal recruitment." — This encapsulates the core evidentiary rule applied in the case.
• "[T]he act of non-reimbursement is included in the definition of illegal recruitment." — This highlights the specific prohibited act under RA 10022 that was violated.

• People v. Alvarez, 436 Phil. 255 (2002) — Cited as controlling precedent for the rule that the absence of receipts is not fatal to an illegal recruitment conviction if credible testimonial evidence establishes the recruitment activities.
• Darvin v. Court of Appeals, 354 Phil. 546 (1998) — Distinguished by the Court. In Darvin, the accused was acquitted due to insufficient evidence of recruitment promises. In contrast, the present case had multiple, credible testimonies that accused-appellant made specific promises of employment and collected fees for that purpose.
• People v. Imperio, G.R. No. 232623, October 5, 2020 — Cited for the elements of large-scale illegal recruitment under RA 8042.
• People v. Sison, 816 Phil. 8 (2017) — Cited for the elements of estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code.

• Section 6, Republic Act No. 8042 (Migrant Workers Act), as amended by Republic Act No. 10022 — Defines illegal recruitment and includes "failure to reimburse expenses incurred by the worker in connection with his documentation and processing for purposes of deployment, in cases where the deployment does not actually take place without the worker's fault" as a prohibited act. It also defines recruitment in large scale as that committed against three or more persons.
• Section 7, Republic Act No. 8042, as amended by Republic Act No. 10022 — Provides the penalties for illegal recruitment, specifying life imprisonment and a fine of not less than P2,000,000.00 nor more than P5,000,000.00 for illegal recruitment in large scale constituting economic sabotage.
• Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes estafa committed by means of deceit, such as using false pretenses or fraudulent representations to induce another to part with money or property.

• Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting
• Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando
• Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez
• Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr.