People vs. Delos Reyes

A person may be convicted separately of illegal recruitment under RA 8042 and estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code for the same acts, provided the elements of each offense are independently established; illegal recruiters need not expressly represent themselves as having the ability to send workers abroad, as it is sufficient that they give the impression of such ability to induce payment of fees.

Merceditas Matheus Delos Reyes was the Overseas Marketing Director of All Care Travel & Consultancy (Hongkong), with All Care Travel & Consultancy (Philippines) as its affiliate. She claimed to hold a professional license as an Electronics Communication Engineer issued in 1990. Six complainants — Thelma Suratos, Glenda Guillarte, Merly Alayon, Celso Bagay Jr., Rogelio Duldulao, and Doriza Gloria — filed affidavit-complaints against her, alleging that she promised them overseas employment in exchange for placement fees. Republic Act No. 8042, the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipino Act of 1995, criminalizes illegal recruitment activities undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of authority, with illegal recruitment committed against three or more persons classified as large scale and considered an offense involving economic sabotage.

Merceditas Matheus Delos Reyes was charged with six counts of Estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code and one count of Large Scale Illegal Recruitment under Republic Act No. 8042, based on affidavit-complaints filed by six individuals: Thelma Suratos, Glenda Guillarte, Merly Alayon, Celso Bagay Jr., Rogelio Duldulao, and Doriza Gloria. The Informations alleged that the accused-appellant, conspiring with others, represented herself as having the power and capacity to recruit and employ workers for deployment abroad, and induced the complainants to deliver various sums of money as placement fees, which she then misappropriated. The illegal recruitment Information charged that she recruited and promised employment abroad to all six complainants without securing the required license or authority from the Department of Labor and Employment, and that the crime was committed in large scale as it was perpetrated against three or more persons.

On January 15, 2003, Suratos went to an office in Cubao, Quezon City where she met the accused-appellant, who promised her a job in Cyprus as a caretaker. Suratos returned a month later and was given a machine copy of a visa as proof of a waiting job. She paid a total of PhP55,000, inclusive of passport and medical examination costs. After three months without deployment, Suratos demanded the return of her money but was told to wait. She later learned the accused-appellant had been detained. Sometime in the third week of March 2003, Alayon met the accused-appellant at the All Care Travel Agency in Cubao, where she was offered a job in Cyprus as laundry staff for PhP55,000. Alayon initially paid PhP15,000 on April 10, 2003, but when she returned to pay the balance, she discovered the accused-appellant had been picked up by the police. During the first week of December 2002, Duldulao was introduced to the accused-appellant through his wife's friend. The accused-appellant promised him a tourist visa for Spain in exchange for PhP45,000, and he ultimately paid a total of PhP29,000 through various installments and bank deposits. When he discovered she had been arrested in April 2003, he went to Camp Panopio to demand the return of his money, to no avail.

Bagay Jr. went to the accused-appellant's office, where she offered him a job as a dentist in London for an initial payment of PhP30,000, assuring him he would leave in three months. He submitted his resume, transcript of records, diploma, passport, and ID pictures, but was never deployed because he learned the accused-appellant was detained for illegal recruitment. In the third week of March 2003, Guillarte went to the accused-appellant's office and was promised work as a hotel staff member in Cyprus. She paid PhP55,000 as full payment, but deployment never materialized and her demand for a refund went unheeded. Private complainant Gloria did not testify.

For her part, the accused-appellant admitted being the Overseas Marketing Director of All Care Travel & Consultancy (Hongkong) and claimed she held a professional license as an Electronics Communication Engineer issued in 1990. She asserted she was out of the country from January 2003 to February 2003 and returned on June 4, 2003. She claimed she did not know Suratos, Guillarte, Alayon, Bagay Jr., and Gloria, and although she knew Duldulao, she did not promise him any job. She denied signing or issuing any receipt using the name "Manzie delos Reyes" and denied engaging in recruitment activities. At pre-trial, she admitted she had no license to recruit workers for overseas employment. On rebuttal, the prosecution presented PRC Chief Perla Sayana, who testified that "Merceditas Matheus" does not appear in the PRC's database and is not a licensed Electronics Communication Engineer. Bureau of Immigration confidential agent Rustico Romero testified that based on the BOI database, the name "Merceditas Matheus" did not leave the country from January 31, 2003 to June 18, 2003, contradicting her alibi.

• No Promise or Representation of Recruitment Ability: Accused-appellant maintained that she could not be held liable for illegal recruitment and Estafa since she never made any promise or gave the impression of having the ability to send the complainants abroad.
• Receipts Not Signed by Her: She averred that the cash vouchers and letters acknowledging receipt of complainants' payments were not signed by her but by a certain "Manzie Delos Reyes."
• Not Engaged in Recruitment Activities: She argued that she did not engage in recruitment activities as defined by law, since All Care Travel & Consultancy (Philippines) is engaged in visa applications, not recruitment.
• Did Not Know Complainants: She claimed she did not know complainants Suratos, Guillarte, Alayon, and Bagay Jr.

• Sufficiency of Prosecution Evidence: The OSG countered that the RTC correctly convicted the accused-appellant of Large Scale Illegal Recruitment and Estafa, the prosecution having adduced sufficient evidence to establish her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Whether the accused-appellant was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale and Estafa.

• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Yes. The conviction for both Large Scale Illegal Recruitment and five counts of Estafa was affirmed, all elements of each offense having been established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The decision was modified to impose 6% per annum legal interest on all monetary awards from the date the Informations were filed until full payment.

• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: The offense of illegal recruitment in large scale requires three elements: (1) the accused undertook any recruitment activity as defined under Section 6 of RA 8042; (2) the accused did not have the license or authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment of workers; and (3) the accused committed the same against three or more persons individually or as a group. All three were satisfied. First, the RTC found — and the CA affirmed — that the accused-appellant promised the private complainants overseas employment for a fee, constituting recruitment activity. Factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the CA, are binding and conclusive. The accused-appellant had even stipulated at pre-trial that she knew the private complainants and received money from them for deployment abroad, and issued receipts to them. The absence of receipts cannot defeat a prosecution for illegal recruitment. Illegal recruiters need not expressly represent themselves as having the ability to send workers abroad; it is enough that they give the impression of such ability to induce payment. Second, a March 1, 2004 POEA Certification confirmed she had neither license nor authority, which she admitted at pre-trial. Third, five complainants — Suratos, Guillarte, Alayon, Bagay Jr., and Duldulao — charged her with illegal recruitment, satisfying the "three or more persons" requirement. For Estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the RPC, the elements are: (1) the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit; and (2) the offended party suffered damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation. The accused-appellant deceived the complainants into believing she had the authority and capability to send them abroad, using fictitious names such as "Manzie Delos Reyes" and "Manzie Matheus" in her transactions, falsely pretending she possessed the power, influence, and capacity to employ them abroad or procure visas. A person may be convicted separately of illegal recruitment and estafa for the same acts. Her defense of alibi — that she was out of the country from January to February 2003 — was belied by BOI records showing she did not leave the country during the relevant period, and her claim of being a licensed Electronics Communication Engineer was refuted by PRC records showing no such license existed under her name.

• Elements of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale — The offense requires: (1) the person charged undertook any recruitment activity as defined under Section 6 of RA 8042; (2) the accused did not have the license or authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment of workers; and (3) the accused committed the same against three or more persons individually or as a group. All three elements were found present in this case.
• Impression of Recruitment Ability — Illegal recruiters need not expressly represent themselves as having the ability to send workers abroad. It is sufficient that they give the impression that they have the ability to enlist workers for job placement abroad in order to induce the latter to tender payment of fees.
• Separate Conviction for Illegal Recruitment and Estafa — A person, for the same acts, may be convicted separately of illegal recruitment under RA 8042 or the Labor Code, and estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code.
• Binding Nature of Trial Court Factual Findings — The matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness stand is best performed by the trial judge, who has the unmatched opportunity to observe witnesses and assess their credibility. When these findings are affirmed by the CA, they are generally binding and conclusive upon the Supreme Court.
• Absence of Receipts Does Not Defeat Prosecution — The absence of receipts cannot defeat a criminal prosecution for illegal recruitment.
• Legal Interest on Monetary Awards — Legal interest at the rate of 6% per annum is imposed on money judgments in criminal cases from the time of demand, deemed as the date the Informations were filed, until the amounts are fully paid.

• "Illegal recruiters need not even expressly represent themselves to the victims as persons who have the ability to send workers abroad. It is enough that these recruiters give the impression that they have the ability to enlist workers for job placement abroad in order to induce the latter to tender payment of fees." — This passage articulates the standard for establishing recruitment activity under RA 8042, lowering the threshold from express representation to mere impression of ability.
• "It is settled that a person, for the same acts, may be convicted separately of illegal recruitment under RA 8042 or the Labor Code, and estafa under Article 315 (2) (a) of the RPC." — This statement confirms the settled doctrine that illegal recruitment and estafa are distinct offenses that can both arise from the same set of facts, allowing separate convictions and penalties.
• "In this case, appellant committed estafa by using fictitious names, i.e., 'Manzie Delos Reyes', 'Manzie Matheus' in her transactions with private complainants, falsely pretending that she possessed power, influence, capacity to employ abroad or procure visas for them, making it appear that she had made transactions to acquire their entry permits and visas, thus, successfully inducing them to part with their money, albeit, knowing full [sic] well she had no authority or license to do so." — This passage from the CA, adopted by the Supreme Court, demonstrates how the use of fictitious names and false pretenses satisfies the deceit element of estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the RPC.

• People vs. Daud, G.R. No. 197539, June 2, 2014 — Cited for the elements of illegal recruitment in large scale under RA 8042.
• People vs. Credo, G.R. No. 197360, July 3, 2013 — Cited for the doctrine that the trial judge is best positioned to assess witness credibility, and that factual findings affirmed by the CA are binding on the Supreme Court.
• People vs. Manalili, G.R. No. 191253, August 28, 2013 — Cited in support of the binding nature of trial court factual findings when affirmed by the CA.
• People vs. Sagaydo, 395 Phil. 538 (2000) — Cited for the proposition that absence of receipts cannot defeat a prosecution for illegal recruitment.
• People vs. Ganigan, G.R. No. 178204, August 20, 2008 — Cited for the doctrine that illegal recruiters need only give the impression of having the ability to enlist workers abroad.
• People vs. Tolentino, G.R. No. 208686, July 1, 2015 — Cited for the doctrine allowing separate convictions for illegal recruitment and estafa for the same acts, and for the imposition of legal interest on monetary awards.

• Section 6, Republic Act No. 8042 (Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipino Act of 1995) — Defines illegal recruitment as any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers, including referring, contract services, promising or advertising for employment abroad, whether for profit or not, when undertaken by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority. Applied to establish that the accused-appellant's promises of overseas employment constituted recruitment activity.
• Section 7(b), Republic Act No. 8042 — Prescribes the penalty for illegal recruitment in large scale, which is considered an offense involving economic sabotage. The accused-appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of PhP1,000,000 under this provision.
• Article 315(2)(a), Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes estafa committed by means of fictitious names or false pretenses. The accused-appellant was convicted of five counts of estafa under this article for deceiving complainants into paying placement fees through false representations and use of fictitious names.

Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Diosdado M. Peralta, Lucas P. Bersamin, and Bienvenido L. Reyes concurred in the decision.