People vs. Fernandez

Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale when committed against three or more persons individually or as a group, and conviction for illegal recruitment under the Labor Code does not preclude punishment for estafa under the Revised Penal Code. For estafa penalties, the maximum period of the prescribed penalty of prision correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum must be computed by dividing the penalty range into three equal portions pursuant to Article 65 of the Revised Penal Code, and the incremental penalty for amounts exceeding ₱22,000.00 is added to the maximum period at the court's discretion.

The appellant was charged with illegal recruitment in large scale and five counts of estafa under the Labor Code and the Revised Penal Code, respectively. The Labor Code defines illegal recruitment as recruitment activities undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of authority, and imposes a higher penalty when the offense is committed in large scale, which is considered an offense involving economic sabotage. The complainants were individuals who sought employment abroad and were induced to pay placement fees to the appellant based on his representations that he could deploy them to Hongkong.

The appellant, Jeric Fernandez y Jaurigue, was charged with illegal recruitment in large scale and five counts of estafa committed against complainants Airene Etac, Jowel A. Baja, Joemar Aquino, Luis M. Bernardo, and Anthony M. Canlas. The appellant promised the five complainants that there were jobs available for them in Hongkong and that through his help, they could be deployed for work within a month or two. He exacted money from them for plane tickets, hotel accommodation, processing of visas, and placement fees.

The prosecution presented a Certification dated January 10, 2003 issued by Felicitas Q. Bay, Director II of the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA) Licensing Branch, showing that the appellant had no authority or license to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers. The RTC gave full faith and credence to the testimonies of the complainants that the appellant promised them employment abroad, and ruled that the appellant represented to the complainants that he had the power and ability to send them to Hongkong. By virtue of this representation and fraud, the complainants were convinced to part with their money in order to be employed. The trial court disregarded the appellant's defenses of denial and alibi.

The amounts defrauded were as follows: Etac was defrauded of ₱35,000.00; Baja of ₱29,550.00; Aquino of ₱45,800.00; Bernardo of ₱30,500.00; and Canlas of ₱29,550.00. The RTC sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment and a ₱100,000.00 fine for illegal recruitment in large scale, and to various indeterminate penalties for the five counts of estafa. The Court of Appeals upheld the convictions on appeal.

N/A — The decision does not recount the appellant's specific arguments on appeal beyond noting that he raised defenses of denial and alibi before the trial court, which were disregarded.

N/A — The decision does not separately recount the prosecution's arguments on appeal, as the People's position was upheld by the lower courts.

• Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale: Whether the prosecution sufficiently established the elements of illegal recruitment in large scale under Article 13(b) in relation to Article 34 of the Labor Code.
• Estafa: Whether the appellant's acts constituted estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code notwithstanding his conviction for illegal recruitment.
• Penalty Computation: Whether the penalties imposed for the five counts of estafa were correctly computed under the Indeterminate Sentence Law and Article 65 of the Revised Penal Code.

• Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale: Yes. The prosecution proved all three essential elements: the appellant undertook recruitment activities under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code, he had no license or authority to engage in recruitment and placement as shown by the POEA Certification, and he committed the offense against five persons individually.
• Estafa: Yes. The appellant's act of falsely pretending to possess power and qualifications to deploy the complainants to Hongkong, despite lacking the authority or license, constituted estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code, with the elements of deceit and damage clearly present.
• Penalty Computation: No. The RTC and the CA erred in computing the maximum period of the prescribed penalty; the maximum period of prision correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum is from 6 years, 8 months and 21 days to 8 years, and the incremental penalty for amounts exceeding ₱22,000.00 must be added to this period.

• Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale: Article 38 of the Labor Code defines illegal recruitment as any recruitment activities, including the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34, undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of authority. The term "recruitment and placement" refers to 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. The law imposes a higher penalty when illegal recruitment is committed in large scale, which is deemed committed against three or more persons individually or as a group. The prosecution proved the three essential elements: (1) the appellant promised the five complainants that there were jobs available in Hongkong and exacted money for plane tickets, hotel accommodation, visa processing, and placement fees; (2) the POEA Certification dated January 10, 2003 showed the appellant had no authority or license; and (3) the offense was committed against five persons. There is illegal recruitment when one who does not possess the necessary authority or license gives the impression of having the ability to send a worker abroad.
• Estafa: Conviction under the Labor Code for illegal recruitment does not preclude punishment under the Revised Penal Code for estafa. Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code provides that estafa is committed by any person who defrauds another by using a fictitious name, or by falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business, by imaginary transactions or similar forms of deceit executed prior to or simultaneous with the fraud. The appellant's false pretenses were the very cause that induced the complainants to part with their money, and the elements of deceit and damage were clearly present.
• Penalty Computation: Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code provides that an accused found guilty of estafa shall be sentenced to prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period if the amount of fraud is over ₱12,000 but does not exceed ₱22,000, and if the amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalty shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional ₱10,000. Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum term is taken from the penalty next lower or anywhere within prision correccional minimum and medium (from 6 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months). The maximum term is taken from the prescribed penalty in its maximum period, adding 1 year for every ₱10,000 in excess of ₱22,000, provided the total penalty shall not exceed 20 years. To compute the maximum period, prision correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum should be divided into three equal portions pursuant to Article 65 of the Revised Penal Code, yielding a maximum period of 6 years, 8 months and 21 days to 8 years. The incremental penalty is computed by subtracting ₱22,000.00 from the amount defrauded and dividing the difference by ₱10,000.00, discarding any fraction of a year. Applying these principles, the Court modified the penalties in each of the five estafa cases.

• Illegal recruitment in large scale — Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale when committed against three or more persons individually or as a group. The prosecution must prove three essential elements: (1) the accused undertook a recruitment activity under Article 13(b) or any prohibited practice under Article 34 of the Labor Code; (2) the accused did not have the license or authority to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers; and (3) the accused committed such illegal activity against three or more persons individually or as a group. The Court applied this doctrine in affirming the appellant's conviction, as the prosecution proved all three elements through the complainants' testimonies and the POEA Certification.
• Non-preclusion of estafa by illegal recruitment conviction — Conviction under the Labor Code for illegal recruitment does not preclude punishment under the Revised Penal Code for the crime of estafa. The Court applied this doctrine in affirming the appellant's separate convictions for both offenses, as the false pretenses constituting the deceit in estafa were distinct from the lack of license or authority constituting illegal recruitment.
• Computation of the maximum period of a divisible penalty — Under Article 65 of the Revised Penal Code, when a penalty is composed of three periods, the maximum period is computed by dividing the entire penalty range into three equal portions of time. The Court applied this doctrine in correcting the lower courts' computation of the estafa penalties, holding that the maximum period of prision correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum is from 6 years, 8 months and 21 days to 8 years, not prision mayor minimum as the RTC had assumed.

• "There is illegal recruitment when one who does not possess the necessary authority or license gives the impression of having the ability to send a worker abroad." — This passage states the core rule for establishing illegal recruitment and was central to the Court's affirmation of the appellant's conviction.
• "We point out that conviction under the Labor Code for illegal recruitment does not preclude punishment under the Revised Penal Code for the crime of estafa." — This passage articulates the doctrine that separate convictions for illegal recruitment and estafa may stand, as the two offenses punish distinct wrongs.
• "To compute the maximum period of the prescribed penalty, prision correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum should be divided into three equal portions of time each of which portion shall be deemed to form one period in accordance with Article 65 of the RPC." — This passage sets forth the correct method for computing the maximum period of the prescribed penalty for estafa, which was the basis for modifying the appellant's sentences.

• People vs. Hernandez, 428 Phil. 643 (2002) — Cited as authority for the elements of illegal recruitment in large scale, specifically that the offense is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three or more persons individually or as a group.
• People vs. Ortiz-Miyake, 344 Phil. 598 (1997) — Cited for the doctrine that conviction for illegal recruitment under the Labor Code does not preclude punishment for estafa under the Revised Penal Code.
• People vs. Sagaydo, 395 Phil. 538 (2000) — Cited in connection with the definition of estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code.

• 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. The Court applied this provision in determining that the appellant's promises of employment constituted recruitment activities.
• Article 34, Labor Code — Enumerates the prohibited practices in recruitment and placement. The Court applied this provision in relation to Article 13(b) in finding that the appellant's acts constituted illegal recruitment.
• Article 38, Labor Code — Defines illegal recruitment as any recruitment activities, including the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34, undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of authority. The Court applied this provision as the basis for the illegal recruitment charge.
• Article 39(a), Labor Code — Provides the higher penalty for illegal recruitment committed in large scale, which the Court applied in affirming the penalty of life imprisonment and a ₱100,000.00 fine.
• Article 315(2)(a), Revised Penal Code — Defines estafa committed by falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, or business, or by imaginary transactions or similar forms of deceit. The Court applied this provision in affirming the estafa convictions.
• Article 65, Revised Penal Code — Provides the rule for dividing a penalty composed of three periods into equal portions of time. The Court applied this provision in computing the maximum period of the prescribed penalty for estafa.
• Indeterminate Sentence Law — Provides that the minimum term of an indeterminate sentence is taken from the penalty next lower or anywhere within the range of the minimum and medium periods of the prescribed penalty, and the maximum term is taken from the prescribed penalty. The Court applied this law in modifying the estafa penalties.

Carpio, J. (Chairperson), Del Castillo, J., Perez, J., and Perlas-Bernabe, J. concurred in the resolution.

N/A — No dissenting opinions are noted in the provided text.