People vs. Gabres

A non-licensee who promises overseas employment for a fee, collects money on that representation, and fails to deploy the applicants commits both estafa by means of deceit under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code and illegal recruitment in large scale under Articles 38(b) and 39 of the Labor Code when committed against three or more persons. The false pretense of licensed recruitment authority causing the victims to part with money satisfies estafa, while absence of license plus performance of recruitment acts satisfies illegal recruitment.

Lucrecia Gabres, also known as Mona Gabres, and her husband Perlito Lito Gabres presented themselves in Bauang, La Union and Baguio City as recruiters of factory workers for Korea. Oreta Nisperos, Joel Panida, Julius Aoay, Tarciso Dacsig, Jr., and other residents of Acop, Tublay, Benguet were hopeful applicants for overseas work. Under the Labor Code, recruitment for overseas employment by non-licensees or non-holders of authority is deemed illegal, and illegal recruitment against three or more persons constitutes economic sabotage punishable by life imprisonment and fine.

In March 1992, Oreta Nisperos heard that the Gabres spouses were recruiting factory workers for abroad. Accompanied by her son Ramil, neighbors Joel Panida and Julius Aoay, and introduced by her cousin Rosario Zapanta, Nisperos went to the Gabres residence in Bauang, La Union, where the spouses confirmed they were recruiting factory workers for Korea. A package deal was reached requiring a P45,000 placement fee per applicant, with the parties agreeing to meet again on 12 April 1992 at the Dr. Yares Clinic on Harrison Road, Baguio City. On that date only Mona Gabres appeared, joined by the original group plus Tarciso Dacsig, Jr., Jonard Dulay and Ronaldo Mirabueno, and she asked each interested applicant for a P5,000 advance payment, directing a further meeting on 26 April 1992 at Nisperos's residence in Acop, Tublay.

Thereafter both spouses came to Acop on 26 April 1992 and received P5,000 each from or for Ramil Nisperos, Joel Panida and Tarciso Dacsig, Jr., with Mona receiving and counting money and Lito preparing receipts. On 1 May 1992 Julius Aoay paid P5,000 to both accused, and on 5 May 1992 Dacsig paid another P5,000. On 7 June 1992 each of Ramil Nisperos, Panida, Dacsig and Aoay paid P5,000; on 10 June 1992 Oreta paid P30,000 for Ramil; on 17 June 1992 she paid P5,000 for Joan Nisperos; on 18 June 1992 she paid P5,000 more for Ramil; and on 3 July 1992 Panida paid P35,000, Dacsig paid P25,000 and Aoay paid P30,000. On 3 July 1992 the spouses assured Ramil Nisperos, Joan Nisperos, Panida, Dacsig, Aoay, Dulay and Mirabueno of departure within a few days, then explained delay as awaiting the call of Korean employer Mr. Kim to firm up flight schedules.

When the call never came, the spouses directed the applicants to confer in Manila with supposed associate Rebecca (Vicky) Naval of Bachs and Cochs Travel Agency, who first denied association but later said she had been engaged to process travel documents, tickets, bookings and visa applications. After months of waiting, the applicants demanded refunds and each was issued four checks for P10,000 each, all of which bounced upon presentment. According to the prosecution, Vicky Naval was the issuer of the checks, and the investigating prosecutor recommended exoneration of Naval on the ground her liability was purely civil. The applicants sought assistance from the POEA-Cordillera Administrative Region, which through Atty. Justinian O. Lichnachan certified that the accused spouses were not licensed or authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment in Baguio City or any part of the region. The trial court found damages undisputed, the complainants having parted with money for foreign deployment that never materialized and remained unrestituted.

• Sole Culpability of Husband: Petitioner argued that the real culprit was Lito Gabres and that the complaining witnesses stressed her participation only because her husband could not be apprehended.

• Estafa: Whether accused-appellant committed estafa by means of deceit in obtaining placement fees for promised overseas employment.
• Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale: Whether accused-appellant committed illegal recruitment in large scale constituting economic sabotage.
• Penalties and Damages: Whether the indeterminate sentences for estafa and the award of actual damages were in accordance with law.

• Estafa: Yes. Deceit was established, the accused having falsely pretended to possess recruitment authority to induce payment of placement fees for non-existent deployment.
• Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale: Yes. Both elements concurred, the accused being non-licensees who undertook recruitment acts against three or more persons.
• Penalties and Damages: Partly. Conviction stands but minimum terms were recalibrated under the Indeterminate Sentence Law and Oreta Nisperos's damages reduced for unproven payments.

• Estafa: Liability under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code was established because complainants parted with money in consideration of deployment abroad upon the spouses' promise to send them to work in Korea, which failed and remained unrestituted. Corroborated testimonies showed appellant personally met applicants on 12 April 1992 introducing herself as a recruiter, received and counted money, wrote receipts, and jointly returned with her husband to collect installments, negating the claim of mere implication due to her husband's absence.
• Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale: The two elements laid down in People vs. Coral were present: (1) offender is a non-licensee or non-holder of authority, proven by the POEA-CAR certification through Atty. Lichnachan; and (2) offender undertakes recruitment activities under Article 13(b) or prohibited practices under Article 34, proven by holding out a P45,000 placement fee, several collections, and promises of work in Korea, which constitute canvassing, enlisting, promising employment and offer for a fee to two or more persons. Commission against three or more persons individually or as a group qualifies the offense as in large scale under Article 38(b), punishable under Article 39(a) with life imprisonment and P100,000 fine.
• Penalties and Damages: Because amounts exceeded P22,000, the prescribed penalty is prision correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum, with excess over P22,000 treated analogously to a modifying circumstance only for the maximum term, the penalty next lower for the minimum being prision correccional minimum to medium or six months and one day to four years and two months. Applied accordingly, minimum terms were fixed at the lawful maximum of four years and two months where excessive, and maximum terms computed as six years and one day plus one year per additional P10,000. Actual damages to Oreta Nisperos were reduced from P55,000 to P50,000 for lack of receipts and corroboration for alleged 26 April 1992 and 05 May 1992 P5,000 payments on behalf of Ramil, with only the former attested by Panida.

• Estafa by means of deceit — Any person who defrauds another by falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by other similar deceits executed prior to or simultaneously with the fraud, is punishable under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code. Applied here where false representation of licensed recruitment capacity induced applicants to pay placement fees for overseas work that never materialized.
• Illegal recruitment; large scale and syndicate — Under Article 38 of the Labor Code, any recruitment activities by non-licensees or non-holders of authority is illegal; committed by a syndicate if by three or more persons conspiring, and in large scale if against three or more persons individually or as a group, constituting economic sabotage under Article 39. Applied here where unlicensed spouses recruited multiple complainants for Korea for fees, warranting life imprisonment and fine.
• Recruitment and placement defined — Under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code, recruitment and placement means any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, including referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for employment locally or abroad, with any person offering or promising for a fee employment to two or more persons deemed engaged therein. Applied here to the promise of Korean employment, collection of P45,000 fees, and assurances of departure.
• Indeterminate Sentence Law — The maximum term is that properly imposable under the Revised Penal Code in view of attending circumstances, while the minimum is within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed, determined without first considering modifying circumstances and left to the court's discretion without reference to periods; modifying circumstances affect only the maximum. Applied here to recompute estafa sentences where fraud exceeded P22,000, treating the excess as analogous to a modifying circumstance for the maximum only, consistent with construction of penal laws in favor of the accused.

• "There is no dispute that damages have been incurred by the complainants. They parted with their money in consideration of deployment for work in a foreign country, but which unfortunately remains unrestituted despite the failure in that regard of the person or persons who promised that they will be sent off to work abroad." — States the trial court's basis for estafa, adopted to show deceit and damage from unfulfilled deployment promises.
• "Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group." — Recites the statutory qualifier that elevates unlicensed recruitment to economic sabotage as applied to the multiple complainants.
• "The penalty next lower should be based on the penalty prescribed by the Code for the offense, without first considering any modifying circumstance attendant to the commission of the crime." — States the controlling rule for fixing the minimum of the indeterminate sentence, applied to reduce the minimum terms.

• People vs. Coral, G.R. Nos. 97849-54, March 1, 1994, 230 SCRA 499 — Cited as authority for the two elements of illegal recruitment: non-licensee status and undertaking of recruitment activities or prohibited practices.
• People vs. Gonzales, 73 Phil. 549 — Cited for the rule that the penalty next lower for the minimum term is based on the penalty prescribed by the Code without first considering modifying circumstances.
• People vs. Ducosin, 59 Phil. 109 — Cited for the rule that determination of the minimum penalty is left to the sound discretion of the court anywhere within the range of the penalty next lower.
• People vs. Joya, 98 Phil. 238 — Cited for the rule that modifying circumstances are considered only in imposing the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence.

• Article 315(2)(a), Revised Penal Code — Punishes swindling by false pretenses including falsely pretending to possess power, qualifications, agency or business; applied to the false holding out as authorized recruiters to obtain placement fees.
• Article 38(a)-(b), Labor Code — Deems recruitment by non-licensees illegal and defines large-scale and syndicated illegal recruitment as economic sabotage; applied to find large-scale recruitment against multiple complainants.
• Article 39(a), Labor Code, as amended by P.D. 2018 — Imposes life imprisonment and P100,000 fine where illegal recruitment constitutes economic sabotage; applied to sustain the sentence in the illegal recruitment case.
• Article 13(b), Labor Code — Defines recruitment and placement to include promising employment for a fee to two or more persons; applied to characterize the P45,000 package, collections and deployment promises as recruitment.
• Section 1, Act No. 4103 (Indeterminate Sentence Law), as amended — Governs fixing of minimum within the next lower penalty and maximum within the prescribed penalty considering circumstances; applied to modify the estafa sentences.
• Article 29, Revised Penal Code — Provides credit for preventive imprisonment upon conditions; ordered applied in service of appellant's sentences.

Padilla, Chairman, Bellosillo, Kapunan and Hermosisima, Jr., JJ., concur.