People vs. Gallemit

A person may be convicted separately of illegal recruitment in large scale under Republic Act No. 8042 and estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code based on the same set of facts, provided the elements of each offense are independently established; where conspiracy is proven among co-accused, the act of one conspirator in receiving placement fees suffices to establish pecuniary damage for estafa against all, even absent receipts personally signed by each accused.

Roderick Gallemit, his wife Hanelita Gallemit, and his mother-in-law Angelita Daud shared a residence at No. 4 Sta. Maria Apartment, India Street, Better Living Subdivision, Barangay Don Bosco, Parañaque City, from which they set up and operated "Green Pasture Worldwide Tour and Consultancy," an entity purporting to offer overseas employment in Korea. Republic Act No. 8042, the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, broadened the concept of illegal recruitment under the Labor Code and prescribed stiffer penalties — life imprisonment and a fine of not less than ₱500,000.00 — when the offense constitutes economic sabotage, which includes illegal recruitment committed in large scale (against three or more persons) or by a syndicate (by a group of three or more persons conspiring together).

Sometime in January 2001, Marcelo De Guzman, a dentist from Bulacan, was introduced by his patient Modesta Marqueda to her cousin, Angelita Daud, who was then working as a liaison officer at Jemimah International Manpower Services on Taft Avenue, Manila. Daud encouraged De Guzman to apply for work abroad, claiming she could send him to Korea, and invited him to visit her office to verify her capability. A month later, De Guzman and several cousins — Maricel Rayo, Brigida Rayo, Myrna Crisostomo, Francisco Poserio, Evangeline Relox, Gina Decena, and Nenita Policarpio — visited Daud at the Taft Avenue office, where they were shown job orders and photographs of Daud with Korean employees. It was there that De Guzman first met Roderick Gallemit and Hanelita Gallemit.

Daud, together with Hanelita and appellant, subsequently put up their own business, "Green Pastures Worldwide Tours and Consultancy," operating from their shared residence at No. 4 Sta. Maria Apartment, India Street, Better Living Subdivision, Parañaque City. Having been convinced by the documents shown at the Taft Avenue office, De Guzman paid Daud ₱35,000.00 as initial placement fee on February 2, 2001, followed by additional payments of ₱15,000.00 on February 5, ₱15,000.00 on February 22, and ₱35,000.00, ₱30,000.00, and ₱15,000.00 on March 3, 6, and 7, respectively, at the Parañaque office. Daud issued receipts signed in the name of "Nimfa Min," explaining that this was her contact who was the wife of a Korean national. Whenever De Guzman made payments, Hanelita and appellant were present, though De Guzman did not require them to sign as witnesses because he trusted them as members of the same family. De Guzman and his group were told they would leave for Korea within two weeks as trainee workers earning US$400 monthly with free board and lodging, and were shown photocopies of passports with stamped Korean visas. When the departure date was repeatedly postponed, De Guzman inquired with the Korean Embassy and learned the visa was fake. He then verified with the POEA, which certified that Green Pastures was not licensed to recruit workers for overseas employment.

Gina Decena was introduced to Daud, Hanelita, and appellant by her cousin Maricel Rayo at the Makati Medical Towers. She met them again at the Parañaque apartment, where they enticed her to apply by showing job orders offering US$400 monthly salary, 150% overtime pay, and free board and lodging; appellant even gave her a copy of the job order. Convinced, Decena and her husband Marcelo Rayo each paid ₱35,000.00 to Daud on February 15, 2001, for which Decena presented a receipt at trial. After two weeks passed with no progress, Decena and her husband verified with the POEA and discovered the agency was unlicensed. They returned to the apartment but the accused were gone. Francisco Poserio was brought by his cousin De Guzman to the same apartment in January 2001, where the three accused showed him job orders from Hyundai Group and Nike, a copy of a Korean visa, and photographs of Daud in Korea. Poserio mortgaged his property to fund his application, paying ₱25,000.00 on March 3, 2001, and ₱45,000.00 on July 5, 2001, both to Daud in the presence of Hanelita and appellant. After a year without deployment, Poserio verified with the POEA, discovered the agency was unlicensed, and filed a complaint with the Parañaque police when the accused failed to return his money.

Appellant denied owning the agency, undertaking any recruitment act, or receiving any amount from the complainants, noting that his name did not appear on the receipts. He admitted being married to Hanelita and that Daud was his mother-in-law. He claimed he was merely a job seeker himself, frequently out of the house to seek financial help from siblings in Cavite, and was unaware of the specifics of Daud's business. He insisted he was not present when complainants made their payments. Only appellant was apprehended; Daud and Hanelita remained at large. Of the eight private complainants, only De Guzman, Decena, and Poserio testified against appellant. The prosecution presented a POEA Certification dated September 19, 2002, confirming that Green Pastures was not licensed to recruit workers for overseas employment, the genuineness of which the defense admitted.

• Failure to Prove Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Appellant maintained that the prosecution failed to prove he gave private complainants the distinct impression that he had the power or ability to send them abroad for work, such that they were convinced to part with their money. He argued that any encouragement or promise of employment abroad was solely made by Daud, and that it was only his alleged presence during payments that led complainants to believe he participated in the recruitment scheme.
• Absence of Deceit in Estafa: Appellant argued that he could not be convicted of estafa because the element of deceit was lacking, insisting on the absence of proof that he made any false statement or fraudulent representation to private complainants.
• Absence of Pecuniary Loss: Appellant contended that the second element of estafa — prejudice or pecuniary loss — was not established because the prosecution was unable to present any receipt signed by him proving that he received money from private complainants.

• Conspiracy in Illegal Recruitment: The Office of the Solicitor General argued that appellant acted in conspiracy with his co-accused, specifically by co-owning and operating Green Pasture, encouraging complainants to apply for jobs abroad with promises of US$400 salary and benefits, assuring complainants they could leave for Korea within a short period, and being present every time complainants made payments to Daud.
• Positive Identification: The prosecution maintained that private complainants De Guzman, Decena, and Poserio positively identified and pointed to appellant in court as one of the persons who recruited them for work abroad.

• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt for Illegal Recruitment: Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant committed illegal recruitment in large scale.
• Existence of Conspiracy: Whether conspiracy among appellant and his co-accused was sufficiently established.
• Element of Deceit in Estafa: Whether the element of deceit was present to sustain a conviction for estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code.
• Element of Pecuniary Damage in Estafa: Whether pecuniary damage was established despite the absence of receipts signed by appellant.

• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt for Illegal Recruitment: Yes. All three elements of illegal recruitment in large scale were present: absence of a valid license, undertaking recruitment activities, and commission against three or more persons.
• Existence of Conspiracy: Yes. Conspiracy was deduced from the concerted acts of the accused — co-owning and operating the agency, promising employment, and being present during payments — pointing to a joint purpose and design.
• Element of Deceit in Estafa: Yes. The false representations that appellant and his co-accused could deploy complainants abroad for employment, when they were unauthorized and no actual jobs existed, constituted deceit under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code.
• Element of Pecuniary Damage in Estafa: Yes. Through conspiracy, the act of Daud in receiving placement fees was the act of all conspirators; the absence of receipts signed by appellant was not fatal, as payment could be established by the credible testimonies of complainants.

• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt for Illegal Recruitment: The three elements of illegal recruitment in large scale under Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042, in relation to Article 13(b) of the Labor Code, were all satisfied. First, neither Green Pastures nor appellant held a valid license or authority from the DOLE, as established by the POEA Certification dated September 19, 2002. Second, appellant and his co-accused engaged in recruitment activities — offering and promising jobs abroad, showing job orders, and collecting placement fees — as substantiated by the testimonies of De Guzman, Decena, and Poserio. Third, the offense was committed against three or more persons, satisfying the "large scale" requirement. The categorical and consistent testimonies of the complainants, who positively identified appellant as one of those who enticed them to part with their money, prevailed over appellant's bare denial. Findings of fact by the trial court, affirmed by the appellate court, are generally binding on the Supreme Court, particularly where no showing exists that the trial court overlooked facts of substance or acted arbitrarily.

• Existence of Conspiracy: Direct proof of a prior agreement to commit the crime is not necessary; conspiracy may be inferred from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated, or from the acts of the accused pointing to a joint purpose, concerted action, and community of interest. The testimonies of the complainants were affirmative and corroborative of each other, establishing that appellant, together with Daud and Hanelita, co-owned and operated the agency, encouraged job applications, promised employment benefits, and was present during payments. It would be contrary to human nature for several persons to conspire to falsely accuse appellant and send him to prison merely to vindicate frustrated dreams of working abroad. Given the finding of conspiracy, it was not necessary for the prosecution to prove that appellant personally received placement fees or signed receipts, because the act of one conspirator is the act of all.

• Element of Deceit in Estafa: The elements of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code are: (a) that the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit, and (b) that damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused. Deceit was established through the positive testimonies showing that appellant and his co-accused falsely represented that they could deploy complainants abroad for employment. Decena testified that appellant gave her a copy of the purported job order for Korea, and Poserio avowed that appellant encouraged him to apply. The representations were false and fraudulent because the accused were not duly authorized to undertake recruitment and no actual jobs existed in Korea. A person may be convicted separately of illegal recruitment and estafa, as the former is malum prohibitum while the latter is malum in se, and conviction for one does not bar conviction for the other.

• Element of Pecuniary Damage in Estafa: Pecuniary damage was established through the testimonies of all three complainants that they paid placement fees to Daud, who issued receipts for some amounts either in her name or in the name of "Nimfa Min." Because conspiracy was established, Daud's receipt of the fees was deemed the act of all conspirators, including appellant. The absence of receipts signed by appellant was not fatal, as payment of placement fees in illegal recruitment cases may be proved by the testimony of witnesses. The Statute of Frauds and the rules of evidence do not require the presentation of receipts to prove the existence of a recruitment agreement and the procurement of fees. The amounts defrauded were ₱80,000.00 from De Guzman, ₱35,000.00 from Decena, and ₱70,000.00 from Poserio, each exceeding ₱22,000.00, thereby triggering the incremental penalty of one year for every ₱10,000.00 in excess of ₱22,000.00 under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code.

• Elements of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale — Three elements must concur: (a) the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to engage in recruitment and placement of workers; (b) the offender undertakes any of the activities within the meaning of "recruitment and placement" under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code or any of the prohibited practices under Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042; and (c) the offender committed the same against three or more persons, individually or as a group. All three elements were found present in this case, warranting conviction for economic sabotage with the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of ₱500,000.00.

• Conspiracy Doctrine — Direct proof of a previous agreement to commit a crime is not necessary; conspiracy may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated or inferred from the acts of the accused pointing to a joint purpose and design, concerted action, and community of interest. When conspiracy exists, the act of one is the act of all; it is not essential that all conspirators took a direct part in every act, only that they acted in concert pursuant to the same objective. Applied here to obviate the need to prove that appellant personally received payments or signed receipts.

• Separate Conviction for Illegal Recruitment and Estafa — A person who commits illegal recruitment may be charged and convicted separately of illegal recruitment under Republic Act No. 8042 (malum prohibitum) and estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code (malum in se). Conviction for one offense does not bar conviction for the other, and acquittal of one does not necessarily result in acquittal of the other.

• Absence of Receipts Not Fatal in Illegal Recruitment and Estafa — The absence of receipts evidencing payment of placement fees is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution's cause. A person charged with illegal recruitment or estafa may be convicted on the strength of the testimony of complainants, if found credible and convincing. The Statute of Frauds and the rules of evidence do not require the presentation of receipts to prove the existence of a recruitment agreement and the procurement of fees.

• Affirmative Testimony Prevails Over Negative Testimony — An affirmative testimony is far stronger than a negative testimony, especially when the former comes from a credible witness. Denial, like alibi, if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law, received with suspicion and caution because it is inherently weak, unreliable, and easily fabricated.

• Trial Court Findings of Fact Entitled to Great Weight — Findings of fact made by the trial court, which had the opportunity to directly observe the witnesses, are entitled to great weight and respect. This deference is more pronounced when the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, in which case said findings are generally binding on the Supreme Court.

• "In this jurisdiction, it is settled that a person who commits illegal recruitment may be charged and convicted separately of illegal recruitment under the Labor Code and estafa under par. 2(a) of Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code. The offense of illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum where the criminal intent of the accused is not necessary for conviction, while estafa is malum in se where the criminal intent of the accused is crucial for conviction." — This passage, quoting People vs. Cortez and Yabut, articulates the doctrinal basis for separate convictions and distinguishes the nature of the two offenses.

• "Contrary to appellant's mistaken notion, it is not the issuance or signing of receipts for the placement fees that makes a case for illegal recruitment, but rather the undertaking of recruitment activities without the necessary license or authority. The absence of receipts to evidence payment is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution's cause." — This passage defines the core of illegal recruitment liability and clarifies that the gravamen is the unauthorized undertaking of recruitment activities, not the issuance of receipts.

• "It is not essential that there be actual proof that all the conspirators took a direct part in every act. It is sufficient that they acted in concert pursuant to the same objective." — This formulation of the conspiracy standard explains why appellant's lack of personal receipt of fees did not exculpate him.

• People vs. Gamboa, 395 Phil. 675 (2000) — Cited as the source of the three-element test for illegal recruitment in large scale; followed and applied to the facts of this case.
• People vs. Cortez and Yabut, 374 Phil. 575 (1999) — Cited for the doctrine that a person may be charged and convicted separately of illegal recruitment and estafa; followed.
• People vs. Pabalan, 331 Phil. 64 (1996) — Cited for the rule that the absence of receipts does not warrant acquittal in illegal recruitment cases and that payment may be proved by witness testimony; followed.
• People vs. Temporada, 594 Phil. 680 (2008) — Cited for the proper computation of penalties for estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code and the Indeterminate Sentence Law; followed.
• People vs. Ballesteros, 435 Phil. 205 (2002) — Cited for the elements of estafa and the rule on legal interest on indemnification; followed.
• Nacar vs. Gallery Frames, G.R. No. 189871, Aug. 13, 2013 — Cited for the applicable legal interest rate of 6% per annum on monetary awards from the time of demand until finality, and 6% per annum from finality until satisfaction; applied to the indemnification awarded to private complainants.

• Section 6, Republic Act No. 8042 (Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos 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, when undertaken by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority. Illegal recruitment committed in large scale (against three or more persons) or by a syndicate (by three or more persons conspiring together) is considered economic sabotage. Applied to establish that appellant's activities constituted illegal recruitment in large scale.
• Section 7(b), Republic Act No. 8042 — Prescribes the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of not less than ₱500,000.00 nor more than ₱1,000,000.00 for illegal recruitment constituting economic sabotage. Applied to impose life imprisonment and a ₱500,000.00 fine on appellant.
• 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. Applied to characterize appellant's acts as recruitment activities.
• Article 315, paragraph 2(a), Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes estafa committed by means of false pretenses or fraudulent acts, including falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of other similar deceits. Applied to convict appellant of three counts of estafa, with penalties graduated according to the amounts defrauded.

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno (Chairperson), Associate Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, Associate Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr., and Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes concurred.