People vs. Marzan

A person who, without the necessary license or authority, recruits and promises overseas employment to three or more individuals in exchange for fees commits illegal recruitment in large scale, an offense involving economic sabotage punishable by life imprisonment and a fine. The same acts may also support a separate conviction for estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code, as the deceit involved in inducing victims to part with their money is distinct from the regulatory violation of illegal recruitment. Credible testimonial evidence sufficiently proves the payment of fees and the resulting damage in illegal recruitment cases, even in the absence of official receipts.

During 2006, Irene Marzan, together with her husband Bal Marzan, Fely Dulay, Apolonio Dulay, Marlon Agoncillo, and Alejandro "Alex" Navarro, Jr., engaged in a scheme to recruit residents of Pangasinan for non-existent factory jobs in South Korea. They represented themselves as having the authority to deploy workers, collected various fees for placement, training, medical examinations, and other processing costs, and assured applicants of imminent deployment. After collecting payments, the recruiters failed to deploy any of the applicants and became unreachable. The victims, numbering over thirty, subsequently filed complaints after verifying with the DOLE that the recruiters were not licensed.

• Nature of the Case: The accused were charged in multiple Informations with Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale under Section 6 of RA 8042 and Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code. The charges stemmed from their activities in 2006, wherein they recruited numerous residents of Pangasinan for supposed employment in South Korea.

• Recruitment Activities: Irene Marzan, Fely Dulay, and their co-accused (Marlon Agoncillo and Alejandro Navarro, Jr.) operated as a group. Fely Dulay scouted and introduced prospective applicants to Irene Marzan. Marlon Agoncillo acted as the speaker who discussed requirements and fees, while Navarro was identified as the "boss." They promised jobs in South Korean factories, collected fees for placement, training, medical exams, uniforms, and other processing costs, and assured applicants of deployment.

• Payments and Deceit: Numerous victims testified to paying substantial sums (ranging from ₱30,000.00 to over ₱100,000.00) to the accused, either directly to Irene Marzan or Fely Dulay, or to Marlon Agoncillo. Some payments were receipted, but many were not. The accused provided false assurances of deployment dates, which were repeatedly postponed. Ultimately, no victim was deployed.

• Discovery and Complaints: After repeated failures to deploy and inability to contact the recruiters, the victims discovered from the DOLE and POEA that the accused were not licensed to recruit workers for overseas employment. They subsequently filed complaints with the NBI, leading to the criminal charges.

• Defense's Version: Irene Marzan claimed she was merely a bystander whose carinderia was used as a meeting place by Marlon Agoncillo, a regular customer. She alleged she only occasionally handed over fees to Marlon as a favor to applicants who lived far away. Fely Dulay claimed she was also a victim, having been introduced to Marlon by a friend.

• Lower Courts' Findings: Both the RTC and CA found the prosecution witnesses' testimonies credible and categorical. They established that the accused acted in conspiracy, with each performing specific roles in the recruitment scheme. The courts rejected the defenses of denial and frame-up as unsubstantiated against the positive identification and detailed testimonies of the victims.

• Lack of Direct Participation: Petitioner Irene Marzan argued that she was not involved in the recruitment process. She maintained that she was merely present at her carinderia when Marlon Agoncillo met with applicants and only occasionally accepted fee payments as a favor, issuing receipts upon request.
• Absence of Conspiracy: Petitioner contended that her actions did not demonstrate a common criminal design with the other accused. She asserted that her limited role did not equate to participation in a conspiracy to commit illegal recruitment or estafa.
• Insufficient Evidence for Some Victims: Petitioner argued that the prosecution failed to present receipts for payments made by some complainants (e.g., Dante Alagano, Arleen Serquiña, Arnulfo Luga, Everlina Layco), and therefore, their claims for damages should not be granted.

• Credible Prosecution Evidence: Respondent People of the Philippines, through the OSG, countered that the consistent, positive, and categorical testimonies of the numerous victims established petitioner's active role in the recruitment scheme. The testimonies detailed how petitioner collected fees, made promises of employment, and participated in the group's activities.
• Establishment of Conspiracy: Respondent argued that the coordinated actions of the accused—Fely Dulay recruiting, petitioner collecting fees, Marlon Agoncillo issuing instructions and receipts, and Navarro as the boss—demonstrated a conspiracy where the act of one was the act of all.
• Damages Proven by Testimony: Respondent maintained that the absence of receipts is not fatal to a claim for actual damages in illegal recruitment cases. Credible testimonial evidence sufficiently proves the payment of fees and the consequent damage suffered by the victims.

• Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale: Whether the elements of illegal recruitment in large scale, an offense involving economic sabotage, were proven beyond reasonable doubt.
• Estafa through False Pretenses: Whether the elements of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code were established.
• Conspiracy: Whether conspiracy among the accused was sufficiently proven to hold petitioner liable for the acts of her co-conspirators.
• Award of Actual Damages: Whether actual damages should be awarded to victims who did not present official receipts for their payments.

• Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale: The conviction was affirmed. All elements were present: (1) petitioner and her co-accused had no POEA license or authority; (2) they engaged in recruitment activities by promising overseas employment and collecting fees; and (3) these acts were committed against three or more persons (over 30 victims), constituting large-scale illegal recruitment, an economic sabotage under RA 8042.
• Estafa through False Pretenses: The separate convictions for estafa were upheld. The false representation of having the power and authority to deploy workers for overseas employment, made prior to or simultaneously with the collection of fees, induced the victims to part with their money, causing damage. This deceit is distinct from the illegal recruitment act.
• Conspiracy: Conspiracy was established. The evidence showed a synchronized and coordinated scheme: Fely Dulay scouted victims, petitioner Irene Marzan collected fees, Marlon Agoncillo handled instructions and receipts, and Alejandro Navarro was the mastermind. Their concerted actions pointed to a common criminal objective, making the act of one the act of all.
• Award of Actual Damages: The award of actual damages to all victims, including those without receipts, was proper. The Court ruled that in illegal recruitment cases, the absence of receipts is not fatal if the prosecution establishes through credible testimonial evidence that fees were paid. The consistent and credible testimonies of the victims sufficiently proved the amounts they paid.

• Illegal Recruitment as Economic Sabotage — Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three or more persons individually or as a group. When so committed, it is considered an offense involving economic sabotage, punishable under Section 7(b) of RA 8042 with life imprisonment and a fine. The Court applied this doctrine to convict petitioner for the offenses involving multiple victims.
• Separate Convictions for Illegal Recruitment and Estafa — A person who commits illegal recruitment may be separately charged and convicted for illegal recruitment under the Labor Code/RA 8042 and for estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code. The offenses have different elements: illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum (no criminal intent needed), while estafa is malum in se (criminal intent is crucial). The Court relied on this doctrine to sustain the multiple estafa convictions alongside the illegal recruitment convictions.
• Proof of Payment in Illegal Recruitment — The absence of receipts for placement fees is not fatal to a prosecution for illegal recruitment. The fact of payment and recruitment may be established through the credible and convincing testimonial evidence of the victims. The Court applied this to award actual damages to victims whose payments were not covered by receipts.

• "The recruiter's failure to issue receipts should not be taken against complainants. The absence of receipts in a case for illegal recruitment is not fatal if the prosecution is able to establish through credible testimonial evidence that appellant has engaged in illegal recruitment. The case is proved not by the issuance or signing of receipts for placement fees, but by engagement in recruitment activities without the necessary license or authority." — This passage underscores the evidentiary standard for proving payment in illegal recruitment cases, prioritizing credible testimony over documentary proof.

• People v. Vicente, G.R. No. 249546, February 3, 2021 — Cited as controlling precedent where the accused's physical presence and active participation in recruitment activities (e.g., conducting seminars) were held to establish conspiracy and direct involvement in illegal recruitment, analogous to petitioner's role in collecting fees.
• People v. Daud, 734 Phil. 698 (2014) — Followed for the doctrine that a person may be convicted separately for illegal recruitment under RA 8042 and for estafa under the RPC, as the two offenses have different elements and require different proofs.
• People v. Alvarez, 436 Phil. 255 (2002) and People v. Pabalan — Applied to support the ruling that the absence of receipts is not fatal, as testimonial evidence can sufficiently prove the recruitment and receipt of fees.

• Section 6, Republic Act No. 8042 (Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995) — Defines illegal recruitment and provides that it is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three or more persons. The Court applied this to qualify the offense as economic sabotage.
• Section 7(b), RA 8042 — Prescribes the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine for illegal recruitment constituting economic sabotage. The Court imposed this penalty for the large-scale illegal recruitment convictions.
• Article 315, paragraph 2(a), Revised Penal Code — Defines estafa committed by using a fictitious name or falsely pretending to possess power, agency, or business. The Court found the elements present based on the false representations of authority to deploy workers.
• Section 3, Rule 120, Rules of Court — Allows a court to convict an accused of as many offenses as are charged and proved when multiple offenses are charged in a single information and the accused fails to object. The Court applied this to convict petitioner of multiple counts of estafa within single Informations.

• Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa (Acting Chief Justice, Chairperson)
• Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez
• Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting (No dissenting opinion noted)

• N/A — The decision was unanimous.