People vs. Mateo

A person convicted for illegal recruitment under RA 8042 may, for the same acts, be separately convicted for estafa under Article 315, par. 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code, provided the elements of deceit and damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation are present. The Court also affirmed that money is not material to a prosecution for illegal recruitment, as the definition of "illegal recruitment" under the law includes the phrase "whether for profit or not."

The case involves appellants Angel Mateo y Jacinto and Vicenta Lapiz y Medina, who were charged with illegal recruitment in large scale under Republic Act No. 8042, the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, and five counts of estafa. The private complainants — Abel E. Balane, Emilio A. Cariaga, Victorio D. Flordeliza, Manuel Oledan, and Virgilio N. Concepcion — applied for overseas employment with appellants, who represented themselves as having tie-ups with Japanese firms. The charges arose from appellants' alleged failure to secure overseas employment for the complainants after collecting fees from them.

Sometime during the period from January to March 1998, the five private complainants — Abel E. Balane, Emilio A. Cariaga, Victorio D. Flordeliza, Manuel Oledan, and Virgilio N. Concepcion — met appellants on separate occasions at Plaza Ferguzon, Malate, Manila to apply for overseas employment. Appellant Mateo, representing himself to have a tie-up with some Japanese firms, promised them employment in Japan as conversion mechanics, welders, or fitters for a fee. Appellants also promised that they could facilitate private complainants' employment as direct hires and assured their departure within three weeks.

After the private complainants paid the required fees ranging from P18,555.00 to P25,000.00, appellants failed to secure any overseas employment for them. Appellants likewise failed to return private complainants' money. This prompted Manuel to go to the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA), where he was issued a Certification stating that appellants are not licensed to recruit applicants for overseas employment. Thereupon, the private complainants filed their Complaint and executed their respective affidavits with the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). The NBI referred the charges to the Department of Justice, which subsequently found probable cause against appellants for large scale illegal recruitment and estafa and accordingly filed the corresponding Informations before the RTC of Manila.

For their defense, appellants proffered denials. Mateo claimed that he is a legitimate car importer and not a recruiter. Lapiz, on the other hand, denied knowing any of the private complainants, whom she claimed to have met for the first time at the Prosecutor's Office. The RTC found that Lapiz was present in all of the transactions, serving as runner of Mateo and was even the one keeping the money entrusted by the private complainants to appellants. She would also often pacify the private complainants' uneasiness about the absence of receipts for each of the amounts given and repeatedly assure them they would be deployed to Japan.

• Lack of Proof of Payment: Appellants contended that Abel has not shown any receipt to prove that they received money from him; that there is likewise no proof that Virgilio borrowed money from a friend of his aunt, which money he, in turn, gave to them.
• Incredibility of Testimony: Appellants argued that the testimony of Emilio that appellants were holding office inside the van of Abel cannot be easily accepted.
• Limited Transactions: Appellants claimed that their transactions with Manuel and Victorio were limited to the processing of their travel documents.
• Failure to Prove Elements: Appellants essentially claimed that the prosecution failed to prove the elements of the crimes for which they were charged.

• Adoption of CA Brief: The People of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, opted not to file a supplemental brief and just adopted the appellee's brief it filed before the CA.

• Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale: Whether the prosecution proved all the elements of illegal recruitment in large scale under RA 8042.
• Estafa: Whether appellants may be separately convicted for estafa under Article 315, par. 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code for the same acts constituting illegal recruitment.
• Lapiz's Participation: Whether Lapiz's defense of not knowing any of the complainants negates her liability for the crimes charged.

• Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale: Yes. All elements of illegal recruitment in large scale were proved: (1) appellants undertook recruitment activity by promising employment in Japan for a fee; (2) the POEA Certification showed they had no license or authority to recruit; and (3) there were five complainants.
• Estafa: Yes. A person convicted for illegal recruitment under the law may, for the same acts, be separately convicted for estafa under Article 315, par. 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code, the elements of deceit and damage being present.
• Lapiz's Participation: No. Lapiz's defense fails because she was present in all transactions, served as Mateo's runner, kept the money, and assured complainants of deployment — making her an indispensable participant and effective collaborator.

• Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale: The offense of illegal recruitment in large scale has three elements: (1) the person charged undertook any recruitment activity as defined under Section 6 of RA 8042; (2) accused did not have the license or the authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment of workers; and (3) accused committed the same against three or more persons individually or as a group. All elements obtained in this case. The RTC found appellants to have undertaken recruitment activity when they promised private complainants employment in Japan for a fee, a factual finding affirmed by the CA. The time-tested doctrine is that the matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness stand is best and most competently performed by the trial judge, and when findings have been affirmed by the Court of Appeals, these are generally binding and conclusive upon the Supreme Court. The POEA Certification unmistakably revealed that appellants neither have a license nor authority to recruit workers for overseas employment, and appellants never assailed this Certification. There were five complainants, clearly establishing the existence of the offense. Appellants' argument that there was no proof they received money deserves no credence — money is not material to a prosecution for illegal recruitment, as the definition of "illegal recruitment" under the law includes the phrase "whether for profit or not." Even without receipts, the complainants' respective testimonies and affidavits clearly narrate appellants' involvement in the prohibited recruitment.

• Estafa: Well-settled is the rule that a person convicted for illegal recruitment under the law may, for the same acts, be separately convicted for estafa under Article 315, par. 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code. The elements of estafa are: (1) the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit; and (2) the offended party or a third party suffered damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation. All elements were present. Appellants committed deceit against the private complainants by making it appear as though they had the authority and resources to send them to Japan for employment; that there were available jobs for them in Japan for which they would be hired although, in truth, there were none; and that by reason or on the strength of such assurance, the private complainants parted with their money in payment of the placement fee, documentation and hotel accommodations. These representations were actually false and fraudulent, making appellants liable under par 2(a), Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code.

• Lapiz's Participation: Lapiz's defense of not knowing any of the complainants must necessarily fail. As noted by the RTC and the CA, she was present in all of the transactions, serving as runner of Mateo and was even the one keeping the money entrusted by the private complainants to appellants. She would also often pacify the private complainants' uneasiness about the absence of receipts for each of the amounts given and repeatedly assure them they would be deployed to Japan. In short, she was an indispensable participant and effective collaborator of Mateo in the illegal recruitment of the private complainants.

• Elements of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale — The offense has three elements: (1) the person charged undertook any recruitment activity as defined under Section 6 of RA 8042; (2) accused did not have the license or the authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment of workers; and (3) accused committed the same against three or more persons individually or as a group. All three elements were established in this case through the recruitment activity, the POEA Certification, and the five complainants.

• Separate Conviction for Illegal Recruitment and Estafa — A person convicted for illegal recruitment under RA 8042 may, for the same acts, be separately convicted for estafa under Article 315, par. 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code. The elements of estafa are: (1) the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit; and (2) the offended party or a third party suffered damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation.

• Immateriality of Profit in Illegal Recruitment — Money is not material to a prosecution for illegal recruitment, considering that the definition of "illegal recruitment" under the law includes the phrase "whether for profit or not." Thus, the absence of receipts does not negate liability where testimonies and affidavits narrate the accused's involvement.

• Binding Effect of Trial Court Factual Findings — The matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness stand is best and most competently performed by the trial judge, and when findings have been affirmed by the Court of Appeals, these are generally binding and conclusive upon the Supreme Court.

• "The time-tested doctrine is that the matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness stand is best and most competently performed by the trial judge." — This states the standard of appellate review for factual findings, particularly credibility assessments, and explains why the Court deferred to the lower courts' findings.

• "Suffice it to say that money is not material to a prosecution for illegal recruitment considering that the definition of 'illegal recruitment' under the law includes the phrase 'whether for profit or not.'" — This articulates the rule that profit is not an element of illegal recruitment, addressing appellants' argument regarding absence of receipts.

• "Well-settled is the rule that a person convicted for illegal recruitment under the [law] may, for the same acts, be separately convicted for estafa under Article 315, par. 2(a) of the [Revised Penal Code]." — This states the controlling doctrine permitting separate convictions for illegal recruitment and estafa arising from the same acts.

• People vs. Temporada, 594 Phil. 680 (2008) — Cited as the source of the elements of illegal recruitment in large scale and the rule on separate conviction for estafa.
• People vs. Cardenas, G.R. No. 190342, March 21, 2012, 668 SCRA 827 — Cited for the doctrine that the trial judge is best positioned to assign values to witness declarations.
• People vs. Baraoil, G.R. No. 194608, July 9, 2012, 676 SCRA 24 — Cited for the rule that trial court findings affirmed by the CA are binding and conclusive upon the Supreme Court.
• Romero vs. People, G.R. No. 171644, November 23, 2011, 661 SCRA 143 — Cited for the proposition that testimonies and affidavits can establish involvement in prohibited recruitment even without receipts.

• Section 6, Republic Act No. 8042 — Defines "illegal recruitment" and recruitment activities; the Court applied this provision in determining whether appellants undertook recruitment activity.
• Article 315, par. 2(a), Revised Penal Code — Defines estafa by means of deceit; the Court applied this provision in sustaining the separate convictions for estafa.

• Carpio, J. (Chairperson)
• Brion, J.
• Mendoza, J.
• Leonen, J.