People vs. Ocden

A person who recruits three or more workers for overseas employment for a fee, receives placement fees evidenced by receipts, and fails to reimburse those fees when deployment does not occur through no fault of the workers, is guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale under Section 6(m) of Republic Act No. 8042 — regardless of whether a certification of non-license status is presented — and may simultaneously be convicted of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code for the same acts.

Dolores Ocden was charged with illegal recruitment in large scale under the Labor Code as amended by Republic Act No. 8042, and with six counts of estafa under the Revised Penal Code, arising from her recruitment of several persons in Baguio City for purported factory employment in Italy during the period from May to December 1998. The prosecution's case centered on the testimonies of complainants Marilyn Mana-a, Rizalina Ferrer, and Julia Golidan (mother of complainants Jeffries and Howard Golidan), who recounted Ocden's recruitment activities, collection of placement fees, and failure to deploy the applicants or refund their money. Ocden defended on the theory that she was herself a mere applicant, designated by the alleged real recruiter, Erlinda Ramos, as leader of the applicant group.

Sometime in the second week of August 1998, Marilyn Mana-a and Isabel Dao-as went to Dolores Ocden's house in Baguio City to apply for work as factory workers in Italy, having learned that the monthly salary would be US$1,200.00. Ocden required them to submit bio-data and passports, pay a placement fee of ₱70,000.00, and undergo medical examination. Mana-a paid Ocden ₱500.00 for a certificate of employment and ₱20,000.00 as down payment. On September 8, 1998, Ocden accompanied Mana-a and about twenty other applicants to Zamora Medical Clinic in Manila for medical examinations costing ₱3,000.00 each, and Mana-a paid a further ₱22,000.00 as her second installment. When Mana-a's sister Josephine Lawanag withdrew her application, Lawanag's ₱15,000.00 placement fee was credited to Mana-a. Mana-a's testimony was not completed, but the RTC considered it on the record because no motion to strike was filed.

About the second week of September 1998, Rizalina Ferrer and her daughter Jennilyn, interested in overseas work, approached Ocden through Fely Alipio. Ocden showed them a job order from Italy for factory workers who could earn as much as $90,000.00 to $100,000.00. In the first week of October 1998, Ferrer and Jennilyn submitted their passports and pictures. Ferrer went to Manila for medical examination at a cost of ₱3,500.00. She paid Ocden ₱20,000.00 on November 20, 1998 and the balance of her and Jennilyn's placement fees on December 8, 1998, for a total of ₱140,000.00, all evidenced by receipts. Ferrer, Jennilyn, and Alipio were told they would be in the first batch departing for Italy on December 10, 1998. In Manila, Ocden introduced them to Erlinda Ramos, and Ocden and Ramos accompanied them to the airport for a flight to Zamboanga, explaining that they would be transported to Malaysia where their visa applications for Italy would be processed. Sensing they were being deceived, Ferrer and Jennilyn sought a refund, but Ocden was nowhere to be found. Ferrer later learned from the POEA Baguio office that Ocden was not a licensed recruiter.

Sometime in October 1998, Julia Golidan inquired with Ocden about overseas recruitment. Ocden informed her that the placement fee was ₱70,000.00 per applicant, that accepted applicants would be sent by batches, and that priority would be given to those who paid early. On October 30, 1998, Golidan brought her sons Jeffries and Howard to Ocden; they handed over their passports and ₱40,000.00 as down payment. On December 10, 1998, they paid the balance of ₱100,000.00. Ocden issued receipts for both payments. Ocden informed Golidan that Jeffries would be in the second batch and Howard in the third. Jeffries left for Manila on December 12, 1998 and Howard on December 18, 1998. Jeffries called Golidan to say his flight to Italy was scheduled for December 16, but a subsequent call reported a delay due to insufficiency of funds. On December 19, 1998, Jeffries called from Zamboanga, stranded because Ramos had not given him his passport. Golidan could not locate Ocden in Baguio. On December 21, 1998, Golidan, Mana-a, and Dao-as went to Manila to meet Ocden, who explained that visas to Italy would be easier to acquire in Zamboanga. By January 1999, Jeffries and Howard were still stranded. Ocden's husband eventually gave Golidan ₱23,000.00 to fetch the stranded applicants; Ocden begged for and received most of that amount. Jeffries returned to Manila on January 16, 1999, and Howard and five others arrived five days later, accompanied by Ocden. Golidan and her sons sought a refund; Ocden returned only ₱50,000.00, leaving ₱80,000.00 unpaid out of the ₱140,000.00 total. Golidan and her sons then went to the POEA Baguio office and discovered Ocden was unlicensed.

Ocden testified in her own defense, denying that she recruited anyone and claiming she was herself an applicant who had met Ramos at a seminar in June 1998 at St. Theresa's Compound in Baguio City. She said Ramos designated her as leader of the applicants, and in that capacity she received applications, accompanied applicants to medical examinations, and accepted placement fees, which she turned over to Ramos. She herself paid Ramos ₱50,000.00 and executed a promissory note for the balance. She went to Malaysia with a friend of Ramos but failed to obtain a visa. She denied deceiving Mana-a and Ferrer, and stated that she and some co-applicants had filed a complaint against Ramos with the NBI. Despite several opportunities, Ocden never presented Ramos in court.

• Sufficiency of Proof for Illegal Recruitment: Ocden argued that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she was guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale, contending that no certification attesting to her status as a non-licensee or non-holder of authority was formally offered in evidence.
• Insufficient Number of Victims: Ocden contended that the prosecution did not sufficiently establish that she illegally recruited at least three persons, since only Mana-a and Ferrer testified in court, Mana-a did not complete her testimony, and Ferrer's testimony was competent only as to the recruitment committed against herself.
• Hearsay Objection to Golidan's Testimony: Ocden argued that Julia Golidan had no personal knowledge of the circumstances proving illegal recruitment against Jeffries and Howard, making her testimony hearsay, and that Jeffries and Howard had executed an affidavit of desistance indicating they only sought reimbursement.
• Denial of Recruitment Activity: Ocden maintained that she was herself a mere applicant for overseas employment, designated by Ramos — the alleged real recruiter — as leader of the applicants, and that she received applications and fees only in that capacity, turning the money over to Ramos.
• Estafa Conviction: Ocden argued that the trial court erred in convicting her of estafa in Criminal Case Nos. 16316-R, 16318-R, and 16964-R.

• Illegal Recruitment — Need for Certification: Whether the prosecution must present a certification from the Department of Labor and Employment attesting that the accused is a non-licensee or non-holder of authority to sustain a conviction for illegal recruitment.
• Illegal Recruitment — Large Scale: Whether the prosecution sufficiently established that Ocden illegally recruited three or more persons to constitute illegal recruitment in large scale.
• Credibility of Golidan's Testimony: Whether Julia Golidan's testimony was based on personal knowledge and competent to prove illegal recruitment and estafa committed against her sons Jeffries and Howard.
• Effect of Affidavit of Desistance: Whether the affidavit of desistance executed by Jeffries and Howard Golidan exonerates Ocden from criminal liability.
• Dual Conviction for Illegal Recruitment and Estafa: Whether a person may be convicted separately of illegal recruitment under Republic Act No. 8042 and estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code for the same acts.
• Proper Penalty for Estafa: Whether the penalties imposed by the Court of Appeals for the three counts of estafa were correctly computed under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code and the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

• Illegal Recruitment — Need for Certification: No. A certification of non-license status is not indispensable, because Section 6(m) of Republic Act No. 8042 punishes failure to reimburse deployment expenses whether committed by a licensee or non-licensee, rendering licensure status inconsequential in this case.
• Illegal Recruitment — Large Scale: Yes. The evidence conclusively established that Ocden recruited Mana-a, Ferrer, and Golidan's sons Jeffries and Howard — three or more persons — for purported employment in Italy for a fee.
• Credibility of Golidan's Testimony: Yes. Golidan had personal knowledge of Ocden's recruitment activities, having directly transacted with Ocden in submitting her sons' requirements, paying placement fees, seeking their return from Zamboanga, and demanding a refund.
• Effect of Affidavit of Desistance: No. An affidavit of desistance does not exonerate an accused when guilt has been proved beyond reasonable doubt, as criminal prosecution is an attribute of sovereign power that cannot be waived by the complainant's change of heart.
• Dual Conviction for Illegal Recruitment and Estafa: Yes. Illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum where criminal intent is unnecessary, while estafa is malum in se requiring criminal intent; conviction for one does not bar conviction for the other.
• Proper Penalty for Estafa: The maximum terms were modified downward. Because no aggravating circumstance was present, the incremental penalty must be added to the lowest of the maximum period of the prescribed penalty (6 years, 8 months, and 21 days), not to the upper end as the Court of Appeals had done.

• Illegal Recruitment — Need for Certification: Ocden contended that the prosecution's failure to present a certification from DOLE attesting to her non-licensee status was fatal. The Court rejected this argument by pointing to Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042, which enumerates acts constituting illegal recruitment "whether committed by any person, whether a non-licensee, non-holder, licensee or holder of authority." Among these, Section 6(m) punishes the "[f]ailure to reimburse expenses incurred by the worker in connection with his documentation and processing for purposes of deployment, in cases where the deployment does not actually take place without the worker's fault." Since this provision applies even to licensed recruiters, a certification of non-license status becomes inconsequential. Ocden received placement fees from Mana-a, Ferrer, and Golidan's two sons, evidenced by receipts she issued, and failed to reimburse them when deployment never occurred through no fault of the workers. These facts alone established illegal recruitment under Section 6(m).

• Illegal Recruitment — Large Scale: Under the last paragraph of Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042, illegal recruitment constitutes economic sabotage when committed against three or more persons individually or as a group. Citing People vs. Hu, the Court acknowledged that while the law does not require at least three victims to testify, there must be sufficient evidence proving the offense was committed against three or more persons. Mana-a's incomplete testimony still sufficiently established that Ocden promised her a job in Italy for a fee and accompanied her for medical examination. Golidan's testimony adequately proved that Ocden recruited Jeffries and Howard for a fee. Even though only Ferrer and Golidan testified as to non-reimbursement, their testimonies established the fact of non-reimbursement as to three persons: Ferrer and Golidan's two sons. The Court of Appeals' observation on this point was adopted.

• Credibility of Golidan's Testimony: Ocden objected that Golidan lacked personal knowledge and that her testimony was hearsay. The Court found that Golidan had personal dealings with Ocden: she assisted her sons in completing application requirements, paid the placement fees evidenced by receipts issued in her name, sought their return from Zamboanga, and demanded a refund. That Golidan sought reimbursement strengthened rather than weakened the prosecution's case, because failure to reimburse is itself an act of illegal recruitment under Section 6(m). The Court deferred to the trial court's credibility assessment, absent any showing of arbitrariness or overlooked facts, especially since the Court of Appeals had affirmed those findings.

• Effect of Affidavit of Desistance: Citing People vs. Romero, the Court held that affidavits of desistance are generally accorded no persuasive value, especially when executed as an afterthought. Rejecting testimony solemnly taken in court merely because a witness later changed his mind would make a mockery of trial. The right to prosecute and punish crimes belongs to the sovereign State, and a complainant's change of heart cannot affect the public prosecution of the offense. The documentary evidence supporting the conviction rendered the desistance immaterial.

• Dual Conviction for Illegal Recruitment and Estafa: Relying on People vs. Yabut, the Court reiterated that illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum in which criminal intent is unnecessary, while estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) is malum in se requiring criminal intent. Conviction for one offense does not bar conviction for the other. The elements of estafa — deceit and damage capable of pecuniary estimation — were both present: Ocden falsely represented that she could provide overseas jobs, inducing Ferrer and Golidan's sons to pay substantial placement fees, and they suffered pecuniary damage when they were never deployed to Italy but instead stranded in Zamboanga.

• Proper Penalty for Estafa: Under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, when the amount of fraud exceeds ₱22,000.00, the prescribed penalty of prision correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum is imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional ₱10,000.00, with the total not exceeding twenty years. The maximum period of prision correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum is from 6 years, 8 months, and 21 days to 8 years. The incremental penalty is added to this range. In Criminal Case Nos. 16316-R and 16318-R, the amount defrauded was ₱40,000.00 each, exceeding ₱22,000.00 by ₱18,000.00, yielding one year of incremental penalty. With no aggravating circumstance, the lowest of the maximum period (6 years, 8 months, and 21 days) plus one year equals 7 years, 8 months, and 21 days of prision mayor. In Criminal Case No. 16964-R, the amount was ₱70,000.00, exceeding ₱22,000.00 by ₱48,000.00, yielding four years of incremental penalty; adding this to the lowest of the maximum period produces 10 years, 8 months, and 21 days of prision mayor. The Court of Appeals had erroneously added the incremental penalty to the upper end of the range. The minimum terms were correctly fixed by both lower courts within prision correccional minimum and medium, pursuant to the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

• Illegal Recruitment Under Section 6(m) of Republic Act No. 8042 — Failure to reimburse expenses incurred by a worker in connection with documentation and processing for purposes of deployment, when deployment does not actually take place without the worker's fault, constitutes illegal recruitment. This act may be committed by any person — whether a non-licensee, non-holder, licensee, or holder of authority — making a certification of non-license status unnecessary when the prosecution proves this specific act.

• Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale — Illegal recruitment is committed in large scale when carried out against three or more persons individually or as a group, constituting economic sabotage under Section 7(b) of Republic Act No. 8042, punishable by life imprisonment and a fine of not less than ₱500,000.00 nor more than ₱1,000,000.00. While the law does not require that at least three victims testify, there must be sufficient evidence proving the offense was committed against three or more persons.

• Dual Conviction for Illegal Recruitment and Estafa — A person who commits illegal recruitment may be charged and convicted separately of illegal recruitment under the Labor Code and estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code. Illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum where criminal intent is unnecessary; estafa is malum in se where criminal intent is crucial. Conviction for one does not bar conviction for the other.

• Affidavit of Desistance — An affidavit of desistance does not exculpate an accused when the prosecution has successfully proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court looks with disfavor on the dropping of criminal complaints upon a mere affidavit of desistance, particularly where the commission of the offense is duly supported by documentary evidence, because the right to prosecute and punish crimes belongs to the sovereign State.

• Incremental Penalty Computation for Estafa — When the amount defrauded exceeds ₱22,000.00, the penalty under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code is imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional ₱10,000.00. The maximum period of prision correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum is from 6 years, 8 months, and 21 days to 8 years. In the absence of aggravating circumstances, the incremental penalty is added to the lowest of the maximum period (6 years, 8 months, and 21 days). Any fraction of a year in the computation is discarded.

• "Since illegal recruitment under Section 6(m) can be committed by any person, even by a licensed recruiter, a certification on whether Ocden had a license to recruit or not, is inconsequential." — This passage articulates the ratio decidendi eliminating the need for a DOLE certification in prosecutions based on failure to reimburse under Section 6(m) of Republic Act No. 8042.

• "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 quotation, drawn from People vs. Yabut and adopted in the decision, states the canonical formulation of the doctrine permitting dual convictions for illegal recruitment and estafa arising from the same facts.

• "The fact that complainants Bernardo Salazar and Richard Quillope executed a Joint Affidavit of Desistance does not serve to exculpate accused-appellant from criminal liability insofar as the case for illegal recruitment is concerned since the Court looks with disfavor the dropping of criminal complaints upon mere affidavit of desistance of the complainant, particularly where the commission of the offense, as is in this case, is duly supported by documentary evidence." — This passage, quoted from People vs. Romero, defines the Court's treatment of affidavits of desistance in criminal cases supported by documentary evidence.

• People vs. Mateo, G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004 — Procedural precedent governing the transfer of appeals in cases involving penalties of reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment from the Supreme Court to the Court of Appeals; applied to justify the transfer of Ocden's appeal.

• People vs. Gasacao, 511 Phil. 435 (2005) — Cited for the principle that to prove illegal recruitment, it must be shown that the accused gave complainants the distinct impression of having the power or ability to send them abroad for work, inducing them to part with their money.

• People vs. Romero, G.R. Nos. 103385-88, July 26, 1993 — Controlling authority on the ineffectiveness of affidavits of desistance to exculpate an accused when guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt and supported by documentary evidence; quoted at length in the decision.

• People vs. Hu, G.R. No. 182232, October 6, 2008 — Followed for the rule that a conviction for large scale illegal recruitment requires sufficient evidence that the offense was committed against three or more persons, though not all victims need to testify.

• People vs. Yabut, 374 Phil. 575 (1999) — Controlling precedent establishing that a person may be convicted separately of illegal recruitment and estafa for the same acts, based on the distinction between malum prohibitum and malum in se; quoted extensively.

• People vs. Pabalan, 331 Phil. 64 (1996) — Cited for the rule that any fraction of a year in computing the incremental penalty for estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code shall be discarded.

• People vs. Temporada, G.R. No. 173473, December 17, 2008 — Followed for the methodology of computing the indeterminate sentence in estafa cases, including the division of the prescribed penalty into periods and the determination of minimum and maximum terms.

• Article 13(b), Labor Code (Presidential Decree No. 442) — 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; deems any person who offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons as engaged in recruitment and placement. Applied to characterize Ocden's acts as recruitment.

• Articles 38(b), 34, and 39, Labor Code — Define and penalize illegal recruitment. Applied in conjunction with Republic Act No. 8042 to sustain the conviction for illegal recruitment in large scale.

• Section 6, Republic Act No. 8042 (Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995) — Defines illegal recruitment and enumerates specific acts constituting it, including Section 6(m): failure to reimburse expenses incurred by the worker in connection with documentation and processing when deployment does not take place without the worker's fault. Applied to hold Ocden liable regardless of licensure status, and to establish that illegal recruitment in large scale constitutes economic sabotage.

• 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 increase the fine imposed on Ocden from ₱100,000.00 to ₱500,000.00.

• 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, credit, agency, business, or imaginary transactions. Applied to convict Ocden of three counts of estafa for misrepresenting her ability to secure overseas employment.

• Indeterminate Sentence Law — Applied to determine the minimum and maximum terms of Ocden's estafa penalties, with the minimum taken from the penalty next lower than that prescribed and the maximum taken from the prescribed penalty as modified by the incremental penalty under Article 315.

Chief Justice Renato C. Corona (Chairperson), Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta, and Associate Justice Jose Portugal Perez concurred.