People vs. Ong

A person who, without a license or authority from the POEA, recruits three or more persons for overseas employment by promising or offering employment for a fee is guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale, and may additionally be convicted of estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code without violating double jeopardy, because illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum while estafa is malum in se.

Benzon Ong y Sate, also known as "Benz Ong," was charged with illegal recruitment in large scale under Article 38 of the Labor Code, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 2018, and with seven counts of estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code. The charges stemmed from his recruitment of eight complainants in Baguio City for purported employment in Taiwan between November 1993 and January 1994. Under Philippine law, any recruitment activity undertaken by a person without a license or authority from the Department of Labor and Employment is illegal and punishable under Article 39 of the Labor Code; when committed against three or more persons, the offense is considered illegal recruitment in large scale, a form of economic sabotage carrying the penalty of life imprisonment.

In September 1993, Noel Bacasnot, an optometrist, met Benzon Ong y Sate at the insurance office of Zaldy Galos at Laperal Building on Session Road, Baguio City. Ong represented that he had contacts in Taiwan looking for workers, quoting salary rates of P15,000.00 per month for factory workers and P1,200.00 per day for construction workers. He also told Bacasnot that his mother was based in Taiwan and could help him secure a position as an optometrist earning P50,000.00 to P80,000.00 monthly. A week later, Ong advised Bacasnot to accept work initially as a factory worker for six months, which Bacasnot agreed to. Ong charged Bacasnot P30,000.00 as placement fee, with P15,000.00 payable upfront and the balance deductible from future salary. Bacasnot paid P10,000.00 as downpayment on January 31, 1994, at the Kimsam Eatery on Session Road, and was assured he would leave for Taiwan within three to four months.

Upon learning of the job opportunities, Ruth Eliw, Sally Kamura, and Solidad Malinias likewise sought Ong's assistance. They were charged P40,000.00 each. Ong accompanied them to Manila purportedly for interview and medical examination at Steadfast Recruitment Agency, with which he claimed to be connected, but instead took them to an office on United Nations Avenue where three men, allegedly Taiwanese nationals, interviewed them, and then to a clinic for examination. Eliw, Kamura, and Malinias each paid P25,000.00 on January 21, February 13, and March 30, 1994, respectively, and on May 30, 1994, each paid the balance of P15,000.00. On that date, Ong signed a handwritten agreement prepared by Almi Bacasnot acknowledging receipt of P45,000.00 as full recruitment payment and promising that the three would leave for Taiwan within three weeks, failing which he would return P120,000.00 within one month. Ong never fulfilled his promise and could no longer be found at his office on the upper story of Mario's Restaurant on Session Road.

Other complainants — Samuel Bagni, Teofilo Gallao Jr., Paul Esteban, and David Joaquin — were similarly recruited and paid various placement fees. Bagni paid P25,000.00 on January 17, 1994, and P15,000.00 on May 9, 1994. Gallao paid P25,000.00 on January 31, 1994, and P15,000.00 on May 9, 1994. Esteban paid P7,500.00 on November 30, 1993, and P30,000.00 on March 7, 1994. Joaquin paid P7,500.00 on November 30, 1993, P7,500.00 on December 28, 1993, and P15,000.00 on March 6, 1994. All were promised deployment to Taiwan; none were sent. A week before June 27, 1994, Eliw encountered Ong, who told her that Kamura and Malinias had passed their interviews and asked her to pay an additional P5,000.00 for processing. Instead, Eliw reported Ong's activities to the NBI. On June 24, 1994, the POEA-REU in the Cordillera Autonomous Region certified that Ong was not licensed or authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment. On June 27, 1994, an NBI entrapment operation was conducted: Eliw handed P1,500.00 in marked money to Ong, whereupon NBI agents arrested him. A paraffin test on his hands tested positive for fluorescent powder.

For his defense, Ong admitted meeting the complainants but denied collecting placement fees, claiming the signatures on the receipts were forged. He testified that he merely suggested the complainants apply at Steadfast Recruitment Agency, which he learned about from a friend in Manila, and that he introduced them to the agency's marketing manager, Marilyn Pagsibigan. He claimed that on June 27, 1994, he was at Gallao's Optical Clinic to collect payment for a betamax player he had delivered to Bacasnot, and that Eliw wanted to buy it for P10,000.00, paying only P1,500.00 down, at which point NBI agents arrested him. The trial court found the prosecution witnesses credible and convicted Ong on all charges. The complaint of Francisca Cayaya was dismissed for failure to testify, and Bacasnot's estafa complaint, though involving only P10,000.00 (normally within MTC jurisdiction), was allowed because it arose from the same facts as the illegal recruitment case.

• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: Accused-appellant contended that the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimonies of the complaining witnesses, arguing that the complainants knew they were applying for employment abroad through Steadfast Recruitment Agency and that he merely suggested the opportunity to work overseas without advertising himself as a recruiter.
• Reasonable Doubt: Accused-appellant argued that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, denying that he collected placement fees and claiming the signatures on the receipts were forged.
• Elements of Estafa Not Proven: Accused-appellant contended that the elements of estafa were not established, specifically the requirement that complainants must have relied on his false pretenses, because complainants allegedly knew he was not a licensed recruiter.

• Credibility of Witnesses: Whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimonies of the complaining witnesses.
• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Whether the prosecution proved accused-appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for illegal recruitment in large scale and estafa.
• Elements of Estafa: Whether the elements of estafa were proven, specifically whether complainants relied on the false pretenses of accused-appellant.

• Credibility of Witnesses: No. The complainants' testimonies were straightforward, credible, and consistent on material points, with no showing of ill motive; accused-appellant's bare denials could not prevail against their positive identification.
• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt (Illegal Recruitment): Yes. Accused-appellant engaged in recruitment and placement of workers under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code without a license or authority, and committed the unlawful acts against three or more persons, satisfying all elements of illegal recruitment in large scale.
• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt (Estafa): Yes. Accused-appellant defrauded the complainants through deceit and false pretenses, inducing them to part with their money and causing them pecuniary damage; conviction for both illegal recruitment and estafa does not violate double jeopardy.

• Credibility of Witnesses: The complainants positively identified accused-appellant as the person who recruited them for employment in Taiwan and collected placement fees from them. Their testimonies dovetailed with each other on material points and were straightforward, credible, and convincing. There was no showing that any complainant had ill motive to testify falsely. Against such positive and categorical testimony, accused-appellant's mere denials could not prevail. His failure to present corroborating witnesses — such as the manager of Steadfast Recruitment Agency — gave rise to the adverse inference that their testimony would have been unfavorable, pursuant to the legal presumption regarding suppressed evidence.

• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt (Illegal Recruitment): Under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code, "recruitment and placement" includes any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not. Any person who, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons is deemed engaged in recruitment and placement. The essential elements of illegal recruitment in large scale are: (1) the accused engages in acts of recruitment and placement defined under Article 13(b) or prohibited activities under Article 34; (2) the accused lacks the required license or authority from the DOLE; and (3) the accused commits the unlawful acts against three or more persons. All three elements were satisfied: accused-appellant represented himself as capable of deploying workers abroad, quoted salary rates, promised employment, collected placement fees, and accompanied complainants to Manila for interviews and medical examinations — acts that created the distinct impression he was a recruiter for overseas employment. He was neither licensed nor authorized, as certified by the POEA-REU. He dealt with eight complainants. Even if he merely "suggested" where complainants could apply, the act constituted "referral" under Article 13(b). The absence of receipts was not fatal to the prosecution, as credible testimonial evidence sufficed to establish the offense.

• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt (Estafa): The elements of estafa — (1) defrauding the offended party by abuse of confidence or deceit, and (2) damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation — were present. Accused-appellant misrepresented himself as one who could arrange job placements in Taiwan, and by reason of such misrepresentations, false assurances, and deceit, complainants were induced to part with their money, causing them damage and prejudice. The contention that complainants knew he was not a licensed recruiter was rejected. A person convicted of illegal recruitment may additionally be convicted of estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code without double jeopardy, because illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum (where criminal intent is not necessary) while estafa is malum in se (where criminal intent is necessary).

• Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale — The essential elements are: (1) the accused engages in acts of recruitment and placement of workers defined under Article 13(b) or in any prohibited activities under Article 34 of the Labor Code; (2) the accused has not complied with the guidelines issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment, particularly with respect to securing a license or authority to recruit and deploy workers; and (3) the accused commits the unlawful acts against three or more persons, individually or as a group. All three elements were found present in this case.

• Recruitment and Placement under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code — "Recruitment and placement" refers to any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not. Any person or entity which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons is considered engaged in recruitment and placement. "Referral" is the act of passing along or forwarding of an applicant for employment after initial interview to a selected employer, placement officer, or bureau.

• Distinct Impression Test for Illegal Recruitment — To prove illegal recruitment, it must be shown that the accused gave 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 in order to be employed.

• Absence of Receipts Not Fatal — The absence of receipts in a case for illegal recruitment does not warrant acquittal and is not fatal to the prosecution's case, as long as credible testimonial evidence establishes that the accused engaged in illegal recruitment.

• Dual Conviction for Illegal Recruitment and Estafa — A person convicted of illegal recruitment may additionally be convicted of estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code. There is no double jeopardy because illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum (criminal intent not necessary) while estafa is malum in se (criminal intent necessary).

• "Even if accused-appellant did no more than 'suggest' to complainants where they could apply for overseas employment, his act constituted 'referral' within the meaning of Art. 13(b) of the Labor Code." — This passage defines the broad scope of "referral" under the Labor Code, establishing that even a mere suggestion of where to apply for overseas employment falls within the statutory definition of recruitment and placement when made by an unlicensed person.

• "We have already ruled that the absence of receipts in a case for illegal recruitment does not warrant the acquittal of the accused-appellant and is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. As long as the prosecution is able to establish through credible testimonial evidence that the accused-appellant has engaged in illegal recruitment, a conviction of the offense can very well be justified." — This passage articulates the doctrine that testimonial evidence alone suffices for conviction in illegal recruitment cases, even without documentary receipts.

• "Moreover, it is settled that a person who is convicted of illegal recruitment may, in addition, be convicted of estafa under Art. 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code. There is no problem of double jeopardy because illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum, in which the criminal intent is not necessary, whereas estafa is malum in se in which the criminal intent of the accused is necessary." — This passage states the canonical formulation of the rule permitting dual convictions for illegal recruitment and estafa, grounded in the distinction between malum prohibitum and malum in se.

• People vs. Goce, 247 SCRA 780 (1995) — Cited for the definition of recruitment and placement under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code and the "distinct impression" test for illegal recruitment.
• People vs. Sanchez, 291 SCRA 333 (1998) — Cited for the essential elements of illegal recruitment in large scale and the definitions of "license" and "authority."
• People vs. Peralta, 347 Phil. 379 (1997) — Cited for the proposition that acts creating the distinct impression of recruitment capacity satisfy the recruitment element.
• People vs. Saley, 291 SCRA 715 (1998) — Cited for two propositions: (1) absence of receipts is not fatal to prosecution of illegal recruitment, and (2) dual conviction for illegal recruitment and estafa does not violate double jeopardy.
• People vs. Sadiosa, 290 SCRA 92 (1998) — Cited in support of the rule allowing dual conviction for illegal recruitment and estafa.
• People vs. Guinang, 285 SCRA 404 (1998) — Cited in support of the rule allowing dual conviction for illegal recruitment and estafa.
• People vs. Gharbia, G.R. No. 123010, July 20, 1999 — Cited for the proposition that complainants' testimonies that are straightforward, credible, and consistent on material points justify conviction.
• People vs. Mercado, G.R. Nos. 108440-42, March 11, 1999 — Cited for the rule that bare denials cannot prevail against positive and categorical testimony of complainants.
• People vs. Enriquez, G.R. No. 127159, May 5, 1999 — Cited for the adverse inference and legal presumption arising from a party's failure to present available witnesses.

• 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; any person offering or promising for a fee employment to two or more persons is deemed engaged in recruitment and placement. Applied to classify accused-appellant's acts — promising employment, collecting fees, and referring complainants — as recruitment activity.
• Article 38, Labor Code, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 2018 — Declares any recruitment activity undertaken by persons without a license or authority to engage in recruitment for overseas employment as illegal and punishable under Article 39. Applied to establish the illegality of accused-appellant's recruitment activities given his lack of POEA license or authority.
• Article 39(a), Labor Code — Prescribes the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P100,000.00 for illegal recruitment committed in large scale or by a syndicate. Applied to impose the penalty for accused-appellant's conviction.
• Article 34, Labor Code — Enumerates prohibited practices in recruitment and placement. Referenced as part of the framework for identifying unlawful recruitment activities.
• Article 315(2)(a), Revised Penal Code — Defines estafa by means of false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the fraud. Applied to sustain the estafa convictions based on accused-appellant's misrepresentations regarding his capacity to secure overseas employment.
• Article 29, Revised Penal Code — Governs credit for preventive imprisonment. Applied in the trial court's disposition to credit accused-appellant's preventive imprisonment toward service of his sentence.

Bellosillo, Quisumbing, Buena, and De Leon Jr., JJ., concurred.