People vs. Saulo

An unlicensed person who promises overseas employment for a fee to three or more persons commits illegal recruitment in large scale, and may at the same time be convicted of estafa where deceit induced the victims to part with money to their damage. The absence of license rendered all recruitment activities criminal, credible complainant testimony sufficed without receipts, and the simultaneous estafa liability stood because illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum while estafa requires criminal intent and damage.

Romulo Saulo, Amelia de la Cruz, and Clodualdo de la Cruz were private individuals prosecuted for offering overseas placement as factory workers in Taiwan for fees. Philippine labor law requires a license or authority from the Department of Labor and Employment to engage in recruitment and placement, whether locally or overseas, with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration implementing the licensing regime. Amelia de la Cruz and Clodualdo de la Cruz remained at large, leaving Saulo as the sole accused tried.

Benny Maligaya, Angeles Javier, and Leodigario Maullon each sought overseas work as factory workers in Taiwan through accused-appellant Romulo Saulo in Quezon City during the period from April 1990 to May 1990. Maligaya, having learned from a relative of Saulo that he was recruiting workers for Taiwan, went with Javier and Amelia de la Cruz to Saulo’s house in San Francisco del Monte, Quezon City sometime in April or May 1990, where Saulo told her she could leave upon payment of processing fees; she later also met Amelia and Clodualdo de la Cruz at their house in Baesa, Quezon City, where they assured her they were authorized by the POEA to recruit for Taiwan. Maligaya paid Saulo and Amelia de la Cruz P35,000.00 as evidenced by a receipt dated May 21, 1990 signed by Saulo and Amelia de la Cruz. Javier, a widow and relative by affinity of Saulo, was told by Saulo’s wife Ligaya to apply through Saulo; at Saulo’s Quezon City residence Saulo told her he could get her a Taiwan factory job for P35,000.00 for passport preparation, and she gave an initial P20,000.00 without asking for a receipt because she trusted him.

On April 19, 1990, Maullon, upon invitation of neighbor Araceli Sanchez, went to Saulo’s house to discuss employment abroad, where Saulo assured him of a Taiwan factory job for P30,000.00 for processing papers. Maullon thereafter paid P7,900.00 to Saulo’s wife, evidenced by a receipt dated April 21, 1990; paid an additional P6,800.00 in the presence of Saulo and Amelia de la Cruz, evidenced by a receipt dated April 25, 1990; and paid P15,700.00 to Loreta Tumalig, a friend of Saulo, as shown by a receipt dated September 14, 1990, for a total of P30,400.00. None of the promised employment materialized, prompting Maligaya, Javier, and Maullon to file complaints with the POEA. The prosecution presented a POEA certification dated July 26, 1994 stating that the accused are not licensed to recruit workers for overseas employment.

According to Saulo, he was also merely applying with Amelia de la Cruz for overseas employment and met the three complainants when they went together to Amelia de la Cruz’s house in Novaliches, Quezon City sometime in May 1990 to follow up applications. He flatly denied being a recruiter or agent, denied receiving money or signing receipts, and contended the complainants were prevailed upon by his mother-in-law, with whom he had a misunderstanding, to file the cases. The trial court credited the prosecution witnesses and found Saulo guilty of three counts of estafa and illegal recruitment in large scale.

• Denial and Co-Applicant Claim: Accused-appellant maintained that he never received money from complainants nor processed their papers, insisting he was merely their co-applicant similarly deceived by Amelia and Clodualdo de la Cruz.
• Receipts and Beneficiary of Payments: Accused-appellant argued that the fact Maligaya and Javier went to the house of Amelia and Clodualdo de la Cruz in Novaliches, Quezon City to recover money and follow up applications proved the de la Cruzes received the fees, and that his failure to sign all receipts weakened the prosecution case.
• Absence of Supporting Documents: Accused-appellant contended complainants could not have honestly believed he could obtain passports since they did not give him birth certificates, baptismal certificates, NBI clearances, and marriage contracts.
• License Issued Only to Corporations: Accused-appellant contended he could not have committed illegal recruitment in large scale since POEA labor and employment officer Nancy Avelino testified that recruitment licenses are issued only to corporations and not to natural persons.

• Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale: Whether accused-appellant engaged in recruitment and placement without license or authority against three or more persons constituting illegal recruitment in large scale.
• Credibility and Sufficiency of Evidence: Whether denial prevails over complainants’ testimonies and whether absence of accused-appellant’s signature on all receipts warrants acquittal.
• Natural Persons as Offenders: Whether a natural person can commit illegal recruitment in large scale where licenses are allegedly issued only to corporations.
• Estafa: Whether accused-appellant is also liable for estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code on the same facts.
• Correct Penalties: Whether the indeterminate penalties imposed for the three estafa counts were correctly computed.

• Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale: Yes. All three elements were established: promising Taiwan factory jobs for fees constituted recruitment, absence of license was certified by POEA, and the acts were committed against three persons.
• Credibility and Sufficiency of Evidence: No. Denial, being self-serving and uncorroborated, cannot prevail over straightforward complainant testimonies, and conviction may rest on credible testimony even without receipts.
• Natural Persons as Offenders: No. Any natural or juridical person engaging in recruitment without license or authority, including unauthorized agents, is punishable under Article 39 of the Labor Code.
• Estafa: Yes. False assurances of overseas work induced complainants to part with money to their damage and prejudice, satisfying Article 315, paragraph 2(a).
• Correct Penalties: No, in part. The estafa indeterminate sentences required recomputation under Article 315 and the Indeterminate Sentence Law, while life imprisonment and P100,000.00 fine for illegal recruitment were retained.

• Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale: The three elements under Articles 38(b) and 39 were satisfied. Under Article 13(b), any person or entity offering or promising for a fee employment to two or more persons is deemed engaged in recruitment and placement. The prosecution established that Saulo promised Maligaya, Javier, and Maullon employment in Taiwan as factory workers and asked for money to process papers and passports, upon which they entrusted hard-earned money for a vain hope of employment. Non-compliance with the license requirement was undisputed and supported by the POEA certification, rendering all recruitment activities criminal.
• Credibility and Sufficiency of Evidence: Denial was rejected as self-serving and uncorroborated, unable to overcome explicit identifications by complainants of Saulo as the person who enticed them with representations of capacity for overseas employment. In the absence of improper motive on the part of prosecution witnesses, the trial court’s credibility assessment was left undisturbed. Failure to sign all receipts did not weaken the case because conviction may rest on credible complainant testimony, and absence of receipts is not fatal.
• Natural Persons as Offenders: The argument based on POEA testimony was rejected as specious. Article 13(b) expressly covers any person or entity, a nonlicensee or nonholder of authority includes any person, corporation, or entity without valid license or authority or whose license was suspended, revoked, or canceled, and agents appointed by a licensee without prior POEA authorization fall within nonlicensee. Thus any natural person engaging in recruitment without necessary license or authority is penalized.
• Estafa: Simultaneous conviction was sustained because illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum where criminal intent is unnecessary, while estafa is malum in se requiring intent. The elements under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) — defraudation by abuse of confidence or deceit and damage capable of pecuniary estimation — were met, as false assurances induced payment and the promised employment never materialized.
• Correct Penalties: Under Article 315, fraud over P12,000.00 but not exceeding P22,000.00 is punished by prision correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum, imposed in its maximum period with one year added per additional P10,000.00 over P22,000.00, not exceeding twenty years. Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum must be within prision correccional minimum to medium (6 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months), while the maximum is taken from the prescribed penalty divided into minimum, medium, and maximum periods pursuant to Articles 64 and 65. Applied to P35,000.00, P20,000.00, and P30,400.00, corrected indeterminate terms and actual damages were imposed, with life imprisonment and P100,000.00 fine retained for illegal recruitment under Article 39(a).

• Illegal recruitment in large scale; elements — The essential elements are: (1) engagement in recruitment and placement as defined under Article 13(b) or in prohibited activities under Article 34 of the Labor Code; (2) non-compliance with guidelines of the Secretary of Labor and Employment, particularly securing a license or authority; and (3) commission against three or more persons, individually or as a group. The Court applied all three to affirm Saulo’s liability to three complainants without POEA license.
• Recruitment and placement; deemed engaged — Under Article 13(b), recruitment and placement means 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, provided that any person or entity offering or promising for a fee employment to two or more persons is deemed engaged therein. Saulo’s promises of Taiwan jobs for processing fees fell within this definition.
• Nonlicensee or nonholder of authority — A nonlicensee is any person, corporation, or entity without valid license or authority from the Secretary of Labor, or whose license was suspended, revoked, or canceled, including agents appointed by a licensee without prior POEA authorization. This defeated the claim that natural persons cannot commit illegal recruitment.
• Testimonial evidence sufficient without receipts in illegal recruitment — A person charged with illegal recruitment may be convicted on the strength of credible and convincing complainant testimonies, and absence of receipts does not warrant acquittal nor is necessarily fatal. Saulo’s lack of signature on all receipts therefore did not exculpate him.
• Concurrent liability for illegal recruitment and estafa — Illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum while estafa is malum in se, so criminal intent is unnecessary for the former but required for the latter, allowing charge and conviction for both on the same facts. Both were sustained because deceit and damage were additionally proved.
• Estafa by deceit; elements under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) — The elements are (1) defraudation of another by abuse of confidence or deceit, and (2) damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation to the offended party or third person. False assurances of overseas employment that induced payment for jobs that never materialized satisfied both.
• Indeterminate Sentence Law applied to estafa — The maximum is that properly imposable under the Revised Penal Code in view of attending circumstances, and the minimum is within the range next lower in degree; where the amount exceeds P22,000.00, the Article 315 penalty is imposed in its maximum period plus one year per additional P10,000.00, capped at twenty years, with periods fixed under Articles 64 and 65. This governed recomputation of Saulo’s three estafa sentences.

• "Provided, That any person or entity which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement." — States the statutory proviso under Article 13(b) used to hold that Saulo’s promises of Taiwan employment for fees constituted recruitment and placement.
• "A person charged with illegal recruitment may be convicted on the strength of the testimonies of the complainants, if found to be credible and convincing." — States the evidentiary rule rejecting acquittal based on missing signatures or receipts.
• "The absence of receipts to evidence payment does not warrant an acquittal of the accused, and it is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution’s cause." — Reinforces that documentary proof of payment is not indispensable where testimony is credible.
• "The reason for this is that illegal recruitment is a malum prohibitum, whereas estafa is malum in se, meaning that the criminal intent of the accused is not necessary for conviction in the former, but is required in the latter." — States the doctrinal basis for simultaneous conviction for illegal recruitment and estafa.

• People vs. Sadiosa, 290 SCRA 92 (1998) — Cited as authority for the elements of illegal recruitment in large scale and for concurrent liability for illegal recruitment and estafa.
• People vs. Benedictus, 288 SCRA 319 (1998) — Cited as authority for the elements of illegal recruitment in large scale.
• People vs. Cabiles, 284 SCRA 199 (1998) — Cited to support deference to the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility absent improper motive.
• People vs. Obello, 284 SCRA 79 (1998) — Cited to support deference to the trial court’s credibility assessment.
• People vs. Saley, 291 SCRA 715 (1998) — Cited to support conviction on complainant testimony, effect of absent receipts, elements of estafa, and computation of estafa penalty.
• People vs. Sanchez, 291 SCRA 333 (1998) — Cited to support conviction on testimony and concurrent liability for illegal recruitment and estafa.
• People vs. Juego, 298 SCRA 22 (1998) — Cited to support that absence of receipts is not fatal to illegal recruitment prosecution.
• Abaca vs. Court of Appeals, 290 SCRA 657 (1998) — Cited for the definitions of nonlicensee/nonholder of authority and unauthorized agents under POEA rules.
• People vs. Menil, G.R. No. 115054-66, prom. September 12, 2000 — Followed for the recomputed indeterminate penalties for estafa involving amounts exceeding P22,000.00.

• Article 38(b), Labor Code — Defines illegal recruitment, including commission against three or more persons individually or as a group as large scale; applied to Saulo’s acts toward three complainants.
• Article 39(a), Labor Code — Punishes illegal recruitment in large scale with life imprisonment and fine; applied to impose life imprisonment and P100,000.00 fine in Crim. Case No. Q-91-21911.
• Article 13(b), Labor Code — Defines recruitment and placement and deems offering or promising for a fee employment to two or more persons as engagement therein; applied to characterize Saulo’s promises and fee collections.
• Article 13(d) and 13(f), Labor Code — Define license and authority issued by the Department of Labor; absence thereof, as certified by POEA, rendered recruitment criminal.
• Article 34, Labor Code — Referenced as prohibited activities constituting the first element of illegal recruitment alongside Article 13(b).
• Article 315, paragraph 2(a), Revised Penal Code — Punishes estafa by false pretenses or fraudulent acts with scale of penalties based on amount defrauded; applied to three counts involving P35,000.00, P20,000.00, and P30,400.00, with incremental penalty for excess over P22,000.00.
• Indeterminate Sentence Law; Articles 64 and 65, Revised Penal Code — Govern fixing of minimum within the next lower degree and division of the prescribed penalty into three periods; applied to correct the estafa sentences.
• Article 29, Revised Penal Code — Entitlement of detention prisoner to credit for preventive imprisonment; recognized by the trial court for Saulo.

Melo, J. (Chairman), Vitug, J., Panganiban, J.