People vs. Solina

Illegal recruitment in large scale is committed when a person without license or authority undertakes recruitment and placement activities against three or more persons, and it constitutes economic sabotage punishable by life imprisonment and a fine of not less than P500,000.00 nor more than P1,000,000.00; the same acts may also support a separate conviction for estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the RPC. Solina's recruitment of complainants for a P20,000.00 fee each, without a POEA license, fell under this rule.

Ma. Fe Torres Solina was prosecuted under informations alleging illegal recruitment in large scale under R.A. No. 8042, the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, and estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the RPC in connection with her dealings with several persons seeking overseas employment in Japan. R.A. No. 8042 treats illegal recruitment committed in large scale as economic sabotage and, under Section 7(b), prescribes life imprisonment and a fine of not less than P500,000.00 nor more than P1,000,000.00. The RPC separately punishes estafa by false pretenses or fraudulent acts.

Ma. Fe Torres Solina a.k.a. Ma. Fe Baylon Gallo was accused of recruiting several persons for overseas employment in Japan without the license or authority required by law. The illegal recruitment charge under R.A. No. 8042 covered the period from September 2005 to February 2006 in Makati City and named Monica B. Himan, Erwin B. Dela Vega, Gladys Z. Remorento, Joey P. Bacolod, Marlon B. Dela Cruz, Augusto A. Cezar Garces, and Leynard B. Tutanes as complainants. Separate estafa informations under Article 315, paragraph 2(a), of the RPC were also filed for the amounts each complainant allegedly paid.

According to the prosecution, Solina represented herself as having the capacity to contract, enlist, transport, and refer workers for employment abroad and promised the complainants factory work in Japan for a fee of P20,000.00 each. The complainants met Solina on separate occasions and under different premises; she informed them of the job vacancies in Japan and the requirements for application, and she accompanied them to training and seminars conducted by a person who represented himself as connected with TESDA. Relying on her representations, the complainants entrusted their money to her: Monica B. Himan in September 2005; Joey P. Bacolod and Marlon B. Dela Cruz in October 2005; Erwin B. Dela Vega and Gladys Z. Remorento in November 2005; and Augusto Cezar A. Garces and Leynard B. Tutanes in February 2006, each in the amount of P20,000.00.

The promised employment never materialized, and Solina failed to deploy the complainants and to return the money and documents they submitted despite demands. A Certification dated April 7, 2006 issued by the POEA established that Solina had no license to recruit or engage in placement activities. The informations for illegal recruitment in large scale and estafa were dated June 16, 2006.

Solina pleaded not guilty and denied engaging in the business of recruiting workers for jobs abroad. She testified that she was also an applicant for overseas employment and merely accompanied the complainants to a recruitment agency. She alleged that complainants Dela Vega and Dela Cruz conspired, used her name, and represented themselves to the other applicants as authorized to collect documents and fees, and that she met the other complainants only in trainings and seminars. She also argued that the acknowledgment receipt she signed did not prove that the money she received was the consideration for complainant Garces' placement abroad.

After trial, the RTC found the prosecution witnesses credible and found that Solina had defrauded the private complainants into believing that she had the authority and capability to send them for overseas employment in Japan. It found that, because of her assurances, each complainant parted with P20,000.00, and that her promise never materialized, causing them damages to the extent of the sums delivered.

• Defense of Denial: Accused-appellant maintained that she was not engaged in the business of recruiting workers for jobs abroad; she claimed she was also an applicant for overseas employment and merely accompanied the private complainants to a recruitment agency.
• Conspiracy by Complainants: Accused-appellant alleged that private complainants Dela Vega and Dela Cruz conspired, used her name, and represented themselves to the other applicants as authorized to collect documents and fees, and that she only met the other private complainants in the trainings and seminars she attended.
• Acknowledgment Receipt: Accused-appellant argued that the acknowledgment receipt she signed did not prove that the money she received was the consideration for private complainant Garces' placement abroad.
• No Deceit for Estafa: Accused-appellant claimed that the prosecution failed to prove that she employed deceit to entice the private complainants to part with their money because she did not represent or pass herself off as a licensed recruiter.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: Accused-appellant assigned as errors the RTC's rejection of her defense and its finding of guilt despite the prosecution's alleged failure to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

• Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale: Whether the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of illegal recruitment in large scale under R.A. No. 8042.
• Estafa: Whether accused-appellant may be convicted of six counts of estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the RPC despite also being convicted of illegal recruitment.
• Penalty and Fine: Whether the CA correctly imposed life imprisonment and whether the fine for illegal recruitment in large scale should be P500,000.00 to P1,000,000.00 under Section 7(b) of R.A. No. 8042 instead of P200,000.00.

• Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale: Yes. All elements were established: Solina had no license, she undertook recruitment and placement activities, and she committed them against three or more persons. The complainants' positive testimonies and the POEA certification supported the conviction.
• Estafa: Yes. A person may be separately convicted of illegal recruitment and estafa; the prosecution proved deceit and damage for six counts, each involving P20,000.00.
• Penalty and Fine: Life imprisonment was proper, but the fine was erroneously set at P200,000.00. Section 7(b) of R.A. No. 8042 requires a fine of not less than P500,000.00 nor more than P1,000,000.00 for economic sabotage, so the SC imposed P500,000.00.

• Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale: The SC applied the three elements: (1) the offender has no valid license or authority; (2) the offender undertakes recruitment and placement under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code or prohibited practices under Article 34 (now Section 6 of R.A. No. 8042); and (3) the offender commits the acts against three or more persons, individually or as a group. The first element was present because Solina admitted lack of authority and the POEA Certification dated April 7, 2006 established that she had no license. The second and third elements were also present: on separate occasions and under different premises, Solina met and recruited six complainants, gave them the impression that she could facilitate applications for factory workers in Japan, promised employment for a fee of P20,000.00, and accompanied them to training and seminars conducted by a person who represented himself as connected with TESDA. The complainants testified that they personally met Solina and paid placement fees, and their testimonies corroborated each other on the amount, country of destination, training, and documentary requirements. Her denial could not overcome the positive identification and testimonies of the prosecution witnesses; the SC cited the rule that greater weight is given to positive identification than denial, and that credibility findings of the trial court, affirmed by the CA, are entitled to full weight and credit.
• Estafa: The SC held that a person may be charged and convicted separately of illegal recruitment under R.A. No. 8042, in relation to the Labor Code, and estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the RPC. The elements of estafa are: (a) the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit; and (b) damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party or third person. The RTC and CA found that Solina defrauded the private complainants into believing that she had the authority and capability to send them for overseas employment in Japan; because of her assurances, each complainant parted with P20,000.00, but her promise never materialized, causing them damages to the extent of the sums delivered. The SC therefore affirmed the six estafa convictions.
• Penalty and Fine: The SC found no reason to correct the CA's modification of the penalty to life imprisonment. The trial court had imposed an indeterminate penalty of six years and one day to eight years, but the proper penalty under Section 7(b) of R.A. No. 8042 is life imprisonment. Under the last paragraph of Section 6 of R.A. No. 8042, illegal recruitment is considered economic sabotage if committed in large scale, meaning against three or more persons individually or as a group; six private complainants testified against Solina's acts, making her acts economic sabotage. Section 7(b) imposes life imprisonment and a fine of not less than P500,000.00 nor more than P1,000,000.00. The CA erred in not increasing the fine: it cited Section 7(b) but retained the RTC's P200,000.00 fine, which is below the minimum. The SC imposed P500,000.00.

• Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale — The crime requires: (1) the offender has no valid license or authority required by law; (2) the offender undertakes any activity within "recruitment and placement" under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code or any prohibited practice under Article 34 (now Section 6 of R.A. No. 8042); and (3) the offender commits the acts against three or more persons, individually or as a group. The SC applied these elements to Solina, who recruited six complainants for a P20,000.00 fee each without a POEA license.
• Economic Sabotage in Illegal Recruitment — Under the last paragraph of Section 6 of R.A. No. 8042, illegal recruitment committed in large scale—against three or more persons individually or as a group—is economic sabotage. Section 7(b) then imposes life imprisonment and a fine of not less than P500,000.00 nor more than P1,000,000.00. The SC applied this because six complainants testified against Solina.
• Separate Conviction for Illegal Recruitment and Estafa — A person may be charged and convicted separately of illegal recruitment under R.A. No. 8042, in relation to the Labor Code, and estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the RPC. The SC applied this rule to affirm Solina's six estafa convictions alongside her illegal recruitment conviction.
• Estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the RPC — The elements are: (a) the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit; and (b) damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party or third person. The SC applied this where Solina falsely represented authority and capability to deploy the complainants, who each paid P20,000.00 and suffered damages when no deployment followed.
• Credibility of Witnesses and Defense of Denial — Findings of the trial court on witness credibility are entitled to great respect, and when affirmed by the appellate court are accorded full weight and credit, if not conclusive effect. Positive identification by prosecution witnesses is given greater weight than the accused's denial and explanation. The SC applied this to reject Solina's denial.

• "All the elements of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale are present, namely: (1) the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable him to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers; (2) the offender undertakes any of the activities within the meaning of "recruitment and placement" under Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code, or any of the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of the said Code (now Section 6 of R.A. 8042); and (3) the offender committed the same against three (3) or more persons, individually or as a group." — The SC used this formulation to test whether Solina's acts constituted large-scale illegal recruitment.
• "It is settled that a person may be charged and convicted separately of illegal recruitment under R.A. 8042, in relation to the Labor Code, and estafa under Article 315 (2) (a) of the Revised Penal Code." — The SC relied on this to affirm the six estafa convictions alongside the illegal recruitment conviction.
• "Under Section 7 (b) of R.A. 8042, the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of not less than P500,000.00 nor more than P1,000,000.00 shall be imposed if illegal recruitment constitutes economic sabotage." — The SC applied this provision to correct the fine from P200,000.00 to P500,000.00.
• "As is well-settled in this jurisdiction, greater weight is given to the positive identification of the accused by the prosecution witnesses than the accused's denial and explanation concerning the commission of the crime." — The SC used this rule to reject Solina's defense of denial.

• People vs. Gharbia, 369 Phil. 942, 953 (1999) — Followed; cited to support giving greater weight to positive identification by prosecution witnesses than the accused's denial.
• People vs. Gallemit, G.R. No. 197539, June 2, 2014, 724 SCRA 359, 382 — Followed; cited for the rule that a person may be separately charged and convicted of illegal recruitment and estafa.
• People vs. Arnaiz, G.R. No. 205153, September 9, 2015 — Followed; cited for the elements of estafa.
• People vs. Lazaro, Jr., 619 Phil. 235, 254 (2009) — Followed; cited for the respect accorded to the trial court's findings on witness credibility.
• People vs. Sabadlah, 679 Phil. 425, 438 (2012) — Followed; cited for according full weight and credit to credibility findings affirmed by the appellate court.

• Article 13(b), Labor Code — Defines recruitment and placement; applied because Solina's promises of employment for a fee and collection of placement fees fell within the definition.
• Article 34, Labor Code (now Section 6, R.A. No. 8042) — Lists prohibited practices; included in the second element of illegal recruitment.
• Section 6, R.A. No. 8042 — Its last paragraph provides that illegal recruitment in large scale, committed against three or more persons individually or as a group, is economic sabotage; applied because six complainants testified against Solina.
• Section 7(b), R.A. No. 8042 — Imposes life imprisonment and a fine of not less than P500,000.00 nor more than P1,000,000.00 if illegal recruitment constitutes economic sabotage; applied by the SC in imposing life imprisonment and a P500,000.00 fine.
• Article 315, paragraph 2(a), Revised Penal Code — Punishes estafa by false pretenses or fraudulent acts; applied to the six estafa counts, each involving P20,000.00.