People vs. Temporada

The minimum term of an indeterminate sentence for estafa under Article 315, par. 2(a) of the RPC is derived from the penalty next lower to the prescribed penalty without considering the incremental penalty for amounts exceeding P22,000, which is treated as an attending circumstance for determining the maximum term.

From September 2001 to January 2002, Beth Temporada and several co-accused, representing themselves as employees of Alternative Travel and Tours Corporation (ATTC), recruited five complainants for overseas employment in Singapore and Hong Kong. Appellant introduced herself as ATTC’s General Manager, briefed applicants on deployment requirements, and collected placement fees. None of the recruits were deployed, and their fees were not refunded.

• Recruitment and Collection: Appellant and co-accused canvassed, enlisted, and promised overseas employment to five complainants, collecting placement fees ranging from P57,600.00 to P88,520.00.
• Appellant's Participation: Appellant identified herself as General Manager, persuaded complainant Legaspi to apply as a technician in Singapore, and received P10,000.00 from him. She also briefed Atle, Minkay, and Dimaano on requirements, assured them of immediate deployment, and received P10,000.00 from Estacio for which a receipt for P5,000.00 was issued.
• Non-Deployment: The promised overseas employment did not materialize, and the collected fees were not reimbursed.
• Lack of License: POEA certification and testimony established that appellant and her co-accused lacked any authority or license to recruit workers for overseas employment.

• Insufficiency of Evidence: Appellant argued that the prosecution failed to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt for illegal recruitment and estafa.
• Mere Employee: Appellant maintained that she was merely an employee of ATTC "echoing the requirement of her employer" and was unaware of the illegal nature of the activities.

• Liability for Illegal Recruitment: Whether appellant's guilt for illegal recruitment in large scale was established despite her claim of being a mere employee unaware of the illegal activities.
• Liability for Estafa: Whether appellant can be convicted of both illegal recruitment and estafa for the same acts.
• Computation of Penalties: Whether the CA correctly computed the indeterminate penalties for estafa under Article 315, par. 2(a) of the RPC in relation to the incremental penalty rule.

• Liability for Illegal Recruitment: Appellant's liability as a principal was established. Active participation in recruitment—introducing oneself as general manager, briefing applicants, and collecting fees—demonstrated unity of purpose with co-accused, establishing conspiracy. The defense of lack of awareness of the illegal nature of the activities fails; illegal recruitment in large scale is malum prohibitum, rendering criminal intent immaterial.
• Liability for Estafa: A person convicted of illegal recruitment may be separately convicted of estafa for the same acts. The elements of estafa—defrauding another by deceit and the resulting damage—were proven by the false promises of overseas employment and the subsequent loss of the complainants' money.
• Computation of Penalties: The CA erred in computing the indeterminate penalties. Under the Gabres doctrine, the minimum term is taken from the range of the penalty next lower to the prescribed penalty (prisión correccional minimum and medium), without considering the incremental penalty. The maximum term is computed by adding the incremental penalty (1 year for every P10,000.00 in excess of P22,000.00) to the maximum period of the prescribed penalty. Fractions of a year in the excess amount are discarded pursuant to People v. Pabalan.

• Liability of Employees in Illegal Recruitment — An employee of a company engaged in illegal recruitment may be held liable as a principal if it is shown that they actively and consciously participated in the recruitment activities.
• Malum Prohibitum in Illegal Recruitment — Illegal recruitment in large scale under R.A. No. 8042 is malum prohibitum; thus, criminal intent is not a necessary element for conviction.
• Dual Conviction for Illegal Recruitment and Estafa — A person convicted of illegal recruitment under the Labor Code may, for the same acts, be separately convicted of estafa under Article 315, par. 2(a) of the RPC.
• Computation of Indeterminate Penalties for Estafa (Gabres Doctrine) — For estafa under Article 315, par. 2(a) where the amount exceeds P22,000.00: (1) The prescribed penalty is prisión correccional maximum to prisión mayor minimum; (2) The minimum term is taken from the penalty next lower to the prescribed penalty (prisión correccional minimum and medium) without regard to the incremental penalty; (3) The maximum term is taken from the maximum period of the prescribed penalty, plus the incremental penalty (1 year for every P10,000.00 in excess of P22,000.00); (4) Fractions of a year in the excess amount are discarded.

• "Under The Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, a special law, the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale is malum prohibitum and not malum in se. Thus, the criminal intent of the accused is not necessary and the fact alone that the accused violated the law warrants her conviction."
• "The minimum term is taken from the penalty next lower or anywhere within prisión correccional minimum and medium... The maximum term is taken from the prescribed penalty of prisión correccional maximum to prisión mayor minimum in its maximum period, adding 1 year of imprisonment for every P10,000.00 in excess of P22,000.00, provided that the total penalty shall not exceed 20 years."
• "In fine, what is perceived as absurd and unjust is actually the intent of the legislature to be beneficial to the convict in order to uplift and redeem valuable human material, and prevent unnecessary and excessive deprivation of personal liberty and economic usefulness."

• People v. Gabres, 335 Phil. 242 (1997) — Followed. Established the formula for computing the indeterminate sentence for estafa where the amount exceeds P22,000.00, holding that the incremental penalty is treated as an attending circumstance for the maximum term, while the minimum term is based on the prescribed penalty.
• People v. Pabalan, 331 Phil. 64 (1996) — Followed. Established the rule that any fraction of a year in computing the incremental penalty for estafa shall be discarded, construing penal laws liberally in favor of the accused.
• People v. Benemerito, 332 Phil. 710 (1996) — Modified. The prior rule utilizing fractions of a year in computing the total incremental penalty was abandoned in favor of the Pabalan rule.
• People v. Gonzales, 73 Phil. 549 (1941) — Followed. Held that the minimum term must be based on the penalty prescribed by the Code for the offense "without regard to circumstances modifying criminal liability."

• 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 employment for a fee to two or more persons is deemed engaged in recruitment and placement.
• Article 38(a), Labor Code (as amended by R.A. No. 8042) — Defines illegal recruitment in large scale, requiring three elements: (1) no valid license, (2) undertaking recruitment activities, and (3) committed against three or more persons.
• Article 315, par. 2(a), Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes estafa by means of false pretenses or fraudulent acts. Prescribes the penalty of prisión correccional maximum to prisión mayor minimum if the amount exceeds P12,000 but not P22,000, and if it exceeds P22,000, the penalty is imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional P10,000, not exceeding 20 years.
• Section 1, Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act No. 4103) — Mandates that the maximum term of an indeterminate sentence is that which could be properly imposed under the rules of the Code in view of attending circumstances, and the minimum is within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense.
• Section 7(b), R.A. No. 8042 — Prescribes the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of not less than P500,000 nor more than P1,000,000 for illegal recruitment in large scale.

Reynato S. Puno (CJ), Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Antonio T. Carpio, Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez, Renato C. Corona, Conchita Carpio Morales, Adolfo S. Azcuna, Dante O. Tinga, Minita V. Chico-Nazario, Presbitero J. Velasco Jr., Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Arturo D. Brion.

• Ruben T. Reyes — Argued that the Gabres doctrine should be reexamined and abandoned. Proposed a "regular formula" where the maximum term is first computed by applying the incremental penalty rule, and the minimum term is then determined by descending one degree down the scale of penalties from the maximum term. Contended that the Gabres formula results in absurdity and injustice by "stagnating" the minimum term regardless of the amount defrauded.