786 Phil. 150
PERALTA, J.:
In Criminal Case No. 07-1399 for illegal recruitment in a large scale:At the respective arraignment of the cases mentioned above, appellant pleaded not guilty to each of the charges. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.That in or about and sometime between the months of April 2006 and June 2006, in the City of Makati, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being authorized by the Department of Labor and Employment to recruit workers for overseas employment, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously recruit and promise complainant, namely:In Criminal Case No. 07-3108 for illegal recruitment in a large scale with another accused Vincent Zulueta (the case against the latter was sent to the archives as he was at large):for overseas job placement and in consideration of said promise, said complainants paid and delivered to accused sums of money as placement/processing fees and having failed to actually deploy said complainants without any valid reason and without the latter's fault, the said accused failed to reimburse the expenses incurred by the said private complainants in connection with the documentation and processing of their papers for purposes of their deployment, to the damage and prejudice of the above-named complainants.
Anthony Galiste: P75,000.00 Romulo Nones: P75,000.00 Elisa Escobar: P75,000.00 Geraldine Cariño: P75,000.00 Diony Aragaon: P75,000.00 Maribel Rosimo: P75,000.00 Gilbert Rosimo: P75,000.00 EricValdez: P75,000.00
Contrary to law.That in or about the months of April and May 2006, in the City of Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together and both of them mutually helping and aiding one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously recruit and promise employment/job placement to RICHARD COLLAMAR, CAROL COLLAMAR, and CECILLE M. BARTOLOME as factory workers in Korea, and in consideration of said promise collected from complainants the total amount of P225,000.00 as placement/processing fees and both accused despite receipt of the fees from complainants failed to actually deploy said complainants without valid reasons and without the workers' fault, and despite demand to reimburse expenses to said complainants, thus, in large scale amounting to economic sabotage.In Criminal Case No. 08-066 for illegal recruitment:
Contrary to law.That in or about the period from April to June 2006, in the City of Makati, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being then authorized by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration to recruit workers for overseas employment, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously recruit and promise complainants ROSEMARIE A. RESPUETO and LEO JOHN M. ALDAY overseas employment as factory workers in South Korea, and in consideration of said promise, complainants paid and delivered to accused sums of money as placement/processing fees, and having failed to actually deploy complainants without any valid reason and without the latter's fault, the accused failed to reimburse the expenses incurred by complainants in connection with the documentation and processing of their papers for purposes of deployment, in violation of the aforecited law.
Contrary to law.
Re: Criminal Case Number 07-1399.On the other hand, accused-appellant denied all the allegations against her and presented the following defense:
The following persons testified for the prosecution: Elisa Escobar (hereafter, "Escobar"); Geraldine Cariño (hereafter, "Cariño"); and Diony Aragon (hereafter, "Aragon"). The evidence for the Prosecution is summarized thus: sometime in April 2006, Escobar went to the office of the Southern Cohabite Landbase Management Corporation (hereafter, "SCLMC") located at Makati City to meet Zulueta, an agent of the SCLMC. Zulueta introduced Escobar to accused-appellant. Accused-appellant told Escobar she will be employed as a factory worker in Korea within 3 months from payment of the P75,000.00 placement fee. Escobar tendered the said amount to Zulueta at the SCLMC office evidenced by the cash voucher dated 28 April 2006 signed by SCLAMCOR (Southern Cotabato Landbase Management Corporation). The cash voucher acknowledged receipt of the P75,000.00 from Escobar. It also stated that the P75,000.00 was for payment of the processing fee for Korea. A month after paying the placement fee, SCLMC informed Escobar she had to undergo Korean Language Training. Escobar complied. When Escobar did not hear from accused-appellant for another month, she decided to withdraw her placement fee. Accused-appellant failed to return her money, thus Escobar filed the suit for illegal recruitment.
Cariño testified she came to know accused-appellant sometime in April 2006, when Zulueta brought her to the office of the SCLMC at Makati City. Zulueta and accused-appellant told Cariño she will be employed as a factory worker in Korea within 3 months from payment of the P75,000.00 placement fee. Cariño tendered the said amount to Zulueta at the SCLMC office evidenced by the cash voucher dated 28 April 2006 signed by SCLAMCOR. The cash voucher acknowledged receipt of the P75,000.00 from Cariño. It also stated that the P75,000.00 was for payment of the processing fee for Korea. Accused-appellant was beside Zulueta when the latter gave the cash voucher to Cariño. Cariño was then asked to submit a medical examination and undergo Korean Language Training to expedite her application. Three months after complying with the requirements, Cariño was still not deployed for employment abroad. Cariño then filed this case against accused-appellant.
Sometime in 2006, Aragon was convinced by his friends to apply at the SCLMC. Zulueta brought him to the SCLMC office. Zulueta introduced Aragon to the accused-appellant. Accused-appellant told Aragon he will be employed as a factory worker in Korea within 3 months from payment of the P75,000.00 placement fee. Aragon tendered the said amount to Zulueta at the SCLMC office evidenced by the cash voucher acknowledged receipt of the P75,000.00 from Aragon. It also stated that the P75,000.00 was for payment of the processing fee for Korea. Three months after paying the placement fee, Aragon was not deployed for Korea. Aragon then asked accused-appellant to return his P75,000.00. Accused-appellant told Aragon she would give him P50,000.00, while Zulueta will give him P25,000.00. Aragon filed the case because accused-appellant failed to return the P75,000.00.[3]
Re: Criminal Case Number 07-3108
Cecille Bartolome (hereafter, "Bartolome") testified for the prosecution. The evidence of the Prosecution is summarized, thus: Bartolome met accused-appellant at the SCLMC office on 27 April 2006. In the office, accused-appellant and Zulueta told Bartolome and her companions (namely Carol Collamar, Sosen Fernandez, and Michelle Fernandez) they would be deployed to Korea as factory workers within three months from payment of the P75,000.00 placement fee each. Bartolome tendered the said amount to Zulueta at the SCLMC office evidenced by the cash voucher acknowledged receipt of the P75,000.00 from Bartolome. It also stated that the P75,000.00 was for payment of the processing fee for Korea. In July 2006, Bartolome and her companions went back to the SCLMC office to inquire about the progress of their application. Accused-appellant told Bartolome to wait. Bartolome was still not employed by November 2006, so she decided to withdraw her money from accused-appellant. Accused-appellant did not return the P75,000.00, so Bartolome reported the matter to the National Bureau of Investigation (hereafter, "NBI"). The NBI arrested accused-appellant on 5 January 2007. Accused-appellant issued PNB check number 7381 in favor of Bartolome. The check bounced for being drawn against a closed account.[4]
Re: Criminal Case Number 08-066
Leo John Alday (hereafter, "Alday") and Rosemarie Respueto (hereafter, "Respueto") testified for the Prosecution. The evidence of the Prosecution is summarized, thus: sometime in April 2006, Alday went to the SCLMC to look for employment abroad. At the SCLMC office, Alday met with Rolando Salilin (hereafter, "Salilin"), an agent of the SCLMC. Salilin promised Alday he will be employed as factory worker in Korea with a monthly salary of P80,000.00. Alday paid the placement fee of P75,000.00. A month after paying the placement fee, Alday was still not deployed for employment abroad. Alday thus filed this case against accused-appellant.
Respuesto testified in May 2006, he went to the SCLMC to look for employment abroad. At the SCLMC office, Respuesto met with Loreta Gasi (hereafter, "Gasi"), an agent of the SCLMC. Gasi promised Respuesto she will be employed as factory worker in Korea with a monthly salary of P80,000.00. Respueto paid the placement fee of P90,000.00. Two months after paying the placement fee, Respueto was still not deployed for employment abroad. In August 2006, Repuesto decided to withdraw her money. Respuesto filed this case when accused-appellant failed to return her money.[5]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused DELIA MOLINA Y CABRA GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged and she is hereby sentenced as follows:Accused-appellant filed an appeal before the CA and the latter, on December 14, 2012, rendered a Decision affirming the RTC with modification, the dispositive portion of which reads, as follows:
a. In Crim. Case No. 07-1399, she is sentenced to suffer life imprisonment, to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php 500,000.00), without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to indemnify the offended party Elisa Escobar, Geraldine Cariño, and Diony Castillo Aragon the amount of Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (Php 75,000.00) each as actual damages and the costs;
b. In Criminal Case No. 07-3108, to suffer the indeterminate penalty of SIX (6) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of prision correccional, as minimum, to SEVEN (7) YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS and TWENTY-ONE (21) DAYS of prision mayor as maximum and to indemnify the offended party Cecille Bartolome the amount of Seventy- Five Thousand Pesos (Php 75,000.00) and the costs;
In Criminal Case No. 08-066, she is hereby ACQUITTED for insufficiency of evidence.
SO ORDERED.
WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision convicting accused-appellant in Criminal Case Number 07-1399 (for large scale illegal recruitment) and Criminal Case Number 07-3108 (for illegal recruitment) is AFFIRMED with Modification:Hence, the present appeal.
1. Criminal Case Number 07-1399 (for large scale illegal recruitment): accused-appellant is sentenced to life imprisonment, pay a fine of P500,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to indemnify the offended party Elisa Escobar, Geraldine Cariño, and Fiony Castillo Aragon the amount of P75,000.00 each as actual damages, and the costs;
2. In Criminal Case Number 07-3108 (for illegal recruitment), accused-appellant is sentenced to imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1) day as minimum to 12 years as maximum, and to pay a fine of P200,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to indemnify Bartolome the amount of P75,000.00, and the costs.
SO ORDERED.
Atty. Tacorda: I noticed, Madam Witness, that this Job Order are all for Malaysia. Do you have any job order for Korea?Without any authority, accused-appellant still engaged in recruitment activities by offering and promising jobs, and collecting placement fees as testified to by private complainants Escobar, Cariño and Aragon.[8] Thus, the second element of the crime is present. Article 13, par. (b) of the Labor Code, reads as follows:
Witness: We don't have Job Order from Korea, ma'am.
Atty. Tacorda: Have you ever had job order from Korea before July 2006?
Witness: We don't have job order from Korea because only 7 agencies are allowed to deploy workers to Korea.
Atty. Tacorda: So are you saying that Southern Cotabato Landbase Management Corporation is not allowed to recruit workers from Korea for purposes of overseas employment?
Witness: Yes, ma'am.[7]
(b) "Recruitment and placement" refers to any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract services, promising and advertising for employment locally or abroad, whether for profit or not: 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.In this case, the prosecution was able to prove that accused-appellant was engaged in the recruitment and placement of the private complainant as the accused was the one who told the private complainants that they will be sent to Korea as factory workers within three months from payment of the placement fees and that the placement fees were made in the office of the SCLMC in the presence of the accused-appellant or on her instruction.
(a) the accused-appellant had no valid license or authority required by law to enable her to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers per her testimony that SCLMC did not have authority to operate its business on April and May 2006 as its license was temporarily suspended by the POBA at that particular time.[9] Accused-appellant further testified that SCLMC had no authority to recruit workers for Korea because it had no job order for that purpose.[10]Furthermore, it is worthy to emphasize that under Section 6[13] of Republic Act No. 8042, illegal recruitment is defined as including any person, whether a non-licensee, non-holder, licensee or holder of authority. Thus, the contention of accused-appellant that she was a holder of a license to operate as a recruiter during the alleged period when the crimes were committed does not matter because she was still performing an act considered to be an illegal recruitment by failing to reimburse the expenses incurred by the private complainants. Under Section 6 (m) of R.A. No. 8042, failure to reimburse expenses incurred by the workers 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, is considered as performing illegal recruitment.
(b) the accused-appellant engaged in recruitment and placement of private complainant Bartolome when she told the, latter that she will be sent to Korea as a factory worker after payment of the placement fee[11] which private complainant Bartolome paid in the office of the SCLMC in the presence of accused-appellant.[12]