HERNANDO, J.:
VIEWED IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, the Demurrer to Evidence is DENIED in as (sic) Criminal Case Nos. 17318, 17326, 17327, 17332, and 17346.The prosecution did not object to the dismissal of the above cases against accused-appellant.[17]
There being no evidence presented against accused Elnora Ebo Mandelma in Criminal Case Nos. 17319 to 17325, 17328 to 17331, 17333 to 17345, and 17347 to 17349, the Demurrer to Evidence is GRANTED and the said cases are ordered DISMISSED only as against accused Elnora Ebo Mandelma. Considering that the other accused - Perlita Castro Urquico @ 'Fhey' and Carlo Villavicencio Jr. @ 'Boyet' are at large and Alias Warrants of Arrest were already issued against them, let Criminal Case Nos. 17319 to 17325, 17328 to 17331, 17333 to 17345, and 17347 to 17349 be sent to the archives subject to their revival upon apprehension of the said accused or their voluntary surrender to this Court.
x x x x
SO ORDERED.[16]
This is to certify that based on available records of this Office, MHEYMAN MANPOWER INTERNATIONAL, with office address at 94 Gil Puyat Avenue, Makati City, represented by Elena M. Buenaventura, Proprietor, is a landbased agency whose licence is valid until September 21, 2010.Merrera claimed that he is familiar with Dir. Dizon's signature, having already received multiple certifications from the latter.[49] Furthermore, Merrera personally verified in their system whether the persons mentioned in the certification were licensed or not, but he found no records of them having authority to recruit workers for overseas employment.[50]
It is further clarified that Perlita Urquico a.k.a. Perlita Ramos, Claro Aniceta Villavicencio Jr., Lathea Estefanos Stellios are not included in the list of employees submitted to this office by the above agency.
Moreover, the agency has no registered branch office m San Fernando City, Pampanga.[48]
VIEWED IN LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, this Court finds the accused ELNORA EBO MANDELMA alias LATHEA ESTEFANOS STELLIOS guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Recruitment committed in a large scale which constitutes economic sabotage defined and penalized by R.A. 8042, as amended, and Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code, and hereby sentences her as follows:Aggrieved, accused-appellant appealed to the CA claiming that the RTC gravely erred in giving undue credence to the private complainants' version of the story, and in convicting her despite the prosecution's failure to overthrow the constitutional presumption of innocence in her favor.[60]
1) in Criminal Case No. 17318 (Illegal Recruitment), to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Php 2,000,000.00;
2) in Criminal Case No. 17326 (Estafa), to suffer the indeterminate penalty of 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional, as minimum, to 10 years, 8 months, and 21 days of prision mayor, as maximum, and to indemnify Arnold M. Lopez the amount of Php 51,500.00;
3) in Criminal Case No. 17327 (Estafa), to suffer the indeterminate penalty of 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional, as minimum, to 10 years, 8 months, and 21 days of prision mayor, as maximum, and to indemnify Saigee C. Lozano the amount of Php 51,500.00;
4) in Criminal Case No. 17332 (Estafa), to suffer the indeterminate penalty of 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional, as minimum, to 10 years, 8 months, and 21 days of prision mayor, as maximum, and to indemnify Andy M. Calma the amount of Php 51,500.00;
5) in Criminal Case No. 17346 (Estafa), to suffer the indeterminate penalty of 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional, as minimum, to 10 years, 8 months, and 21 days of prision mayor, as maximum, and to indemnify Bienvenida R. Galendez the amount of Php 51,500.00; and
6) to pay the costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.[59]
WHEREFORE, the Appeal is DENIED. We AFFIRM with MODIFICATIONS the January 16, 2014 Joint Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 41, San Fernando City, Pampanga to read as follows:Hence, the present petition before this Court.
1) In Criminal Case No. 17318 (Illegal Recruitment), the Court finds accused-appellant Elnora Ebo Mandelma alias "Lathea Estefanos Stellios" GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Recruitment committed in Large Scale, constituting economic sabotage, as defined and penalized in Sections 6 and 7(b) of Republic Act No. 8042, as amended. She is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Two Million Pesos (Php 2,000,000.00);
2) In Criminal Case No. 17326, the Court finds accused-appellant Elnora Ebo Mandelma alias "Lathea Estefanos Stellios" GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa, as defined and penalized in Article 315, paragraph 2 (a) of the Revised Penal Code. She is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years, eight (8) months, and twenty-one (21) days of prision mayor, as maximum, and to indemnify Arnold M. Lopez the amount of Fifty One Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (Php 51,500.00) with legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from November 2, 2010, until such amount is fully paid;
3) In Criminal Case No. 17327, the Court finds accused-appellant Elnora Ebo Mandelma alias "Lathea Estefanos Stellios" GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa, as defined and penalized in Article 315, paragraph 2 (a) of the Revised Penal Code. She is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years, eight (8) months, and twenty-one (21) days of prision mayor, as maximum, and to indemnify Saigee C. Lozano the amount of Fifty One Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (Php 51,500.00) with legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from November 2, 2010, until such amount is fully paid;
4) In Criminal Case No. 17332, the Court finds accused-appellant Elnora Ebo Mandelma alias "Lathea Estefanos Stellios" GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa, as defined and penalized in Article 315, paragraph 2 (a) of the Revised Penal Code. She is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years, eight (8) months, and twenty-one (21) days of prision mayor, as maximum, and to indemnify Andy M. Calma the amount of Fifty One Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (Php 51,500.00) with legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from November 2, 2010, until such amount is fully paid;
5) In Criminal Case No. 17346, the Court finds accused-appellant Elnora Ebo Mandelma alias "Lathea Estefanos Stellios" GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa, as defined and penalized in Article 315, paragraph 2 (a) of the Revised Penal Code. She is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years, eight (8) months, and twenty-one (21) days of prision mayor, as maximum, and to indemnify Bienvenida R. Galendez the amount of Fifty One Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (Php 51,500.00) with legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from November 2, 2010, until such amount is fully paid;
6) Accused-appellant Elnora Ebo Mandelma alias "Lathea Estefanos Stellios" shall pay the costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.[66]
The prosecution has successfully established accused-appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt |
Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale (Criminal Case No. 17318) |
ART. 38. Illegal Recruitment.Illegal recruitment, as defined under Article 38 of the Labor Code, encompasses recruitment activities for both local and overseas employment. However, illegal recruitment under this article is limited to recruitment activities undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of authority.[67] Thus, under the Labor Code, to constitute Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale, three elements must concur:
(a) Any recruitment activities, including the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of this Code, to be undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of authority shall be deemed illegal and punishable under Article 39 of this Code. The Department of Labor and Employment or any law enforcement officer may initiate complaints under this Article.
(b) Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall be considered an offense involving economic sabotage and shall be penalized in accordance with Article 39 hereof.
Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring and/or confederating with one another in carrying out any unlawful or illegal transaction, enterprise or scheme defined under the first paragraph hereof. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group.
(c) The Secretary of Labor and Employment or his duly authorized representatives shall have the power to cause the arrest and detention of such non-licensee or non-holder of authority if after investigation it is determined that his activities constitute a danger to national security and public order or will lead to further exploitation of job-seekers. The Secretary shall order the search of the office or premises and seizure of documents, paraphernalia, properties and other implements used in illegal recruitment activities and the closure of companies, establishments and entities found to be engaged in the recruitment of workers for overseas employment, without having been licensed or authorized to do so.
1. The accused undertook any recruitment activity defined under Art. 13 (b) or any prohibited practice enumerated under Art. 34 of the Labor Code.RA 8042, otherwise known as the "Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995," established a higher standard of protection and promotion of the welfare of the migrant workers, their families and overseas Filipinos in distress.[69] RA 8042 also broadened the concept of illegal recruitment for overseas employment and increased the penalties, especially for Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale and Illegal Recruitment Committed by a Syndicate, which are considered offenses involving economic sabotage.[70] Part II of RA 8042 defines and penalizes illegal recruitment for employment abroad, whether undertaken by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority or by a licensee or holder of authority.[71]
2. He did not have the license or the authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers.
3. He committed the same against three or more persons, individually or as a group.[68]
SEC. 6. Definition. - For purposes of this Act, illegal recruitment shall mean any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers and includes referring, contract services, promising or advertising for employment abroad, whether for profit or not, when undertaken by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority contemplated under Article 13(f) of Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, otherwise known as the Labor Code of the Philippines: Provided, That any such non-licensee or non-holder who, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment abroad for two or more persons shall be deemed so engaged. It shall likewise include the following acts, whether committed by any person, whether a non-licensee, non-holder, licensee or holder of authority:SEC. 7 of RA 8042, as amended by Section 6 of RA 10022[72] provides for the penalties, thus:
(a) To charge or accept directly or indirectly any amount greater than that specified in the schedule of allowable fees prescribed by the Secretary of Labor and Employment, or to make a worker pay any amount greater than that actually received by him as a loan or advance;
(b) To furnish or publish any false notice or information or document in relation to recruitment or employment;
(c) To give any false notice, testimony, information or document or commit any act of misrepresentation for the purpose of securing a license or authority under the Labor Code;
(d) To induce or attempt to induce a worker already employed to quit his employment in order to offer him another unless the transfer is designed to liberate a worker from oppressive terms and conditions of employment;
(e) To influence or attempt to influence any person or entity not to employ any worker who has not applied for employment through his agency;
(f) To engage in the recruitment or placement of workers in jobs harmful to public health or morality or to the dignity of the Republic of the Philippines;
(g) To obstruct or attempt to obstruct inspection by the Secretary of Labor and Employment or by his duly authorized representative;
(h) To fail to submit reports on the status of employment, placement vacancies, remittance of foreign exchange earnings, separation from jobs, departures and such other matters or information as may be required by the Secretary of Labor and Employment;
(i) To substitute or alter to the prejudice of the worker, employment contracts approved and verified by the Department of Labor and Employment from the time of actual signing thereof by the parties up to and including the period of the expiration of the same without the approval of the Department of Labor and Employment;
(j) For an officer or agent of a recruitment or placement agency to become an officer or member of the Board of any corporation engaged in travel agency or to be engaged directly or indirectly in the management of a travel agency;
(k) To withhold or deny travel documents from applicant workers before departure for monetary or financial considerations other than those authorized under the Labor Code and its implementing rules and regulations;
(l) Failure to actually deploy without valid reason as determined by the Department of Labor and Employment; and
(m) Failure to reimburse expenses incurred by the worker 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. Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall be considered an offense involving economic sabotage.
Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring or confederating with one another. It is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group.
The persons liable for the above offenses are the principals, accomplices and accessories. In case of juridical persons, the officers having control, management or direction of their business shall be liable.
(a) x x xAs applied in this case, the records would show that the prosecution has indeed proven beyond reasonable doubt each of the elements constituting the crime of Illegal Recruitment of a Large Scale as follows:
(b) The penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of not less than Two million pesos (P2,000,000.00) or more than Five million pesos (P5,000,000.00) shall be imposed if illegal recruitment constitutes economic sabotage as defined herein.
Provided, however, That the maximum penalty shall be imposed if the person illegally recruited is less than eighteen (18) years of age or committed by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority x x x[73]
This is to certify that based on available records of this Office, MHEYMAN MANPOWER INTERNATIONAL, with office address at 94 Gil Puyat Avenue, Makati City, represented by Elena M. Buenaventura, Proprietor, is a landbased agency whose licence is valid until September 21, 2010.Aside from this public document issued by the POEA, Merrera also testified that he personally verified in their system whether the persons mentioned in the certification were licensed or not, but he found no records of them having authority to recruit workers for overseas employment.[77] Clearly, the prosecution was able to show that accused-appellant and her cohorts have no lawful authority to engage in recruitment and placement activities.
It is further clarified that Perlita Urquico a.k.a. Perlita Ramos, Claro Aniceta Villavicencio, Jr., Lathea Estefanos Stellios are not included in the list of employees submitted to this office by the above agency.
Moreover, the agency has no registered branch office in San Fernando City, Pampanga.[76]
Estafa (Criminal Case Nos. 17326, 17327, 17332, 17346) |
Article 315. Swindling (estafa). — Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned herein below x x xArias v. People[81] enumerated the following elements of this kind of Estafa. The elements of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the RPC, are the following:
x x x x
2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud:
(a) By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of other similar deceits.[80]
In this case, all the elements of Estafa are present. The testimonies of the private complainants, coupled with the documentary and object evidence, demonstrated that accused-appellant, under the false pretense of being a legitimate overseas worker recruiter, fraudulently induced private complainants to part with their money as part of the supposed recruitment process. Given that none of the private complainants was deployed abroad as they were just being scammed, they clearly suffered damage.
- That there must be a false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means;
- That such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud;
- That the offended party must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means, that is, he was induced to part with his money or property because of the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means; and
- That as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.[82]
Mandelma's defenses of denial and alibi failed to overturn the positive and categorical testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses |
Section 85. Article 315 of the same Act, as amended by Republic Act No. 4885, Presidential Decree No. 1689, and Presidential Decree No. 818, is hereby further amended to read as follows:In this case, the total amount defrauded is P51,500.00, and thus, pursuant to the above provision, the penalty prescribed is arresto mayor in its maximum period to prisión correccional in its minimum period, as the amount is over P40,000 but does not exceed P1,200,000. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISL), the Court is guided by its disposition in People v. Dejolde, Jr.,[93] which also involved the application of RA 10951 vis-a-vis the third paragraph of Article 315, as amended, to wit:
Art. 315. Swindling (estafa). - Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow shall be punished by:1st. The penalty of prisión correccional in its maximum period to prisión mayor in its minimum period, if the amount of the fraud is over Two million four hundred thousand pesos (P2,400,000) but does not exceed Four million four hundred thousand pesos (P4,400,000), and if such amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional Two million pesos (P2,000,000); but the total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases, and in connection with the accessory penalties which may be imposed and for the purpose of the other provisions of this Code, the penalty shall be termed prisión mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be.
2nd. The penalty of prisión correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if the amount of the fraud is over One million two hundred thousand pesos (P1,200,000) but does not exceed Two million four hundred thousand pesos (P2,400,000).
3rd. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prisión correccional in its minimum period, if such amount is over Forty thousand pesos (P40,000) but does not exceed One million two hundred thousand pesos (P1,200,000).
4th. By arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods, if such amount does not exceed Forty thousand pesos (P40,000): Provided, That in the four cases mentioned, the fraud be committed by any of the following means:
1. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, namely:
(a) altering the substance, quantity, or quality of anything of value which the offender shall deliver by virtue of an obligation to do so, even though such obligation be based on an immoral or illegal consideration.
(b) By misappropriating or converting, to the prejudice of another, money, goods, or any other personal property received by the offender in trust or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the same, even though such obligation be totally or partially guaranteed by a bond; or by denying having received such money, goods, or other property.
(c) By taking undue advantage of the signature of the offended party in blank, and by writing any document above such signature in blank, to the prejudice of the offended party or any third person.
2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud:
(a) By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of other similar deceits.
(b) By altering the quality, fineness or weight of anything pertaining to his art or business.
(c) By pretending to have bribed any Government employee, without prejudice to the action for calumny which the offended party may deem proper to bring against the offender. In this case, the offender shall be punished by the maximum period of the penalty.
(d) By postdating a check, or issuing a check in payment of an obligation when the offender had no funds in the bank, or his funds deposited therein were not sufficient to cover the amount of the check. The failure of the drawer of the check to deposit the amount necessary to cover his check within three (3) days from receipt of notice from the bank and/or the payee or holder that said check has been dishonored for lack or insufficiency of funds shall be prima facie evidence of deceit constituting false pretense or fraudulent act.
Any person who shall defraud another by means of false pretenses or fraudulent acts as defined in paragraph 2(d) hereof shall be punished by:
1st The penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period, if the amount of fraud is over Four million four hundred thousand pesos (P4,400,000) but does not exceed Eight million eight hundred thousand pesos (P8,800,000). If the amount exceeds the latter, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua.
2nd. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its minimum and medium periods, if the amount of the fraud is over Two million four hundred thousand pesos (P2,400,000) but does not exceed Four million four hundred thousand pesos (P4,400,000).
3rd. The penalty of prisión mayor in its maximum period, if the amount of the fraud is over One million two hundred thousand pesos (P1,200,000) but does not exceed Two million four hundred thousand pesos (P2,400,000).
4th. The penalty of prisión mayor in its medium period, if such amount is over Forty thousand pesos (P40,000) but does not exceed One million two hundred thousand pesos (P1,200,000).
5th. By prisión mayor in its minimum period, if such amount does not exceed Forty thousand pesos (P40,000).
3. Through any of the following fraudulent means:
(a) By inducing another, by means of deceit, to sign any document.
(b) By resorting to some fraudulent practice to insure success in a gambling game.
(c) By removing, concealing or destroying, in whole or in part, any court record, office files, document or any other papers.[92]
However, in view of the recent enactment of RA 10951, there is a need to modify the penalties imposed by the CA insofar as the two counts of estafa, docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 27592-R and 27602-R, are concerned. For committing estafa involving the amounts of [P]440,000.00 and [P]350,000.00, Article 315 of the RPC, as amended by RA 10951, now provides that the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed if the amount involved is over [P]40,000.00 but does not exceed [P]1,200,000.00. There being no mitigating and aggravating circumstance, the maximum penalty should be one (1) year and one (1) day of prision correccional. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum term of the indeterminate sentence is arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods, the range of which is one (1) month and one (1) day to four (4) months. Thus, the indeterminate penalty for each count of estafa should be modified to a prison term of two (2) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor, as minimum, to one (1) year and one (1) day of prision correccional, as maximum.Thus, in Criminal Case Nos. 17326, 17327, 17332, and 17346, considering that there are no mitigating or aggravating circumstances present, accused-appellant is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of two (2) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor, as minimum, to one (1) year and one (1) day of prision correccional, as maximum.[95]
In addition, an interest rate of 6% [per] annum is likewise imposed on the amounts of [P]440,000.00 and [P]350,000.00 from the date of finality of this Resolution until full payment.[94]