Professional Documents
Culture Documents
187052
187052
187052
~ttpretne <!Cottrt
100anila
FIRST DIVISION
SERENO, C.J.,
Chairperson,
- versus - LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
BERSAMIN,
VILLARAMA, JR., and
REYES, JJ.
DECISION
1
Before us is an appeal from the September 15, 2008 Decision of the
Court of Appeals in CJ\-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 0 I 006. The Court of Appeals
2
had affirmed with modification the Decision of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Manila, Bnmch 33, in Criminal Case No. 03-217999-403. The
RTC found appellant Melissa Chua, a.k.a. Clarita Ng Chua, guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of illegal recruitment in large scale and four counts of
Psta{a. The Court of Appeals modified the penalty imposed upon appellant
for each count of csta/(1 to an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment for 4
years and 2 months of prision correccional. as minimum, to 13 years of
reclusion temporal, as maximum.
Rollo. pp. 2-16. Penned by Associate Justice Ron1eo F. Barza, with Associate Justices Mariano C. Del
Castillo (now a member of this Court) and /\rcangelit<J M. Romilla-Lontok concurring.
CA rollo, pp. I '1-18. The Kl C decision was rendered on March 28, 2005 and penned hy Judge
Reynaldo ( 1. Ros.
Decision 2 G.R. No. 187052
Appellant Melissa Chua was charged on May 6, 2003, with the crime
of illegal recruitment in large scale in an Information3 which alleged:
That on or about and during the period comprised between July 29,
2002 and August 20, 2002, both dates inclusive, in the City of Manila,
Philippines, the said accused, representing herself to have the capacity to
contract, enlist and transport Filipino workers overseas particularly to
Taiwan, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully, for fee, recruit and
promise employment/job placement to REY P. TAJADAO, BILLY R.
4
DA[N]AN, ROYLAN A. URSULUM and ALBERTO A. AGLANAO
without first having secured the required license from the Department of
Labor and Employment as required by law, and charge or accept directly
or indirectly from said complainants various amounts as placement fees in
consideration for their overseas employment, which amounts are in excess
of or greater than that specified in the schedule of allowable fees
prescribed by the POEA, and without valid reasons and without the fault
of said complainants, failed to actually deploy them and failed to
reimburse expenses incurred in connection with their documentation and
processing for purposes of their deployment.
Contrary to law.
3
Id. at 7.
4
Sometimes spelled as Daunan or Dauan in other parts of the records.
5
Records, p. 99.
Decision 3 G.R. No. 187052
Soon after, Tajadao met with appellant, who offered him a job as a
factory worker in Taiwan for deployment within the month. Appellant then
required him to undergo medical examination and pay a placement fee of
P80,000. Chua assured Tajadao that whoever pays the application fee the
earliest can leave sooner. Thus, Tajadao delivered to appellant staggered
payments of P40,000, P35,000 and P5,000 at the Golden Gate International
(Golden Gate) Office in Paragon Tower, Ermita, Manila. Said payments are
evidenced by a voucher6 signed by appellant.
6
Id. at 10.
Decision 4 G.R. No. 187052
worker, and appellant confirmed there was a standing job order. The latter
advised Danan to obtain a passport, undergo medical examination, secure an
NBI clearance and prepare the amount of P80,000.
7
Id. at 14.
8
Also referred to as Roylan Ursulan in other parts of the records.
Decision 5 G.R. No. 187052
In a Decision dated March 28, 2005, the RTC of Manila, Branch 33,
found appellant Melissa Chua, a.k.a. Clarita Ng Chua, guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of illegal recruitment in large scale and four counts of
estafa. The fallo of the RTC decision reads:
9
CA rollo, p. 18.
Decision 6 G.R. No. 187052
The appellate court held that the prosecution has established by proof
beyond reasonable doubt that appellant had no license to recruit at the time
she promised employment to and received placement fees from private
complainants. It dismissed appellants defense that she was only a cashier of
Golden Gate and that she remitted the placement fees to the agencys
treasurer. The Court of Appeals explained that in order to hold a person
10
Id. at 19.
Decision 7 G.R. No. 187052
The appellate court held further that the same pieces of evidence
which establish appellants commission of illegal recruitment also affirm her
liability for estafa. It pointed out that appellant defrauded private
complainants when she misrepresented that they would be hired abroad upon
payment of the placement fee. The Court of Appeals perceived no ill motive
on the part of private complainants to testify falsely against appellant.
Lastly, the appellate court modified the penalty imposed by the trial
court upon appellant Chua for each count of estafa. It raised the maximum
period of appellants indeterminate sentence from 12 years of prision mayor
to 13 years of reclusion temporal.
11
Rollo, pp. 17-18.
12
Id. at 21-22.
13
Id. at 24-26.
14
CA rollo, pp. 31-41.
15
Rollo, pp. 28-29.
16
CA rollo, pp. 55-73.
Decision 8 G.R. No. 187052
The Office of the Solicitor General, for the people, submits that it has
established all the elements necessary to hold appellant Chua liable for
illegal recruitment in large scale and estafa. It cites the testimony of
Severino Maranan, Senior Labor Employment Officer of the POEA, and the
certification issued by Felicitas Q. Bay, Director II of the POEA, to the
effect that appellant was not authorized to engage in recruitment activities.
The OSG argues against appellants defense that she was only a cashier of
Golden Gate on the argument that her act of representing to the four private
complainants that she could send them to Taiwan as factory workers
constitutes recruitment. It stresses that the crime of illegal recruitment in
large scale is malum prohibitum; hence, mere commission of the prohibited
act is punishable and criminal intent is immaterial. Lastly, the OSG points
out that appellant failed to show any ill motive on the part of private
complainants to testify falsely against her.
For her part, appellant Chua maintains that she was merely a cashier
of Golden Gate International. She disowns liability for allegedly merely
acting under the direction of [her] superiors18 and for being unaware that
[her] acts constituted a crime.19 Appellant begs the Court to review the
factual findings of the court a quo.
xxxx
The persons criminally 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.
SEC. 7. Penalties.
(a) Any person found guilty of illegal recruitment shall suffer the
penalty of imprisonment of not less than six (6) years and one (1) day but
not more than twelve (12) years and a fine of not less than Two hundred
thousand pesos (P200,000.00) nor more than Five hundred thousand pesos
(P500,000.00).
(b) The penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of not less than
Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) nor more than One million
pesos (P1,000,000.00) shall be imposed if illegal recruitment constitutes
economic sabotage as defined herein.
20
Recruitment and placement refers to any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting,
utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract services, promising or
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.
21
ART. 34. Prohibited practices. - It shall be unlawful for any individual, entity, licensee, or holder of
authority:
(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, 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 this Code;
(d) To induce or to attempt to induce a worker already employed to quit his employment in order
to offer him to another unless the transfer is designed to liberate the worker from oppressive terms and
conditions of employment;
Decision 10 G.R. No. 187052
the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable him
to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers.22 In the case of
illegal recruitment in large scale, a third element is added: that the offender
commits any of the acts of recruitment and placement against three or more
persons, individually or as a group.23 All three elements are present in the
case at bar.
and the nature of work. Without any evidence to show that private
complainants were propelled by any ill motive to testify falsely against
appellant, we shall accord their testimonies full faith and credit. After all,
the doctrinal rule is that findings of fact made by the trial court, which had
the opportunity to directly observe the witnesses and to determine the
probative value of the other testimonies, are entitled to great weight and
respect because the trial court is in a better position to assess the same, an
opportunity not equally open to the appellate court.24 The absence of any
showing that the trial court plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and
value that, if considered, might affect the result of the case, or that its
assessment was arbitrary, impels the Court to defer to the trial courts
determination according credibility to the prosecution evidence.25
Furthermore, we agree with the appellate court that the same pieces of
evidence which establish appellants liability for illegal recruitment in large
scale likewise confirm her culpability for estafa.
24
People v. Calonge, G.R. No. 182793, July 5, 2010, 623 SCRA 445, 455.
25
People v. Ocden, G.R. No. 173198, June 1, 2011, 650 SCRA 124, 146.
26
People v. Chua, G.R. No. 184058, March 10, 2010, 615 SCRA 132, 141-142.
Decision 12 G.R. No. 187052
The elements of estafa by means of deceit are the following: (a) that
there must be a false pretense or fraudulent representation as to his power,
influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary
transactions; (b) that such false pretense or fraudulent representation was
made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the
fraud; (c) that the offended party relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act,
or fraudulent means and was induced to part with his money or property; and
(d) that, as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.28
27
Id. at 142, citing People v. Comila, G.R. No. 171448, February 28, 2007, 517 SCRA 153, 167.
28
Sy v. People, G.R. No. 183879, April 14, 2010, 618 SCRA 264, 271.
29
Id.
Decision 13 G.R. No. 187052
ATTY: BETIC:
xxxx
Q: Now, you said that you were employed with Golden Gate Agency
owned and operated by Marilen Cal[l]ueng, and as a cashier did
you [happen] to come across private complainants, Billy R.
Da[n]an, Alberto Aglanao and Rey Tajadao?
A: Yes, Sir before they were asked to [sign] a contract they paid to
me.
Q: Do you know how much were paid or given [by] the persons I
have mentioned?
A: Eighty Thousand Pesos Only (P80,000.00) Sir.
Q: Each?
31
A: Yes, Sir.
30
Records, pp. 109-120.
31
TSN, July 26, 2004, pp. 5-6.
Decision 14 G.R. No. 187052
32
Llamas v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 149588, August 16, 2010, 628 SCRA 302, 308.
Decision 15 G.R. No. 187052
non-holder of authority.
In the case at bar, the trial court imposed upon appellant Chua the
penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000. However, considering
that appellant is a non-licensee or non-holder of authority, we deem it proper
to impose upon her the maximum penalty of life imprisonment and fine of
P1,000,000.
Meanwhile, the penalty for estafa under Article 315 of the Revised
Penal Code is prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor
in its minimum period, if the amount of the fraud is over P12,000 but does
not exceed P22,000. If the amount exceeds P22,000, the penalty shall be
imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional
P10,000. But, the total penalty imposed shall not exceed 20 years.
33
Pucay v. People, G.R. No. 167084, October 31, 2006, 506 SCRA 411, 424-425.
Decision 16 GR. No. I 87052
SO ORDEREil.
Decision 17 GR. No. 187052
WE CONClJR:
~,,~-~~
MARIA LOlJRDES P. A. SERENO
Chief Justice
Chairperson
~~h-Ctt-~
TERE.SITAJ. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice
A7i>~~;1m:s
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
?~~
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Chief Justice