EOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ERLINDA A.

SISON
G.R. No. 187160, August 9, 2017

CARPIO, J.:

Facts: Casuera and Magalona met appellant and the latter briefed Castuera on the
requirements for working as a fruit picker in Australia. She introduced Castuera to
another man who related that he was able to go to Australia with her help. She also
showed Castuera pictures of other people she had supposedly helped to get
employment in Australia. Appellant further narrated that a couple she had helped
had given her their car as payment. Because of her representations, Castuera
believed in her promise that she could send him to Australia. Appellant asked
Castuera for ₱180,000 for processing his papers.

Appellant, however, failed to secure an Australian visa for Castuera. Together with
Dedales and Bacomo, appellant convinced Castueara that that it was difficult to get
an Australian visa in the Philippines so they had to go to Malaysia or in Indonesia to
get one. Subsequently, Castuera's application for an Australian visa in Indonesia
was denied. Dedales asked for US$1,000 for the processing of his U.S. visa, which
he paid. However, when his U.S. visa came, Castuera saw that it was in an
Indonesian passport bearing an Indonesian name. Because of this, Castuera
decided to just return to the Philippines.

Issue: Whether or not appellant is guilty of syndicated estafa.

Ruling: Yes. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate carried out by a

group of three (3) or more persons conspiring or confederating with one another.
Under RA 8042, a non-licensee or non-holder of authority commits illegal recruitment
for overseas employment in two ways: (1) by 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; or (2) by undertaking any of the acts enumerated under
Section 6 of RA 8042.

In this case, appellant herself admits that she has no license or authority to
undertake recruitment and placement activities. Since it was proven that the three
accused were acting in concert and conspired with one another, their illegal
recruitment activity is considered done by a syndicate, making the offense illegal
recruitment involving economic sabotage.

Ratio Decidendi: It is not essential that there be actual proof that all the
conspirators took a direct part in every act.

Gist: This is an appeal from the Decision of the CA which affirmed the Decision of
the RTC finding Sison guilty beyond reasonable doubt of (1) violation of Section 6, in
relation to Section 7, of Republic Act No. 8042 or illegal recruitment involving
economic sabotage.
Posted by G at 6:49 AM No comments: 
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Labels: 2017 Cases, Criminal Law Case Digest
People vs. Abellanosa (2017)
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. GILDA ABELLANOSA
G.R. No. 214340, July 19, 2017

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

Facts: Appellant was charged with Illegal Recruitment in large scale in an

Information alleging that that accused falsely representing to possess authority to
recruit job applicants for employment abroad without first having secured the
required authority from the POEA, illegally collect and receive from GEPHRE 0.
POMAR the amount of (₱5,500.00), as partial payment of processing and placement
fees for overseas employment, which illegal recruitment activities is considered an
offense involving economic sabotage, it being committed in large scale under Sec.
6(m) paragraph 2 of Republic Act [No.] 8042, having committed the same not only
against Gephre O. Pomar but also against seven (7) others.

Appellant denied meeting any of the private complainants while she was in Iloilo and
maintained that her purpose in going to Iloilo was only to assist Shirley in processing
the latter's business license. Appellant likewise denied that she received money from
the private complainants; she claimed that it was Shirley who was engaged in
recruitment activities.

Issue: Whether or not appellant is guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale.

Ruling: Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against

three (3) or more persons individually or as a group.

In this case, private complainants Pomar, Pastolero, Cathedral, Orias, Suobiron,

Bueron, and Pelipog testified that appellant went to Pavia, Iloilo and represented
herself as a recruiter who could send them to Brunei for work; that appellant
impressed upon them that she had the authority or ability to send them overseas for
work by showing them a job order from Brunei and a calling card; and appellant
collected processing or placement fees from the private complainants in various
amounts ranging from ₱5,000.00 to ₱20,000.00; and that she did not reimburse said
amounts despite demands. In addition, it was proved that appellant does not have
any license or authority to recruit workers for overseas employment as shown by the
certification issued by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration.

Finally, appellant recruited seven persons, or more than the minimum of three
persons required by law, for illegal recruitment to be considered in large scale.

Ratio Decidendi: Recruitment becomes illegal when undertaken by non-licensees

or non-holders of authority.

Gist: This is an appeal from Decision of the CA which affirmed the Decision of the
RTC finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal
Recruitment in large scale.