G.R. No. 116382, January 29, 1998
Appellant talked with Reynaldo,
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MA.
LOURDES DE GUIANG Y VILLANUEVA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
DECISION
VITUG, J.:
Accused-appellant Lourdes Bautista de Guiang was indicted before the
Regional Trial Court ("RTC") of Manila in three separate informations, one
for Illegal Recruitment proscribed under Article 38 and Article 39, in relation
to Article 13(b) and (c), of the Labor Code, as amended, and the other two
for estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code. The averments
made by the City State Prosecutor in each of the three respective
Informations read:
In Criminal Case No. 92-104614 -
"That in or about and sometime during the period comprised between
October 1991 and February 9, 1992, inclusive, in the City of Manila,
Philippines, the said accused, representing herself to have the capacity to
contract, enlist and transport Filipino workers for employment abroad, did
then and wilfully and unlawfully for a fee, recruit and promise
employment/job placement in Japan to the following persons, namely:
Reynaldo R. Jugo, Jose R. Jugo and Rosita R. Jugo, without first having
secured the required license or authority from the Department of Labor."[1]
In Criminal Case No. 92-104615 -
"That in or about and sometime the period comprised between December 2,
1991 and February 9, 1992, inclusive, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the
said accused did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud
Jose R. Jugo in the following manner, to wit: the said accused, by means of
false manifestations and fraudulent representations which she made to said
Jose R. Jugo to the effect that she had the power and capacity to recruit and
employ him as factory worker in Japan and could facilitate the processing of
the pertinent papers if given the necessary amount to meet the requirements
thereof, and by means of other similar deceits, induced and succeeded in
inducing said Jose R. Jugo to give and deliver, as in fact he gave and
delivered to said accused the amount of P70,000.00 on the strength of said
manifestations and representations, said accused well knowing that the
same were false and fraudulent and were made solely to obtain, as in fact
she did obtain the amount of P70,000.00 which amount once in her
possession, with intent to defraud, she wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously
misappropriated, misapplied and converted to her own personal use and
benefit, to the damage and prejudice of said Jose R. Jugo in the aforesaid
amount of P70,000.00."[2]
In Criminal Case No. 92-104616 -
"That in or about and sometime the period comprised between October 1991
and December 1991, inclusive, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said
accused did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud
Reynaldo R. Jugo in the following manner, to wit: the said accused, by
means of false manifestations and fraudulent representations which she
made to said Reynaldo R. Jugo to the effect that she had the power and
capacity to recruit and employ him as factory worker in Japan and could
facilitate the processing of the pertinent papers if given the necessary
amount to meet the requirements thereof, and by means of other similar
deceits, induced and succeeded in inducing said Reynaldo R. Jugo to give
and deliver, as in fact he gave and delivered to said accused the amount of
P20,500.00 on the strength of said manifestations and representations, said
accused well knowing that the same were false and fraudulent and were
made solely to obtain, as in fact she did obtain the amount of P20,500.00
which amount once in her possession, with intent to defraud, she wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously misappropriated, misapplied and converted to her
own personal use and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of said
Reynaldo R. Jugo in the aforesaid amount of P20,500.00."[3]
The court held a joint hearing of the cases following the plea by the accused
of "not guilty" to all the charges.
The Office of the Solicitor General, in its Appellee's Brief, made an extensive
narration of the evidence submitted by the prosecution. Thus -
"On the last week of October 1991, private complainant Reynaldo R. Jugo, a
farmer, was visited by his `kumpadre,' Alberto Maclang, a member of the
Western Police District (WPD), at his house in Sta. Rosa, Nueva Ecija.
Maclang was accompanied by appellant whom the former introduced to
Reynaldo as a recruiter for jobs abroad.
convincing him that she could do something about Reynaldo's previous
application for a job abroad. She represented that she could work on his
travel papers within a period of two (2) months and he would be able to work
in Japan as a factory worker. Further, appellant told Reynaldo that he only
had to produce the initial sum of P5,000.00 for the immediate processing of
his papers. Reynaldo thus signed the application form appellant presented to
him (TSN, September 8, 1992, pp. 2-4; TSN, August 18, 1992, pp. 3-5; TSN,
February 8, 1994, p. 12).
"A week later, appellant and Maclang again went to see Reynaldo at his
house in Nueva Ecija. They told him that they would be the ones to first
advance the amount of P5,000.00 to cover the expenses for the initial
processing of his papers, to which private complainant agreed (TSN,
September 8, 1992, p. 4; TSN, August 18, 1992, p. 5).
"Two (2) weeks after, Reynaldo who was still in Nueva Ecija, learned that
appellant was trying to get in touch with him relative to his application for a
job abroad. So, he left Nueva Ecija and proceeded to the house of Maclang
at Naval Street, Malabon, Metro Manila. Maclang confirmed that appellant
was indeed looking for Reynaldo. He thus called up appellant and it was
arranged that the three (3) of them would meet at the headquarters of the
Western Police District (WPD) at U.N. Avenue, Manila, sometime on
November 1991 (TSN, August 18, 1992, pp. 5-7).
"During the meeting at the WPD headquarters at U.N. Avenue, appellant
asked Reynaldo to give her the amount of P5,000.00 for the processing of
his papers. Since Reynaldo had with him only P2,500.00, he was able to
give that amount only, for which appellant did not issue any receipt.
Thereafter, the three (3) of them proceeded to Ermita to take some snacks.
In the course of taking their snacks, appellant was trying to convince
Reynaldo to look for persons interested to go abroad for employment and to
refer them to her. After they parted ways, Reynaldo returned to Nueva Ecija
(TSN, September 8, 1992, p. 4; August 18, 1992, pp. 6-7).
"Subsequently, sometime on January 1992, Reynaldo was informed by
appellant that his passport will soon be released. She told Reynaldo to
prepare the amount of P18,000.00 for his plane fare to Japan. Reynaldo
thus prepared that amount which he borrowed from his sister, Rosita Jugo.
When Reynaldo and appellant met at the house of Reynaldo's mother at
Malabon, Metro Manila, he asked appellant to issue him a receipt for the
amount he was about to pay her. Appellant however refused and replied that
`it seems you do not trust me.' Feeling assured and trusting appellant,
Reynaldo was persuaded to hand to appellant the amount of P18,000.00
(TSN, August 18, 1992, pp. 7-8; February 22, 1994, pp. 11-12).
"Two (2) weeks after, appellant went to see Reynaldo at his house in Nueva
Ecija. She presented him with a passport issued in his name. However,
verification with the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) and the Japanese
Embassy revealed that the passport given to him by appellant was a fake.
When the passport was likewise referred to the National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI), it was also determined to be a fake. Reynaldo was thus
advised to file a complaint against appellant (TSN, September 8, 1992; p. 5;
TSN, August 18, 1992, pp. 8-10).
"Earlier, Reynaldo had introduced his brother, Jose Jugo, and their sister,
Rosita Jugo, to appellant. Almost simultaneously with appellant's
transactions with Reynaldo, appellant also transacted with Reynaldo's
brother and sister. Jose and Rosita met appellant for the first time on
December 2, 1991, along with Alberto Maclang, the `kumpadre' of their
brother, Reynaldo, and the alleged `second' husband of appellant. They met
at appellant's office at Tayabas, Tondo, Manila. Jose and Rosita were made
to fill up application forms after they were informed that they would be
deployed as factory workers to Japan for the consideration of P70,000.00
(TSN, September 8, 1992, pp. 6-8; TSN, August 18, 1992, p. 11; TSN,
September 22, 1992, pp. 2, 5).
"The following day or on December 3, 1991, Jose Jugo personally paid to
appellant the first installment in the amount of P2,000.00 at Dampalit,
Malabon, Metro Manila. It was followed by subsequent installments paid to
appellant at her office at Tayabas, Tondo, Manila, in the following amounts:
2nd Installment - P 20,000.00
3rd Installment - P 10,000.00
 4th Installment - P 18,000.00
5th Installment - P 2,000.00
6th Installment - P 18,000.00
Jose Jugo gave the last installment to complete the total amount of
P70,000.00 on January 9, 1992. Appellant, however, did not issue any
receipt for any of the above-stated amounts she received from Jose Jugo.
When the latter asked for receipts of payment, appellant countered that he
seems to have no trust in her (TSN, September 8, 1992, pp. 8-10; TSN,
September 22, 1992, pp. 4, 6).
"After receipt of Jose Jugo's last installment on January 9, 1992, appellant
handed to him a passport with numbers 203409 issued in his name, bearing
what appellant represented to be a visa to enable him to work in Japan.
Then, for several times, he was allegedly scheduled to depart for Japan but
none of those scheduled departures ever pushed through. When Jose
caused the alleged visa to be verified by the Japanese Embassy, and later
by the Bureau of Immigration, it was determined to be a fake and the alleged
visa number a tampered one. The alleged passport was likewise determined
to be fake (TSN, September 8, 1992, pp. 10-12; TSN, September 22, 1992,
p. 8).
"For her part, Rosita Jugo attested that she likewise gave the amount of
P2,500.00 to appellant upon the latter's assurance of a job placement in
Japan as a factory worker. She gave the amount to appellant at the latter's
office at Tondo, Manila for which no receipt was issued to her. Rosita was
also not able to leave for Japan. Worse, appellant did not heed Rosita's
request that her money be returned although appellant had earlier executed
an undertaking to return all the money she received from Rosita and private
complainants Reynaldo and Jose (TSN, October 13, 1992, pp. 2-4).
“Verification from the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration
(POEA) revealed that appellant was not a licensed recruiter and a
certification to that effect was issued. The Jugos referred the matter to the
NBI which conducted an investigation. Thereafter, the case was referred to
the Office of the City State Prosecutor, Manila, which filed the cases at bar
(TSN, October 13, 1992, p. 3).
"While trial was ongoing and before the prosecution could rest its case on
September 25, 1992, appellant escaped from her jail guard while under
confinement at the UST Hospital. Consequently, the prosecution adduced
evidence in appellant's absence and the case was submitted for resolution.
Appellant managed to stay out of jail for one (1) year during which period,
she made arrangements with private complainants to pay them the amount
of P120,000.00 through Alberto Maclang. It was only sometime on
September 1993 when appellant was again apprehended by agents of the
NBI. At her instance, the trial court reopened the case to accord appellant
the opportunity to present her defense. Appellant presented as evidence an
alleged affidavit of desistance which contents and due execution were,
however, repudiated and disclaimed by private complainant Reynaldo Jugo,
the alleged affiant thereof (TSN, February 8, 1994, pp. 19-21)."[4]
The defense had its own version. Counsel Felixberto C. de la Cruz, joined by
Atty. Ma. Soledad Derquito-Mawis, recited what the defense considered to
be the brief factual settings of the three cases.
"At the time of the commission of the acts complained of, appellant Ma.
Lourdes Bautista de Guiang was a licensed contractor of a low-cost housing
project earning a monthly net income of P50,000.00 to P70,000.00 (Exh. 3;
pp. 17-19, tsn. Feb. 8, 1994). Prior thereto, she operated business under the
name LGB Enterprises and General Services, earning P10,000.00 to
P15,000.00 a month (Exh. 2; p. 2, tsn. Feb. 22, 1994). She had never been
engaged in the processing of travel documents in recruitment basis (p. 5,
tsn., Feb. 8, 1996).
"On the other hand, private complainants, namely: Reynaldo Jugo, Jose
Jugo and Rosita are brothers and sister (p. 6, tsn., Aug. 18, 1996).
"Sometime in 1991, appellant and one Alberto Maclang went to Nueva Ecija
to get the harvested rice of the latter. When they were about to return to
Manila, Maclang decided to visit his friend and compadre Reynaldo Jugo.
During this visit, Maclang and Reynaldo Jugo talked about the latter's lost
passport and visa. Reynaldo Jugo asked Maclang how he could retrieve said
travel documents which were never returned to him when he applied in the
Japanese Embassy. Maclang, in turn, asked appellant if she could help.
Appellant replied that she will try her best through the help of a certain Mr.
Salazar, her friend in the Japanese embassy. Since Reynaldo Hugo had no
money at that time, he promised to leave his stainless jeep if she could
cause the re-issuance of his lost [passport] and visa, subject to redemption
upon his return from Japan (pp. 3-6, Feb. 8, 1994).
"Subsequently, Maclang, introduced appellant to Jose Jugo who was also
interested in applying for a tourist visa for Japan. Thereafter, Reynaldo Jugo,
Jose Hugo and Rosita Jugo directly transacted business with Mr. Salazar for
the issuance of their tourist visas (p. 8, tsn., Feb. 8, 1994). In the course of
the Jugos' transaction with Mr. Salazar, appellant received a call from Mr.
Salazar informing her that the Jugos were going to pay P40,000.00 for the
processing of their passports and visas. Appellant received the said amount
from the Jugos but turned over the same to Mr. Salazar without a receipt
(pp. 8-16, tsn., Feb. 8, 1994).
"Reynaldo Jugo and Jose Jugo received their respective passports and
tourist visa but were found to be fake. Appellant was thus arrested and
subsequently charged of illegal recruitment and estafa on two counts.
"On March 16, 1992, appellant she signed a promissory note (Exh. B-
Reynaldo Jugo, Folder of Exhibits) which reads: `Promise to pay Rosita
Jugo the amount of P93,000.00 as payment for money received by me for
having failed to [send] them abroad;' else, the NBI would publish the incident
in the newspaper and report the same in the television (pp. 22-23, tsn., Feb.
8, 1994).
"After the filing the cases in court, Reynaldo Jugo executed an affidavit of
desistance (Exh. 1, p. 77, Rec.) stating that he filed the illegal recruitment
case against appellant was really due to misunderstanding with a request
the case be dismissed."[5]
The RTC, Hon. William Bayhon presiding, convicted the accused on all
counts. The respective dispositive portions of its decision on the three jointly
tried cases read:
"WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused Lourdes Bautista de Guiang
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Art. 38 (a), Presidential
Decree No. 1412, amending certain provisions of Book L, Pres. Decree No.
442, otherwise known as the New Labor Code of the Philippines in relation
to Art. 13 (b) and (c) of said code as further amended by Pres. Decree Nos.
1693, 1920 and 2018 and is sentenced to suffer the maximum penalty of Life
Imprisonment and pay a fine of P100,000.00 as provided for by law with
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency with respect to the fine but in
no case shall it exceed 1/3 of the principal penalty.
"Likewise the Court finds accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of Estafa in the other two cases.
"In Criminal Case No. 92-104616 for Estafa involving P20,500.00, she is
sentenced to suffer an imprisonment of One (1) year, Eight (8) Months and
Twenty-One (21) Day[s] of Prision Correccional as the minimum to Five (5)
Years, Five (5) Months and Eleven (11) days as maximum of Prision
Correccional in its maximum period and to pay Reynaldo Jugo the sum of
P20,500.00.
"In Criminal Case No. 92-104615 for Estafa in the amount of P70,000.00,
she is sentenced to suffer imprisonment of Four (4) years and Two (2)
Months of Prision Correccional as the minimum to Six (6) years, Eight (8)
Months and Twenty-One (21) days of prision correccional as the maximum
plus One (1) year imprisonment for every P10,000.00 in excess of
P22,000.00 and to indemnify the offended party Jose Jugo the sum of
P70,000.00
"SO ORDERED."[6]
In her appeal to this Court, accused-appellant Lourdes Bautista de Guiang
faults the trial court for having relied heavily on the testimony of prosecution
witnesses, complainants Reynaldo Jugo, Jose Jugo and Rosita Jugo,
anchoring her argument on, firstly, the supposed nefarious motives of the
complainants and, secondly, on the affidavit of desistance executed by
Reynaldo Jugo attributing the complaint against appellant merely to a
"misunderstanding."
The appeal lacks merit.
The allegation of improper motives on the part of the prosecution witnesses
has not been satisfactorily shown in evidence. Appellant merely
hypothesizes, in effect, that the non-inclusion of a certain Alberto Maclang,
whom the trial court described as having had a significant role in the
deception played on the complainants, has only been to "force appellant to
convince Maclang to refund the money"[7] to the Jugos. Aside from being a
conjecture, the proposition advanced is, to say the least, much too strained
and hard to follow. It does not seem to make any sense for the complainants
to go through an elaborate and circuitous scheme, such as by initiating and
prosecuting these cases against appellant, merely to pin ultimate liability on
Maclang. The fact alone that Maclang is a "kumpadre" of one of the
complainants could scarcely be reason enough for complainants not to
directly and promptly implicate Maclang. Equating appellant's culpability to
that of Maclang, in any event, will not necessarily either tie up the guilt or
dictate the innocence of appellant.

Neither does the affidavit of desistance by Reynaldo Jugo subvert the

testimony given by the witnesses. Not only did Reynaldo Jugo repudiate the
affidavit[8] but that also affidavits of desistance are best ignored when pitted
against positive evidence given at the witness stand.

The matter of assessing credibility, most of all, is a function that lies with the
trial court more than an appellate court. Nor has the trial court been here
inattentive to details; thus, it has observed:
"There is no reason to doubt the testimony of the witnesses for the
prosecution who are simple barrio folks, one a farmer from Nueva Ecija and
the other one a fisherman. From their appearances and manner of testifying
in Court, pervision of the truth is far and remote. The Court could see that
they are not the type of persons who would fabricate and concoct stories
only to prosecute the accused. Reynaldo Jugo will not come all the way from
Sta. Rosa, Nueva Ecija to follow up his case and attend the trial on several
occasions had it not been for the assurance of accused to deploy them to
Japan for a consideration. They would not take the trouble of coming to
Court on several occasions if they have no other motive, except to seek for
justice for themselves.

"On the other hand, accused have resorted to trickeries, even feigning
illness for herself with the connivance of some jail personnel if only to
escape from the clutches of the law. And finally thru the evil doings of
Alberto Maclang, he coerced and threatened complainant Reynaldo Jugo
into signing an Affidavit of Desistance hoping that the Court would dismiss
these cases against accused Lourdes Bautista Guiang."[9]
Be that, such as it may, the Court itself has gone over the testimony of each
of the complainants, and the credence of their declarations is quite evident.
Thus -

The prosecution has adequately established that appellant did offer to the
complainants, namely, Reynaldo Jugo, Jose Jugo and Rosita Jugo,
overseas employment for a fee without first being duly licensed to so engage
in such activity, an act embraced within the term "recruitment and
placement" prohibited by Article 38, in relation to Article 13 and Article 39, of
the Labor Code. The crime, if perpetrated against at least three persons,
whether individually or as a group, is deemed committed "in large scale" that
carries, pursuant to Article 38, in relation to Article 39, of the Labor Code, the
penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of One Hundred Thousand Pesos.

Appellant, through misrepresentations and deceit, has likewise succeeded in

defrauding complainant Jose Jugo in the sum of P70,000 and complainant
Reynaldo Jugo in the amount of P20,500. These acts have independently
transgressed Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code. Estafa, pursuant to that
law, is committed by a person who defrauds another by abuse of confidence
or deceit to the latter's damage. If the amount of the fraud is over P12,000
but does not exceed P22,000, the penalty of prision correccional in its
maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period is imposed; if the
fraud exceeds P22,000, the above prescribed penalty is imposed in its
maximum period, adding one year for each additional P10,000, provided,
however, that the total penalty shall not exceed twenty years.

The Court agrees with the observation of the Solicitor General that the trial
court erred neither in its findings nor in its judgment appealed
from.WHEREFORE, the decision of the court a quo is AFFIRMED. Costs
against appellant.

SO ORDERED.
G.R. Nos. 124671-75, September 29, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. LINDA
SAGAYDO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
DECISION
PARDO, J.:
The case is an appeal from the decision[1] of the Regional Trial Court,
Baguio City, Branch 59 convicting accused Linda Sagaydo of illegal
recruitment in large scale and of four (4) cases of estafa, and sentencing her
as follows:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered —
“(1) In Criminal Case No. 10838-R, finding the accused LINDA SAGAYDO
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Article 38(b) of Presidential
Decree No. 442, as amended by P.D. 1920 and further amended by P.D.
2018, and she is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment
and to pay a fine of P100,000.00;
“(2) In Criminal Case No. 10839-R, finding the accused GUILTY of the crime
of Estafa and she is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of
four (4) years of prision correccional as minimum to nine (9) years of prision
mayor as maximum;
“(3) In Criminal Case No. 10840-R, finding the accused guilty of the crime of
Estafa and she is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of
four (4) years of prision correccional as minimum to six (6) years, eight (8)
months and twenty (20) days of prision mayor, as maximum;
“(4) In Criminal Case No. 10841-R, finding the accused GUILTY of the crime
of Estafa and she is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of
four (4) years of prision correccional as minimum to nine (9) years of prision
mayor as maximum; and
“(5) In Criminal Case No. 10837-R, finding the accused GUILTY of the crime
of Estafa and she is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of
four (4) years of prision correccional as minimum to nine (9) years of prision
mayor as maximum.
“The accused is further ordered to pay the private complainant Rogelio
Tibeb the amount P39,000.00; Jessie Bolinao, the amount of P35,000.00;
Gina Cleto, P15,000.00; and Naty Pita the amount of P38,500.00.
“SO ORDERED.”[2]
On December 15, 1992, Baguio City Prosecutor II Estrellita P. Bernabe filed
with the Regional Trial Court, Baguio City, Branch 59, separate informations
charging accused Linda Sagaydo with one (1) case of illegal recruitment in
large scale, and four (4) cases of estafa.[3]
Upon arraignment on August 18, 1993, accused pleaded not guilty to all the
five (5) charges against her.[4] Thus, trial ensued.
The complainants recounted their respective experience with accused Linda
Sagaydo in this wise:
Gina Cleto, an AB Political Science graduate and community worker residing
in No. 19-A Sumulong St., Holy Ghost Proper, Baguio City testified[5] that
she knew the accused for almost a year as the latter also resided at
Sumulong Street. Sometime in September, 1991, the accused went to
Gina’s house and encouraged her to work as a factory worker in Korea. Gina
said she had to think it over first since she went back and forth to Tabuk and
Baguio City. She and the accused met again in the house of the former in
December, 1991, where the accused reiterated her offer of employment to
Gina. When Gina asked her whether she was a licensed recruiter, and
accused answered in the affirmative. Accused told Gina that she could not
have the latter’s travel papers and passport processed unless she gave an
advance payment of P15,000.00.
Gina then went to San Gabriel, La Union to get the P15,000.00 required by
the accused. They met again in the house of Gina in the last week of
December, 1991, where she handed the P15,000.00 to the accused who
assured Gina that she was leaving for Korea on January 6, 1992, provided
Gina paid her the remaining balance of P30,000.00.
Gina then went to Lepanto to ask for money from her brother and sister. She
returned to Baguio City on January 2, 1992, with P28,000.00 on hand. Gina
and the accused met on January 5, 1992, where the latter informed her that
her flight for Korea on January 6, 1992, was postponed. Accused then
advised Gina to just hold the P30,000.00 balance until her flight pushed
through.
About three (3) months later, or in April, 1992, Gina met the accused in
Sumulong Street. Gina demanded from the accused the return of
P15,000.00 advance payment she had given her, but the accused just
answered that she would process her papers.
The next time they met was in November, 1992, where Gina again asked the
accused to return the P15,000.00, to no avail. This prompted Gina to go to
the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA) regional office in
Baguio City to inquire whether the accused was a licensed recruiter. The
POEA issued a certification dated November 25, 1992[6] stating that the
accused was “not licensed nor authorized to recruit workers for overseas
employment in the City of Baguio or any part of the region.”
Rogelio Tibeb, a farmer and resident of San Gabriel, La Union,
testified[7] that he was informed by his townmate Domaan Samanillo that the
accused was engaged in recruitment. Sometime in December, 1991,
Rogelio went to the residence of accused to inquire on the requirements for
overseas employment. Accused replied that he needed to submit his 2 x 2
pictures and a passport. The accused then told him to secure P39,000.00 as
placement fee. In the last week of December, 1991, Rogelio handed the
P39,000.00 to the accused who told him to go home and wait for the date of
his flight. Accused did not issue a receipt.
Rogelio waited for months but his flight never pushed through. He then went
to the Baguio POEA office with his co-complainants Jessie Bolinao and Naty
Pita where they found out that the accused was not a licensed recruiter, per
certification dated November 25, 1992.[8]
Naty Pita, also a resident of San Gabriel, La Union testified[9] that sometime
in November, 1991, she visited her sister-in-law who happened to be a
neighbor-boarder of the accused at 19-A Sumulong Street, Baguio City.
Upon being informed that the accused was a recruiter, Naty and her sister-
in-law went to the room of accused where the latter recruited her as factory
worker in Korea. The accused asked Naty to prepare P38,500.00 for the fare
and travel documents plus P1,500.00 for the passport. Naty went home to
look for money.
On December 26, 1991, Naty handed P38,500.00 to the accused who told
her that she would be leaving for Korea on January 6, 1992. After that, Naty
went home.
On January 4, 1992, Naty went to the boarding house of accused in
anticipation of her January 6, 1992, flight. Accused told her that she could
not leave because she had no visa. So Naty asked the accused to return her
money. The accused instead offered her a placement in Taiwan to which
Naty agreed. Naty was told to wait for the call of accused.
Days passed and Naty had not received any call from the accused. Naty
then went to the Baguio POEA office where she, too, found out that the
accused was not a licensed recruiter.
Jessie Bolinao, a farmer and resident of Lon-oy, San Gabriel, La Union
recalled[10] that the accused was his neighbor in Lubnagan, Kalinga-Apayao
until 1982, and was even a distant relative of his father. In the second week
of December, 1991, Jessie went to the house of the accused and gave her
P35,000.00 as placement fee for his employment to Korea as factory worker,
on the assurance that he would be leaving on December 28, 1991. Jessie,
however, was not able to leave on that date because according to the
accused, his travel papers had not been processed.
Jessie returned to the house of accused more than ten (10) times thereafter
to follow-up his papers, until he found out that accused was no longer
residing there. He thereafter inquired at the Baguio POEA office whether the
accused was a licensed recruiter, in answer to which the office issued a
certification[11] stating that accused was not a licensed recruiter.
The accused denied having recruited any of the private complainants. She
claimed that they came to her voluntarily after being informed that she was
able to send her three (3) sons to Korea. While accused admitted having
received money from complainants Gina Cleto and Naty Pita, she said she
used their money to buy their plane tickets. Gina and Naty were not able to
leave because the Korean government imposed a visa requirement
beginning January, 1992. When asked why she was not able to return the
money of Gina and Naty, accused said that she returned the plane tickets to
the Tour Master travel Agency for refund but said agency did not make
reimbursements. With respect to complainants Jessie Bolinao and Rogelio
Tibeb, the accused denied having received any money from them.[12]
The trial court gave credence to the testimonies of the complainants and
rejected the denial of accused. Thus, on October 25, 1995, the trial court
rendered a decision convicting her of the charges of illegal recruitment and
estafa, the decretal portion of which is quoted in the opening paragraph of
this opinion.
Hence, this appeal.[13]
In this appeal, accused-appellant claimed that she was erroneously
convicted of illegal recruitment and estafa because the trial court failed to
consider that she only processed the travel documents of the private
complainants as tourists, and that no recruitment for employment abroad
took place.
We sustain accused-appellant’s conviction.
“Illegal recruitment has been defined to include the act of engaging in any of
the activities mentioned in Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code without the
required license or authority from the POEA. Under the aforesaid provision,
any of the following activities would constitute recruitment and placement:
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. Article 13 (b) further
provides that any person or entity which, in any manner, offers or promises
for a fee employment to two (2) or more persons shall be deemed engaged
in recruitment and placement. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in
large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons, individually or as
a group.”[14] “This crime requires proof that the accused: (1) engaged in the
recruitment and placement of workers defined under Article 13 or in any of
the prohibited activities under Article 34 of the Labor Code; (2) does not
have a license or authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and
placement of workers; and (3) committed the infraction against three or more
persons, individually or as a group.”[15]
All the aforementioned requisites were present in this case. The accused-
appellant made representations to each of the private complainants that she
could send them to Korea to work as factory workers, constituting a promise
of employment which amounted to recruitment as defined under Article 13
(b) of the Labor Code. From the testimonies of the private complainants that
the trial court found to be credible and untainted with improper motives,
there is no denying that accused-appellant gave the complainants the
distinct impression that she had the power or ability to send them abroad for
work such that the latter were convinced to part with their money in order to
be employed.[16] As against the positive and categorical testimonies of the
complainants, mere denial of accused-appellant cannot prevail.[17]
We thus defer to the factual findings of the trial court on the credibility of the
complainants as there is no showing that any of them had ill motives against
accused-appellant other than to bring her to justice for the crime of illegal
recruitment and estafa. Their testimonies were straightforward, credible and
convincing.[18]
As to the license requirement, the record showed that accused-appellant did
not have the authority to recruit for employment abroad, per certification
issued by the POEA Regional Extension Unit in Baguio City, [19] stating that
“...the name LINDA SAGAYDO per existing and available records from this
Office is not licensed nor authorized to recruit workers for overseas
employment in the City of Baguio or any part of the Region." It is the lack of
the necessary license or authority that renders the recruitment unlawful or
criminal.[20]
Anent the last requirement, accused-appellant engaged in illegal recruitment
against four (4) persons, namely, complainants Gina Cleto, Jessie Bolinao,
Rogelio Tibeb and Naty Pita.
A person who is convicted of illegal recruitment may, in addition, be
convicted of estafa under Art. 315 (2) (a) of the Revised Penal Code. There
is no double jeopardy because illegal recruitment and estafa are distinct
offenses. Illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum, in which criminal intent is
not necessary, whereas estafa is malum in se in which criminal intent is
necessary.[21]
Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code is
committed by any person who defrauds another by using a fictitious name,
or falsely pretends to possess power, influence, qualifications, property,
credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of similar
deceits executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud.
The offended party must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act or
fraudulent means of the accused-appellant and as a result thereof, the
offended party suffered damages.[22]
Such is the case before us. The complainants parted with their money upon
the prodding and enticement of accused-appellant on the false pretense that
she had the capacity to deploy them for employment abroad. In the end,
complainants were neither able to leave for work abroad nor get their money
back.[23]
The fact that private complainants Rogelio Tibeb and Jessie Bolinao failed to
produce receipts as proof of their payment to accused-appellant does not
free the latter from liability. The absence of receipts cannot defeat a criminal
prosecution for illegal recruitment.[24] As long as the witnesses can positively
show through their respective testimonies that the accused is the one
involved in prohibited recruitment, he may be convicted of the offense
despite the absence of receipts.[25]
With respect to the penalty, accused-appellant having been found guilty of
illegal recruitment in large scale in Criminal Case No. 10838-R, was aptly
meted out the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P100,000.00
under Art. 39 (a) of the Labor Code.[26]
As to the estafa cases, the pertinent provision of the Revised Penal Code is
as follows:
“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 prision correccional in its maximum period to prision
mayor in its minimum period, if the amount of the fraud is over 12,000 pesos
but does not exceed 22,000 pesos; 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 10,000 pesos; but the total
penalty which maybe imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such case,
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 prision mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be;
xxx."
“The Indeterminate Sentence Law provides that, in imposing a prison
sentence under the Revised Penal Code, or its amendments, “the maximum
term” of the penalty shall be that, which, in view of the attending
circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of the said Code,
and the “minimum” shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that
prescribed by the Code for the offense.”[27] “The penalty next lower should
be based on the penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code for the
offense, without first considering any modifying circumstance attendant to
the commission of the crime. The minimum of the indeterminate penalty is
left to the sound discretion of the court, to fix from within the range of the
penalty next lower without reference to the periods into which it may be
subdivided. The modifying circumstances are considered only in the
imposition of the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence.”[28]
In Criminal Case No. 10840-R, where complainant Gina Cleto was
defrauded of P15,000.00, there being no modifying circumstances, the
accused may be sentenced to an indeterminate penalty ranging from two (2)
years and four (4) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to six (6)
years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum.[29]
In Criminal Case Nos. 10837-R, 10839-R and 10841-R where the respective
amounts defrauded from complainants Rogelio Tibeb, Jessie Bolinao and
Naty Pita exceeded P22,000.00, the penalty prescribed by law therefor is
prision correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum, to be imposed in
its maximum period. The penalty next lower in degree is prision correccional
in its minimum and medium periods, or six (6) months and one (1) day to
four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, and the maximum
penalty therefor is six (6) years eight (8) months and twenty one (21) days to
eight (8) years, plus an additional one (1) year since the three (3) amounts
had an excess over P22,000.00, of only P17,000.00, P13,000.00 and
P16,500.00.[30] Thus, accused-appellant may be sentenced to an
indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision
correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and four (4) months of prision
mayor, as maximum, in each case.[31]

WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM the conviction of accused-appellant LINDA

SAGAYDO for illegal recruitment and estafa, subject to the MODIFICATION
that:

(1) In Criminal Case No. 10840-R, she is sentenced to an indeterminate

penalty of two (2) years and four (4) months of prision correccional, as
minimum, to six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum,
and

(2) In Criminal Cases Nos. 10837-R, 10839-R and 10841-R, she is

sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months
of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and four (4) months of
prision mayor, as maximum, in each case.

Accused-appellant is further ordered to indemnify the private complainants

the following amounts: Gina Cleto - P15,000.00; Rogelio Tibeb - P39,000.00;
Jessie Bolinao - P35,000.00; and Naty Pita - P38,500.00, without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.

With additional costs in this instance.

SO ORDERED.
G. R. No. 119594, January 18, 2000
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS.
BENZON ONG Y SATE ALIAS "BENZ ONG," ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
DECISION
MENDOZA, J.:
This is an appeal from the decision[1]of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 5,
Baguio City, finding accused-appellant Benzon Ong y Sate, alias Benz Ong,
guilty of (1) illegal recruitment committed in large scale and sentencing him
to suffer life imprisonment, pay a fine of P100,000.00, without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency, and pay the costs; and (2) seven counts
of estafa for which he was sentenced to suffer, on each count, an
indeterminate prison term ranging from four years and two months of prision
correccional, as minimum, to eight years of prision mayor, as maximum, in
two cases, and to nine years of prision mayor, as maximum, in five cases,
and to indemnify the eight private complainants in the aggregate amount of
P277,500.00 with interest at the legal rate counted from July 25, 1994, until
fully paid.
In Criminal Case No. 13146-R, the information for illegal recruitment in large
scale[2] alleged -
That sometime during and between the period from November, 1993 to
January, 1994, in the City of Baguio, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, representing himself to
have the capacity to contract, enlist, hire and transport Filipino workers for
employment abroad, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously,
for a fee, recruit and promise employment/job placement to the following
persons:
1. Noel Bacasnot y Baldivino;
2. Ruth A. Eliw;
3. Samuel Bagni;
4. Francisca Cayaya;
5. Teofilo S. Gallao, Jr.;
6. Sally Kamura;
7. Paul G. Esteban;
8. David Joaquin; and
9. Solidad M. Malinias
in Taiwan, without first obtaining or securing license or authority from the
proper governmental agency.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
In Criminal Case Nos. 13147-R to 13154-R, eight informations for estafa
were filed. Save for the dates of commission of the crime, the names of the
complainant and the amounts involved, the informations uniformly alleged -
That sometime in [date],[3] in the City of Baguio, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused did then and
there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud one [name][4] by way of false
pretenses, which are executed prior to or simultaneously with the
commission of the fraud, as follows, to wit: the accused knowing fully well
that he/she/they is/are not authorized job recruiters for persons intending to
secure work abroad convinced said [name] and pretended that he/she/they
could secure a job for him/her abroad, for and in consideration of the sum of
[amount],[5] when in truth and in fact they could not; the said [name],
deceived and convinced by the false pretenses employed by the accused,
parted away the total sum of [amount], in favor of the accused, to the
damage and prejudice of the said [name] in the aforementioned amount of
[amount in words][6] [amount], Philippine Currency.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
All indictments being based on the same facts, the cases were tried jointly.
Accused-appellant entered a plea of not guilty to each of the charges,
whereupon trial commenced.
The evidence for the prosecution established the following facts:
Complainant Noel B. Bacasnot is an optometrist by profession. In
September 1993, he met accused-appellant at the insurance office of Zaldy
Galos at Laperal Building in Session Road, Baguio City. Accused-appellant
represented to Bacasnot that he had contacts in Taiwan, Republic of China,
who were looking for workers. Factory workers would be paid P15,000.00 a
month, while construction workers would be paid P1,200.00 a day.
According to him, his mother was in Taiwan and could help Bacasnot get a
job as an optometrist with a salary of as much as P50,000.00 to P80,000.00
a month. A week later, accused-appellant told Bacasnot that, after talking to
his mother, he thought it would be better if he (Bacasnot) worked initially as
a factory worker for six months. Bacasnot agreed. He was charged
P30,000.00 for placement fee, of which P15,000.00 was to be paid at once
and the balance of P15,000.00 to be deducted from his salary once he got a
job in Taiwan. As Bacasnot did not have enough money, he was allowed to
pay P10,000.00 as downpayment for his placement and processing fee
which accused-appellant received on January 31, 1994 (Exh. A)[7] at the
Kimsam Eatery on Session Road. Bacasnot was assured by accused-
appellant that upon completion of his papers, he would leave for Taiwan
within three to four months thereafter.[8]
On the other hand, upon learning of job opportunities abroad, complainants
Ruth A. Eliw, Sally Kamura and Solidad Malinias also sought the
assistance of accused-appellant. They were charged a higher placement fee
of P40,000.00 each, and payments were made to accused-appellant at the
Gallao’s Optical Clinic, where Bacasnot treated patients, at 159 Magsaysay
Avenue, Baguio City. Accused-appellant later accompanied complainants to
Manila purportedly for interview and medical examination at the Steadfast
Recruitment Agency with which accused-appellant claimed to be connected.
However, instead of taking them to a recruitment agency, accused-appellant
took them to an office in United Nations Avenue where three men, allegedly
Taiwanese nationals, interviewed them and later took them to a clinic where
they were examined.[9]
Eliw, Kamura and Malinias each paid accused-appellant the amount of
P25,000.00 on January 21, February 13 and March 30, 1994 (Exhs. D-1 and
K),[10] respectively. On May 30, 1994, each of them paid the balance of
P15,000.00 (Exh. D).[11] In a handwritten agreement (Exh. D) prepared by
Almi G. Bacasnot (wife of Noel B. Bacasnot), accused-appellant
acknowledged payment of P45,000.00, representing the balance of
P15,000.00 from each of complainants and promised them that they would
leave for Taiwan in three weeks. The agreement reads:
AGREEMENT
I, BENSON ONG, OF LEGAL AGE, RECEIVED THE AMOUNT OF FORTY
FIVE THOUSAND PESOS ONLY (P45,000.00) AS RECRUITMENT FULL
PAYMENT ADDITIONAL TO SEVENTY FIVE THOUSAND PESOS
(P75,000.00) WHICH WAS FIRST GIVEN TO ME FROM
1. SALLY KAMURA
2. RUTH ELIW
3. SOLIDAD MALINIAS
IN A CONDITION THAT I SHOULD LET THEM SIGN THE ABOVE NAMES
THE CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT FOR TAIWAN NOT MORE THAN
THREE WEEKS (JUNE 3 TO JUNE 24, 1994).
HEREBY, IF I COULD NOT LET THEM HAVE THE CONTRACT OF
EMPLOYMENT FOR TAIWAN, I WILL RETURN THE MONEY WITHIN ONE
MONTH THE AMOUNT OF (P120,000.00) ONE HUNDRED TWENTY
THOUSAND PESOS ONLY AFTER THE CONDITION ON THE DATE OF
JULY 24, ‘94.
SIGNED ON THE MONTH OF MAY IN THE 30th DAY OF THE YEAR 1994.
APPLICANT’S NAME AND SIGNATURE
SOLIDAD M. MALINIAS (Sgd.)
RUTH ELIW (Sgd.)…………………………….RECEIVED AND AGREED BY:
SALLY KAMURA (Sgd.)
(Sgd.)
BENSON ONG
RECEIVER
WITNESSES:
(Sgd.)
ALMI G. BACASNOT
(Sgd.)
NOEL B. BACASNOT
Accused-appellant never fulfilled his promise. When complainants sought to
inquire about their application, they discovered that accused-appellant no
longer held office at the place in the upper story of Mario’s Restaurant on
Session Road. Apparently, accused-appellant was already into hiding.
A week before June 27, 1994, Eliw chanced upon accused-appellant and
she was told that Kamura and Malinias had passed the interview and
medical examination in Manila. Accused-appellant then asked Eliw to pay an
additional amount of P5,000.00 for processing. Instead of paying, Eliw
denounced accused-appellant’s recruitment activities to the local office of
the National Bureau of Investigation. On June 25, 1994, the NBI confirmed
from the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Regional
Extension Unit (POEA-REU) in the Cordillera Autonomous Region that
accused-appellant had not been licensed to recruit for overseas
employment. On June 27, 1994, a team composed of an NBI agent and
three special investigators conducted an entrapment operation. Eliw handed
the P1,500.00 marked money to accused-appellant, promising to pay the
balance of P3,500.00 later. At that instance, the NBI group nabbed accused-
appellant and placed him under arrest. He was subjected to paraffin test and
found positive for the presence of fluorescent powder.[12]
Complainants Samuel Bagni, Teofilo Gallao, Jr., Paul Esteban and David
Joaquin were likewise swindled. Accused-appellant collected P25,000.00
from Bagni on January 17, 1994 (Exh. M)[13] and P15,000.00 on May 9, 1994
(Exh. M-1).[14] From Gallao he collected P25,000.00 on January 31, 1994
(Exh. I)[15] and P15,000.00 on May 9, 1994 (Exh. I-1).[16] He collected various
amounts from the others, as follows: from Esteban, P7,500.00 on November
30, 1993 (Exh. E)[17] and P30,000.00 on March 7, 1994 (Exh. F);[18] from
Joaquin, P7,500.00 on November 30, 1993 (Exh. E),[19] P7,500.00 on
December 28, 1993 (Exh. E-1),[20] and P15,000.00 on March 6, 1994 (Exh.
E-2).[21] Joaquin was with Esteban when he was introduced to accused-
appellant through Alice Sabala on November 15, 1993, at the Laperal
Building on Session Road, Baguio City where they made their first and
second payments. Joaquin’s third payment was made at the Bombay Bazaar
on Magsaysay Avenue and he, together with Esteban, was supposed to
leave in March 1994. On the other hand, Gallao was a technician at the
Gallao’s Optical Clinic. He came to know accused-appellant through
Bacasnot who is the husband of Gallao’s cousin, Almi Gallao Bacasnot.
Bagni, meanwhile, met accused-appellant through Bacasnot, Bagni’s
brother-in-law. Gallao and Bagni were scheduled to leave by June 15, 1994.
As with Eliw, Kamura and Malinias, both Gallao and Bagni gave the
downpayment of their fees to accused-appellant at Gallao’s Optical Clinic.
The balance of their fees was paid at the house of accused-appellant at 83
Happy Homes, Baguio City.
Accused-appellant failed to comply with his commitment to send
complainants Bacasnot, Eliw, Kamura, Malinias, Bagni, Gallao, Esteban and
Joaquin to Taiwan as he could no longer be located after collecting
placement fees from them.[22]
Earlier, at the instance of complainant Bacasnot, Atty. Justinian O.
Licnachan, POEA-REU Legal Officer of the Cordillera Autonomous Region,
issued a certification dated June 24, 1994 (Exh. C)[23] which read:
This is to certify that BENZ ONG a.k.a. "BENZON ONG SATE & JOHNSON
ONG SATE", per existing and available records from this office, is not
licensed nor authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment in the
City of Baguio or any part of the region. He is neither in possession of the
required Provincial Recruitment Authority.
Complainant Francisca Cayaya failed to testify despite due notice to her. Her
complaint for estafa was, therefore, dismissed.[24] On the other hand, the
complaint for estafa of complainant Bacasnot, which should have been filed
with the Municipal Trial Court in view of the amount (P10,000.00) involved,
was nonetheless allowed because it arose out of the same facts as the case
for illegal recruitment.
For his defense, accused-appellant Benzon Ong y Sate admitted having
met complainant Bacasnot through Zaldy Galos. He got to know the other
complainants through Bacasnot and one Patring Esteban (sister of
complainant Paul Esteban), his partner in the video rental business. He
introduced himself to Bacasnot as one from Taiwan and told Bacasnot that
his mother and brother were based in Taiwan. Accused-appellant testified
that when complainants sought his help, he advised them to go to the POEA
but complainants claimed that they do not know anyone at said office. He
then offered to scout for a recruitment agency in Manila. Accused-appellant
accompanied complainants to Steadfast Recruitment Agency in Manila and
introduced them to a certain Marilyn Pagsibigan, Marketing Manager of the
agency. He came to know about the agency through a friend in Manila, one
Ernesto Sy. He denied collecting placement fees from the complainants and
claimed that his signatures on the receipts had been forged. He also claimed
that on June 27, 1994, he was at the Gallao’s Optical Clinic to collect the
payment for the betamax player which Bacasnot had previously ordered and
which accused-appellant had delivered a week earlier. Bacasnot told
accused-appellant that Eliw wanted to buy the betamax player for
P10,000.00. As Eliw had only P1,500.00, accused-appellant at first refused
to accept the payment. When Eliw assured him she would pay the balance,
accused-appellant finally agreed to receive the payment. As accused-
appellant received the money, he was nabbed by NBI agents who identified
themselves and asked accused-appellant to go with them to the NBI office.
He was later charged with illegal recruitment.[25]
On November 23, 1994, the trial court rendered its decision convicting
accused-appellant of illegal recruitment committed in large scale and of
seven counts of estafa. The dispositive portion of its decision reads:[26]
WHEREFORE, the Court finds and declares the accused BENZON ONG y
SATE alias Benz Ong, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal
recruitment in large scale as charged in Crim. Case No. 13146-R and hereby
sentences him to suffer life imprisonment, to pay a fine of P100,000.00,
without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency; and to pay the costs.
The Court also finds and declares the same accused BENZON ONG y
SATE, alias Benz Ong, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
estafa on seven counts and hereby sentences him:
(a) In Crim. Case No. 13147-R, to suffer an indeterminate penalty of FOUR
(4) YEARS and TWO (2) MONTHS of prision correccional, as minimum, to
NINE (9) YEARS of prision mayor, as maximum; and to pay the costs;
(b) In Crim. Case No. 13148-R, to suffer an indeterminate penalty of FOUR
(4) YEARS and TWO (2) MONTHS of prision correccional, as minimum, to
NINE (9) YEARS of prision mayor, as maximum; and to pay the costs;
(c) In Crim. Case No. 13150-R, to suffer an indeterminate penalty of FOUR
(4) YEARS and TWO (2) MONTHS of prision correccional, as minimum, to
NINE (9) YEARS of prision mayor, as maximum; and to pay the costs;
(d) In Crim. Case No. 13151-R, to suffer an indeterminate penalty of FOUR
(4) YEARS and TWO (2) MONTHS of prision correccional, as minimum, to
NINE (9) YEARS of prision mayor, as maximum; and to pay the costs;
(e) In Crim. Case No. 13152-R, to suffer an indeterminate penalty of FOUR
(4) YEARS and TWO (2) MONTHS of prision correccional, as minimum, to
EIGHT (8) YEARS of prision mayor, as maximum; and to pay the costs;
(f) In Crim. Case No. 13153-R, to suffer an indeterminate penalty of FOUR
(4) YEARS and TWO (2) MONTHS of prision correccional, as minimum, to
EIGHT (8) YEARS of prision mayor, as maximum; and to pay the costs; and
(g) In Crim. Case No. 13154-R, to suffer an indeterminate penalty of FOUR
(4) YEARS and TWO (2) MONTHS of prision correccional, as minimum, to
NINE (9) YEARS of prision mayor, as maximum; and to pay the costs.
In the service of his sentence, the accused shall be credited with his
preventive imprisonment under the terms and conditions prescribed in Article
29 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.
The said accused BENZON ONG y SATE, alias Benz Ong, shall furthermore
indemnify the below-named persons the amounts indicated opposite their
names, to wit:
1. Noel Bacasnot ------ P10,000.00
2 Ruth Eliw ------ 40,000.00
3. Samuel Bagni ------ 40,000.00
4. Teofilo Gallao, Jr. ------ 40,000.00
5. Sally Kamura ------ 40,000.00
6. Paul Esteban ------ 37,500.00
7. David Joaquin ------ 30,000.00
8. Solidad Malinias ------ 40,000.00
all amounts to bear interest at the legal rate from July 25, 1994, the date of
the filing of the indictments, until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.
Hence, this appeal. Accused-appellant contends that -
I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE
TESTIMONIES OF THE COMPLAINING WITNESSES. Slxsc
 II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-
APPELLANT GUILTY WHEN THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO
PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
First. Accused-appellant claims that when complainants filled out their
respective bio-data, application forms and other documents for employment
in Taiwan, they knew that they were applying for employment abroad
through the Steadfast Recruitment Agency. He claims that he merely
suggested to them the opportunity to work overseas but that he never
advertised himself as a recruiter.
The contention has no merit
Accused-appellant is charged with violation of Art. 38 of the Labor Code, as
amended by Presidential Decree No. 2018, which provides that any
recruitment activity, including the prohibited practices enumerated in Art. 34
of said Code, undertaken by persons who have no license or authority to
engage in recruitment for overseas employment is illegal and punishable
under Art. 39. Under Art. 13(b) of the Labor Code, "recruitment and
placement" refer 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, is considered engaged in recruitment and placement. On the other
hand, "referral" is defined as the act of passing along or forwarding of an
applicant for employment after an initial interview of a selected applicant for
employment to a selected employer, placement officer or bureau.[27]
On the other hand, illegal recruitment is considered an offense involving
economic sabotage if any of these qualifying circumstances exist, namely,
(a) when illegal recruitment is committed by a syndicate, i.e., if it is carried
out by a group of three or more persons conspiring and/or confederating with
one another; or, (b) when illegal recruitment is committed in large scale, i.e.,
if it is committed against three or more persons individually or as a group.
The essential elements of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale are:
(1) the accused engages in acts of recruitment and placement of workers
defined under Art. 13(b) or in any prohibited activities under Art. 34 of the
Labor Code; (2) the accused has not complied with the guidelines issued by
the Secretary of Labor and Employment, particularly with respect to the
securing of a license or an authority to recruit and deploy workers, either
locally or overseas; and (3) the accused commits the unlawful acts against
three or more persons, individually or as a group. As defined, a "license" is
that which is issued by the Department of Labor and Employment
authorizing a person or entity to operate a private employment agency, while
an "authority" is that issued by the DOLE entitling a person or association to
so engage in recruitment and placement activities as a private recruitment
agency. It is the lack of the necessary license or authority that renders the
recruitment unlawful or criminal.[28]
To prove illegal recruitment, it must be shown that the accused-appellant
gave complainants the distinct impression that he had the power or ability to
send complainants abroad for work such that the latter were convinced to
part with their money in order to be employed.[29] Accused-appellant
represented himself to complainants as one capable of deploying workers
abroad and even quoted the alleged salary rates of factory and construction
workers in Taiwan. He advised Bacasnot to accept a job as a factory worker
first because it would be then easier for him to transfer jobs once he got to
Taiwan. Accused-appellant said his mother, who was based in Taiwan,
could help Bacasnot. Bacasnot paid accused-appellant an initial placement
fee agreeing to pay the balance through salary deductions once he was
employed. Accused-appellant also promised jobs to Eliw and the other
complainants. He accompanied them to Manila so that they could be
interviewed and physically examined at the Steadfast Recruitment Agency
with which accused-appellant represented he was connected. These acts of
accused-appellant created the distinct impression on the eight complainants
that he was a recruiter for overseas employment.[30] There is no question
that he was neither licensed nor authorized to recruit workers for overseas
employment. Nor is there any question that he dealt with complainants.
What he claims is that he merely "suggested" to complainants to apply at the
Steadfast Recruitment Agency, which is a recruitment agency.
Even if accused-appellant did no more than "suggest" to complainants
where they could apply for overseas employment, his act constituted
"referral" within the meaning of Art. 13(b) of the Labor Code. Indeed, the
testimonial and documentary evidence in the record shows that accused-
appellant did more than just make referrals. The evidence shows that he
made misrepresentations to them concerning his authority to recruit for
overseas employment and collected various amounts from them for
placement fees. Clearly, accused-appellant committed acts constitutive of
large scale illegal recruitment.
Second. Accused-appellant denies that the signatures in the receipts of
payments are his. To be sure, the presentation of the receipts
acknowledging payments is not necessary for the successful prosecution of
accused-appellant. We have already ruled that the absence of receipts in a
case for illegal recruitment does not warrant the acquittal of the accused-
appellant and is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. As long as the
prosecution is able to establish through credible testimonial evidence that
the accused-appellant has engaged in illegal recruitment, a conviction for the
offense can very well be justified.[31]
The prosecution evidence proves beyond reasonable doubt that accused-
appellant was engaged in illegal recruitment committed in large scale. He
was positively identified by complainants as the person who had recruited
them for employment in Taiwan. He succeeded in inveigling them into
paying various amounts to him for their placement fees. Their testimonies
dovetail with each other in material points. There is no showing that any of
complainants had any ill-motives to testify against accused-appellant. Their
testimonies were straightforward, credible and convincing.[32] In contrast,
accused-appellant failed to present evidence to rebut the evidence of the
prosecution. He failed to present the person allegedly responsible for the
recruitment of the complainants. As a result of his failure to do so, he risked
the adverse inference and legal presumption that he did not present such
witnesses because their testimonies would actually be adverse if
produced.[33] For, indeed, accused-appellant could have adduced evidence
to prove that he was an employee of the Steadfast Recruitment Agency, a
duly authorized agency. He could have presented the manager of the
agency to corroborate his claim that complainants actually applied to the
agency and not through him. Instead, he merely interposed denials in his
defense.
As against the positive and categorical testimonies of the complainants,
accused-appellant’s mere denials cannot prevail.[34] He was aptly meted out
the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay the fine of P100,000.00 under
Art. 39(a) of the Labor Code.
Third. Accused-appellant contends that the elements of estafa have not
been proven by the prosecution, specifically, the requirement that
complainants must have relied on the false pretenses of accused-appellant,
because complainants knew that he was not a licensed recruiter.
The contention has no merit. The following elements of estafa are present in
these cases, to wit: (1) the accused has defrauded the offended party by
means of abuse of confidence or by deceit; and (2) as a result, damage or
prejudice, which is capable of pecuniary estimation, is caused to the
offended party or third person. Accused-appellant misrepresented himself to
complainants as one who can make arrangements for job placements in
Taiwan, and by reason of his misrepresentations, false assurances and
deceit, complainants were induced to part with their money, thus causing
them damage and prejudice.
Moreover, it is settled that a person who is convicted of illegal recruitment
may, in addition, be convicted of estafa under Art. 315(2)(a) of the Revised
Penal Code. There is no problem of double jeopardy because illegal
recruitment is malum prohibitum, in which the criminal intent is not
necessary, whereas estafa is malum in se in which the criminal intent of the
accused is necessary.[35]
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 130170, January 29, 2002
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROWENA
ESLABON DIONISIO, JOSEFINA MALLARI Y PENAFLOR (ACQUITTED)
AND DIANE DOBLE Y MACATUMPAG (ACQUITTED), ACCUSED,
ROWENA ESLABON DIONISIO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
DECISION
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
Before us is an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City, Branch 94[1] in Criminal Case No. Q-91-26376, finding
accused-appellant Rowena Eslabon Dionisio guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale and sentencing her to suffer
life imprisonment, pay a fine of P100,000.00 and reimburse to private
complainants the sums of money she collected.
The factual antecedents of the case, as appearing on the records, are as
follows:
Sometime in August 1991, a certain Cora Molar enticed private complainant
Juanita Castillo to apply for overseas employment at the office of Jovial
Trading and Employment Services, located at the third floor of the Villa
Building in Cubao, Quezon City. Lured by the prospect of working abroad,
Castillo went to the said office where she met accused-appellant Rowena
Dionisio and Josefina Mallari, a.k.a. “Manay”. Dionisio and Mallari assured
Castillo that they had the right connections and could send her to Saudi
Arabia. They demanded from Castillo P9,000.00 as service fee and to
defray expenses for passport, medical examination and NBI clearance.
When Castillo told them that she did not have the money at that time,
Dionisio said that she could make a partial payment of P5,000.00 and pay
the balance later on. Dionisio sent Molar to Castillo’s house to collect the
downpayment on August 12, 1991. Castillo handed over P4,000.00 to
Molar, following the telephone instruction of Dionisio, as evidenced by a
receipt[2] signed by Molar. According to Castillo, she went back to the Cubao
office on August 17, 1991, where the P4,000.00 was remitted to Dionisio by
Molar. Dionisio and Mallari then promised to secure her a visa so she could
leave immediately for the oil-rich kingdom.
On September 3, 1991, Dionisio demanded another P1,000.00 from Castillo,
which she delivered on the same day as shown by a receipt[3] signed by
Dionisio. Again, Dionisio assured Castillo that she would facilitate the
processing of all necessary documents and that a job awaited Castillo
abroad as governess and domestic helper.
After repeatedly following up her application with no result, it soon became
apparent to Castillo that she was hoodwinked. To confirm her suspicion, she
went to the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) office
where she was informed that Dionisio, Mallari and the firm known as Jovial
Trading were neither licensed nor authorized to recruit workers for overseas
employment.[4] Castillo secured a certification[5] to this effect from the POEA
and forthwith, went to Camp Karingal where she executed a sworn
statement[6] against Dionisio and company.
At about the same time, private complainant Juan Carandang, together with
Juanito Castillo, Noel Villanueva and Lito Gorospe, were likewise recruited
to work abroad by accused-appellant and her cohorts. Carandang was
introduced by a friend to Diana Doble, who accompanied him to the office of
Jovial Trading and introduced him to Dionisio and Mallari.
Dionisio asked for a processing fee of P3,000.00, which Carandang promptly
gave on August 3, 1991. Carandang was further persuaded to part with the
additional amount of P4,500.00 on two separate occasions, covered by two
receipts[7] signed by Dionisio dated September 23 and October 24, 1991.
Subsequently, Dionisio informed Carandang and his other companions that
they were to leave for the Middle East on October 31, 1991. A day before
the scheduled departure date, however, they were told that the same was
postponed to November 6, 1991, on which date, they were again told that
their plane tickets have not yet been released. Soon enough, they all
realized that they were fooled by Dionisio, when they found out from the
POEA that Dionisio, et al. were not licensed recruiters.[8] Carandang likewise
secured a certification[9] from the POEA and executed a sworn statement
against Dionisio’s group.
On the other hand, private complainant Alberto Meeks was also purportedly
duped by Dionisio and company. As testified by Alberto’s wife, Angelita, the
Meeks spouses went to the office of Jovial Trading on September 9, 1991
and gave Dionisio P7,000.00 as placement fee for Alberto’s application for a
job in South Korea. Dionisio issued and signed a receipt[10] for the said
amount in the presence of Mallari and Doble. However, Alberto was not able
to go to South Korea, as promised, and later found employment in Saudi
Arabia through the efforts of another recruitment agency.[11]
Thus, on November 11, 1991, Dionisio, Mallari, Doble and one Jane Doe
alias “Cora Molar”, whose real identity was not established, were charged
before Branch 94 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City for large scale
illegal recruitment. The information against them reads:
That on or about the period comprised from August 1991 to October 1991, in
Quezon City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the above-named accused, conspiring together, confederating with and
mutually helping one another, without any authority of law, and for a fee, did
then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously recruit and promise
employment and/or job placement abroad to JUAN CARANDANG Y
PRECILLA, JUANITO GOROSPE Y SANTILLAN, JUANITA CASTILLO Y
ALVAREZ, NOEL VILLANUEVA Y HENSON, ALBERTO MEEKS Y ADAN,
ANTONIO GANZON Y GARDE, ROBERTO CRISTOBAL Y FABRES and
REYNALDO CASTILLO Y PELAEZ, without first obtaining the required
license and/or authority from the Department of Labor and Employment.
That the crime described above is committed in large scale as the same was
perpetrated against three (3) or more persons individually or as group as
penalized under Article 38 and 39 as amended by P.D. 2018 of the Labor
Code (P.D. 442).
Contrary to Law.[12]
Upon arraignment on January 6, 1992, Dionisio, Mallari and Doble pleaded
not guilty to the information.[13] “Cora Molar” had absconded and remained at
large. Trial on the merits then ensued.
On October 2, 1995, the trial court rendered judgment, decreeing as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds the accused Rowena
Eslabon-Dionisio guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal recruitment
committed on a large scale and sentences her to suffer the penalty of life
imprisonment and a fine of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00), to
indemnify the following private complainants: Juanita Castillo-P4,000.00;
Juan Carandang-P4,500.00 and Alberto Meeks-P7,000.00; and to pay the
costs.
The other two accused, Josefina Mallari and Diana Doble, are acquitted on
ground of reasonable doubt.
SO ORDERED.[14]
The trial court rejected Dionisio’s defense that the real illegal recruiter was
Cora Molar, who rented a table in the office of Jovial Trading where Dionisio
was the sole proprietor. It disregarded Dionisio’s claim that she received the
money from the private complainants in behalf of Molar and that Dionisio
was engaged only in the business of buying and selling slippers, cosmetics
and other goods. The trial court gave credence to private complainants’
testimonies that they were recruited by Dionisio, who did not possess the
authority or license to conduct recruitment activities, as certified by the
POEA and the testimony of prosecution witness Benjamin Vasquez, a POEA
employee.[15]
Accused-appellant Dionisio is now before us on the following assignment of
errors:
I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING FULL WEIGHT AND CREDENCE
TO THE TESTIMONY OF THE COMPLAINANTS AND DISREGARDING
THE THEORY OF ACCUSED ROWENA ESLABON DIONISIO.
II
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING DIONISIO GUILTY BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME CHARGED AND OF ORDERING
HER TO PAY FINE AND INDEMNIFICATION OF AMOUNTS TO
COMPLAINANTS.[16]
Accused-appellant maintains that no conclusive proof was adduced by the Q. When was that?
prosecution to show that she engaged in recruitment activities. She did not
A. I gave the partial payment of P4,000.00 on August 12, 1991.
openly or directly advertise herself as a recruiter, nor did she personally ask
the private complainants to apply in her office for overseas jobs. The name
of her firm, “Jovial Trading,” alone implies that she was a merchant engaged Q. Where did you give that P4,000.00?
in the buying and selling of goods and not a recruiter.

Accused-appellant admits that she received the various amounts of money xxx xxx xxx
from private complainants, as evidenced by receipts signed by
her. However, she claims that she received the said money on behalf of WITNESS
Cora Molar and did not benefit from it in any way. She further claims that
In our house.
she merely entertained Molar’s clients in her absence since Molar rented a
table in her office.
Q. To whom did you give that amount?
Accused-appellant’s submissions fail to convince us. A. To Cora Molar.
We agree with the trial court’s observation that private complainants did not
harbor any ill motive to testify falsely against accused-appellant. Indeed, it is Q. And who is that Cora Molar?
against human nature and experience for strangers to conspire and accuse A. The representative. I gave the money, the P4,000.00, to Cora
another stranger of a most serious crime just to mollify their hurt feelings.[17] Molar through the instruction of Rowena Dionisio.
As such, the testimony of private complainants that accused-appellant was
the person who transacted with them, promised them jobs and received
money therefor, was correctly given credence and regarded as trustworthy. COURT
The absence of evidence as to an improper motive actuating the principal I want to ... Thru the instruction. Why? Were you instructed by
witnesses of the prosecution strongly tends to indicate that their testimony is Rowena?
worthy of full faith and credit.[18]

Juanita Castillo described how she was recruited by accused-appellant in WITNESS

this wise: Yes, sir, thru the telephone.
xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx
Q. When you arrived at their office, whom did you meet?
A. I met Rowena Eslabon Dionisio and Josefina Mallari. Q. After you gave this P4,000.00, what did you do next?
A. I went to their office at 3rd Floor, Villa Building, Cubao, Quezon
Q. And were you able to talk with them? City.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When was that?
Q. And what was the nature of the conversation? A. August 17 of 1991.
A. Rowena Dionisio and Josefina Mallari convinced me that they
have a right connection and they are what you call it “malakas” Q. And what did you do when you went there to their office?
and they can send us abroad, that they can process our papers A. Cora Molar gave this money to Dionisio, to Rowena Dionisio.
to send us abroad.

Q. And after Cora Molar gave that money to Rowena Dionisio,

Q. When you said here that they were “malakas” and that they what happened next?
have connections with other agencies, you were convinced by
them? A. They promised that they will do their best to get our visa right
away or the soonest possible time so that we can be sent
A. Yes, sir. abroad.

Q. What did you do when you were convinced? Q. When you said, they, whom are you referring to?
A. They asked for a P9,000.00 service fee and they told me, A. Josefina Mallari and Rowena Dionisio.
Rowena Dionisio and Josefina Mallari, to process my papers
including my passport, my medical examination and my NBI
clearance. xxx xxx x x x[19]
Similarly, Juan Carandang testified as follows:
Q. And what did you do when you were told by them to give that xxx xxx xxx
P9,000.00?
A. I told them that I don’t have enough money that total of Q. What transpired when you were accompanied by Doble to their
P9,000.00, but they told me, Josefina Mallari and Rowena office at Villa Building?
Dionisio, you can give partial payment of P5,000.00 only and A. I was introduced to Rowena Eslabon and she promised me that I
later on the balance of P4,000.00. will be working in Saudi Arabia.

xxx xxx xxx Q. And after talking with Eslabon that you are applying for work
abroad, what did you do next?
Q. Were you able to give partial payment to the herein accused? A. When she said that, she asked money from me to process the
A. Yes, sir. papers at the POEA.

Q. And were you able to give that money?

A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you talk with somebody in the office of the lady?
A. Yes.
Q. How much did Eslabon ask from you?
A. P3,000.00. Q. What was the conversation all about?
A. When I came back on October 30 to confirm whether we will
Q. Was there a receipt for that purpose? proceed or not, she told me that it was postponed.
A. None, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx
Q. After you were informed by Miss Eslabon that your schedule for
Saudi Arabia was postponed, what did you do?
Q. And after you paid her the sum of P3,000.00, what did she do
next? A. I asked her why it was postponed and why we do not have ticket.
A. She told me to come back on a certain day in order to know if I will
really have a visa. Q. What was her reply?
A. She said the tickets were still under process and because of her
xxx xxx xxx convincing words, I believed her and asked her when we will
return.

Q. Did you return as ordered by Rowena?

xxx xxx xxx
A. Yes. I came back and she told me I will prepare money in the
amount of P2,500.00 because the visa is already ready and the
amount is for the ticket. Q. What transpired at the office?
A. She said we will be able to leave on Nov. 6.
Q. And did you again give the sum of P2,500.00 as requested by
Eslabon? xxx xxx xxx
A. On that date, I cannot give but I told her I will come back.
Q. And on Nov. 6, were you able to leave?
Q. Did you return? A. No, sir because the tickets were not released yet.
A. Yes. Last September 23, I came back and gave her the amount of
P2,500.00.
xxx xxx x x x[20]
The above testimonies were corroborated by Angelita Meeks, who declared
Q. Where did you give that amount? that her husband was promised employment by accused-appellant as a
A. I gave it to Rowena and she issued me a receipt. factory worker in South Korea. She was also personally assured by
accused-appellant that her husband, Alberto, would be able to leave.[21]
xxx xxx xxx Private complainants were categorical and unequivocal in their statement
that it was accused-appellant who separately recruited them during the
Q. After giving the amount, what transpired next? same period of time for jobs abroad. Accused-appellant cannot feign
innocence by claiming that it was actually Molar who promised them
A. Rowena told me to call her next week and she told me I will ask for
overseas jobs, in light of her positive identification as private complainants’
the result of my application.
recruiter. Hence, accused-appellant’s mere denials cannot prevail over
these positive and straightforward testimonies.[22] Besides, it is inconceivable
Q. Did you call her as requested? that private complainants could be mistaken in their belief that it was
A. Yes. And she told me when I called her to bring again some accused-appellant who recruited them considering that it was she who
money. personally talked with them on several occasions and received the sums of
money for which she issued receipts where it was stated that the amount
given was for “processing” and “POEA”.[23] Moreover, it was held in a
Q. And did you bring as requested by Eslabon the money? number of cases that even the absence of receipts is not fatal to the case of
A. Yes, I came back on October 24 and I brought the amount of the prosecution, for as long as it is clearly established through the witnesses’
P2,500.00. respective testimonies, that the accused is the one involved in prohibited
recruitment.[24]

Q. And did you give that amount? Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code, defines recruitment and placement as “x x x
A. Yes. 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: x x x”
Q. Was there a receipt to that effect? (Italics ours). Consequently, even in the absence of money given as
A. Yes. consideration for accused-appellant’s “services”, she would still be
considered as having engaged in recruitment activities, since it was
sufficiently demonstrated that she promised overseas employment to private
xxx xxx xxx complainants.

Q. When you were informed by Eslabon that on Oct. 31, you will be The elements of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale are the
going to Saudi Arabia, did you come back to the office of Eslabon following: 1) the accused undertook a recruitment activity defined under
on October 31? Article 13 (b) or any prohibited practice under Article 34 of the Labor Code;
2) the accused did not have the license or the authority to lawfully engage in
A. On Oct. 30, I went to the office.
the recruitment and placement of workers; and 3) the accused committed
the same against three or more persons individually or as a group.[25]
All the aforementioned elements were proven by the prosecution beyond
reasonable doubt. It was established that accused-appellant promised
employment to the eight (8) complainants and that she was not authorized or
licensed to engage in such activity as certified to by the POEA.

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon

City, Branch 94, finding accused-appellant Rowena Eslabon-Dionisio
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal recruitment in large
scale and imposing on her the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT, and
sentencing her to pay a fine in the amount of P100,000.00 and to
REIMBURSE the amounts received from private complainants, is
AFFIRMED in toto.

SO ORDERED.
 before and weighed by said court, and for us to review this feature of the
G.R. No. L-2548, January 28, 1950 case will involve a factual inquiry which we are not empowered to undertake.

DEE C. CHUAN & SONS, INC., PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. THE
COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, CONGRESS OF LABOR
ORGANIZATIONS, KAISAHAN NG MANGGAGAWA SA KAHOY SA
PILIPINAS, AND JULIAN LUMANOG AND HIS WORK-CONTRACT
LABORERS, RESPONDENTS AND APPELLEE.
DECISION
PARAS, J.:
This is an appel by the petitioner from a decision of the Court of Industrial
Relations ordering the petitioner (1) to grant an increase of P0.030 a day to
all its employeess and laborers except workers under the "pakiao system";
(2) to grant its laborers, under certain conditions, 15 days vacation leave and
15 days sick leave both with full pay every year, and, upon the other hand,
denying (a) petitioner's prayer for the reduction of the salaries and wages of
its employees and laborers, including the work-contract laborers of Julian
Lumanog; (b) petitioner's claim for damages resulting from its laborer's
strike; (c) petitioner's prayer for the filing of a bond by Julian Lumanog under
Act No. 3959 and for the reduction of wages of his work-contract laborers.
The Court of Industrial Relations has also ordered the petitioner to grant its
workers 15-day sick leave with full pay every year. In the case of Leyte Land
Transportation Company, Inc. vs. Leyte Farmer's and Laborers' Union, L-
1377, decided on May 12, 1948 (45 Off. Gaz., 4862)[1] we already sustained
the authority of the Court of Industrial Relations to grant vacation and sick
leaves with pay, and observed that "when there is an assurance of holidays
and vacations, workers take up their tasks with greater effeciency and tend
to sustain their productiveness for longer periods."
The claims of the petitioner against Julian Lumanog must also be overruled,
first, because it is admitted that the latter is an independent contractor, and
his laborers (who joined the strike) are therefore not in the service of the
petitioner, with the result that the Court of Industrial Relations has no
jurisdiction over them; and, secondly, because we have ruled that the strike
in question is legal and justified, and cannot consequently be a cause for
discharge.
The appealed decision of the Court of Industrial Relations is therefore
affirmed, and it is so ordered with costs against the petitioner.

The contention of the petitioner that the strike declared by its laborers on
April 12, 1947, is illegal or unjustified because it originated from unfounded
demands and was planned by the Congress of Labor Organizations to
create a general strike condition in Manila and embarress the Roxas
Administrationi, raises questions of fact decided adversely to the petitioner
by the Court of Industrial Relations; and, it is now needles to state, we are
not authorized to re-examine the same.

It appears that there was a previous industrial dispute between the petitioner
and its laborers resulting in a strike which was decided and settled by the
Court of Industrial Relations in a final judgmnet promulgated on November
23, 1946. It is presently argued by the petitioner that the effective duration of
this judgment is three years during which a strike may not be staged.
Section 17 of Commonwealth Act No. 103, invoked by the petitioner,
provides that "An award, order, or decision of the Court shall be valid and
effective during the time therein specified. In the absence of such
specification, any party or both parites to a controversy may terminate the
effectiveness of an award, order or decision after three years have elapsed
from the date of said award, order or decision by giving notice to that effect
to the Court: Provided, however, That at any time during the effectiveness of
an award, order or decision, the Court may, on application of an interested
pary, and after due hearing, alter, modify in whole or in part, or set aside any
such award, order or decision, or reopen any question involved therein."

The petitioner admits that this provision does not expressly prohibit the
declaration of a strike during the effective duration of an award or decision,
but contends that the prohibition may be inferred from the legislative intent of
forestalling strikes. We cannot agree. A strike is not in itself inconsistent with
or destructive of the efficacy of an award or decision, since the Court of
Industrial Relations in proper cases may enforce the same during the
statutory period. In other words, an employer as soon as the laborers walk
out, may resort to said court and defeat the aims of the strike by alleging the
existence of a bingidng decision settling a previous similar industrial dispute,
subject of course to the power of the court to reopen any question involved
therein (sec. 17, Commonwealth Act No. 103, as amended). Capital need
not, however, be apprehensive about the recurrence of strikes in view of the
system of compulsory arbitration by the Court of Industrial Relations.

This conclusion on the basic phase of the case,—that the strike in question
is legal and justified,—is necessarily fatal (1) to petitioner's claim for
damages, even assuming that the Court of Industrial Relations has
jurisdiction to pass thereon, and (2) to petitioner's claim that the striking
laborers had ceased to be in its employ as a consequence of their unjustified
strike.

The raise in wages and the 15-day vacation leave with full pay every year
conceded to the workers by the Court of Industrial Relations were based on
the financial ability of the petitioner as shown by the evidence adduced