FACTS:

The appellant, Fernando Cortez y Vega, a former policeman, and his co-accused, Irene Yabut, his common-law wife, were both charged with estafa and illegal recruitment in large scale. However, only the appellant stood trial as Yabut has eluded arrest and remains at-large. The private complainants in this case had encounters with the appellant and Yabut, where they handed over various amounts of money as initial payments for the processing of papers and visa for jobs in Japan. They were promised by the appellant and Yabut that they would be able to leave for Japan and if not, their money would be refunded. Additional amounts were given for the purpose of processing their papers and expenses for training. However, the scheduled departures were repeatedly postponed and the private complainants were not able to leave for Japan. They eventually discovered that the appellant and Yabut were not licensed or authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment. The private complainants then filed complaints against the appellant and Yabut.

The appellant and his co-accused, Irene Yabut, promised the complainants that they could leave for abroad and asked them to pay a fee of P50,000 for travel documents and POEA papers. The amount was paid on installments. The first payment of P15,000 was made on July 20, 1992, followed by a second payment of P25,000 on July 24, 1992, and a third payment of P10,000 on July 27, 1992. Despite several scheduled dates of departure, the complainants were not able to leave and demanded the return of their money. The appellant and his co-accused were later found out to be not licensed or authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment. The complainants then filed complaints against the appellant and his co-accused, leading to the filing of criminal charges for illegal recruitment and estafa.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the trial court erred in convicting Fernando Cortez of illegal recruitment while acquitting him of estafa based on the same evidence.

2. Whether there was sufficient evidence to prove Cortez's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

3. Whether the appellant could be convicted of illegal recruitment in large scale despite his acquittal of the crime of estafa.

4. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of illegal recruitment in large scale insofar as appellant is concerned.

5. Whether the findings of the trial court on the credibility of the witnesses should be given deference

6. Whether the trial court's computation of the amounts to be refunded to the complainants is correct

RULING:

1. The trial court did not err in convicting Fernando Cortez of illegal recruitment while acquitting him of estafa based on the same evidence.

2. There was sufficient evidence to prove Cortez's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

3. Yes, the appellant can be convicted of illegal recruitment in large scale despite his acquittal of the crime of estafa. In this jurisdiction, it is settled that a person who commits illegal recruitment may be charged and convicted separately of illegal recruitment under the Labor Code and estafa under the Revised Penal Code. Conviction for offenses under the Labor Code does not bar conviction for offenses punishable by other laws. One's acquittal of the crime of estafa will not necessarily result in his acquittal of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale, and vice versa.

4. Yes, the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of illegal recruitment in large scale insofar as the appellant is concerned. The elements of illegal recruitment in large scale are: (1) the accused undertakes any recruitment activity defined under Article 13, paragraph (b) or any prohibited practice enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code; (2) he does not have a license or authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers; and (3) he commits the same against three or more persons, individually or as a group. In this case, all three elements were established. The complainants testified that the appellant promised them employment and received fees from them. The Philippine Overseas Employment Administration issued a certification stating that the appellant is not authorized to recruit workers. The appellant and his co-accused recruited at least eight workers individually on different occasions.

5. The findings of the trial court on the credibility of the witnesses should be given the highest respect and generally not disturbed on appeal.

6. The trial court's computation of the amounts to be refunded to the complainants is correct, except for the amount to be refunded to complainant Fely M. Casanova, which should be reduced to P150,781.00.

PRINCIPLES:

• Illegal recruitment in large scale is penalized under Article 38(a) in relation to Article 39(b) of Presidential Decree No. 442 or the Labor Code of the Philippines.

• In conspiracy, the act of one conspirator is the act of all.

• A person can be convicted of illegal recruitment in large scale even if acquitted of the crime of estafa.

• Conviction for offenses under the Labor Code does not bar conviction for offenses punishable by other laws.

• One's acquittal of the crime of estafa will not necessarily result in his acquittal of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale, and vice versa.

• The elements of illegal recruitment in large scale are: (1) undertaking recruitment activities defined under Article 13, paragraph (b) of the Labor Code or any prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code; (2) lacking the necessary license or authority; and (3) committing the same against three or more persons, individually or as a group.

• The trial court is best equipped to assess the credibility of witnesses.

• Factual findings of the trial court are generally not disturbed on appeal.

• Illegal recruiters have no place in society and their activities must be stamped out.

• Illegal recruiters prey on hapless workers and make false promises, therefore they should be met with the full force of the law.