FACTS:

The case involves an appeal filed by Rodolfo Gallo y Gadot ("accused-appellant") from the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) affirming his conviction for syndicated illegal recruitment and estafa in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila. The accused along with Fides Pacardo and Pilar Manta, together with Mardeolyn Martir and others, were initially charged with syndicated illegal recruitment and estafa against eighteen complainants. However, only the case against accused-appellant and his co-accused Pacardo and Manta proceeded to trial. The other cases were provisionally dismissed due to the absence of the complainants during trial.

In this case, Edgardo V. Dela Caza was introduced to accused-appellant Gallo, Pacardo, Manta, Mardeolyn, Lulu Mendanes, Yeo Sin Ung, and another Korean national at the office of MPM International Recruitment and Promotion Agency ("MPM Agency") located in Malate, Manila. Dela Caza was informed that Mardeolyn was the President of MPM Agency, and that the agency was able to send many workers abroad. Accused-appellant Gallo, together with Pacardo and Manta, informed Dela Caza about the placement fee, with a down payment of Forty-Five Thousand Pesos (PhP 45,000) and the balance to be paid through salary deduction.

Convinced by accused-appellant's assurances and the presence of the Korean nationals, Dela Caza paid the amount of Forty-Five Thousand Pesos (PhP 45,000) to MPM Agency through accused-appellant Gallo. Accused-appellant Gallo issued and signed an official receipt for the payment. However, two weeks later, Dela Caza discovered that the agency had moved to a new location in Makati and was renamed New Filipino Manpower Development & Services, Inc. (New Filipino). Dela Caza tried to withdraw his application and recover the amount he paid but was dissuaded by Mardeolyn, Pacardo, Manta, and Lulu Mendanes. Accused-appellant Gallo even denied any knowledge of the money.

After waiting for two more months without any progress, Dela Caza, along with other applicants, took action. They were able to locate the new office address of the agency and with the help of the Office of Ambassador Señeres and the Western Police District, accused-appellant Gallo, Pacardo, and Manta were arrested. The prosecution presented documents, including certifications from the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA), which established that New Filipino was a licensed agency and MPM International Recruitment and Promotion was not licensed to recruit workers for overseas employment.

The defense of accused-appellant Gallo was that he had no part in the recruitment of Dela Caza and that he himself applied with MPM Agency for deployment to Korea as a factory worker.

The complainant, Edgardo Dela Caza, testified that he applied with MPM Agency for deployment to Korea as a factory worker and gave his application directly to Mardeolyn, an employee of the agency, because she was his town mate. He was allowed to pay only Ten Thousand Pesos (PhP 10,000) as a processing fee. Dela Caza agreed to perform tasks for the agency, such as taking photographs of the visa and passport of applicants, running errands, and performing other assigned tasks, without receiving any salary except for an allowance. He claimed to have only seen Gallo at the agency's office when he applied for work abroad and that he was promised deployment abroad, which never materialized. The trial court acquitted Pacardo and Manta of the crimes charged but found Gallo guilty of syndicated illegal recruitment and estafa. Gallo appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the conviction for estafa but modified the penalty. Gallo filed an appeal before the Supreme Court, assailing his guilt for illegal recruitment and estafa.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the accused can be held criminally liable for illegal recruitment.

2. Whether there is sufficient evidence to support the conviction for the crime of syndicated illegal recruitment.

3. Whether accused-appellant participated in illegal recruitment.

4. Whether accused-appellant was an employee of the recruitment agency.

5. Whether there was a conspiracy among the accused and other persons in the agency.

6. Whether the accused can be held liable for the crime of illegal recruitment through conspiracy.

7. Whether the accused can be held liable for the crime of estafa through the use of fictitious name or false pretenses.

RULING:

1. The accused can be held criminally liable for illegal recruitment even if he is not an officer or employee of the recruitment agency. The court held that even assuming that the accused was an employee, it does not warrant his outright conviction without evidence of conspiracy with the officers of the agency.

2. There is sufficient evidence to support the conviction for the crime of syndicated illegal recruitment. The court found that the prosecution was able to establish the elements of the offense, including that the recruitment agency was not licensed by the POEA to recruit workers for overseas employment.

3. Accused-appellant participated in illegal recruitment. The testimony of the witness positively identified accused-appellant as one of those who induced him and other applicants to part with their money through false misrepresentations and promises of employment in Korea. Accused-appellant received the money and issued an official receipt as proof of payment. Accused-appellant's actions constituted illegal recruitment.

4. Accused-appellant cannot argue that he was not an employee of the recruitment agency. He actively participated in the illegal recruitment by issuing and signing the official receipt, which contradicts his claim of innocence.

5. There was a conspiracy among the accused and other persons in the agency. Each individual had an active role in the recruitment scam aimed at divesting complainants of their money on the promise of guaranteed employment abroad. The accused-appellant, together with other individuals, conducted briefings, showed visas of workers allegedly deployed abroad, and issued official receipts. Their actions demonstrated unity of action towards a common undertaking, establishing conspiracy.

6. Yes, the accused can be held liable for the crime of illegal recruitment through conspiracy. The acts of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime clearly indicated that they were one in purpose and united in its execution. Direct proof of previous agreement to commit a crime is not necessary as it may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated or inferred from the acts of the accused pointing to a joint purpose and design, concerted action, and community of interest. In a conspiracy, all the accused, including accused-appellant, are equally guilty of the crime of illegal recruitment since the act of one is the act of all.

7. Yes, the accused can be held liable for the crime of estafa through the use of fictitious name or false pretenses. The elements of estafa in general are: (1) that the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit; and (2) that damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party or third person. In this case, the accused-appellant, together with the other accused, deceived the complainants by making false representations and using deceit. The accused pretended to possess the power and capability to send the complainants abroad for employment and falsely assured them that there were available jobs in Korea. The complainants, relying on these false representations, parted with their money for placement fees. The accused then went into hiding and the complainants were never deployed abroad. Thus, the accused-appellant is guilty of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code.

PRINCIPLES:

• To commit syndicated illegal recruitment, three elements must be established: (1) the offender undertakes any activity within the meaning of "recruitment and placement" defined under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code; (2) the offender has no valid license or authority required by law; and (3) the illegal recruitment is committed by a group of three or more persons conspiring or confederating with one another.

• "Recruitment and placement" refers to any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers.

• Illegal recruitment can still be committed even with a license, as long as it falls under the prohibited acts enumerated in Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042 ("R.A. 8042").

• Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three or more persons conspiring or confederating with one another.

• The persons criminally liable for illegal recruitment are the principals, accomplices, and accessories. In case of juridical persons, the officers having control, management, or direction of their business shall be liable.

• Accused-appellant's active participation in illegal recruitment constitutes a violation of the law.

• The issuance and signing of an official receipt by accused-appellant contradicts his claim of innocence.

• The presence of a conspiracy can be established by the unity of action and common purpose among the accused and other individuals involved in illegal recruitment.

• Conspiracy can be inferred from the acts of the accused pointing to a joint purpose and design, concerted action, and community of interest.

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

• In the crime of estafa, deceit is the false representation of a matter of fact, whether by words or conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, and which deceives or is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it, to his legal injury.

• Positive identification, when categorical and consistent and not attended by any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitnesses, prevails over alibi and denial.

• The findings of fact of the trial court are not disturbed on appeal except when it overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance that would have materially affected the outcome of the case.