View full case

PEOPLE v. ANGELITA I. DAUD

FACTS:

Roderick Gallemit was accused of illegal recruitment in large scale and estafa. He was apprehended while his co-accused escaped. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) consolidated the nine criminal cases against Gallemit and found him guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale and estafa in three counts. The RTC imposed penalties of life imprisonment and a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos for the illegal recruitment case, and imprisonment for the estafa cases. Gallemit appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the RTC decision with modifications to the penalties. Gallemit was also convicted of estafa under Article 315 paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code in other cases. Gallemit appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing on the failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt and the absence of the element of deceit for the estafa charges.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether appellant should be convicted of illegal recruitment in large scale and estafa despite the prosecution's failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

  2. Whether appellant should be convicted of estafa despite the absence of the element of deceit.

  3. Whether or not the elements of illegal recruitment in large scale are present.

  4. Whether or not there was conspiracy among the accused in the commission of the offense.

  5. Whether the testimonies of the private complainants are sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant for illegal recruitment and estafa.

  6. Whether the conviction for illegal recruitment under Republic Act No. 8042 and estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code can be based on the same evidence.

  7. Whether or not the appellant made any false statement or fraudulent representation to the private complainants.

  8. Whether or not the element of prejudice or pecuniary loss was established during trial.

  9. Whether the court correctly imposed an incremental penalty beyond the maximum term for each criminal case.

  10. Whether the court correctly ordered the appellant to indemnify the private complainants with legal interest.

RULING:

  1. The Court of Appeals affirmed the appellant's conviction for illegal recruitment in large scale and estafa. However, the indeterminate penalties imposed were modified as follows:

  2. In Criminal Case No. 03-0123, appellant is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of two (2) years and four (4) months of prision correccional as minimum to thirteen (13) years of reclusion temporal as maximum.

  3. In Criminal Case No. 03-0127, appellant is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of two (2) years and four (4) months of prision correccional as minimum to nine (9) years of prision mayor as maximum.

  4. In Criminal Case No. 03-0130, appellant is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of two (2) years and four (4) months of prision correccional as minimum to twelve (12) years of prision mayor as maximum.

  5. The elements of illegal recruitment in large scale are present. First, the accused did not have a valid license or authority to engage in recruitment and placement of workers. Second, despite not having the necessary authority, the accused engaged in recruitment activities by offering and promising jobs, and collecting placement fees. Third, the offense was committed against three or more persons. Therefore, the accused is guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale.

  6. There was conspiracy among the accused. Direct proof of previous agreement to commit a crime is not necessary. Conspiracy may be inferred from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated, or deduced from the acts of the accused which indicate a joint purpose and design. In this case, the testimonies of the complainants were affirmative and corroborative of each other, indicating a common purpose and concerted action among the accused.

  7. The testimonies of the private complainants are sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant for illegal recruitment and estafa. The private complainants' testimonies are consistent and corroborate one another on material points. The existence of conspiracy among appellant and his co-accused was found by the RTC and the Court of Appeals. In cases of conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. Denial, same as an alibi, if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is considered with suspicion and always received with caution. Furthermore, the absence of any showing that the trial court plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and value that might affect the result of the case or that its assessment was arbitrary, leads to deference to the trial court's determination of credibility.

  8. The conviction for illegal recruitment under Republic Act No. 8042 and estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code can be based on the same evidence. A person may be charged and convicted separately of illegal recruitment and estafa. Both offenses have different elements and criminal intents. Conviction for offenses under the Labor Code does not bar conviction for offenses punishable by other laws, and vice versa.

  9. The Court ruled that the appellant, along with his co-accused, acted in conspiracy to deceive the private complainants through false and fraudulent representations. The positive and credible testimonies of the private complainants established that the appellant and his co-accused misled them into believing that they can be deployed for employment abroad for a fee. Thus, the absence of proof that the appellant made false statements or fraudulent representations is not persuasive in this case.

  10. The Court also held that the element of prejudice or pecuniary loss was established. The private complainants testified that they paid placement fees to the appellant's co-accused, who issued receipts for some amounts. The payment of placement fees to illegal recruiters can be proven not only through receipts but also through the testimonies of witnesses. The absence of receipts does not warrant the acquittal of the appellant, as long as the witnesses have positively shown the involvement of the appellant in the prohibited recruitment.

  11. The court held that an incremental penalty shall be imposed upon the appellant for defrauding the private complainants in amounts exceeding P22,000. The incremental penalty shall be added to the maximum term fixed by the Court of Appeals. Thus, the court agreed with the Court of Appeals in imposing the maximum penalty in Criminal Case No. 03-0123 at thirteen (13) years of reclusion temporal; in Criminal Case No. 03-0127 at nine (9) years of prision mayor; and in Criminal Case No. 03-0130 at twelve (12) years of prision mayor.

  12. The court held that it is still incumbent upon the appellant to indemnify the private complainants for the amounts paid to him and his conspirators, with legal interest at the rate of 6% per annum, from the time of demand, which, in this case, shall be deemed as the same day the Informations were filed against appellant, until the said amounts are fully paid.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Article 13(b) of the Labor Code defines recruitment and placement as "any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers". Illegal recruitment is committed by persons who, without authority from the government, give the impression that they have the power to send workers abroad for employment purposes.

  • Republic Act No. 8042 broadened the concept of illegal recruitment and provided stiffer penalties, especially for those that constitute economic sabotage.

  • Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring or confederating with one another. It is deemed committed in large scale when it involves two or more persons, regardless of the number, jointly carrying out recruitment activities.

  • Illegal recruitment in large scale requires the absence of a valid license or authority, engagement in recruitment activities, and commission of the offense against three or more persons.

  • Conspiracy may be inferred from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated, or deduced from the acts of the accused which indicate a joint purpose and design.

  • Conspiracy - When there is conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.

  • Credibility of Witnesses - An affirmative testimony is stronger than a negative testimony, especially when the former comes from the mouth of a credible witness. Denial, if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is considered weak and unreliable.

  • Deference to Trial Court's Findings - Findings of fact made by the trial court, affirmed by the appellate court, are entitled to great weight and respect. The trial court is in a better position to assess the credibility of witnesses and determine probative value.

  • Separate Convictions for Illegal Recruitment and Estafa - A person may be charged and convicted separately of illegal recruitment and estafa. Conviction for one offense does not bar conviction for the other.

  • When conspiracy has been established, the act of one conspirator is the act of all.

  • Receipts are not the sole means of proving the payment of placement fees in illegal recruitment cases; it can also be established through the testimony of witnesses.

  • The Statute of Frauds and the rules of evidence do not require the presentation of receipts to prove the existence of a recruitment agreement and the procurement of fees in illegal recruitment cases.

  • Incremental penalty may be imposed for offenses involving defrauding private complainants in amounts exceeding a certain sum.

  • The appellant is liable to indemnify the private complainants for the amounts paid with legal interest from the time of demand until fully paid.