View full case

PEOPLE v. MERCEDITAS MATHEUS Y DELOS REYES

FACTS:

Accused-appellant Merceditas Matheus was charged with Estafa and Large Scale Illegal Recruitment based on multiple complaints. The charges were brought by Thelma Suratos, Glenda Guillarte, Merly Alayon, Celso Bagay Jr., Romulo Duldulao, and Doriza Gloria. It was alleged that the accused-appellant deceived the complainants by falsely claiming she could facilitate their employment abroad and took money from them for processing fees. However, the promises turned out to be fraudulent. The complainants testified and presented evidence against the accused-appellant during the trial.

The accused-appellant, Merceditas Matheus, held the position of Overseas Marketing Director for All Care Travel & Consultancy (Hongkong), which had an affiliate in the Philippines. In December 2012, Romulo Duldulao was introduced to the accused-appellant and paid her Php29,000 for a promised tourist visa for his sister in Spain. Magno Bagay Jr. also paid Php30,000 for a dental job in London, and Glenda Guillarte paid Php55,000 for employment in Cyprus. However, none of them were able to pursue their employment due to the accused-appellant's arrest. As a result, Duldulao went to Camp Panopio to demand a refund, and all three filed complaints against the accused-appellant. The accused-appellant denies knowing the complainants and denies involvement in recruitment and placement activities.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the accused-appellant can be held liable for illegal recruitment and estafa.

  2. Whether the elements of illegal recruitment in large scale are present in this case.

  3. Whether the accused-appellant is guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale.

  4. Whether the accused-appellant is guilty of estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code.

  5. Whether appellant Merceditas Matheus committed the crime of estafa as defined and penalized in Article 315 (2) (a) of the Revised Penal Code.

  6. Whether appellant Merceditas Matheus should be ordered to indemnify private complainant Celso Bagay in the amount of PhP30,000 as actual damages.

  7. Whether appellant Merceditas Matheus should be ordered to indemnify private complainant Rogelio L. Duldulao in the amount of PhP29,000 as actual damages.

RULING:

  1. The appeal lacks merit.

  2. The accused-appellant can be held liable for illegal recruitment in large scale.

  3. The court affirmed the conviction of the accused-appellant for illegal recruitment in large scale under RA 8042. The existence of the offense was duly proved by the prosecution.

  4. The court also affirmed the conviction of the accused-appellant for five counts of estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code. The elements of estafa were proven beyond reasonable doubt, as the accused deceived the complainants into believing that she had the authority and capability to send them abroad for employment and induced them to part with their money.

  5. Appellant Merceditas Matheus is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of estafa, as defined and penalized in Article 315 (2) (a) of the Revised Penal Code. She is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of one year, eight months and twenty-one days of prision correccional as minimum to eight years of prision mayor as maximum.

  6. Appellant Merceditas Matheus is ordered to indemnify private complainant Celso Bagay in the amount of PhP30,000 as actual damages, with legal interest of 6% per annum from August 4, 2003, until the said amount is fully paid.

  7. Appellant Merceditas Matheus is ordered to indemnify private complainant Rogelio L. Duldulao in the amount of PhP29,000 as actual damages, with legal interest of 6% per annum from August 4, 2003, until the said amount is fully paid.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Illegal recruitment in large scale requires: (1) undertaking recruitment activity; (2) without a license or authority to recruit; and (3) committing the recruitment against three or more persons individually or as a group.

  • The trial court's factual findings, when affirmed by the appellate court, are generally binding and conclusive upon the Supreme Court.

  • Illegal recruiters need not expressly represent themselves as having the ability to send workers abroad; it is enough that they give the impression of having such ability to induce payment of fees.

  • Certification from the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration that the accused does not have a license or authority to recruit is sufficient evidence to establish lack of authority.

  • The complainants' positive identification of the accused as the person who received money from them and promised overseas employment is sufficient evidence of recruitment activity.

  • A person may be separately convicted of illegal recruitment and estafa for the same acts.

  • The elements of estafa are: (1) the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit, and (2) the offended party or a third party suffered damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation.

  • The commission of estafa by using fictitious names, pretending to have the power, influence, or capacity to employ or procure visas, and inducing others to part with their money constitutes estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code.

  • Interest at the rate of 6% per annum shall be imposed on the money judgment from the time of demand until the amounts are fully paid.

  • Estafa is a crime defined and penalized under Article 315 (2) (a) of the Revised Penal Code.

  • Actual damages may be awarded to the victim of estafa.

  • Legal interest of 6% per annum may be imposed on the amount of actual damages until fully paid.