View full case

PEOPLE v. ERLINDA A. SISON

FACTS:

Erlinda A. Sison appealed her guilty verdict for illegal recruitment, economic sabotage, and estafa. Sison, claiming to be able to facilitate papers for working in Australia, asked Darvy Castuera for a payment of P160,000. Castuera paid P80,000 as a down payment. Sison failed to secure an Australian visa for Castuera and instead convinced him to go to Malaysia. Castuera's application for an Australian visa in Indonesia was denied, and he discovered that the US visa issued to him was fake. Castuera filed a complaint against Sison, who denied recruiting him and claimed to be a victim of illegal recruitment by her co-accused. The Regional Trial Court found Sison guilty, and her appeal to the Court of Appeals was affirmed. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the issue was whether Sison's guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the accused committed illegal recruitment.

  2. Whether the illegal recruitment was committed by a syndicate or in large scale.

  3. Whether the accused committed illegal recruitment for overseas employment under RA 8042;

  4. Whether the accused are guilty of illegal recruitment involving economic sabotage as a syndicate;

  5. Whether the accused's defense of denial has merit.

  6. Whether a person can be convicted separately for illegal recruitment and estafa for the same acts.

  7. Whether all the elements of estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the RPC are present in this case.

  8. Whether the penalties imposed for illegal recruitment and estafa are correct.

  9. Whether the computation of the penalty for estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code was correct.

RULING:

  1. Yes, the accused committed illegal recruitment.

  2. No ruling was provided on whether the illegal recruitment was committed by a syndicate or in large scale.

  3. The accused committed illegal recruitment for overseas employment under RA 8042. Even without the necessary license or authority to recruit and deploy workers, the accused represented that they could send workers abroad for employment, thereby giving the complainants the impression that they had the power or ability to do so. The absence of the necessary license or authority renders the recruitment activity unlawful.

  4. The accused are guilty of illegal recruitment involving economic sabotage as a syndicate. The acts of the accused show a common purpose and each undertook a part to reach their objective. Their concerted action, as evidenced by their receipt of payments from recruits, signing of acknowledgment receipts, and accompaniment of recruits to seek out visas, proves their involvement in a syndicate engaged in illegal recruitment.

  5. The accused's defense of denial has no merit. Denial, if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is considered weak and unreliable. The accused's claim of being a victim of illegal recruitment is hard to believe, given the lack of proof, failure to take action against other recruiters, and failure to explain why no action was taken to recover allegedly paid amounts.

  6. Yes, a person can be convicted separately for illegal recruitment and estafa for the same acts. The offense of illegal recruitment does not bar conviction for estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the RPC, and vice versa. One's acquittal of estafa does not necessarily result in his acquittal of illegal recruitment.

  7. Yes, all the elements of estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the RPC are present in this case. The elements are: (a) false pretense or fraudulent representation; (b) such false pretense or representation made prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; (c) reliance of the offended party on the false pretense or representation; and (d) resulting damage to the offended party. In this case, the court found that the accused misrepresented her qualifications and authority to send the victim to work in Australia, made false representations prior to the commission of the fraud, the victim relied on the false representations, and suffered damage as a result.

  8. The penalty for illegal recruitment is correct, as the maximum penalty may be imposed for non-licensees or non-holders of authority. However, the penalty for estafa needs to be modified. The Indeterminate Sentence Law should be applied in determining the penalty for estafa. The minimum term should be within prision correccional minimum and medium, while the maximum term should be within the prescribed penalty of prision correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum in its maximum period, adding one year of imprisonment for every P10,000.00 in excess of P22,000.00, provided that the total penalty shall not exceed 20 years.

  9. The Court affirmed the decision of the trial court, with modification. The minimum penalty imposed for the estafa offense was correct at four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional. However, the maximum penalty should be increased to thirteen (13) years of reclusion temporal due to the amount defrauded from the victim. Additionally, the court held that the actual damages must be proven, and the awarded amount of P160,000 should be lowered to P80,000. The court also ordered the payment of legal interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the finality of the decision until the amount is fully paid.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Illegal recruitment refers to any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers, whether for profit or not, without authority from the government.

  • Non-license holders can be held liable for illegal recruitment by engaging in recruitment and placement activities.

  • License holders can also be held liable for illegal recruitment if they commit prohibited acts under the law.

  • Illegal recruitment committed by a syndicate involves a group of three or more persons conspiring or confederating with one another.

  • Illegal recruitment is considered to be committed in large scale if it is committed against three or more persons individually or as a group.

  • The absence of the necessary license or authority renders recruitment and placement activities unlawful.

  • To prove illegal recruitment, it must be shown that the accused gave the distinct impression of having the power or ability to deploy workers abroad.

  • Illegal recruitment by a syndicate requires the offenders to not have a valid license or authority, to undertake recruitment and placement activities, and to act in concert pursuant to the same objective.

  • Denial as a defense is viewed with suspicion and caution and is considered weak and unreliable if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence.

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

  • Illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum, while estafa is malum in se. Conviction for one offense does not bar conviction for the other.

  • The elements of estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the RPC are: false pretense or fraudulent representation; such false pretense or representation made prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; reliance of the offended party on the false pretense or representation; and resulting damage to the offended party.

  • The computation of the penalty for offenses should be in accordance with the provisions of the Revised Penal Code.

  • Actual damages must be proven and cannot be presumed.

  • Legal interest may be charged on the amount adjudicated in a case.