G.R. No. 132029 . July 30, 2004.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. MARIO ALZONA, appellant.

FACTS

Appellant Mario Alzona, together with his at-large wife Miranda, was charged with Large Scale Illegal Recruitment and multiple counts of Estafa. The prosecution established that between 1991 and 1992, in Manila, appellant, without the requisite license from the Department of Labor, recruited and promised overseas employment in Korea to several individuals, including Mario Decena, Leonardo Mercurio, Fernando Dela Cruz, and James Mazon. Appellant and his wife collected substantial fees ranging from P20,000 to P34,000 from these complainants for processing and placement. Despite receiving payments and issuing promises of imminent departure, appellant failed to deploy any of the complainants abroad and did not return their money.
The Regional Trial Court convicted appellant. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions but modified the penalty in one estafa case. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review pursuant to the rules governing penalties of reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed appellant’s convictions for Large Scale Illegal Recruitment and Estafa.

RULING

Yes, the convictions are affirmed. For illegal recruitment in large scale, the law requires proof that the accused undertook recruitment activities without the necessary license or authority and that he committed the same against three or more persons individually or as a group. The testimonies of the four private complainants, which were consistent and credible, conclusively established these elements. Appellant’s receipt of fees and his repeated promises of specific employment in Korea constituted recruitment and placement under the law. His lack of the required license was proven by a certification from the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration.
The Estafa convictions under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code are also sustained. Appellant, through false pretenses and fraudulent representations regarding his capacity to secure overseas employment, induced the complainants to part with their money. His subsequent failure to deliver on his promises and his misappropriation of the funds constituted deceit and damage essential to the crime. The Court corrected a typographical error in the penalties for three estafa cases (Criminal Case Nos. 92-113706 to 92-113708) as indicated in the body of the RTC decision, modifying the maximum penalty to “five (5) years and eleven (11) days of prision correccional.” The penalty in a fourth estafa case was correctly computed by the Court of Appeals using the Indeterminate Sentence Law, considering the amount defrauded. The appealed decision was thus affirmed with these modifications.