G.R. No. 103385 -88 July 26, 1993
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Elma Romero y Cruz, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Elma Romero y Cruz was charged with Estafa and Illegal Recruitment. Two separate Informations were filed by complainant Doriza Dapnit. For Estafa (Criminal Case No. 78507), it was alleged that in January 1989, in Mandaluyong, Romero defrauded Dapnit of P21,000.00 by falsely representing she could facilitate Dapnit’s overseas employment. For Illegal Recruitment (Criminal Case No. 78510), it was alleged that from January to February 1989, Romero, without a POEA license, recruited and collected fees from Doriza Dapnit (P21,000.00), Bernardo T. Salazar (P24,000.00), and Richard Quillope (P15,600.00). Romero pleaded not guilty. The trial court found that in January 1989, Dapnit went to Romero’s residence, where Romero promised her a factory worker job in Taiwan with a US$5,000 monthly salary and a departure date of April 1, 1989. Dapnit paid placement fees totaling P21,000.00, evidenced by receipts. When she failed to depart, Romero told her to wait for her visa. Dapnit later discovered from a POEA certification that Romero was not a licensed recruiter. Complainants Bernardo Salazar and Richard Quillope also testified they paid Romero placement fees for promised jobs in Taiwan but were not deployed. The trial court later dismissed the cases involving Salazar and Quillope based on their Joint Affidavit of Desistance. The trial court convicted Romero of Estafa and Illegal Recruitment (constituting economic sabotage), sentencing her to imprisonment for Estafa and life imprisonment (reclusion perpetua) and a fine for Illegal Recruitment. Romero appealed.

ISSUE

The main issues are: (1) Whether accused-appellant Elma Romero is guilty of Estafa; (2) Whether she is guilty of Illegal Recruitment in large scale, despite the dismissal of cases involving two complainants based on their affidavits of desistance.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision with modification. On the charge of Estafa, the Court found all elements present: Romero defrauded Dapnit by deceit, causing damage through pecuniary loss. Dapnit’s testimony established that Romero promised overseas employment in exchange for payment, which constituted deceit and misrepresentation. On the charge of Illegal Recruitment in large scale, the Court held that Romero’s guilt was established. The fact that two complainants (Salazar and Quillope) executed affidavits of desistance, leading to the dismissal of their cases, does not negate the finding of large-scale illegal recruitment, which requires at least three victims. Their testimonies in court, which were admitted, proved they were victims. A criminal offense is a public wrong, and a compromise on civil liability does not extinguish the public action for the penalty. The penalty for large-scale illegal recruitment under the Labor Code is life imprisonment. The Court modified the decision by deleting the term “reclusion perpetua,” as it is not synonymous with life imprisonment. The decision was affirmed with this modification.