G.R. No. 115338-39 September 16, 1997
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Lanie Ortiz-Miyake, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Lanie Ortiz-Miyake was charged in the Regional Trial Court of Makati with Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale (Criminal Case No. 92-6153) based on complaints from Elenita Marasigan, Imelda Generillo, and Rosamar del Rosario, and with Estafa (Criminal Case No. 92-6154) based on a complaint from Elenita Marasigan alone. The informations alleged that she falsely represented she had the power to recruit workers for employment abroad, collected fees, and promised jobs without the required DOLE license or authority. Upon arraignment, she pleaded not guilty, and the cases were jointly tried.
At trial, only complainant Elenita Marasigan testified. She stated that in 1992, appellant promised her a factory job in Taiwan for a fee, eventually collecting P23,000.00 from her on installment. Appellant showed her a photocopy of a plane ticket and assured her about a visa, but Marasigan never received a visa, the original ticket, or employment. Verification with the POEA revealed appellant was not authorized to recruit. The other two complainants, Generillo and Del Rosario, were abroad and did not testify. In lieu of their testimonies, the prosecution presented Lilia Generillo (Imelda’s mother) and Victoria Amin (Del Rosario’s sister) to testify about payments made to appellant for promised overseas jobs that did not materialize. POEA representative Riza Balberte certified appellant was neither licensed nor authorized to recruit.
The defense, with appellant as sole witness, claimed she did not recruit but merely facilitated the purchase of discounted plane tickets through a travel agency, receiving only partial payments and guaranteeing the balances. She denied receiving P23,000.00 from Marasigan, claiming only P8,000.00.
The trial court convicted appellant of both charges. For illegal recruitment in large scale, it adopted the facts and conclusions from a final and executory Metropolitan Trial Court decision convicting appellant of estafa involving the same circumstances with complainants Generillo and Del Rosario. It sentenced her to life imprisonment and a P100,000.00 fine, plus reimbursement to the complainants. For estafa, it sentenced her to an indeterminate penalty. Appellant appealed, arguing insufficient evidence for large-scale illegal recruitment since only one complainant testified, that her acts constituted mere ticket purchase, not recruitment, and that there was no misappropriation for estafa.

ISSUE

1. Whether the evidence is sufficient to convict appellant of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale.
2. Whether appellant’s acts constitute illegal recruitment.
3. Whether appellant is guilty of Estafa.

RULING

1. The evidence is insufficient to support a conviction for Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale. The law requires that the offense be committed against three or more persons individually or as a group. While three complainants were named, only one (Marasigan) testified. The testimonies of the complainants’ relatives (Lilia Generillo and Victoria Amin) were inadmissible hearsay as they had no personal knowledge of the actual transactions or representations made by appellant to the victims. The trial court’s reliance on a prior estafa conviction involving Generillo and Del Rosario was erroneous; the facts of those cases could not be adopted as direct evidence in the present case. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the large-scale element. However, the evidence from Marasigan’s testimony and the POEA certification proved appellant committed simple illegal recruitment, as she undertook recruitment activities without a license.
2. Appellant’s acts constitute illegal recruitment. The Labor Code defines recruitment broadly, including “promising or advertising for employment.” Appellant’s promise of employment in Taiwan to Marasigan in exchange for a fee, without the required license, falls within this definition. Her claim of merely purchasing plane tickets is belied by her specific promise of a job.
3. Appellant is guilty of Estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code. She defrauded Marasigan by falsely pretending to have the power to secure overseas employment, thereby inducing Marasigan to deliver P23,000.00 to her. Appellant’s failure to secure the promised employment and her misappropriation of the money caused damage to Marasigan.
The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s judgment. Appellant is convicted of Simple Illegal Recruitment and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of four (4) years as minimum to eight (8) years as maximum, and a fine of P100,000.00. Her conviction for Estafa is affirmed, with the sentence of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional as minimum to eight (8) years of prision mayor as maximum, and an order to reimburse Elenita Marasigan P23,000.00. The rest of the judgment is affirmed.