G.R. Nos. 116905-908; August 6, 2002
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Eduardo Ballesteros, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Eduardo Ballesteros, was charged with Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale (Criminal Case No. 93-121321) and three counts of Estafa (Criminal Cases Nos. 93-121322, 93-121323, 93-121324). The prosecution presented three private complainants: Santiago Ricamonte, Nenita Sorita, and Arnel Viloria. All three dreamt of working abroad in Japan. They were introduced to the appellant by Engineer Jose Mendoza and others. The appellant operated from an office at the Army and Navy Club in Manila, which had a nameplate for “Judge Cornejo.” In that office, the appellant, along with Cecilia Legarbes Zabala and Alfredo Hunsayan, Jr., represented that they could secure employment in Japan for a fee. Ricamonte was told to prepare ₱80,000 and paid a total of ₱70,000. Sorita was told to pay ₱60,000 and gave ₱21,000 cash plus personal properties (a ring, wedding band, necklace, TV, and Walkman) valued at ₱30,000. Viloria was told to pay ₱80,000 and paid a total of ₱50,000. Receipts for payments were issued by Zabala. The appellant was present during these transactions and assured the complainants of employment. The promised departures never materialized, and the office was later found padlocked. The defense presented the appellant as its lone witness, claiming he merely introduced the complainants to Zabala, who was the actual recruiter, and that he received no money.

ISSUE

The main issue is whether the accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale and Estafa.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, finding the appellant guilty. On Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale, the Court ruled that the appellant, without the required license or authority, undertook recruitment activities for three persons, which constitutes large-scale illegal recruitment under the law. His active participation, including representing the capacity to send workers abroad, negotiating fees, and receiving payments in his office, established his criminal liability. The defense of being a mere introducer was rejected. The Court sustained the penalty of life imprisonment and a ₱100,000 fine. On the three counts of Estafa, the Court found that the appellant defrauded the complainants by falsely pretending to have power and capacity to secure overseas employment, inducing them to deliver money. The elements of estafa were present. The Court modified the penalties for estafa, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law. The appellant was sentenced to indeterminate penalties for each estafa count and ordered to indemnify the complainants: Ricamonte (₱70,000), Viloria (₱50,000), and Sorita (₱31,000 cash plus ₱30,000 for the properties).