GR 120389; (November, 1996) (Digest)
G.R. No. 120389 November 21, 1996
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ALEXANDER “ALEX” BENEMERITO and PRECY BENEMERITO (at large), accused. ALEXANDER “ALEX” BENEMERITO, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Alexander Benemerito and his sister Precy were charged with Large Scale Illegal Recruitment and multiple counts of Estafa. The prosecution evidence established that the appellants, without the required license from the Department of Labor and Employment, recruited and promised overseas employment in Brunei to six individuals, including Benjamin Quitoriano, Fernando Arcal, and Carlito Gumarang. They collected substantial sums as placement fees, issuing receipts for the payments. The promised employment never materialized. Only Alexander was arrested and tried, as Precy remained at large. The trial court convicted Alexander of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale and three counts of Estafa.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused-appellant Alexander Benemerito for Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale and Estafa beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. For Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale, the elements are: (1) the accused undertook recruitment activities, and (2) did so without the necessary license or authority from the POEA. The appellant’s acts of promising jobs, collecting fees, and requiring submission of documents constitute recruitment under the Labor Code. The testimony of POEA officer Graciano Oco, confirming the lack of a license, was sufficient to prove the second element. The commission against three or more persons qualifies it as large scale, warranting life imprisonment. For Estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code, the elements of deceit, damage, and reliance were present. The appellant’s false representations of having the capacity to secure overseas employment induced the complainants to part with their money, causing them pecuniary damage. The court modified the penalties for Estafa, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, resulting in reduced minimum terms. The defense of denial was rejected for being inherently weak against the positive and credible testimonies of the complainants.