GR 120835; (April, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 120835 -40. April 10, 1997.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. TAN TIONG MENG alias “TOMMY TAN”, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Tan Tiong Meng was charged with Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale and six counts of estafa. The prosecution established that from June to August 1993, in Cavite City, Tan, operating under the business name “RAINBOW SIM FACTORY,” represented to several individuals that he could secure employment for them in Taiwan. He collected fees ranging from P15,000 to P20,000 from each complainant, despite not possessing any license or authority from the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) to recruit workers for overseas employment.
The complainants, namely Ernesto Orcullo, Manuel Latina, Neil Mascardo, Librado Pozas, Edgardo Tolentino, Cavino Asiman, and Ricardo Grepo, testified that they gave money to Tan based on his assurances of employment. Tan failed to deploy any of them abroad and did not return their money despite demands. The defense claimed that Tan was merely an employee of a certain Jose Percival Borja and that the money collected was for a purported factory project, not for recruitment.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale and six counts of estafa.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. For illegal recruitment in large scale, three elements must concur: (1) the accused undertook recruitment activities; (2) he did not have the required license or authority from the POEA; and (3) he committed the same against three or more persons individually or as a group. All elements were proven. Tan’s act of promising overseas employment and collecting fees constituted recruitment under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code. The POEA certification confirmed his lack of authority, and his victims numbered more than three.
Regarding estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code, the elements of deceit and damage were present. Tan’s false representations about his capacity to secure jobs abroad induced the complainants to part with their money, causing them pecuniary damage. Conviction for both crimes is permissible, as illegal recruitment under the Labor Code does not bar prosecution for estafa when the elements of the latter are established. The defense of being a mere employee was rejected, as the evidence clearly showed Tan was the principal who directly dealt with and deceived the complainants. The penalties imposed by the trial court were upheld.