G.R. Nos. 124443-46; June 6, 2002
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. NIMFA REMULLO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Nimfa Remullo, was charged with Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale and three counts of Estafa. The prosecution established that in March 1993, Remullo recruited complainants Jenelyn Quinsaat, Rosario Cadacio, and Honorina Mejia for factory jobs in Malaysia. She required them to submit application forms, passports, and clearances, and to undergo a medical examination. Each complainant paid her P15,000 as a placement fee, with payments made at her house and at the office of Jamila and Co., Inc., where she worked as a marketing consultant. Remullo did not issue receipts. The complainants were later presented with plane tickets and told to depart on June 6, 1993, but were offloaded at the airport due to lacking POEA documentation. Subsequent departure dates also failed to materialize. An inquiry with Jamila and Co. revealed that Remullo was not authorized to receive payments and that the agency had no accredited job orders for Malaysia.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Remullo committed Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale and Estafa.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. For Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale, the Court held that the elements were conclusively established: (1) Remullo undertook recruitment activities by promising overseas employment; (2) she did so without the required license or authority from the POEA, as certified by a POEA representative; and (3) she committed the act against three or more persons individually or as a group. Her actions constituted recruitment and placement under the Labor Code. The defense of denial could not prevail over the positive, consistent, and credible testimonies of the three complainants, which were corroborated by the testimony of Jamila’s officer that Remullo lacked authority. For Estafa, the Court found all elements present: (a) Remullo defrauded the complainants through false pretenses of being able to secure them jobs abroad; (b) such pretenses were made prior to or simultaneous with the payment of fees; (c) the complainants were induced to part with their money due to these pretenses; and (d) they suffered damage. The act of collecting fees without a license constitutes deceit, satisfying the element of fraud. The failure to secure employment after payment completed the crime. The penalties imposed by the trial court were upheld.