G.R. No. 128513; December 27, 2000
Emma Offemaria Marcelo, petitioner, vs. Court of Appeals and The People of the Philippines, respondents.

FACTS

Private complainant Clarita Mosquera was recruited by Nemia Magalit Diu and petitioner Emma Marcelo for a babysitting job in the United States. They were introduced to Angelica Offemaria, Marcelo’s mother, who presented herself as a general manager authorized to recruit. Mosquera and her aunt were induced to give several payments totaling P27,925.00 between May and July 1982, with assurances of overseas employment. Petitioner Emma Marcelo was present during key transactions, including the final payment at the Phil-Am Life Building. After the payments, the recruiters became unreachable. A POEA certification later confirmed that Angelica Offemaria had no license to recruit workers.
An Information for Estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code was filed against several accused, including Marcelo and Diu. During trial, Marcelo denied knowing Mosquera prior to the case and claimed she only saw her at her mother’s office. The Regional Trial Court found Marcelo and Diu guilty, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Marcelo appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner Emma Marcelo is guilty of the crime of Estafa through deceit under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The legal logic establishes that all elements of Estafa under Article 315(2)(a) are present: (a) the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or deceit; (b) damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party. The evidence clearly shows a conspiracy. Marcelo actively participated by introducing the complainants to her mother, Angelica Offemaria, the main recruiter, and was physically present during the crucial July 17, 1982 payment. Her actions, combined with those of her co-accused, formed a collective effort to falsely represent their capacity to secure overseas employment, thereby deceiving Mosquera into parting with her money.
The Court rejected Marcelo’s denial and alibi, emphasizing that positive identification by the complainant, who had no ill motive to testify falsely, prevails over unsupported defenses. Her presence and involvement in the transactions substantiated her role in the fraudulent scheme. The fact that her mother was the unlicensed principal recruiter does not exculpate her; conspiracy renders each conspirator equally liable for acts done in furtherance of the common design. The Court also modified the penalty imposed, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law correctly, but upheld the conviction based on conclusive proof of deceit and damage.