GR 132289; (July, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 132289; July 18, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BETH N. BANZALES, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Beth N. Banzales was charged with Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale and seven counts of Estafa. The Information alleged that from September to November 1993, in Quezon City, Banzales, without the required license or authority from the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA), recruited nine individuals for overseas employment in Taiwan, collecting a total of P135,000.00 in fees. The estafa charges, involving seven of these recruits, were based on the same transactions, alleging she defrauded them by falsely representing her capacity to secure them jobs abroad.
During trial, six complainants testified. Their collective evidence established that Banzales, representing herself as a recruiter, promised them factory work in Taiwan. She required them to submit documents and pay placement fees ranging from P10,000.00 to P25,000.00, which they did. Despite following her instructions and making payments, none were deployed abroad, and their repeated follow-ups for refunds were unsuccessful. The defense presented Banzales and another witness who claimed she was merely an assistant to a certain “Larry,” the alleged real recruiter.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of accused-appellant for Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale and Estafa.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. For illegal recruitment in large scale, the elements are: (1) the accused undertook recruitment activities; (2) she had no license or authority from the POEA; and (3) she committed the same against three or more persons. The testimonies of six complainants, which the trial court found credible, conclusively established all elements. Banzales’s lack of authority was certified by the POEA. Her defense of being a mere assistant was rejected, as her direct interactions with victims—soliciting applications, collecting fees, and issuing receipts—proved she was engaged in recruitment and placement.
Regarding estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code, the Court found that Banzales employed false pretenses by misrepresenting her power to secure overseas employment, thereby inducing the complainants to part with their money. Her fraudulent intent was evident from her failure to deploy them or return their payments despite their demands. The Court modified the penalties for estafa, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law. It also sustained the awards of actual damages, and additionally awarded P10,000.00 to complainant Angelo Ballester, who testified and presented a receipt but was not included in the trial court’s indemnity order, as an appeal in a criminal case opens the entire case for review.