G.R. No. 145734-35 October 15, 2002
People of the Philippines, appellee, vs. Vicenta Medina Lapis, Angel Mateo, Aida de Leon (at large) and Jean Am-amlaw (at large), appellants.

FACTS

Appellants Vicenta Medina Lapis and Angel Mateo, along with Aida de Leon and Jean Am-amlaw (both at large), were charged with syndicated illegal recruitment under Republic Act No. 8042 and estafa. The complainants, spouses Melchor and Perpetua Degsi, were recruited for employment in Japan as an office worker and a cook/mechanic. Jean Am-amlaw, a co-vendor of the complainants in Baguio, introduced them to Aida de Leon, who in turn introduced Angel Mateo as a contact for Japan-bound workers. Mateo represented himself as having the capacity to send people abroad and showed documents to prove his legitimacy. From March 24, 1998, to June 23, 1998, the complainants paid a total of P158,600.00 to Mateo for processing fees and other expenses. Vicenta Lapis was introduced by Mateo as his wife and assisted in collecting payments, including P49,240.00 for plane tickets. It was stipulated that appellants were not licensed or authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment. The defense denied engaging in recruitment, claiming Mateo was in the importation business and that the transactions were for a different purpose, but the trial court found the prosecution’s evidence credible.

ISSUE

The main issue is whether the appellants are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal recruitment and estafa.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions. For illegal recruitment under RA 8042, the appellants, being non-licensees, were found guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale, constituting economic sabotage, and were sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of P1,000,000.00 each. They were also ordered to indemnify the complainants jointly and severally. For estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code, they were sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of six years of prision correccional as minimum to twenty years of reclusion temporal as maximum. The Court held that all elements of illegal recruitment and estafa were proven: appellants undertook recruitment activities without license, and by means of deceit, they defrauded the complainants of money through false promises of employment. The defense of denial could not prevail over the positive identification and credible testimonies of the complainants. The awards for actual damages (net amount paid), traveling expenses, rental, and unrealized income were sustained.