GR 171448; (February, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 171448 ; February 28, 2007
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CHARLIE COMILA and AIDA COMILA, Accused-Appellants.
FACTS
Accused-appellants Charlie Comila and Aida Comila, along with an at-large co-accused, were charged with Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale and multiple counts of Estafa. The Information alleged that on or about September 7, 1998, in Baguio City, they conspired to recruit and promise overseas employment in Italy to twelve individuals without securing the required license from the Department of Labor and Employment. In separate Informations, they were also charged with Estafa for defrauding the complainants by falsely representing their capacity to secure jobs abroad, thereby inducing the complainants to pay various sums as placement and medical fees.
During trial, the prosecution presented seven of the twelve complainants. Their testimonies consistently established that the appellants, representing themselves as authorized recruiters, promised them employment in Italy and collected fees ranging from P25,000 to P50,000. A stipulation was entered that a POEA representative would testify that the appellants were not licensed recruiters. The defense consisted mainly of denial. The Regional Trial Court convicted the appellants of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale and seven counts of Estafa, imposing penalties including life imprisonment and fines. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the convictions of the appellants for Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale and Estafa.
RULING
The Supreme Court upheld the convictions. On illegal recruitment, the Court explained that the crime is committed by any person who, without the requisite POEA license, undertakes any recruitment activity as defined under the Labor Code. The elements are: (1) the accused engaged in acts of recruitment and placement; (2) they did not have the required license or authority; and (3) they committed the acts against three or more persons individually or as a group. All elements were proven. The testimonies of the seven complainants were credible, consistent, and established that the appellants promised overseas jobs and collected fees. The stipulation regarding the lack of a POEA license satisfied the second element. With seven victims, the recruitment was in large scale, warranting the penalty of life imprisonment.
Regarding Estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code, the Court ruled that the appellants employed deceit by falsely pretending to possess power, agency, or business to secure overseas employment. This misrepresentation was executed prior to or simultaneously with the fraud and was the direct inducement for the complainants to part with their money. The defense of denial could not prevail over the positive and categorical identification by the complainants. The penalties imposed were in accordance with law. The appeal was dismissed, and the CA decision was affirmed in toto.