GR 173473; (December, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 173473 December 17, 2008
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. BETH TEMPORADA, appellant.
FACTS
From September 2001 to January 2002, accused Rosemarie “Baby” Robles, Bernadette Miranda, Nenita Catacotan, Jojo Resco, and appellant Beth Temporada, all employees of Alternative Travel and Tours Corporation (ATTC), recruited and promised overseas employment for a fee to complainants Rogelio Legaspi, Jr. (technician in Singapore) and Soledad Atle, Luz Minkay, Evelyn Estacio, and Dennis Dimaano (factory workers in Hongkong). The accused collected and received placement fees from the complainants: P57,600.00 from Legaspi, P66,520.00 from Dimaano, P88,520.00 from Estacio, P69,520.00 from Atle, and P69,520.00 from Minkay. None of the complainants were deployed or reimbursed. Separate criminal complaints were filed. On November 29, 2002, six Informations were filed: one for Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale under Article 38(a) of the Labor Code, and five counts of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code. Only appellant Beth Temporada was apprehended and tried; the other accused remained at large. The Regional Trial Court convicted appellant of all charges. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction with modification to the penalties for estafa.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court gravely erred in finding appellant Beth Temporada guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale and five counts of estafa despite the alleged insufficiency of evidence.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the Decision of the Court of Appeals, except as to the indeterminate penalties imposed for the five counts of estafa. The Court found all elements of illegal recruitment in large scale present: (1) appellant had no valid license or authority from the POEA to recruit workers for overseas employment; (2) appellant and her co-accused undertook recruitment activities by promising employment abroad for a fee; and (3) the offense was committed against five persons. Appellant’s defense that she was merely an employee echoing her employer’s requirements was rejected. Testimonies established that appellant, introducing herself as General Manager of ATTC, actively participated by persuading complainants, briefing them on requirements, assuring deployment, and collecting fees. Thus, appellant was liable as a principal. The Court modified the penalties for estafa in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.