G.R. No. 179907 , February 12, 2009
ARLENE N. LAPASARAN, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

In September 2001, private complainant Menardo Villarin and his sister Vilma met petitioner Arlene N. Lapasaran, who worked at Silver Jet Travel Tours Agency in Makati. For a fee of ₱85,000.00, petitioner undertook to process the papers for Menardo’s deployment to South Korea under a tourist visa and promised him employment there, initially as a factory worker and later as a bakery worker. Menardo paid the fee in installments: ₱10,000.00 to a certain Pastor Paulino Cajucom, and ₱35,000.00 and ₱40,000.00 directly to the petitioner. After flight postponements, Menardo left for South Korea on November 25, 2001, but was incarcerated and deported because his travel documents were fake. Petitioner promised to send him back but failed. Demands for a refund were refused. Petitioner was later found to be no longer connected with Silver Jet. Separate charges for illegal recruitment and estafa were filed against her. She pleaded not guilty, claiming she only assisted in securing a tourist visa and airplane ticket for ₱70,000.00 through her own travel agency, A&B Travel and Tours General Services, and denied recruiting or promising employment. The Regional Trial Court found her guilty of both charges, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals with a modification on the penalty for estafa.

ISSUE

Whether or not the laws on illegal recruitment and estafa are applicable in these cases.

RULING

Yes. The petition is denied. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ Decision and Resolution.
1. On Illegal Recruitment (Criminal Case No. 03-215331): The Court upheld the findings of the lower courts, giving respect to their assessment of witness credibility. Illegal recruitment under the Labor Code, as amended by R.A. No. 8042 (Migrant Workers Act), is committed when a person gives the distinct impression of having the power or ability to send someone abroad for work, thereby inducing the latter to part with money. Petitioner’s misrepresentations and collection of fees constituted illegal recruitment. Her claim that she merely assisted in securing a tourist visa does not exonerate her, as it is sufficient that she gave the impression of authority to recruit. The penalty imposed by the CA—an indeterminate sentence of six (6) years and one (1) day to eight (8) years and a fine of ₱200,000.00—was correct under Section 7(a) of R.A. No. 8042 .
2. On Estafa (Criminal Case No. 03-215332): The elements of estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code are present: (a) the accused defrauded another by means of deceit, and (b) damage capable of pecuniary estimation was caused. Petitioner’s false representation of being capable of sending Menardo for employment abroad, despite having no license, induced him to part with his money. A person may be convicted of both illegal recruitment (a malum prohibitum offense where criminal intent is not necessary) and estafa (a malum in se offense requiring criminal intent). The CA correctly modified the penalty. With the amount involved being ₱75,000.00 (exceeding ₱22,000.00), the penalty under Article 315 is prision correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum in its maximum period, with additional years for amounts over ₱22,000.00. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the CA properly imposed an indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to eleven (11) years, eight (8) months, and twenty-one (21) days of prision mayor, as maximum.