G.R. No. 181475 April 7, 2009
People of the Philippines, Appellee, vs. Larry “Lauro” Domingo, Appellant.

FACTS

Larry “Lauro” Domingo was charged with Illegal Recruitment (Large Scale) and 23 counts of Estafa. The Information for illegal recruitment alleged that from November 1999 to January 2000, in Malolos, Bulacan, appellant, without a license from the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), willfully and feloniously undertook illegal recruitment of 35 named individuals, constituting economic sabotage. The Informations for Estafa alleged that during the same period, appellant, through deceit and false pretenses of having the capacity to recruit and employ persons in Saipan, defrauded various complainants by inducing them to give him specific amounts of money which he misappropriated.
Only five complainants testified for the prosecution: Rogelio Cambay, Florentino Ondra, Dionisio Aguilar, Ma. Leah Vivas, and Simeon Cabigao. Their testimonies established that appellant recruited them for overseas jobs (in Marianas Island or Saipan) as painter, laborer, hotel worker, domestic helper, and carpenter, respectively. They paid appellant various amounts (ranging from ₱3,000 to ₱30,000) for placement, medical, and other fees. Their scheduled departures did not materialize, and appellant failed to deploy them. A DOLE certification confirmed appellant was not a licensed recruiter. Appellant was later arrested.
Appellant denied the accusations, claiming he was merely a driver hired by the real recruiter, Danilo Gimeno. He asserted that Gimeno conducted the recruitment activities. In support, appellant presented private complainants Simeon Cabigao (who recanted his prior testimony via an affidavit), Enrico Espiritu, and Roberto Castillo, who corroborated that Gimeno was the actual recruiter and that they filed the case against appellant only because Gimeno could not be found.
The Regional Trial Court convicted appellant of Illegal Recruitment (Large Scale) and two counts of Estafa (relating to complainants Cambay and Ondra), acquitting him of the other Estafa charges for lack of evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision. Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, reiterating his defenses and arguing the lack of receipts and the significance of Cabigao’s retraction.

ISSUE

1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant is guilty of Illegal Recruitment (Large Scale).
2. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant is guilty of Estafa.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the appeal and AFFIRMED the convictions.
1. On Illegal Recruitment (Large Scale): The Court found appellant guilty. The elements of illegal recruitment in large scale are: (a) the accused undertook recruitment activities defined under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code; (b) he did not have the required license or authority from the DOLE; and (c) he committed the same against three or more persons, individually or as a group. All elements were proven. Appellant’s acts of promising employment abroad, requiring payment of fees, and processing documents (medical exams, etc.) constitute “recruitment and placement.” A DOLE certification confirmed he had no license. The testimonies of at least four complainants (Cambay, Ondra, Aguilar, and Vivas) established he recruited and collected fees from them. The lack of receipts does not negate culpability given the complainants’ categorical testimonies. Cabigao’s recantation was deemed unreliable and immaterial, as retractions are viewed with suspicion and the original testimony was corroborated by other evidence.
2. On Estafa: The Court found appellant guilty of two counts. The elements of estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code are: (a) the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or deceit; and (b) damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party. Appellant’s false pretenses of having the power to secure overseas employment induced the complainants to pay him fees, causing them damage. A person can be convicted of both illegal recruitment and estafa arising from the same act, as the former is malum prohibitum (intent not necessary) and the latter is malum in se (intent is imperative).
The trial court’s penalty impositions were upheld: for Illegal Recruitment (Large Scale), life imprisonment and a ₱100,000.00 fine; for the Estafa counts, prison terms within the ranges of prision correccional to prision mayor. Appellant was also ordered to pay actual damages to the four complainants in the illegal recruitment case.