G.R. No. 184058 March 10, 2010
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. MELISSA CHUA, Appellant.

FACTS

Melissa Chua (appellant) was charged with Illegal Recruitment (Large Scale) and five counts of Estafa. She was convicted by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila for Illegal Recruitment (Large Scale) and three counts of Estafa, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The Information for Illegal Recruitment alleged that sometime in September 2002, in Manila, appellant, conspiring with Josie Campos (who remained at large), represented they could contract, enlist, and transport workers abroad, and for a fee, recruited and promised employment to Erik De Guia Tan, Marilyn O. Macaranas, Napoleon H. Yu, Jr., Harry James P. King, and Roberto C. Angeles without the required DOLE license, charging them specified amounts (e.g., Tan – P73,000, Macaranas – P83,000), failing to deploy them or reimburse their expenses. The Estafa charges similarly alleged appellant defrauded the complainants by false manifestations of capacity to recruit and facilitate papers for work in Taiwan, inducing them to deliver money which she misappropriated. At trial, three complainants testified: Marilyn Macaranas paid appellant P83,750, Erik Tan paid P70,000, and Harry James King paid P20,000, based on promises of deployment to Taiwan which did not materialize, and refund demands were unmet. Appellant denied charges, claiming she was a temporary cashier at Golden Gate, a licensed agency, and merely received and turned over fees to the documentation officer and owner. The RTC convicted appellant, sentencing her to life imprisonment and a fine for illegal recruitment, and indeterminate penalties for three counts of Estafa, with orders to return the amounts to the complainants. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding appellant actively participated in illegal recruitment and that elements of Estafa were established.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming appellant’s conviction for Illegal Recruitment (Large Scale) and three counts of Estafa.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the convictions. On Illegal Recruitment, the Court held that appellant engaged in recruitment and placement as defined under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code by promising employment abroad for a fee to more than one person without the required license, constituting illegal recruitment under Article 38(a). The offense, committed against three persons, qualified as large scale. Appellant’s defense as a mere temporary cashier was immaterial; as an employee who actively and consciously participated in the recruitment process, she is liable as a principal. Illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum, where criminal intent is not necessary for conviction. On Estafa, the Court held the elements under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code were present: appellant deceived complainants with false representations of capacity to secure employment, they paid money relying on it, the representations were false as deployment failed, and they suffered damage. Estafa is malum in se, but intent was proven. Thus, appellant was properly convicted of both offenses.