G.R. No. 198664, November 23, 2016
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. Owen Marcelo Cagalingan and Beatriz B. Cagalingan, Accused-Appellants

FACTS

Accused-appellants Owen and Beatriz Cagalingan were charged with Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale and three counts of Estafa. The Information alleged that from October to November 2002, in Cagayan de Oro City, the spouses, without the requisite license or authority from the government, conspired to recruit and promise employment in Macau, China, to five individuals: Reynalyn Cagalingan, Roselle Cagalingan, Laarni Sanchez, Norma Cagalingan, and Arcele Bacorro. They collected fees for this purpose.
Separate Informations for Estafa were filed by three of the complainants—Reynalyn, Roselle, and Arcele—who each gave the accused ₱40,000.00 based on false representations that the spouses had the power and capacity to secure overseas employment for them. The Regional Trial Court convicted the accused-appellants of all charges. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision in toto, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the convictions of the accused-appellants for Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale and three counts of Estafa.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions. For illegal recruitment in large scale, the prosecution successfully proved all elements: (1) the accused-appellants undertook recruitment activities, as defined under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code; (2) they had no valid license or authority from the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration; and (3) they committed the acts against three or more persons, individually or as a group. The testimonies of the five complainants were consistent and credible, establishing that the appellants solicited fees and promised jobs abroad without the required license. This constituted economic sabotage under Republic Act No. 8042.
Regarding Estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code, the Court found that the elements of deceit, damage, and reliance were present. The accused-appellants made fraudulent representations regarding their capacity to secure overseas employment, which induced the complainants to part with their money. The appellants’ failure to secure the promised jobs and their appropriation of the funds constituted fraud. The penalties imposed were proper. However, the Court modified the monetary awards by imposing legal interest of six percent per annum on the amounts to be restituted, from the date of finality of judgment until full payment, in line with prevailing jurisprudence.