G.R. No. 205153, September 09, 2015
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Suzette Arnaiz a.k.a. “Baby Rosal”, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Suzette Arnaiz, also known as “Baby Rosal” or Rosita Rosal, was charged with Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale (Criminal Case No. 02-199399) and two counts of Estafa (Criminal Case Nos. 02-199404 and 02-199406). The prosecution presented three complainants: Edenelda Cayetano, Napoleon Bunuan, and Herminio Cantor, Jr. Cayetano gave appellant money for processing to work in Australia but was never deployed; a refund check bounced. Bunuan paid appellant for factory work in South Korea but discovered the office was padlocked and others sent to Korea were returned. Cantor, Jr. paid for work in Korea, but upon arrival, his visa and passport were found to be fake, and he was sent back. All complainants identified appellant in court. A Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) officer confirmed that appellant and her agency, Florida Travel and Tours, were not licensed to recruit workers. Appellant claimed she only ran a travel agency processing visas, that a different “Suzette Arnaiz” (her secretary) signed documents, and that she refunded Bunuan and Cantor, Jr. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted appellant of all charges. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the convictions but modified the penalty and damages in one estafa case.

ISSUE

Whether appellant’s guilt for illegal recruitment in large scale and estafa was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

Yes, appellant’s guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA decision. For Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale under Republic Act No. 8042, all elements were present: (1) Appellant had no valid POEA license or authority, as certified by a POEA officer; (2) She undertook recruitment activities by promising employment abroad to the complainants and collecting fees from them; and (3) She committed the acts against three or more persons (Cayetano, Bunuan, and Cantor, Jr.). The penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of ₱500,000 was upheld. For the two counts of Estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code, the elements were also met: appellant employed deceit by falsely representing she could deploy workers abroad, which induced the complainants to part with their money, causing them damage. The Court gave great weight to the trial court’s findings on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, which the CA affirmed. A person can be separately convicted of illegal recruitment and estafa. The CA’s modified penalties and awards of actual damages were sustained.