GR 214500; (June, 2017) (Digest)
G.R. No. 214500 June 28, 2017
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. MICHELLE DELA CRUZ, Accused-Appellant
FACTS
The accused-appellant, Michelle Dela Cruz, was charged with Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale and three counts of Estafa. The prosecution evidence established that between September 2004 and February 2005, Dela Cruz recruited complainants Armely Aguilar-Uy, Sheryl Reformado, and Adona Lavaro for promised jobs as domestic helpers in South Korea. She represented that she could process their deployment, requiring each to pay PHP 100,000.00 as processing fees. Aguilar-Uy paid a total of PHP 200,000.00, covering her own and her niece Reformado’s fees. Despite repeated follow-ups and demands for reimbursement after no deployment materialized, Dela Cruz failed to return the money. A certification from the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) confirmed that Dela Cruz was neither licensed nor authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused-appellant for Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale and Estafa.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. For Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale, the elements are: (1) the accused undertook recruitment activities; (2) the accused did not have the required license or authority from the POEA; and (3) the accused committed the same against three or more persons individually or as a group. All elements were proven. Dela Cruz’s acts of promising overseas employment, soliciting fees, and processing documents constitute recruitment under the law. The POEA certification conclusively proved her lack of authority, and her actions victimized three individuals, satisfying the “large scale” element. The court upheld the factual findings of the lower courts, noting that the testimonies of the complainants were credible, consistent, and corroborated.
Regarding Estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code, the court found that Dela Cruz employed deceit by falsely representing her capacity to secure overseas jobs, which induced the complainants to part with their money. Her fraudulent intent is evident from her lack of license and her subsequent failure to deploy the complainants or return their payments despite demands, causing them damage and prejudice. The penalty and awards for damages were sustained. The appeal was denied for lack of merit.