G.R. No. 232049 , March 03, 2021
ADRIANO TOSTON Y HULAR, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner Adriano Toston y Hular was charged with Illegal Recruitment (Criminal Case No. 14-303962) and Estafa (Criminal Case No. 14-303963). The charges stemmed from the complaint of Mary Ann O. Soliven, who alleged that in June 2010, she applied for a waitress job in Singapore through Steadfast International Recruitment Corporation. Toston, along with Ethel Gutierrez and Alvin Runas, represented they could secure her employment. On July 7, 2010, Mary Ann paid a placement fee of Php50,000.00 to Gutierrez, who issued an acknowledgment receipt signed by Runas. Mary Ann was never deployed. She later discovered internet posts alleging Steadfast was an illegal recruiter and that its POEA license was suspended. She also learned Toston had been deemed resigned from Steadfast as of August 13, 2007. She sought a refund and filed a criminal complaint. The prosecution presented Mary Ann as its sole witness and submitted documentary evidence including POEA certifications showing Steadfast’s suspended license and Toston’s resignation status. The defense presented Toston and POEA officer Teresita Taladtad. Toston testified he was merely an Administrative Assistant performing clerical duties, that he only referred Mary Ann to Runas, and that he was not involved in the payment transaction. Taladtad’s testimony and POEA documents indicated Toston was appointed as a Recruitment Assistant in 2009 and was considered resigned only in September 2011. The Regional Trial Court convicted Toston of both charges. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioner Adriano Toston’s conviction for Illegal Recruitment and Estafa.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that all elements of Illegal Recruitment and Estafa were proven beyond reasonable doubt.
1. On Illegal Recruitment: The crime of illegal recruitment in large scale requires: (a) the accused engaged in acts of recruitment and placement; (b) the accused did not have a license or authority to do so; and (c) the accused committed the acts against three or more persons individually or as a group. The Court found Toston participated in recruitment activities by interviewing Mary Ann, informing her she passed, giving her a medical referral slip, and handing her an employment contract. These acts constitute “referral,” which is a recruitment activity under the law. Toston acted in conspiracy with Gutierrez and Runas. The POEA certifications proved Steadfast’s license was suspended and Toston was unlicensed. While the information alleged only one victim (Mary Ann), making it simple illegal recruitment, the conviction was proper as the essential elements for the simple crime were established.
2. On Estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code: The elements 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. The Court found Toston, in conspiracy with others, made false representations about their capacity to deploy Mary Ann abroad, inducing her to part with her money. His direct participation in the recruitment process constituted deceit. The failure to deploy Mary Ann and to return the payment caused her damage.
3. On Conspiracy: Conspiracy was inferred from the collective actions of Toston, Gutierrez, and Runas, who performed specific acts with a common purpose to recruit Mary Ann for a fee without authority.
4. On Defense: Toston’s claim of being a mere clerical employee was belied by his own testimony and the POEA records showing his appointment as a Recruitment Assistant. His acts, even if allegedly limited, were integral to the recruitment process and demonstrated community of criminal purpose with his co-accused.
The Supreme Court modified the penalties, sentencing Toston for Illegal Recruitment to an indeterminate penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to twelve (12) years of reclusion temporal as maximum, and a fine of Php500,000.00. For Estafa, he was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of four (4) months and twenty (20) days of arresto mayor as minimum to two (2) years, eleven (11) months, and ten (10) days of prision correccional as maximum. He was ordered to pay Mary Ann Soliven Php50,000.00 as actual damages, with legal interest, and the costs of suit.