G.R. No. 233089, June 29, 2020
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Lucille M. David, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Lucille M. David, president/proprietor of JASIA International Manpower Services (JASIA), was charged with Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale (Criminal Case No. 143740) and five counts of Estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code (Criminal Case Nos. 143742, 143743, 143744, 143745, 143747). The Informations alleged that from February to November 2008, in Pasig City, she recruited and promised overseas employment in Canada and the United States to several complainants (Cherry C. Marco, Jill R. Grijaldo, Leilanie C. Penera, Adoracion Casintahan, Jovy Mira, Mabelle R. Pineda, and Erwin D. Enriquez), charging and collecting fees ranging from P45,000 to P220,000. She failed to deploy them and refused to reimburse the amounts despite demand. The Estafa charges detailed specific amounts obtained from individual complainants through deceitful misrepresentations of her capacity to deploy workers abroad.
The prosecution presented the testimonies of the complainants. Purita Pineda (mother of Mabelle) testified they deposited P60,000 to accused-appellant’s bank account as placement fee for Canada, but Mabelle was never deployed. Jovy Mira testified he deposited P65,000 as a cash bond for a housekeeper job in Canada after seeing online ads; accused-appellant later presented a contract and requested more fees, but Jovy discovered the supposed employer was not POEA-accredited and JASIA’s office closed. Adoracion Casintahan testified she paid US$800 and later P181,000 for a housekeeper job in the US after being given a visa; she received a photocopy of a dated travel itinerary and later found JASIA’s license was suspended. Cherry Marco testified she deposited P45,000 for a service crew job in Canada after being introduced to accused-appellant; she was later offered a US job but her visa was denied, and she could not contact accused-appellant for a refund. Jill Grijaldo testified she deposited P45,000 for a service crew job in Canada with the promise of deployment by December 2008, but was not deployed due to alleged problems.
The defense claimed accused-appellant was merely an employee of JASIA, which was owned and managed by her husband, and that she acted in good faith based on job orders from a foreign agency. The Regional Trial Court found accused-appellant guilty of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale and five counts of Estafa. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision.

ISSUE

1. Whether the CA erred in affirming accused-appellant’s conviction for Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale and Estafa.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the appeal and AFFIRMED the CA decision with MODIFICATIONS to the penalties and awards of interest.
1. On Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale: The Court upheld the conviction. Illegal recruitment in large scale requires: (a) the accused engaged in recruitment and placement activities defined under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code or prohibited practices under Article 34; (b) the accused did not have a license or authority from the POEA; and (c) the accused committed the same against three or more persons individually or as a group. All elements were proven. Accused-appellant undertook recruitment activities by promising overseas employment to the complainants and collecting fees. A Certification from the POEA confirmed she was not licensed or authorized. The offense was committed against at least three persons (Mabelle Pineda, Jovy Mira, Adoracion Casintahan, Cherry Marco, and Jill Grijaldo). Her defense of being a mere employee and acting in good faith was rejected. The testimonies of the complainants were credible and consistent. The fact that some complainants were issued visas or given contracts does not negate illegal recruitment, as the lack of a license is central.
2. On Estafa: The Court upheld the convictions for five counts of Estafa under Article 315(2)(a). The elements are: (a) the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or deceit; (b) damage or prejudice is caused to the offended party. Deceit was established as accused-appellant falsely represented she could secure overseas employment despite having no POEA license, inducing complainants to part with their money. Damage was proven as the complainants were not deployed and their money was not returned. The defense of good faith was unavailing.
3. On Penalties and Damages:
* Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale: The penalty is life imprisonment and a fine of not less than P2,000,000 nor more than P5,000,000 under RA 8042. The Court affirmed life imprisonment and a fine of P2,000,000.
* Estafa: For each count, the penalty is based on the amount defrauded. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court imposed the following:
Criminal Case No. 143742 (P60,000): 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional as minimum to 14 years of reclusion temporal as maximum.
Criminal Case No. 143743 (P65,000): 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional as minimum to 15 years of reclusion temporal as maximum.
Criminal Case No. 143744 (P181,000): 6 years of prision correccional as minimum to 20 years of reclusion temporal as maximum.
Criminal Case No. 143745 (P45,000): 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional as minimum to 12 years of prision mayor as maximum.
Criminal Case No. 143747 (P45,000): 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional as minimum to 12 years of prision mayor as maximum.
Damages: The Court ordered accused-appellant to pay each complainant the specific amounts defrauded, with legal interest of 6% per annum from the date of finality of judgment until full payment.