G.R. No. 238910 . July 20, 2022.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. PERLITA CASTRO URQUICO @ FHEY, CARLO VILLAVICENCIO, JR. @ BOYET, AND ELNORA MANDELMA @ LATHEA ESTEFANOS STELLIOS, ACCUSED, ELNORA MANDELMA @ LATHEA ESTEFANOS STELLIOS, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Elnora Mandelma, together with co-accused Perlita Urquico and Carlo Villavicencio, Jr., was charged with Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale (Economic Sabotage) under RA 8042 and multiple counts of Estafa. The prosecution evidence established that from November 2009 to May 2010, the trio, operating under Mheyman Manpower Agency (MMA), collected fees from at least 31 individuals for promised overseas employment in Cyprus. The private complainants, including Bienvenida Galendez and Saigee Lozano, paid substantial sums but were never deployed. Galendez testified that Urquico identified accused-appellant as their broker who would process documents in Manila. Lozano made payments in the presence of accused-appellant, who was introduced as the broker “Lathea.”
The Regional Trial Court convicted accused-appellant. It found her participation integral, acting in conspiracy with her co-accused by representing her capacity to secure jobs abroad, which induced the complainants to part with their money. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Accused-appellant appealed, arguing the prosecution failed to prove she engaged in recruitment activities, claiming she was merely an applicant herself and that her acts of receiving money were merely incidental.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals 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 convictions. On Illegal Recruitment, the Court clarified that the crime is committed by any person who, without the required license or authority from the POEA, undertakes any recruitment activity defined under the law. The law enumerates specific acts constituting recruitment, including referring, contracting, or promising employment. The prosecution proved accused-appellant performed such acts. Testimonies showed she was presented as the broker, assured applicants of jobs, and directly received payments. Her lack of a license was undisputed. With three or more victims proven, the crime escalates to Large Scale Illegal Recruitment, which is economic sabotage.
The Court rejected her defense of being a fellow applicant. Her active, indispensable role in the scheme, from assurance to collection, demonstrated conspiracy. By working in concert with her co-accused to create an illusion of a legitimate agency, she shared criminal liability. For Estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code, the elements were also met: she employed deceit by falsely representing her capacity to secure overseas jobs, which induced the complainants to pay fees, causing them damage. Each act of collecting payment for a false promise constituted a distinct crime of Estafa. The penalties imposed by the CA were affirmed, with modifications to the indeterminate sentence for Estafa following recent jurisprudence.