G.R. No. 93723 -27 May 6, 1994
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Zenaida E. Villafuerte, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Zenaida E. Villafuerte was charged with four counts of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code and one count of illegal recruitment in large scale under Articles 38 and 39 of the Labor Code. The informations alleged that between March and June 1988, in Quezon City, appellant, without the required license or authority from the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA), recruited and promised employment abroad to twelve individuals, including Ursulito B. Manzano, Norberto Cayabyab, Hermelina D. de Vera, Isidro A. Arias, Jr., Edwin M. Estabillo, Leticia M. Quinsay, and others, by requiring them to submit documentary requirements and exacting various amounts as recruitment fees. The prosecution presented the testimonies of the complainants and a POEA certification confirming appellant was not authorized to recruit. The complainants testified that appellant promised them overseas jobs, required them to submit bio-data and clearances, and collected fees from them at her residence, issuing signed receipts. After failing to deploy them and failing to return their money upon demand, they discovered she was not a licensed recruiter. Appellant denied the charges, claiming that her business partners, Rosalina Balbedina and John del Valle, were the actual recruiters, and she merely signed receipts prepared by them. The Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 89, found her guilty beyond reasonable doubt of both crimes.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of estafa and illegal recruitment in large scale.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court, finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt. On the charge of illegal recruitment in large scale, the Court ruled that the elements were present: (1) appellant undertook recruitment activities without the necessary license or authority from the POEA, and (2) she committed these acts against three or more persons individually or as a group. The POEA certification and the consistent testimonies of the complainants established these elements. Appellant’s defense that others were the recruiters was rejected as untenable; her act of signing receipts and dealing directly with the complainants at her residence proved her personal involvement. On the estafa charges, the Court found that appellant defrauded the complainants by falsely pretending to have the capacity to deploy workers abroad, thereby inducing them to give her money which she misappropriated. The receipts she signed constituted conclusive evidence of her involvement. The crimes of illegal recruitment in large scale and estafa can be prosecuted separately, as each has distinct elements. The penalties imposed by the trial court were affirmed.