G.R. No. 237742

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JOSEPHINE G. VILLANUEVA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

PONENTE: Justice Perlas-Bernabe

TOPIC: Illegal Recruitment (Large Scale) and Estafa under the Migrant Workers Act ( R.A. No. 8042 , as amended by R.A. No. 10022 )

—

DOCTRINE:
1. Illegal Recruitment (Large Scale): To sustain a conviction for illegal recruitment in large scale, the prosecution must prove: (a) the accused engaged in acts of recruitment and placement of workers defined under Article 13(b) or in any prohibited activities under Article 34 of the Labor Code; (b) the accused did not have a valid license or authority from the POEA; and (c) the accused committed the same against three or more persons, individually or as a group.
2. Estafa under R.A. 8042: The elements are: (a) the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit; and (b) the accused induced the complainant to deliver money or property as a result of such fraud. When estafa is committed by illegal recruiters, it is considered an offense involving economic sabotage and is punishable under the special law (R.A. 8042, as amended).
3. Credibility of Witnesses: The factual findings of the trial court, especially on the credibility of witnesses, are accorded great weight and respect on appeal, as it had the direct opportunity to observe the witnesses’ demeanor, conduct, and attitude.
4. Defense of Denial: Denial is an inherently weak defense and cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimonies of credible witnesses.

FACTS

1. Accusation: Josephine G. Villanueva (accused-appellant) was charged with Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale and three counts of Estafa before the RTC of Manila.
2. Complainants: Three individuals—Reynaldo B. Bautista, Marlon B. Bautista, and Ronaldo B. Bautista (private complainants)—testified that in 2012, Villanueva, representing herself as a recruiter for overseas employment in Taiwan, promised them jobs as factory workers.
3. Modus Operandi: Villanueva required them to pay various fees (placement, processing, medical, visa, etc.) totaling between PHP 90,000 to PHP 100,000 each. She issued receipts for some payments. She also facilitated their medical examinations and processing of documents, including passports and purported employment contracts.
4. Failure to Deploy: Despite repeated follow-ups and assurances from Villanueva, the complainants were never deployed. Villanueva eventually stopped communicating with them and failed to return their money.
5. Defense: Villanueva denied the accusations. She claimed she was merely an “encoder” or “assistant” to a certain “Sir Benjie,” the real recruiter. She asserted she only helped the complainants as a favor and even lent them money. She denied issuing receipts, claiming her signatures thereon were forged.
6. POEA Certification: A certification from the POEA confirmed that Villanueva was not licensed or authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment.
7. RTC Ruling: The RTC found Villanueva guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale and three counts of Estafa. It held that she undertook recruitment activities without a license and defrauded three persons.
8. CA Ruling: The CA affirmed the RTC’s decision in toto. It found the testimonies of the complainants credible and consistent, and rejected Villanueva’s denial and defense of being a mere assistant.

ISSUE

1. Whether the CA erred in affirming Villanueva’s conviction for Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale and three counts of Estafa.

RULING

NO. The CA did not err. The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the conviction of accused-appellant Josephine G. Villanueva for Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale and three counts of Estafa.

—

RATIO:
1. Conviction for Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale:
Elements Proven: All elements of the crime were established.
First Element (Acts of Recruitment): Villanueva clearly engaged in recruitment activities. She promised overseas jobs in Taiwan, required the complainants to submit documents (bio-data, pictures), collected various fees, and facilitated their medical exams and document processing. These acts fall under the definition of “recruitment and placement” under the Labor Code.
Second Element (Lack of License/Authority): The POEA certification conclusively proved she had no license or authority.
Third Element (Three or More Persons): The offense was committed against three complainants—Reynaldo, Marlon, and Ronaldo Bautista.
Defense Rejected: The Court found her defense of being a mere “encoder/assistant” untenable. Her active role in dealing with the complainants, collecting money, issuing receipts, and giving assurances of employment belied this claim. Denial cannot overcome the positive identification and credible testimonies of the complainants.

2. Conviction for Estafa (Three Counts):
Elements Proven: The elements of estafa were present.
Villanueva employed deceit by falsely representing she could secure overseas jobs for the complainants.
Because of this deceit, the complainants were induced to part with their money (PHP 90,000 to PHP 100,000 each) for alleged placement and processing fees.
She failed to deploy them and did not return their money, causing them damage and prejudice.
The crime is qualified and punishable under Section 6 of R.A. 8042, as amended, as the estafa was committed by illegal recruiters. Each act of estafa against each complainant constitutes a separate crime.

3. Credibility of Witnesses and Defense of Denial:
The Court reiterated the well-entrenched rule that the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility is binding, absent any showing of overlooked facts or misinterpretation. The RTC and CA found the complainants’ testimonies clear, consistent, and credible.
Villanueva’s denial and imputation of forgery were self-serving and uncorroborated. Her claim that she was merely helping the complainants was inconsistent with her act of collecting large sums of money and issuing receipts.

4. Penalty and Damages:
Illegal Recruitment (Large Scale): The penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of PHP 2,000,000.00 was affirmed, pursuant to Section 6 of R.A. 8042, as amended.
Estafa: For each count, the penalty was based on the amount defrauded. The indeterminate sentence imposed by the lower courts (4 years and 2 months of prision correccional as minimum to 20 years of reclusion temporal as maximum for each count) was affirmed.
Damages: The Court modified the awards. For each count of Estafa, Villanueva was ordered to pay the complainants:
Actual Damages equal to the amount proven to have been paid by each complainant.
Interest at 6% per annum on the actual damages from the date of the filing of the Informations until full payment.
For Illegal Recruitment, moral and exemplary damages were deleted for lack of basis, as the crime is malum prohibitum and the trial court did not award them.

—

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated August 31, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08240 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.

Accused-appellant Josephine G. Villanueva is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of:
1. Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P2,000,000.00; and
2. Three (3) counts of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the RPC in relation to Section 6 of R.A. No. 8042 , as amended, and is sentenced to suffer for each count an indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum.

She is further ordered to pay each of the private complainants the following:
To Reynaldo B. Bautista: Actual damages of P90,000.00 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the Information until full payment.
To Marlon B. Bautista: Actual damages of P100,000.00 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the Information until full payment.
* To Ronaldo B. Bautista: Actual damages of P100,000.00 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the Information until full payment.

All monetary awards shall earn legal interest at 6% per annum from finality of this Decision until full payment.

SO ORDERED.