SYLLABUS
1. CRIMINAL LAW; CONSPIRACY; CAN BE INFERRED FROM THE ACTS OF
THE ACCUSED WHEN SUCH POINT TO A JOINT PURPOSE AND DESIGN.- The evidence
overwhelming established the fact that both the accused-appellant and his
sister Precy Benemerito were engaged in the business of illegal
recruitment. In their testimonies,
Fernando Arcal and Carlito Gumarang were positive, categorical and firm, even
under grueling cross-examination, that the accused-appellant actively
participated in the recruitment process.
The latter was present when each complainant was offered a job in
2. ID.; ESTAFA; ELEMENTS THEREOF; PRESENT IN CASE AT BAR.- The elements of estafa in general are: (1) that the accused defrauded another: (a) by abuse of confidence, or (b) by means of deceit; and (2) that damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party or third person. All these elements are present in the instant case: the accused-appellant deceived the complainants into believing that he had the authority and capability it send them abroad for employment; that there were available jobs for them in Japan for which they would be hired; and that by reason or on the strength of such assurance, the complainants parted with their money in payment of the various processing and placement fees. As all these representations of the accused-appellant proved false, paragraph 2(a), Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code is thus applicable.
3. ID.; ID.; PENALTY IMPOSABLE DEPENDS ON THE AMOUNT DEFRAUDED.- The penalty for estafa depends on the amount defrauded. The amount proved to have been defrauded in Criminal Case No. Q-93-51513 and Criminal Case No. Q-93-51514 was P50,000.00 in each case. Hence, the penalty prescribed above should be imposed in its maximum period. The maximum period thereof following the rule prescribed in thelast paragraph of Article 77 of the Revised Penal Code ranges from six (6) years, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days to eight (8) years. We add to it two (2) years and nine (9) months for the amount beyond the first P22,000.00 (at the rate of one (1) year for every P10,000.00 and nine (9) months for the remaining P8,000.00 by ratio and proportion). Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the accused-appellant can be sentenced to an indeterminate penalty whose minimum shall be within the range of the penalty nest lower in degree than that prescribed by law, viz., prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods (six (6) months ad one (1) day to four (4) years and two (2) months) and whose maximum shall be the abovementioned imposable penalty. The indeterminate penalty can range, therefore, from two (2) years, eleven (11) months and ten (10) days of prision correccional, as minimum, to ten (10) years and nine (9) months of prision mayor, as maximum. In Criminal Case No. Q-93-51515, the amount proved to have been defrauded is only P85,000.00, as the receipt for the P10,000.00 is in the name of Shally Flor Gumarang, not the complainant Carlito Gumarang. The principal penalty imposable is likewise the maximum of the prescribed penalty provided for in Article 315 as stated in the immediately preceding paragraph, plus six (6) years and three (3) months for the amounts beyond the first P22,000.00 (at the rate of one (1) year for every additional P10,000.00 and three (3) months for the remaining P3,000.00). Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and the foregoing disquisition, the accused-appellant can be sentenced to an indeterminate panalty ranging from four (4) years and two months of prision correccional, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and three (3) months of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
4. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENDY; NON-FLIGHT; MAY NOT BE POSITIVELY CONSTRUED AS AN INDICATION OF INNOCENCE.- Neither are we persuaded by his plea of innocence allegedly evidenced by non-flight. The converse of the evidentiary principle of flight as indicative of guilt, does not necessary hold true. Non-flight may not be positively construed as an indication of innocence.
5. ID.; ID.; ID.; EQUIPOISE RULE; APPLICATION THEREOF.- The accused-appellant's plea for the application of the "equipoise rule" must likewise fail. This rule provides that where the evidence of the parties in a criminal case is evenly balanced, the constitutional presumption of innocence should tilt the scales in favor of the accused. There is, therefore, no equipoise if the evidence is not "evenly balanced." Not even a semblance of parity is present in this case. Against the direct, positive and convincing evidence for the prosecution, the accused-appellant could only offer a mere denial and the incredible claim that he was an unwitting victim of his sister Precy Benemerito. He miserably failed to overcome the prosecutions's evidence, hence the rule is unavailable to him.
6. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; LABOR CODE; RECRUITMENT AND PLACEMENT; ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT; ELEMENTS THEREOF.- To prove illegal recruitment, only two elements need be shown, viz., (1) the person charged with the crime must have undertaken recruitment activities (or any of the activities enumerated in Article 34 of the Labor Code, as amended); and (2) the said person does not have a license or authority to do so. It is not required that it be shown that such person wrongfully represented himself as a licensed recruiter. A license is a document issued by the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) authorizing a person or entity to operate a private employment agency, while an authority is a document issued by the DOLE authorizing a person or association to engage in recruitment and placement activities as a private recruitment agency.
7. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; WHEN CONSIDERED AS LARGE SCALE.- There is large illegal recruitment if it is committed against "three (3) or more persons individually or as a group"; its elements, therefore, are the two above mentioned plus the fact that it is committed against three or more persons. Large scale illegal recruitment involves economic sabotage, and is penalized by Article 39(a) of the Labor Code, as amended, with life imprisonment and a fine of P100,000.00. The accused-appellant having recruited at least three persons, giving them the impressions of his ability to send workers abroad, assuring them of their employment in Japan, and collecting various amounts for alleged processing and placement fees, without license nor authority to so recruit or offer job placements abroad, thus committed large scale recruitment.
8. ID.; ID.; ID.; A PERSON WHO COMMITS ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT MAY BE CHARGED SEPARATELY OF ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT AND ESTAFA.- It is settled in out jurisdiction that a person who commits illegal recruitment may be charged and convected of illegal recruitment and estafa under paragraph 2(a), Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, as the former is malum prohibitum where the criminal intent of the accused is not necessary for conviction, while estafa is malum in se where the criminal intent of the accused is necessary for conviction. In short, a conviction for offenses under the Labor Code does not bar punishment for offenses punishable by other laws.
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Abdula A. Basar for accused-appellant.