People v. Gallardo

Facts:

Remedios Malapit and Nenita Maria Olivia Gallardo were charged with 1 count of illegal recruitment committed in large-scale, 3 counts of estafa, and 1 count of simple illegal recruitment before the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, Branch 3.

Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to all charges. The 5 cases were consolidated and tried jointly.

Marie Purificacion Abenoja and Marilyn Mariano met accused-appellant at her beauty parlor in Lopez Building, Session Road, Baguio City. Marie met accused-appellant sometime in January 1997 through her friend, Florence Bacoco. A month later, Marilyn was introduced to accused-appellant by Grace Lanozo, a fellow nurse at the PMA Hospital.

Marie claims that accused-appellant enticed her to apply for work as a caregiver in Canada. Accused-appellant showed her a piece of paper containing a job order saying that Canada was in need of ten (10) caregivers and some messengers. Accused-appellant also promised her that she will be receiving a salary of CN$2,700.00 (Canadian Dollars) and will be able to leave for Canada in a months time. Heeding accused-appellants guaranty, Marie eventually applied for the overseas job opportunity.

On June 6, 1997, accused-appellant introduced Marie to co-accused Nenita Maria Olivia-Gallardo in Tandang Sora, Quezon City. On the same day, Marie submitted herself to a physical examination and personally handed to Gallardo a partial payment of P18,000.00, for which the latter issued a receipt. Marie made another payment in the amount of P52,000.00, for which accused-appellant issued a provisional receipt. This amount included the placement fee of her sister, Araceli Abenoja, who became interested in the opportunity to work abroad. Accused-appellant issued to Marie the receipt for Araceli in the amount of P35,000.00, signed by Gallardo.

Three months lapsed without any news on Maries deployment to Canada. Her sister, Araceli, had already left for work abroad through the efforts of their other town-mate. The weekly follow-ups made by Marie to accused-appellant pertaining to her application and that of Aracelis were to no avail. Accused-appellant just promised Marie that she will return her money. Realizing that she had been hoodwinked, Marie decided to file a complaint against the accused-appellant and Gallardo with the National Bureau of Investigation. She no longer verified the authority of both accused-appellant and Gallardo in recruiting workers overseas because she was told by Gallardo that she is a direct recruiter.

Marilyn Mariano, on the other hand, was told by accused-appellant that she was recruiting nurses from Baguio City and was looking for one more applicant to complete the first batch to fly to Canada. After giving her all the information about the job opportunity in Canada, accused-appellant encouraged her to meet Gallardo. Not long after, Grace Lanozo accompanied her to meet Gallardo at the latters house in Quezon City.

Gallardo required her to undergo a medical check-up, to complete her application papers within the soonest possible time and to prepare money to defray the expenses for her deployment to Canada. Upon the instruction of accused-appellant, Marilyn paid a total amount of P36,000.00 to Gallardo, which was evidenced by a receipt. Of this amount, the P1,500.00 was for her medical check-up, P20,000.00 for processing of papers and P15,000.00 for her visa.

Marilyn was further made to accomplish a form, prepared by both accused-appellant and Gallardo, at the residence of accused-appellant in Baguio City. Thereafter, she was informed that the processing of her papers abroad shall commence within the next three months. She was also made to attend a meeting conducted by both accused-appellant and Gallardo at the formers house in Baguio City, together with other interested applicants.

After three months of waiting with no forthcoming employment abroad, Marilyn and the other applicants proceeded to the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency, Regional Administrative Unit, of the Cordillera Administrative Region in Baguio City, where they learned that accused-appellant and Gallardo were not authorized recruiters. Marilyn confronted accused-appellant about this, whereupon the latter assured her that it was a direct hiring scheme. Thereafter, Marilyn reported accused-appellant and Gallardo to the NBI.

After trial on the merits, accused-appellant was found guilty of the crimes of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale and Estafa on 3 counts.

Issues:

I. Whether or not the trial court erred in concluding that the prosecution succeeded in proving the guilt of accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of illegal recruitment.

II. Whether or not the trial court erred in concluding that the prosecution succeeded in proving the guilt of accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt for three counts of estafa.

III. Whether or not the trial court erred in not dismissing criminal cases nos. 15570-r and 15571-r for absence of evidence resulting from the failure of the complaining witness to appear and substantiate her complaint.

IV. Granting arguendo that accused-appellant committed illegal recruitment, the trial court erred in convicting her of illegal recruitment in large scale.

 Held:

Illegal recruitment is committed when two (2) essential elements concur:

(1) that the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable him to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers, and

(2) that the offender undertakes any activity within the meaning of recruitment and placement defined under Article 13(b), or any prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code.

Article 13(b) of the Labor Code defines recruitment and placement as:

Any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not: Provided, that any person or entity which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement.

In the case at bar, the first element is present. Nonette Legaspi-Villanueva, the Overall Supervisor of the Regional Office of the POEA in Baguio City, testified that per records, neither accused-appellant nor Gallardo were licensed or authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment in the City of Baguio or in any part of the Cordillera Region.

The second essential element is likewise present. Accused-appellant purported to have the ability to send Marie Purificacion Abenoja, Araceli Abenoja and Marilyn Mariano for employment abroad through the help of her co-accused Gallardo, although without any authority or license to do so. Accused-appellant was the one who persuaded them to apply for work as a caregiver in Canada by making representations that there was a job market therefor. She was also the one who helped them meet Gallardo in order to process their working papers and personally assisted Marie, Araceli and Marilyn in the completion of the alleged requirements. Accused-appellant even provided her house in Baguio City as venue for a meeting with other applicants that she and Gallardo conducted in connection with the purported overseas employment in Canada. Accused-appellant, therefore, acted as an indispensable participant and effective collaborator of co-accused Gallardo, who at one time received placement fees on behalf of the latter from both Marie and Araceli Abenoja. The totality of the evidence shows that accused-appellant was engaged in the recruitment and placement of workers for overseas employment under the above-quoted Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code. Hence, she cannot now feign ignorance on the consequences of her unlawful acts.

All told, the evidence against accused-appellant has established beyond a shadow of doubt that she actively collaborated with co-accused Gallardo in illegally recruiting the complainants in this case. As correctly pointed out by the trial court, the private complainants in this case would not have been induced to apply for a job in Canada were it not for accused-appellants information, recruitment, and introduction of the private complainants to her co-accused Gallardo.

Likewise untenable are accused-appellants claims that she did not represent herself as a licensed recruiter, and that she merely helped complainants avail of the job opportunity. It is enough that she gave the impression of having had the authority to recruit workers for deployment abroad. In fact, even without consideration for accused-appellants services, she will still be deemed as having engaged in recruitment activities, since it was sufficiently demonstrated that she promised overseas employment to private complainants. Illegal recruitment is committed when it is shown that the accused-appellant gave the private complainants the distinct impression that she had the power or ability to send complainants abroad for work such that the latter were convinced to part with their money in order to be employed. To be engaged in the practice and placement, it is plain that there must at least be a promise or offer of an employment from the person posing as a recruiter whether locally or abroad.

Undoubtedly, the acts of accused-appellant showed unity of purpose with those of co-accused Gallardo. All these acts establish a common criminal design mutually deliberated upon and accomplished through coordinated moves. There being conspiracy, accused-appellant shall be equally liable for the acts of her co-accused even if she herself did not personally reap the fruits of their execution.

While accused-appellant is guilty of illegal recruitment, the Court did not agree with the trial court that the same qualifies as large scale.

The circumstantial evidence in the case at bar, when scrutinized and taken together, leads to no other conclusion than that accused-appellant and co-accused Gallardo conspired in recruiting and promising a job overseas to Araceli Abenoja. Moreover, Marie Purificacion Abenoja had personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances surrounding the charges filed by her sister, Araceli, for simple illegal recruitment and estafa. Marie was privy to the recruitment of Araceli as she was with her when both accused-appellant and Gallardo required Araceli to undergo physical examination to find out whether the latter was fit for the job abroad. Accused-appellant even admitted that she was the one who introduced Marie and Araceli to Gallardo when they went to the latters house. Marie was the one who shouldered the placement fee of her sister Araceli.

Furthermore, the private complainants in this case did not harbor any ill motive to testify falsely against accused-appellant and Gallardo. Accused-appellant failed to show any animosity or ill-feeling on the part of the prosecution witnesses which could have motivated them to falsely accuse her and Gallardo. It would be against human nature and experience for strangers to conspire and accuse another stranger of a most serious crime just to mollify their hurt feelings. As such, the testimony of private complainants that accused-appellant was the person who transacted with them, promised them jobs and received money therefor, was correctly given credence and regarded as trustworthy by the trial court.

The prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant was guilty of estafa under the Revised Penal Code, Article 315 paragraph (2) (a), which provides that estafa is committed:

2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of fraud:

(a) By using fictitious name or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of other similar deceits.

The evidence is clear that in falsely pretending to possess the power to deploy persons for overseas placement, accused-appellant deceived Marie, Araceli and Marilyn into believing that the recruitment would give them greener opportunities as caregivers in Canada. Accused-appellants assurance constrained the private complainants to part with their hard-earned money in exchange for a slot in the overseas job in Canada. The elements of deceit and damage for this form of estafa are indisputably present. Hence, the conviction of accused-appellant for three (3) counts of estafa in Criminal Cases Nos. 15323-R, 15327-R and 15571-R should be upheld.