Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Baguio City
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 138535-38
April 19, 2001
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
LUZ GONZALES-FLORES, accused-appellant.
MENDOZA, J.:
This is an appeal from the decision 1of the Regional Trial
Court, branch 77, Quezon City, finding accusedappellant Luz Gonzales-Flores guilty of illegal
recruitment in large scale and of three counts of estafa
against Felizberto Leongson, Jr., Ronald Frederizo, 2 and
Larry Tibor and sentencing her to suffer four prison
terms and to pay indemnity and damages to
complainants.
In Criminal Case No. Q-94-59470, the information for
estafa against accused-appellant alleged:
That on or about the month of August, 1994, in Quezon
City, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring together,
confederating with several persons whose true names
and true identities have not as yet been ascertained,
and helping one another, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously defraud FELIXBERTO
LEONGSON, JR. y CASTAEDA in the following manner,
to wit: the said accused, by means of false
manifestations and fraudulent representation which
she made to said complainant to the effect that they
had the power and capacity to recruitment employ
complainant abroad as [a] seaman and could facilitate
the processing of the requirements thereof, and by
means of other similar deceits, induced and succeeded
in inducing said complainant to give and deliver, as in
fact he gave and delivered to said accused the amount
of P45,000.00 on the strength of said manifestations
and representations, said accused well knowing that
the same were false and fraudulent and were made
solely to obtain, as in fact they did obtain the amount
of 1245,000.00, which amount once in possession, with
intent to defraud FELIXBER TO LEONGSON, JR. wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously misappropriated, misapplied
and converted to their own personal use and benefit,
to the damage and prejudice of said complainant in the
aforesaid amount of P45,000.00, Philippine Currency.
CONTRARY TO LAW.3
In Criminal Case No. Q-94-59471, also for estafa, the
information charged:
That on or about the month of August, 1994, in Quezon
City, Philippines, the said accused conspiring.
together , confederating with several persons whose
true names and true identities have not as yet been
ascertained and helping one another did then and
there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud
RONALD F[R]EDERI[Z]O Y HUSENIA in the following
manner, to wit: the said accused, by means of false
manifestations and fraudulent representations which
they made to said complainant to the effect that they
had the power and capacity to recruit and employ
complainant abroad as [a] seaman and could facilitate
the processing of the pertinent papers if given the :.. "
necessary amount to meet the requirements thereof,

and by means of other similar deceits, induced and

succeeded in inducing said RONALD F[R]EDERI[Z]O Y
HUSENIA to give and deliver, as in fact gave and
delivered to said accused the amount of P45,000.00 on
the
strength
of
said
manifestations
and
representations, said accused well knowing that the
same were false and fraudulent and were made solely
to obtain, as in fact they did obtain the amount of
P45,000.00 which amount once in possession, with
intent to defraud complainant wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously misappropriated, misapplied and converted
to their own pers9nal use and benefit, to the damage
and prejudice of said RONALD F[RE]DERI[Z]O Y
HUSENIA in the aforesaid amount of P45,000.00,
Philippine Currency.
CONTRARY TO LA W.4
In Criminal Case No. Q-94-59472, another case for
estafa, the information averred:
That on or about the month of August, 1994, in Quezon
City, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring together,
confederating with several persons whose true names
and whereabouts have not as yet been ascertained and
helping one another, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously defraud LARRY TIBOR Y
MABILANGAN in the following manner, to wit: the said
accused, by means of false manifestations and
fraudulent representations which they made to said
complainant to the effect that they had the power and
capacity to recruit and employ complainant abroad as
[a] seaman and could facilitate the processing of the
pertinent papers if given the necessary amount to
meet the requirements thereof, and by means of other
similar deceits, induced and succeeded in inducing said
complainant to give and deliver, as in fact gave and
delivered to said accused the amount of P38,000.00 on
the
strength
of
said
manifestations
and
representations, said accused well knowing that the
same were false and fraudulent and were made solely
to obtain, as in fact they did obtain the amount of
P38,000.00 which amount once in possession, with
intent to defraud LARRY TIBOR Y MABILANGAN wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously mis-appropriated misapplied
and converted to their own personal use and benefit)
to the damage and prejudice of said complainant in the
amount of P38,000.00, Phi1ippine Currency.
CONTRAR Y TO LAW.5
On the other hand, in Criminal Case No. Q-94-59473,
the information for illegal recruitment in large scale
charged:
That on or about the month of August, 1994, in Quezon
City, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring together,
confederating with several persons whose true names
and whereabouts have not as yet been ascertained and
helping one another, did then and there, wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously canvass, enlist, contract and
promise employment to the following persons, to wit:
1. RONALD F[R]EDERI[Z]O Y HlJSENIA
2. LARRY TIBOR Y MABILANGAN
3. FELIXBERTO LEONGSON, JR. y CASTANEDA
after requiring them to submit certain documentary
requirements and exacting from them the total amount
of P128,000,00 Philippine Currency as recruitment fees
such recruitment activities being done without the

required license or authority from the Department of

Labor.
That the crime described above is committed in large
scale as the same was perpetrated against three (3) or
more persons individually or as group as penalized
under Articles 38 and 39) as amended by P.D. 2018, of
the Labor Code.6
When arraigned, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty
to the criminal charges, whereupon the cases were
jointly tried.
The evidence for the prosecution is as follows:
On August 6, 1994, at around 1:00 p.m., complainant
Felixberto Leongson, Jr. chanced upon his neighbors,
Cloyd Malgapo, Jojo Bumatay, and accused-appellant,
who were talking in front of his house at 68-C East
Riverside, Bgy. Paltok, San Francisco del Monte, Quezon
City. Complainant was asked by accused-appellant if he
was interested to work as a seaman in Miami, Florida,
United States of America. He replied that he was
interested to work abroad but he had doubts regarding
his qualification for the job. Accused-appellant assured
him that this was not a problem because she could fix
his application. All he had to do was pay P45,000.00 as
processing fee. Accused-appellant told him that Jojo
and Cloyd were departing soon. Complainant told
accused-appellant that he would consider the offer.
That night, accused-appellant came to see Felixberto
and reiterated her proposal. Felixberto said he wanted
the job but he only had P10,000.00. Accused-appellant
told him the amount would be sufficient as an initial
payment.
Accused-appellant came back with Joseph Mendoza,
whose brother-in-Iaw, Engr. Leonardo Domingo,
according to accused- appellant, was recruiting
seamen. Thereafter, accused-appellant and Mendoza
took complainant, Cloyd, and Jojo's wife, Clarita, to a
house on Second Street, near Camp Crame in Quezon
City, where the latter were introduced to Andy
Baloran.7 Complainant and his companions were told
that Baloran was an employee of the National Bureau
of Investigation and he would take care of processing
the applications for employment. Baloran told
complainant and the other job applicants that those
who would be employed would be paid a monthly
salary of US$ l,000.00, plus tips, and given vacation
leaves of 45 days with pay.
Baloran asked complainant to submit his picture, biodata, and birth certificate, which complainant later did.
Accused-appellant then asked complainant to give her
the P10,000.00 as initial payment. Complainant
handed her the money and asked for a receipt, but
accused-appellant told him not to worry and assured
him that she would be responsible if anything untoward
happened. Complainant, therefore, did not insist on
asking accused-appellant for a receipt. Accusedappellant said she gave the money to Baloran.
Two days later, Baloran and Domingo went to the
compound where Felixberto and accused-appellant
were residing and called Felixberto, Cloyd, and Jojo to a

meeting. Domingo told the applicants that he was the

chief engineer of the luxury ocean liner where they
would embark and repeated to them the salaries and
other benefits which they would receive. He told them
not to get impatient.
Accused-appellant later saw complainant to collect the
balance of P35,000.00. Complainant was told to give
the money to accused-appellant at Wendy's in Cubao,
Quezon.City on August 12, 1994.
At the appointed date and place, complainant and his
wife delivered the amount to accused-appellant who, in
turn, handed it to Baloran. No receipt was, however,
issued to Felixberto.
Another meeting was held on August 16, 1994 at the
Mandarin Hotel in Makati City by accused-appellant,
Domingo, Baloran, Mendoza, the Leongson spouses,
the Malgapo spouses, and Jojo Bumatay. The applicants
were told by Domingo that they would be employed as
waiters and attendants in the luxury liner and asked
them again to wait a while.
On August 18,
1994,
accused-appellant
saw
complainant again to collect the P 25,000.00 balance.
Felixberto paid the amount to accused- appellant four
days later. As in the case of the first two payments, no
receipt was given for the P25,000.00. Accusedappellant told him that she would turn over the amount
to Baloran. Although complainant regularly followed up
his application with accused-appellant, he was told
each time to have patience and to just wait for the call
from Domingo or from Baloran. But Felixberto never
heard from either one of these two.8
Felixberto's testimony was corroborated by his wife,
Maria Luz, who said that accused-appellant claimed
she could help her husband get a job as a seamen
despite the latter's lack of formal training. She knew of
the three payments made to accused-appellant,
totalling P 45,000.00, and witnessed the last two
payments of P10,000.00 at Wendy's, Cubao, and
P25,000.00 at accused-appellant's residence. Maria Luz
said she met Baloran, Mendoza, and Domingo and
discussed with them the job offered to her husband
and the salaries and benefits appurtenant thereto.9
Complainant Ronald Frederizo, a resident of 68-A East
Riverside, San Francisco del Monte, Quezon City, also
testified. According to him, in the morning of August
10, 1994, he received a call from his sister, Elsa Cas, at
Far East Bank, Binondo Branch, Manila, asking him to
go home because accused-appellant, their neighbor,
was in his house recruiting seaman for employment
abroad. Ronald said that when he arrived home, he
was told by accused-appellant that he had to pay
P10,000.00 as initial payment for the processing of his
application. Ronald withdrew the amount from Elsa's
account.
Then, Ronald went with accused-appellant to a house
on Second Street near Camp Crame in Quezon City. On
the way to that place, accused-appellant assured him
that he would receive a salary of US$1,000.00. At an
apartment on Second Street, Ronald saw his neighbors,

complainant Felixberto, Jojo, and Cloyd. Baloran and

Mendoza were also there.
Accused-appellant introduced Baloran to Ronald, Cloyd,
and Jojo. She told them that Baloran was going to take
care of their applications and that he could pull strings
at the NBI. Ronald paid accused-appellant P10,000.00
for which no receipt was issued. He was assured by
accused-appellant that he would be able to leave for
his job abroad in one or two weeks. He was told to be
ready with the balance of P35,000.00 for the plane
ticket on August 12, 1994.
Hence, on August 15, 1994, Ronald mortgaged his land
in Batangas just so he could pay the P35,000.00
remaining balance. Accused-appellant went to Ronald's
house to meet him. Thereafter, Ronald, Elsa, and
accused-appellant took a cab to Mandarin Hotel in
Makati City. Accused-appellant told Ronald to have no
fear because the persons whom he was dealing with
were her relatives. Elsa gave the P35,000.00 to
accused-appellant. Ronald no longer asked for a receipt
because he trusted accused-appellant.
At the hotel were Felixberto and his wife, Baloran, and
Domingo. Domingo showed Ronald and Felixberto his
identification card and said that he was the captain of
a ship. He told them that they would receive a salary of
US$1,000.00 plus other benefits. He also assured them
that he would inform them of developments in their
applications through accused-appellant.
After the meeting, Ronald went to his office and
tendered his resignation. Ronald followed up his
application almost every week but every time he was
told by accused-appellant to be patient 10 because
Domingo had not yet called.
Complainant Larry Tibor said that on August 10, 1994,
he went to the house of his cousin, Elsa Cas, at 68-A
East Riverside, Bgy. Paltok, San Francisco del Monte,
Quezon City, because accused-appellant was there
recruiting seamen to work abroad. Larry was then
looking for a job. Accused-appellant introduced herself
and told him that she could get him a job abroad if he
had the necessary documents and P 45,000.00. Larry
said he had only P3,000.00. He was told by accusedappellant to bring the amount the next day for his fare
and certification.
As instructed, Larry paid the amount in the presence of
his sister, Junet. He asked for a receipt, but accusedappellant told him to trust her. Accused-appellant
instructed Larry to prepare extra money as his initial
payment was insufficient. Larry left for the province to
get a loan. He went to accused-appellant's house on
August 15, 1994 and paid her an additional amount of
P35,000.00. Again, no receipt was issued to him.
Thereafter, accused-appellant took him to Mandarin
Hotel where he was introduced to Baloran and
Domingo. Larry kept waiting for a call, but none came.
He was later told by accused-appellant that he could
not leave yet because Baloran was sick and he had to
postpone his trip.11

Junet T. Lim, Larry's sister, testified that she was

present her when brother paid P3,000.00 to accusedappellant, although no receipt was issued. She stated
that she asked accused-appellant questions to make
sure she could help Larry get a job abroad as a
seaman. Janet said accused-appellant was able to
convince her that she could do so. Junet also testified
that she accompanied her brother in following up his
job application for about three months until November
1994, when they realized they had been defrauded by
accused-appellant, Domingo, and Baloran12
Realizing that they had been deceived, complainants
went to the Baler Police Station 2 in Quezon City on
November 11, 1994 to file their complaints for illegal
recruitment and estafa against accused-appellant,
Baloran, Domingo, and Mendoza. Felixberto executed
his sworn statement13 on the same day, while Ronald
and Larry gave their respective statements 14 on
November 12, 1994.
On November 14, 1994, complainants went to the
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA)
and discovered that accused-appellant and her
companions did not have any license or authority to
engage in any recruitment activity.
Felixberto and Ronald asked the court to order
accused-appellant to pay them back the placement
fees of P45,000.00 which each of them had paid and
moral damages of P200,000.00 for each of them for
the shame, anxiety, and loss of jobs they suffered.
They also sought the reimbursement for litigation
expenses they each incurred, amounting to P20,000.00
as attorney's fees and P500.00 per court appearance.
Larry, on the other hand, sought the recovery of the
total amount of P150,000.00 for placement fee,
travelling expenses from the province to Manila to
follow up his application, and the anguish and .shame
he suffered.15
In her defense, accused-appellant Luz Gonzales-Flores,
a resident of 68-B East Riverside, San Francisco del
Monte, Quezon City, testified that she knew Felixberto
Leongson, Jr., who was her neighbor and a nephew of
the owner of the house in which they were staying. She
came to know Ronald Frederizo and Larry Tibor through
Elsa Cas. Accused-appellant denied having promised
complainants overseas employment and having
collected money from them.
According to her, she came to know Andy Baloran and
Engr. Leonardo Domingo through Joseph Mendoza, who
referred her and her son, Noli, to them in connection
with their own applications for overseas employment.
She came to know Joseph Mendoza through Elsa Cas
and Felixberto Leongson, Jr.
Accused-appellant claimed that she and Noli agreed to
pay Baloran, Domingo, and Mendoza the total sum of
P90,000.00 for their application fees. Since she did not
have enough money to cover the amount, she asked
her neighbors and friends to help her get a loan.
Felixberto and his wife offered help and introduced her
to Jenny Tolentino, from whom she got a loan of
P15,000.00 guaranteed by Felixberto's wife.

Accused-appellant said she used the amount to pay for

her and her son's recruitment fees. Accused-appellant
claimed that she paid the total amount of P46,500.00
for
her
recruitment
fee
in
three
instalments, i.e., P10,000.00 to Mendoza at her house,
P10,000.00, and Pl6,500.00 to Baloran at the Mandarin
Hotel. She alleged that she also gave them several
pieces of jewelry worth P10,000.00. According to her,
no receipts were issued for the money and jewelry she
gave.
1wphi1.nt
Accused-appellant said that because Domingo,
Baloran, and Mendoza did not make good their
promises, accused-appellant filed a complaint for
illegal recruitment and estafa against them on
November 7, 1994 in the NBI, including as her cocomplainants Felixberto Leongson, Jr., Ronald Frederizo,
Larry Tibor, Eduardo Sibbalucas, Har Taccad, Romeo
Gallardo, Joseph Mendoza, and her son, Noli Flores. 16
Accused-appellant was investigated by the Baler Police
Station 2 on November 11, 1994 as a result of the
complaints filed against her by Felixberto, Ronald, and
Larry. Thereafter, she was detained.17
On November 24, 1994, she appeared before the NBI
accompanied by a policewoman to comply with the
subpoena18 issued regarding her complaint. According
to NBI Agent Jesus Manapat, accused-appellant's
complaint was dismissed for lack of merit. 19
Based on the evidence presented, the trial court
rendered its assailed decision on November 23, 1998,
the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, the guilt of the accused for illegal
recruitment in large scale and estafa in three (3)
counts having been proved beyond reasonable doubt,
she is hereby convicted of said crimes and is
sentenced:
(1) To suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and pay a
fine of P100,000 in Criminal Case No. Q-94-59473;
(2) To suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from
FOUR (4) YEARS AND THREE (3) MONTHS ofprision
correccional, as minimum, and up to TEN (10) YEARS
of prision mayor, as maximum, and to pay the costs
in Criminal Case No. Q-94-59470;
(3) To suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from
FOUR (4) YEARS AND THREE (3) MONTHS ofprision
correccional, as minimum, and up to TEN (10) YEARS
of prision mayor, as maximum, and to pay the costs
in Criminal Case No. Q-94-59471; and
(4) To suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging FOUR
(4) YEARS AND THREE (3) MONTHS of prision
correccional, as minimum, and up to NINE (9) YEARS
of prision mayor, as maximum, and to pay the costs
in Criminal Case No. Q-94-59472.
The accused is also directed to pay: (a) Ronald
Federi[z]o, the amount of P45,000.00 as and by way of
actual
damages;
(b)
Felixberto
Leongson,
Jr.
P45,000.00 as and by way of actual damages; and (c)
Larry Tibor, P38,000.00 as and by way of actual
damages.

The accused is further directed to pay to the said

private complainants moral damages in the sum of
TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (P20,000.00) each.
SO ORDERED.20
Hence, this appeal. Accused-appellant contends that I. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN RELYING UPON THE
JURISPRUDENCE AND AUTHORITIES CITED, I.E., PEOPLE
VS. COMIA, PEOPLE VS. MANOZCA, PEOPLE VS.
HONRADA, PEOPLE VS. TAN TIONG MENG, PEOPLE VS.
VILLAS AND PEOPLE VS. SENDON BECAUSE, WITH DUE
RESPECT, THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AVAILING
IN SAID CASES ARE DIFFERENT AS IN THE PRESENT
CASE; AND
II. [THE LOWER COURT] ERRED IN HOLDING THE
ACCUSED GUlLTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT ON
THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE
PROSECUTION TAKEN IN THE LIGHT OF THE
UNREBUTTED EVIDENCE OF THE ACCUSED ON VERY
MATERIAL POINTS,21
The contentions are without merit.
In Criminal Case No. Q-94-59473, accused-appellant
was charged with illegal recruitment in large scale, the
essential elements of which are:
(1) that the accused engages in acts of recruitment
and placement of workers defined under Art. 13 (b) or
in any of the prohibited activities under Art. 34 of the
Labor Code;
(2) that the accused has not complied with the
guidelines issued by the Secretary of Labor and
Employment, particularly with respect to the securing
of a license or an authority to recruit and deploy
workers, either locally or overseas; and
(3) that the accused commits the unlawful acts against
three or more persons, individually or as a group.22
In these cases, according to the certification of the
POEA, accused-appellant had no license or authority to
engage in any recruitment activities. 23 In fact, this was
stipulated at the trial.24 Accused-appellant claims,
however, that she herself was a victim of illegal
recruitment and that she simply told complainants
about job opportunities abroad.
The allegation is untenable. Art. 13 (b) of the Labor
Code defines "recruitment and placement" as referring
to 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.
The same article further states 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.25
The evidence for the prosecution shows that accusedappellant sought out complainants and promised them
overseas employment. Despite their initial reluctance
because they lacked the technical skills required of
seamen, complainants were led to believe by accusedappellant that she could do something so that their
applications would be approved. Thus, because of

accused-appellant's misrepresentations, complainants

gave
her
their
moneys.
Accused-appellant's
companions, Domingo, Baloran, and Mendoza, made
her ploy even more plausible.
Accused-appellant contends that all she did was to
refer complainants to Domingo, Baloran, and Mendoza.
However, under Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code,
recruitment includes "referral," which is defined as the
act of passing along or forwarding an applicant for
employment after initial interview of a selected
applicant for employment to a selected employer,
placement officer, or bureau.26
In these cases, accused-appellant did more than just
make referrals. She actively and directly enlisted
complainants for supposed employment abroad, even
promising them jobs as seamen, and collected moneys
from them.
The failure of complainants to present receipts to
evidence payments made to accused-appellant is not
fatal to the prosecution case. The presentation of the
receipts of payments is not necessary for the
conviction of accused-appellant. As long as the
prosecution is able to establish through credible
testimonies and affidavits that the accused-appellant
was involved in the prohibited recruitment, a
conviction for the offense can very well be justified. 27
In these cases, complainants could not present receipts
for their payment because accused-appellant assured
them she would take care of their money.
It must be remembered that the trial court's
appreciation of complainants' testimonies deserves the
highest respect since it was in a better position to
assess their credibility.28 In these cases, complainants'
testimonies, to the effect that they paid money to
accused-appellant and her companions, Domingo and
Baloran, because the latter promised them overseas
employment, were positive, straightforward, and
categorical.
They maintained their testimonies despite the lengthy
and gruelling cross-examination by the defense
counsel. They have not been shown to have any ill
motive to falsely testify against accused-appellant.
Naive, simple-minded, and even gullible as they may
have been, it is precisely for people like complainants
that the law was made. Accordingly, their testimonies
are entitled to full faith and credit.29
In contrast, accused-appellant's defense is merely
denial. Time and again, this Court has ruled that denial,
being negative evidence which is self-serving in nature,
cannot prevail over the positive identification of
prosecution witnesses.30 Here, complainants positively
identified accused-appellant as one of those who
represented that they could be deployed for overseas
work upon payment of the fees.
Accused-appellant claims that she herself had to
borrow P15,00.00 from Jenny Tolentino, guaranteed by
Maria Luz Leongson, to defray her own and her son's
application expenses. The claim has no merit. Maria
Luz Leongson, who is Felixberto's wife, testified that

accused-appellant sought her help to guarantee a loan

to pay the tuition fees of her daughter and the rent of
the apartment in which she and her family were
staying,31 and not to finance her and her son's
overseas job applications.
Accused-appellant likewise testified that she paid in
cash
a
total
of
P36,500.00
in
three
installments, i.e.,P10,000.00 to Mendoza at her house,
and P10,000.00 and P16,500.00 to Baloran, at the
Mandarin Hotel. This testimony cannot be deemed
worthy of belief. When cross-examined, accusedappellant could not remember the dates when she
allegedly made these payments.
For someone who was jobless32 and looking for
employment, it is very doubtful that she would pay
considerable sums of money to strangers without even
remembering at least the month or the year when the
same were supposed to have been paid.
Accused-appellant further contends that if she was
indeed a conspirator in the illegal recruitment
transactions with complainants, she would not have
filed a complaint33 in the NBI against Domingo and
Baloran. The complaint was, as already stated,
dismissed and it is apparent that accused-appellant
filed the complaint only to make it appear that she
herself had been the victim of swindling and illegal
recruitment.
First, the complaint shows that it was filed on
November 7, 1994, even before she was detained at
the Baler Police Station 2 upon the sworn statements of
complainants.
Complainants
were
included
as
complainants in a complaint filed by accusedappellant.
Yet, the complainants were never told, nor did they
ever knew, of the complaint until the trial of these
cases. Second, accused-appellant could have easily
told them at least of the complaint because Felixberto
Leongson, Jr., Ronald Frederizo and Elsa Cas, a relative
of complainant Larry Tibor, were her immediate
neighbors. Third, it is also noteworthy that despite her
claim that she paid P10,000.00 to Mendoza, accusedappellant made the latter a co-complainant in the
complaint she filed with the NBI.
More importantly, accused-appellant's defense is
uncorroborated. Not one of the persons she included in
her complaint to the NBI was ever presented in her
defense in these cases. Nor did she present Domingo,
Baloran, or Mendoza to corroborate her statements. It
is probable that had she presented any of these
persons, their testimonies would have been adverse to
accused-appellant.34
Direct proof of previous agreement to commit a crime
is not necessary as it may be deduced from the mode
in which the offense was perpetrated, or inferred from
the acts of the accused which point to a joint purpose
and design.35 In these cases, the fact is that there was
conspiracy among accused-appellant, Domingo, and
Baloran in recruiting complainants for employment
overseas. The evidence shows that each had a role in
that conspiracy.

Domingo posed as a representative of the luxury liner

in recruiting crew for the vessel. Baloran represented
himself as the person who would actually process
complainants' travel documents, while accusedappellant acted as a scout for job applicants and a
collector of their payments. It was only Mendoza who
did not misrepresent himself as someone capable of
helping complainants go abroad nor collect money
from them.36
In sum, we are of the opinion that the trial court
correctly found accused-appellant guilty of illegal
recruitment in large scale: The imposition on accusedappellant of the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine
of P100,000.00 is thus justified.
Accused-appellant was likewise found guilty of estafa
under Art. 315 (2) (a) of the Revised Penal Code
committed
By means of any of the following false pretenses or
fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously
with the commission of the 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.
Both elements of the crime were established in these
cases, namely, (a) accused-appellant defrauded
complainant by abuse of confidence or by means of
deceit and
(b) complainant suffered damage or prejudice capable
of pecuniary estimation as a result. 37 Complainants
parted with their money upon the prodding and
enticement of accused-appellant on the false pretense
that she had the capacity to deploy them for
employment abroad. In the end, complainants were
neither able to leave for work overseas nor did they get
their money back, thus causing them damage and
prejudice. 38
The issues that misappropriation on the part of
accused-appellant of the money paid by complainants
and their demand for the same were not sufficiently
established are immaterial and irrelevant, conversion
and demand not being elements of estafa under Art.
315 (2) (a) of the Revised Penal Code.
In Criminal Case Nos. Q-94-59470 and Q-94-59471, the
amounts involved are both P45,000.00, as testified to
by complainants Felixberto Leongson, Jr. and Ronald
Frederizo. Pursuant to Art. 315, par. 1 of the Revised
Penal Code, the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and the
ruling in People v. Gabres,39 the trial court correctly
meted accused-appellant the maximum penalty of ten
(10) years of prision mayor in each case.

This is so considering that the maximum penalty

prescribed by law for the felony is six (6) years, eight
(8) months, and 21 days to eight (8) years of prision
mayor. The amounts involved in these cases exceed
1222,000.00 by at least 1220,000.00, necessitating an
increase of one (1) year for every 1210,000.00.
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the
minimum of the sentence is thus from six (6) months
and one (1) day to four (4) years and two (2) months
ofprision correccional. The trial court can exercise its
discretion only within this period. Thus; the minimum
penalty imposed by the trial court should be reduced to
four (4) years and two (2) months of prision
correccional.
In Criminal Case No. Q-94-59472, where the amount
involved is 1238,000.00, the indeterminate sentence
which should be imposed on accused-appellant should
range from four (4) years and two (2) months of prision
correccional, as minimum, to nine (9) years of prision
mayor, as maximum.
In accordance with the ruling in People v. Mercado, the
fact that no receipts were presented to prove the
amounts paid by complainants to accused-appellant
does not prevent an award of actual damages in view
of the fact that complainants were able to prove by
their respective testimonies and affidavits that
accused-appellant was involved in the recruitment
process and succeeded in inveigling them to give their
money to her. The award of moral damages should
likewise be upheld as it was shown to have factual
basis.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 77, Quezon City, finding accused-appellant
guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale and estafa
against complainants Felixberto Leongson, Jr., Ronald
Frederizo, and Larry Tibor is AFFIRMED, with the
MODIFICATIONS that, in the cases for estafa, accusedappellant is sentenced:
(1) In Criminal Case No. Q-94-S9470, to suffer a prison
term ranging from four (4) years and two (2) months
of prision correccional, as minimum, to ten (10) years
of prision mayor, as maximum;
(2) In Criminal Case No. Q-94-S9471, to suffer a prison
term ranging from four (4) years and two (2) months
of prision correccional, as minimum, to 10 years
of prision mayor, as maximum; and
(3) In Criminal Case No. Q-94-S9472, to suffer a prison
term ranging from four (4) years and two (2)
months ofprision correccional, as minimum, to nine (9)
years of prision mayor, as maximum.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, Quisuimbing, Buena, De leon, JJ., concur.