Juan P24,200.00); (6) Criminal Case No. 93-CR-1644 (Alfredo C.

Arcega P25,000.00); (7) Criminal Case No. 93-CR-1646 (Brando B.

Salbino P25,000.00); (8) Criminal Case No. 93-CR-1647 (Mariano
Damolog P25,000.00); (9) Criminal Case No. 93-CR-1649 (Lorenzo
Belino P25,000.00); (10) Criminal Case No. 93-CR-1651 (Peter
FIRST DIVISION Arcega P25,000.00) and (11) Criminal Case No. 93-CR-1652 (Adeline
Tiangge P18,500.00).
G.R. No. 121179. July 2, 1998
Except for the name of the offended party, the amount involved and
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANTONINE B.
the date of the commission of the crime, the following information in
SALEY a.k.a. ANNIE B. SALEY, Accused-Appellant.
Criminal Case No. 93-CR-1652 typified the other informations for the
DECISION crime of estafa:

VITUG, J.: That in or about the month of December, 1991, and sometime prior to
or subsequent thereto, at Buyagan, Municipality of La Trinidad,
The case before the Court focuses on the practice of some "illegal Province of Benguet, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
recruiters" who would even go to the extent of issuing forged Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent to defraud
tourist visas to aspiring overseas contract workers. These unsuspecting ADELINE TIANGGE y MARCOS and by means of deceit through false
job applicants are made to pay exorbitant "placement" fees for nothing representations and pretenses made by her prior to or simultaneous
really since, almost invariably, they find themselves unable to leave for with the commission of the fraud, did then and there willfully,
their purported country of employment or, if they are able to, soon find unlawfully and feloniously defraud said ADELINE TIANGGE y MARCOS,
themselves unceremoniously repatriated. This Court once described by then and there representing herself as a duly authorized or licensed
their plight in a local proverb as being naghangad ng kagitna, isang recruiter for overseas employment, when in truth and in fact she was
salop ang nawala.1 not, thereby inducing the said ADELINE TIANGGE y MARCOS to give
and deliver to her the total amount of EIGHTEEN THOUSAND FIVE
cräläwvirtualibräry

In this appeal from the 3rd March 1995 decision of the Regional Trial HUNDRED PESOS (P18,500.00), Philippine Currency, for placement
Court of La Trinidad, Benguet, Branch 10,2 appellant Antonine B. abroad and after having received it, she appropriated and
Saley, a.k.a. Annie B. Saley, seeks a reversal of the verdict finding her misappropriated the same for her own use and benefit and despite
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of eleven counts of estafa punishable repeated demands made upon (her) to return the same, she refused,
under the Revised Penal Code and six counts of illegal recruitment, one failed, neglected, and still refuses, fails and neglects to comply
committed in large scale, proscribed by the Labor Code. therewith, all to the damage and prejudice of ADELINE TIANGGE y
MARCOS in the total sum aforesaid.
Appellant was indicted in eleven separate informations for estafa under
Article 315, paragraph 2(1), of the Revised Penal Code. The cases "Contrary to law.4cräläwvirtualibräry

(naming the complainants and stating the amounts therein involved)

For the violation of Article 38, in relation to Article 39, of the Labor
include: (1) Criminal Case No. 92-CR-13973 (Francisco T.
Code, five separate informations were also instituted against appellant
Labadchan P45,000.00); (2) Criminal Case No. 92-CR-1414 (Victoria
on various dates. These cases (with the names of the complainants)
Asil P33,000.00); (3) Criminal Case No. 92-CR-1415 (Cherry Pi-
include: (1) Criminal Case No. 92-CR-1396 (Francisco T. Labadchan);
ay P18,000.00); (4) Criminal Case No. 92-CR-1426 (Corazon del
(2) Criminal Case No. 92-CR-1413 (Cherry Pi-ay); (3) Criminal Case
Rosario P40,000.00); (5) Criminal Case No. 92-CR-1428 (Arthur
No. 92- CR-1416 (Victoria Asil); (4) Criminal Case No. 92-CR-1425
(Corazon del Rosario) and (5) Criminal Case No. 92-CR-1427 (Arthur Appellant pleaded not guilty to all the charges of illegal recruitment
Juan). The typical information in these indictments read: and estafa. The criminal cases filed were raffled off to two (2) branches
of the Regional Trial Court of Benguet; later, however, the cases were
That sometime in the month of April, 1991 and subsequent thereto at consolidated at the instance of the prosecution.
Buyagan, Municipality of La Trinidad, Province of Benguet, Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named Parenthetically, appellant jumped bail pending trial but she was soon
accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly recruit arrested by agents of the Criminal Investigation Service ("CIS").
one ARTHUR JUAN for overseas employment, by then and there ably
misrepresenting herself as a duly authorized or licensed recruiter when The Evidence for the Prosecution. -
in truth and in fact she fully knew it to be false but by reason of her
said misrepresentations which were completely relied upon by Arthur In Criminal Case No. 92-CR-1397 and Criminal Case No. 92-CR-1396
Juan, she was able to obtain from the latter the total amount of
TWENTY FOUR THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED PESOS (P24,200.00), Francisco Labadchan, a 25-year-old employee in the Navy Base in
Philippine Currency, all to the damage and prejudice of Arthur Juan in Pacdal, Baguio City, was introduced to appellant by Crispin Perez. In
the total sum aforesaid. September 1991, the two went to the house of Conchita Tagle at
Kilometer 3, La Trinidad, Benguet, who was known to be recruiting
"Contrary to Law.5 cräläwvirtualibräry
workers for abroad. After Labadchan had expressed interest in applying
for a job in Korea, Tagle told Labadchan to
The information in Criminal Case No. 93-CR-1645 for illegal prepare P45,000.00,P30,000.00 of which was to be paid that month
recruitment in large scale under Article 38, paragraph 1, of Presidential and the balance of P15,000.00 before his departure for abroad.
Decree No. 442 (Labor Code), as amended, filed on 16 April 1993, Labadchan paid Tagle the amount of P30,000.00 on 23 September
read: 1991. Appellant, in turn, received that amount when she went to La
Trinidad to "brief" him. She told Labadchan that his flight would be on
That in or about the months of August and September, 1992, in the
the 9th of October 1991 and that he should have paid by then the
Municipality of La Trinidad, Province of Benguet, Philippines, and within
balance of P15,000.00 of the fees. He paid Tagle the P15,000.00
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did
balance on 05 October 1991. When he requested her to make a
then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly recruit the following:
receipt, Tagle included the amount in the old receipt for the P30,000.00
PETER ARCEGA, LORENZO BELINO, MARIANO DAMOLOG, FIDEL
previously given. Appellant handed over to Labadchan some papers to
OPDAS, BRANDO B. SALBINO, DEMBER LEON and ALFREDO C. ARCEGA
fill up and gave last-minute instructions before she boarded a green-
for overseas employment, by then and there misrepresenting herself
colored aircraft.
as a duly authorized or licensed recruiter when in truth and in fact she
was not and by reason of her said misrepresentation which was On 08 October 1991, Labadchan and his wife went to Manila and
completely relied upon by the said complainants whom she recruited, stayed, as so instructed by Tagle, at the Prince Hotel near the terminal
either individually or as a group amounting to illegal recruitment in of the Dangwa bus company in Dimasalang, Manila. There, he met
large scale causing economic sabotage, she was able to obtain and other people, among them, his co-complainant Arthur Juan. In the
received from them the aggregate total amount of ONE HUNDRED morning of 09 October 1991, Labadchan and the others were told to go
SEVENTY FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P175,000.00), Philippine Currency, to the airport with Tagle, where appellant was supposed to give the
all to the damage and prejudice of the foregoing complainants in the travel papers including passports and plane tickets for Korea. At the
total sum aforesaid. airport, however, appellant told the group that their flight had been re-
scheduled for 11 October 1991. Labadchan returned to Baguio City.
"Contrary to law.6cräläwvirtualibräry
On 11 October 1991, Labadchan returned to the airport only to be told fooled by the main office in Manila. Appellant, nevertheless, demanded
this time, however, that his passport was still with the Department of an additional P5,000.00 from Victoria so that she could leave on 18
Foreign Affairs. Appellant told her husband to accompany Labadchan to April 1992. Victoria gave appellant the amount of P5,000.00 at her
the Foreign Affairs office. When Labadchan received the passport, he shop on 31 March 1992 for which appellant gave a corresponding
saw that while his picture appeared on it, the passport was made out in receipt.
the name of a person from Negros Occidental. Labadchan had to
imitate the signature on the passport just so he could get it. Back at When on 18 April 1992 still nothing happened, Victoria demanded from
the airport, he was allowed inside the terminal but only to be later sent appellant a refund. Appellant gave her an advance of P15,000.00. An
out because the ticket he had was one intended for acknowledgment receipt with appellants signature affixed thereon
passage from Korea and not to Korea. Asserting that he and company would evidence that payment. Appellant, however, failed to return the
were mere "chance passengers," appellant sent them all home with a rest of the promised refund.8
promise that another departure date would be set. She also took back
the show money of US$1,000.00. In Criminal Case No. 92-CR-1413 and Criminal Case No. 92-CR-1415

Appellant would repeatedly schedule a departure date but nothing Cherry Pi-ay, a 26-year-old nursing student from Acop, Tublay,
tangible came out of her assurances. Finally, Labadchan was able to Benguet, was visited once in March 1991 by appellant who encouraged
get appellant to promise that the money he had given her would be Cherry to apply for work in a textile or a plastic factory in Korea with a
refunded. When this promise neither materialized, Labadchan finally monthly salary of US$800.00. Appellant told Cherry that the moment
reported the matter to the National Bureau of Investigation ("NBI"). In she would pay the amount of P45,000.00, she could be deployed in
that office, appellant executed a promissory note stating that she Korea. Cherry prepared her bio-data and gave it to appellant at the
would return the amount of P46,500.00, which included the amount latter's residence during the first week of April 1991.
of P1,500.00 allegedly used for getting a passport, to Labadchan.7
Cherry was able to leave the country on 04 July 1991 after having paid
In Criminal Case No. 92-CR-1414 and Criminal Case No. 92-CR-1416 the total amount of P45,000.00. Appellant told her that a certain Ramil
would meet her at the airport in Korea. When she arrived, a Filipina,
Victoria Asil, a 40-year-old housewife from Imelda Village, Roxas named Marlyn, instead met her. Marlyn introduced herself as appellants
Street, Baguio City, heard from her elder sister, Feling Derecto, that friend and accompanied Cherry to a certain house owned by a Korean.
appellant was recruiting workers for abroad. During the second week of There, Cherry met, among other compatriots, Corazon del Rosario and
January 1992, she, along with her husband Gabriel, went to appellants Jane Kipas. Cherry soon realized that she was not going to have a job
house in Buyagan, La Trinidad. Appellant assured her that she could in the factory promised by appellant. Instead, she was made to work
have a job in a factory in Korea. Appellant asked for an advance fee for the Korean applying rugby on and folding leather jackets. About a
of P25,000.00 of the P40,000.00 agreed fee. Victoria gave appellant month later, men from the Korean Immigration accosted her and the
the "advance fee" on 13 January 1992 at her (Victorias) shop in others. Brought in for questioning by Immigration officials, Cherry and
Shoppers Lane, Baguio City which appellant acknowledged by issuing a her companions were informed that they were illegal workers. After the
receipt for the amount. She told Victoria to be at appellant's house in investigation, Cherry and her group were allowed to go but on 08
Buyagan after three weeks. August 1991, all were deported.

When Victoria went to appellants house as so directed, appellant told Back to the Philippines, the deportees were assured by appellant that
her that her flight had been postponed supposedly because prior they would get a refund of their money. Cherry executed a sworn
applicants had to be accommodated first. Victoria met appellant seven statement narrating her experience in Korea.9
more times only to be ultimately told that the latter had been allegedly
Ayson Acbaya-an, Cherrys "boyfriend" who later was to become her At home, appellant promised to return Corazons money. Not having
husband, corroborated Cherrys testimony that appellant first received the promised refund, Corazon went to the CIS stationed at
received P18,000.00 from Cherry. Thereafter, appellant also Camp Dangwa where, on 28 July 1992, she executed her sworn
received P27,000.00 from Cherry, fifteen thousand pesos (P15,000.00) statement.11
of which amount came from him. In both instances, appellant signed
receipts for the payments. The receipts were among Cherry's papers Avelina Velasco Samidan, a friend of Corazon and in whose house the
confiscated in Korea.10 latter would stay whenever she was in Baguio, corroborated the
testimony of Corazon that she gave to appellant the amount
In Criminal Case No. 92-CR-1425 and Criminal Case No. 92-CR-1426 of P15,000.00, ten thousand pesos of which amount Corazon borrowed
from Avelina, and that some time in April 1991, Corazon
Corazon del Rosario, a 34-year-old housemaid from 48 Happy Homes, withdrew P25,000.00 from the bank which she likewise paid to
Baguio City, had known appellant, an acquaintance, since 1980. One appellant.12
day in December 1990, she happened to chance upon appellant at a
PLDT telephone booth in Kilometer 4, La Trinidad, Baguio City. In Criminal Case No. 92-CR-1427 and Criminal Case No. 92-CR-1428
Appellant, representing herself to be an authorized recruiter, tried to
persuade Corazon to work abroad. Corazon showed interest. From then Arthur Juan, a 30-year-old farmer from Dumulpot, Tublay, Benguet,
on, appellant would visit Corazon in her brothers house in Kilometer 4. first met appellant in her house at Buyagan, La Trinidad, Benguet,
Ultimately, appellant was able to convince Corazon that, for a fee when he, together with Maxima Gomez, Tirso Gomez and Francisco
of P40,000.00, she could be sent to Korea. Corazon gave appellant the Labadchan, went to see appellant who was said to be recruiting
amount of P15,000.00. She paid the balance of P25,000.00 in May workers for Korea. Juan promptly submitted his bio-data form after
1991. The payments were both made in the presence of Cherry Pi-ay being told that he could work in a factory in Korea at US$400.00 a
and Jane Kipas. Appellant issued the corresponding receipts for these month. Appellant quoted a processing fee of P40,000.00. Juan initially
amounts. paid the amount of P6,500.00 in April 1991. On 09 October 1991, the
scheduled date of the flight, Juan went to the airport and gave
Corazon took the flight for Korea on 28 June 1991. Appellant had appellant another P15,000.00; the final balance of the fees were, by
instructed Corazon, upon landing in Korea, to call up a certain Ramil. At their agreement, to be remitted to appellant on a salary deduction
the airport, Corazon, including her companions among them Jane basis. Appellant then told Juan that he could not leave on that day (09
Kipas, kept on dialing the number but each time only a Korean woman October 1991) because the airplane was already full. Appellant took
would answer the call. Later, that evening, a certain Marlyn, who back Juans passport, telling Juan that he should be able to depart in a
introduced herself as appellants friend, took them to a hotel. There, few days. Appellant, however, kept on rescheduling the flight for about
Marlyn took their show money of US$1,000.00. The group stayed five more times until it became clear to Juan that he had been
overnight in the hotel and the following morning, a Korean took them deceived. Juan paid out a total amount of P24,200.00, including the
to a house proximately two hours away by car from the airport. For US$100.00 that would have been his pocket money, to appellant. The
about a month, they did nothing but apply rugby on leather jackets, for latter executed receipts for the amounts.
which they were not paid, until a policeman arrived and took all ten of
them to the airport. All that the immigration and airport personnel Juan executed a sworn statement narrating the unfortunate incident.13
would tell them was that they should be thankful they were only being
repatriated home. Immigration and airport authorities confiscated In Criminal Case No. 93-CR-1652
everything that they had.
Adeline Tiangge, a 43-year-old housekeeper from Bangao, Buguias,
Benguet, learned that appellant was recruiting workers for abroad.
Adeline, accompanied by her sister, went to see appellant at her house Arcega to just wait for the results. On 30 September 1992, appellant
in Buyagan some time in December 1991. There were others, like her, asked Arcega for another P15,000.00 which amount he paid. With him
who also went to see appellant. When she produced the required at the time were his nephew Peter Arcega, as well as Dembert Leon,
identification pictures and P1,500.00 for passport processing, appellant Mariano Damolog, Lorenzo Belino and Brando Salbino. Appellant issued
told Adeline that she could be a factory worker in Korea with a monthly a receipt and affixed thereon her signature. Appellant told Arcega that
salary of US$350.00. Appellant agreed to be paid by Adeline the with the payment, his employment abroad was assured. She stressed,
additional P35,000.00 balance by installment. The first installment however, that the balance of P15,000.00 should be paid before his
of P17,000.00 was paid on 15 February 1992, evidenced by a receipt departure for Taiwan. After following up the matter with appellant in
signed by Antonine Saley, with the remaining P18,000.00 being October 1992 and then in December 1992, he finally gave up. Arcega
payable before getting on her flight for abroad. went to the POEA office in Magsaysay Avenue, Baguio City, and when
he learned that appellant had pending cases for illegal recruitment, he
Adeline waited in Baguio City for word on her departure. Adeline, also filed his own complaint and executed an affidavit before Atty.
together with some other applicants, thrice went to appellants office at Justinian Licnachan.15
the Shoppers Lane to check. She also went to Dimasalang, Manila, in
front of the Dangwa terminal, for a like purpose. Appellant informed Criminal Case No. 93-CR-1646
her that she just had to wait for her flight. Adeline, exasperated, finally
demanded a refund of the amount she had paid but appellant merely Brando Salbino, a 36-year-old resident of East Quirino Hill, Baguio City,
gave her P100.00 for her fare back to Benguet.14 used to be a "forester" of the DENR. In July 1992, he met appellant at
her Buyagan residence after his brother-in-law, Fidel Opdas, had said
-0- that she was recruiting workers for abroad. Appellant told him that she
could help him get employed in Taiwan with a P12,000.00 monthly
The sum of the evidence, infra., in Criminal Case No. 93-CR- salary. Salbino submitted various documents required by appellant. On
1645 for illegal recruitment in large scale had been submitted to 11 August 1992, Salbino paid appellant the amount of P10,000.00 at
likewise constitute the evidence to establish the People's case, her Dimasalang "temporary office" so that, according to her, his travel
respectively, in - papers could be processed. The payment was receipted. On 30
September 1992, he paid her another P15,000.00, for which appellant
Criminal Case No. 93-CR-1644 again issued an acknowledgment receipt.
Alfredo Arcega, a 42-year-old hotel employee from 16 Q.M. Appellant told Salbino to merely wait in Baguio City. When she failed to
Subdivision, Baguio City, heard from a former co-worker, Fidel Opdas, show up, he went to appellants house in Buyagan to verify. She was
that appellant was recruiting workers for overseas employment. not there. The following week, he went to Manila with Fidel Opdas
Interested, he, in the company of his nephew, Peter Arcega, went to hoping to see her. Appellant's whereabouts could not be determined.
appellants house in Buyagan, La Trinidad. There, he met job applicants Having failed to locate her, Salbino and his companions went to the
Dembert Leon, Mariano Damolog and Brando Salbino. Appellant POEA office in Magsaysay, Baguio City. It was at the POEA office that
assured the group that they could get employed in Taiwan for a they were to learn that appellant was not in the list of licensed
monthly salary of P12,000.00 to P15,000.00. She told them that the recruiters. He, along with the others, then executed an affidavit-
processing and placement fees would amount to P40,000.00 each.
complaint before Atty. Licnachan.16
Arcega and his companions agreed.
Criminal Case No. 93-CR-1647
On 17 August 1992, Arcega paid appellant P10,000.00 in Dimasalang,
Manila. Appellant issued a cash voucher for the amount. She told
Mariano Damolog, a 33 year-old farmer from 26 P. Burgos Street, prospect of getting employed in Taiwan. Appellant invited him to see
Baguio City, went to appellants residence in Buyagan in July 1992 her on 20 September 1992 in Buyagan.
when informed by Fidel Opdas, his co-worker at the MIDO Restaurant,
that appellant was recruiting workers for Taiwan. Appellant herself later On the appointed date, Belino found Mariano Damolog, Fidel Opdas,
told Damolog that she was licensed to recruit workers. He forthwith Brando Salbino, Dembert Leon, Alfredo Arcega and Peter Arcega
applied for a position at a factory in Taiwan with a salary of between already in appellants residence in Buyagan. Appellant
US$400.00 and US$500.00 a month. He, after being required to pay a asked P10,000.00 from each of them if they wanted her to be
processing fee, paid the amount of P10,000.00 to appellant at her responsible for representing them to get themselves employed in
Manila office. Appellant gave him a cash voucher. Damolog was then Taiwan with a monthly income of P15,000.00. When the group agreed,
supposed to just wait in Baguio City for a telegram. appellant made them fill up and sign a bio-data form. Appellant also
made them understand that they would each have to pay her the total
When he did not receive word from appellant, Damolog went to Manila amount of P40,000.00, P10,000.00 of which was to be forthwith paid
to see what had happened to his application. Appellant was again told and the balance to be paid as and when everything would have been
to simply stand by in Baguio City. After several days, Opdas, who had arranged for their flight to Taiwan.
meanwhile gone to Manila, told Damolog to see appellant in Manila. In
Manila, appellant told Damolog to sign a bio-data form for screening On 23 September 1992, Belino paid appellant the amount
purposes. Like Peter Arcega, Fred Arcega, Brando Salbino and Lorenzo of P10,000.00 at her Dimasalang office. Appellant issued a cash
Belino, he was also asked to pay another P15,000.00. The group went voucher therefor. Belino returned to Baguio City. Five days later, Belino
back to Baguio City to raise the amount of P15,000.00 each. On 30 went down to Manila after appellant had sent word that he had to come
September 1992, he, together with Fred and Peter Arcega, Brando to Manila. On 30 September 1992, Belino paid in Manila the amount
Salbino and Lorenzo Belino, returned to Manila. Damolog handed over of P15,000.00 demanded by appellant. Appellant signed her name as
his P15,000.00 to appellant who issued an acknowledgment receipt, Annie Saley on the receipt. Appellant informed Belino that he should
signed by Annie Saley which, according to appellant, was her name. wait for her telephone call regarding the schedule of his flight. He
Appellant assured him that he would be among the first to go to Taiwan waited but when no calls came, Belino and Opdas decided to visit
by December 1992. appellant in her house in Buyagan. Appellant asked to be given until
January to deploy them in Taiwan. February 1993 came, and still there
December 1992 came but no word was received prompting Damolog was no news from appellant. In March 1993, Belino and others,
and his companions to repair to appellants house in Buyagan. She was namely, Fidel Opdas, Brando Salbino, Dembert Leon and Alfredo
not home. Damolog proceeded to Manila where appellant told him to Arcega,18 decided to file a complaint against appellant with the POEA
wait a few more days. When still nothing happened, Damolog and his in Magsaysay Avenue, Baguio City, where their sworn statements were
companions went to the POEA office where Atty. Licnachan issued a taken.
certification stating that appellant was not authorized to recruit
workers. Damolog and his companions filed a joint affidavit-complaint Criminal Case No. 93-CR-1651
executed before Atty. Licnachan17 against appellant.
Peter Arcega, a 27-year-old cashier from 317 Magsaysay Avenue,
Criminal Case No. 93-CR-1649 Baguio City, also paid the amount of P10,000.00 to appellant for a
promised job overseas. A cash voucher was signed by appellant to
Lorenzo Belino, a 37-year-old farmer from Tawang, La Trinidad, acknowledge the payment. Peter, subsequently, also paid the amount
Benguet, was in Manila in August 1992 looking for employment. Fidel of P15,000.00 to appellant for which the latter issued a receipt signed
Opdas, a companion in his trip to Manila, mentioned that perhaps by Annie Saley. He was among those who signed the affidavit-
appellant could help. Belino saw appellant who then told him about the complaint before the POEA.
Testifying in Criminal Case No. 93-CR-1645,19 as a corroborative flowers. Even then, however, she would not hesitate extending help to
witness, Dembert Leon, a 25-year-old unemployed from 52-F Tandang applicants for overseas employment by recommending licensed
Sora Street, Baguio City, said that he, desiring to get an employment agencies which could assist said applicants in going abroad. She named
abroad, likewise went to see appellant at her residence in Buyagan. the Dynasty Travel and Tours and the Mannings International as such
Accompanied by Fidel Opdas, Leon was told by appellant to complete licensed agencies. She had, in the process, been able to help workers,
the necessary papers, including his bio-data, barangay clearance, ID like Cherry Pi-ay, Corazon del Rosario, Arthur Juan and Francisco
and NBI clearance. Leon applied to be a factory worker in Taiwan. He Labadchan to name some, sent abroad.22 cräläwvirtualibräry

was assured a monthly salary of P12,000.00, but first, appellant told

him, he should commit to pay a placement fee of P40,000.00 of which Cherry Pi-ay was able to leave for Kuwait. In 1991, Cherry went to see
amount P10,000.00 had to be paid forthwith. Leon paid and a cash her again, this time asking for assistance in getting an employment in
voucher, dated 08 September 1992, was issued by appellant. On 30 Korea. She accompanied Cherry to the Dynasty Travel and Tours in
September 1992, he paid appellant another P15,000.00 for which Manila that enabled her to get a tourist visa to Korea. Appellant herself
another acknowledgment receipt was issued. The later gave Cherry her tourist visa. For Cherrys visa and plane ticket,
remaining P15,000.00 was agreed to be paid at the airport before his appellant received from Cherry P15,000.00 and US$250.00. Appellant
flight to Taiwan. No further word came from appellant. Finally, in issued a receipt therefor and delivered the amounts to the Dynasty
December 1992, when he and the others called her up, appellant Travel and Tours which, in turn, issued her a receipt. The CIS men who
informed them to wait until January 1993. January came and still arrested her in Manila confiscated that receipt. In August 1991, Cherry
nothing happened. In March 1993, Leon and the others went to the came back and asked her to look for another travel agency saying she
POEA office to lodge a complaint against appellant.20cräläwvirtualibräry
did not like the work she had in Korea.23cräläwvirtualibräry

Jose B. Matias, an Attorney II at the POEA Regional Station Unit in Norma Bao-idang, a former client of the Friendship Recruitment
Baguio City, received a request for verification on whether or not Agency, introduced Corazon del Rosario to appellant. Since the agency
appellant was a licensed recruiter. In response, he advised that had already been closed, appellant referred Corazon to Mannings
appellant was not authorized to recruit in the City of Baguio and in the International in Kalaw Street, Ermita, Manila. Corazon was able to
region from 1989 to the present. Atty. Matias issued a certification to leave for Abu Dhabi where she worked as a domestic helper. In 1991,
that effect. Corazon again sought appellant's assistance in getting an employment
in Korea. Appellant introduced her to Dynasty Travel and Tours which,
-0- in turn, helped Corazon get a tourist visa for Korea. She did ask
for P15,000.00 and US$250.00 from Corazon but these amounts, being
The Case for the Defense. - for Corazons ticket and hotel accommodation, were turned over to
Dynasty Travel and Tours. She also knew that Corazon was able to
The defense posited the theory that appellant merely assisted the leave for Korea because she herself handed over to Corazon her
complainants in applying for overseas employment with duly accredited tourist visa and ticket. Appellant received P2,000.00 from Dynasty
travel agencies for and from which she derived a commission.21 cräläwvirtualibräry

Travel and Tours by way of commission. She was also issued a receipt
by that travel agency showing that she had turned over to it the
According to the 37-year-old appellant, she used to be the liaison amounts received from Corazon but the CIS men took the receipts and
officer of the Friendship Recruitment Agency from 1983 to 1986. In other documents from her. When Corazon returned home in 1991 after
that capacity, she would submit to the POEA contracts for processing going to Korea, she again sought appellants help in looking for a travel
job orders for applicants and assist applicants prior to their departure
agency that could assist her in going back to that country.24
at the airport. When the licensed agency closed in 1986, she went to
cräläwvirtualibräry

Baguio where she engaged in the purchase and sale of vegetables and
Appellant came to know Arthur Juan through a vegetable vendor asked from Adeline the amount of P17,000.00 for her plane ticket.
named Maxima Gomez. He asked her for help in securing a tourist visa. Appellant was able to buy a plane ticket and to get a passport for
Appellant was able to assist him and others, like Francisco Labadchan, Adeline. The latter, however, later said that she was no longer
Tirso Gomez and Romeo Balao, by referring them to the Dynasty Travel interested in going to Korea and that her passport application should,
and Tours. Appellant asked from them the amounts of P15,000.00 and instead, be diverted to Hongkong. In fact, Adeline was able to leave for
US$250.00 which she turned over to the travel agency. Again, she was Hongkong. Adeline filed a case against appellant because when Adeline
issued a receipt by that agency but that, too, was confiscated by the sought a refund from Dynasty Travel and Tours, the agency only gave
CIS agents who arrested her. Of the men who sought her help in going her P5,000.00 or just a half of the P10,000.00 she wanted.28 cräläwvirtualibräry

abroad, seven "were able to leave. The others had been re-scheduled
to leave but they failed to arrive at the airport. Fidel Opdas was appellants client at the Friendship Agency who was
able to leave for Saudi Arabia. He asked her if she could find a job for
Labadchan and Juan met appellant during the first week of January him in Taiwan. When appellant told him that she knew someone who
1993. She gave them back the plane ticket and the amount of could help, Opdas brought along Mariano Damolog. Appellant
US$250.00 so that they could ask for a refund from the travel agency. introduced them to Marites Tapia and Carol Cornelio of Dynasty Travel
The next time she saw Labadchan was at the NBI office when NBI and Tours who told Opdas and Damolog to submit the necessary
Director Limmayog invited her for questioning. Appellant tried her best documents for their application for work in Taiwan. In May 1993, Opdas
to look for a job for Labadchan but the transaction she had with Fast returned with Brando Salbino who also talked to Marites and Carol.
International failed to push through.25
cräläwvirtualibräry Opdas submitted to appellant the documents required by Marites and
Carol. Appellant, in turn, gave the papers to Marites and Carol. When,
Appellant helped Victoria Asil secure a tourist visa. The latters sister later, Opdas went to see appellant, he brought along Dembert Leon
was a former client at the Friendship Recruitment Agency who was able and Lorenzo Belino. Appellant requested Opdas to accompany the two
to work in Saudi Arabia in 1985. She introduced Victoria to the Dynasty to Marites and Carol with whom they discussed what would be
Travel and Tours. Appellant asked Victoria to advance P15,000.00 and necessary "for their application for Taiwan. Still later when Opdas came
US$250.00 for her ticket and hotel accommodation. Victoria gave back with Peter and Alfredo Arcega to see appellant, she again referred
appellant the amount, and the latter issued corresponding receipts. them to Marites and Carol. The job applicants each gave appellant
She turned over the amount to the travel agency which, in turn, issued P10,000.00 which the latter turned over to Marites and Carol. The two
a receipt to appellant. The CIS, however, confiscated all the documents gave her receipts but these were in the same attache case that was
in her attache case.26 Appellant was able to process Victorias visa for seized by the CIS agents and never returned. The group subsequently
Korea but when someone informed the latter that she could have withdrew their applications although it was only Opdas who received
a visafor Taiwan, Victoria opted to change her destination. Appellant a P15,000.00 refund.29 cräläwvirtualibräry

told Victoria that her visa and ticket for Korea had already been
obtained but Victoria insisted on a refund of her money. Appellant In a bid to prove that CIS agents indeed took away her attache case
returned to her P15,000.00 that was supposed to be the amount to be containing documents that could bail her out of the charges, appellant
exchanged into dollars for her show money. Victoria issued a receipt for presented Danilo A. Deladia, one of the three policemen who arrested
the amount but appellant entrusted it to her former lawyer. Appellant her. Equipped with a warrant of arrest issued by Judge Luis Dictado of
handed over the plane ticket to Victoria.27 cräläwvirtualibräry
Branch 8, the policemen went to the house of appellants cousin at
2320-B San Antonio, Sampaloc, Manila at 3:00 p.m. of 25 August
Mercedes Quimson (Kimson) introduced appellant to Adeline Tiangge. 1993. According to Deladia, however, they did not get anything from
When Adeline said that she was interested in securing a tourist visa for appellant because their mission was only to arrest her. At the counter
Korea, appellant took her to the Dynasty Travel and Tours. Appellant intelligence branch of the CIS, he did not even hear appellant
requesting for the return of a brief case.30 Apparently because of what The Judgment of the Trial Court. -
had turned out to be Deladias adverse testimony, the defense
presented George Santiago who claimed to be at the boarding house On 03 March 1995, the trial court rendered its decision finding
when appellant was arrested. Santiago said that he had allowed the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged. It
CIS agents to enter the boarding house. Santiago did not see what found implausible appellants claim that she was merely an agent of
might have happened in appellant's room but what he did see was that Dynasty Travel and Tours and/or Maritess Tapia and Carol Cornelio. If
when the agents all came out, they had with them an attache case. what she claimed were true, said the court, appellant could have
Santiago, accompanied by his cousin Atty. Lomboan, went to the CIS in presented her principals; instead, that failure exposed her to the
Camp Crame where one of the men asked P50,000.00 for the release adverse inference and legal presumption that evidence suppressed
of appellant. Santiago did not see any brief case in the office but one of would be adverse if produced. It also found hard to believe, the "self-
the men told them that they would "produce" appellant and serving" claim of appellant that her brief case, supposedly containing
receipts of her remittances to the travel agencies, was confiscated by
the attache case if they could "produce" the amount of P50,000.00.31
the CIS and remained unaccounted for. The trial court concluded:
cräläwvirtualibräry

On cross-examination, however, Santiago admitted that

In fine, accused gave the distinct assurance, albeit false, that she had
the P50,000.00 was meant for bonding purposes and that they did not
the ability to send the complainants abroad for work deployment,
make a formal request for the release of the brief case.32 cräläwvirtualibräry

thereby employing false pretenses to defraud them. This was despite

her knowing very well that she was not legally authorized. The
The defense next attempted to shift, albeit unsuccessfully, the
complainants willingly parted with their money in the hope of overseas
responsibility for the crime from appellant to Maritess and Carol.
employment deceitfully promised them by the accused. What makes
Presented at the witness stand was Oscar Gaoyen, a 30-year-old
matters worse is that these amounts given to the accused come from
farmer, who testified that appellant had failed to assist him in going to
hard-earned money, or worse, could have been borrowed from money
Korea to work because it was difficult. While following up his
lenders who have no qualms about collecting usurious interest rates.
application in Manila, he met Marites and Carol in front of the Dangwa
Complainants who faithfully relied on the accused did not hesitate to
station in Dimasalang and he was told that they knew someone who
painstakingly raise or even beg or borrow money just so they could
could "transfer his application to Taiwan." He said that even after he
give a decent future to their families even to the extent of leaving
had paid appellant P50,000.00, nothing happened constraining him to
them for far-off lands. But now, all their dreams are gone, their hopes
file charges against her. Appellant returned P15,000.00 of the money
shattered. Some may not have even been able to pay back what they
to him.33 borrowed nor recoup their losses. Now, more than ever, their future
appears bleaker. But this time, a glimmering light appears at the end of
Appellant filed, before the trial court could promulgate its decision, a
the tunnel as the Court steps in to lay down the iron fist of the law so
Motion to Reopen Trial with an urgent motion to defer promulgation on
as to serve the accused a lesson, a bitter one, with the hope that those
the ground of newly discovered evidence.34 In its order of 03 March who are trekking or those who are about to trek the same pilfered path
1995, the trial court, noting that the newly discovered evidence that the accused took will reconsider their pursuits before it would be
consisted of affidavits of desistance of seven complainants, found no too late, and in the end, this form of fraud which invariably victimizes
merit in the motion. It held that presentation of the same does not
the poor will forever be stopped.36
give valid ground for possible amendment of the decision as the private
cräläwvirtualibräry

complainants had already testified. It agreed with the prosecutor that All given, the trial court then decreed as follows:
the affidavits of desistance only (had) the effect of satisfying the civil
liability.35 WHEREFORE, in all the above-mentioned cases, the Court finds
accused Antonine B. Saley, also known as Annie B. Saley, GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of the corresponding crime as charged in the "Criminal Case No. 92-CR-1416
informations and hereby sentences her in each case, except in Criminal
Case NO. 93-CR-1645 where an indeterminate sentence is not "Imprisonment from Four (4) Years as MINIMUM to Six (6)
applicable, to suffer an indeterminate sentence for the duration Years as MAXIMUM and to pay Victoria As-il P15,000.00 for
hereunder given, and to pay the costs, as well as the damages due the actual damages, plus costs.
private complainants, to wit:
"Criminal Case No. 92-CR-1425
"Criminal Case No. 92-CR-1396
"Imprisonment from Four (4) Years as MINIMUM to Six (6)
"Imprisonment from Four (4) Years as MINIMUM to Six (6) Years as MAXIMUM and to pay Corazon del
Years as MAXIMUM and to pay Francisco T. Rosario P20,000.00 for moral damages, plus costs.
Labadchan P45,000.00 for actual damages, plus costs.
"Criminal Case No. 92-CR-1426
"Criminal Case No. 92-CR-1397
"Imprisonment from One (1) Year, Seven (7) Months and
"Imprisonment from Three (3) Years, Six (6) Months and Eleven (11) Days of prision correccional as MINIMUM to Six
Twenty-One (21) Days of prision correccional as MINIMUM to (6) Years, Five (5) Months and Eleven (11) Days of prision
Seven (7) Years, Four (4) Months and One (1) Day of prision mayor as MAXIMUM and to pay Corazon del
mayor as MAXIMUM and to pay Francisco T. Rosario P20,000.00 for moral damages, plus costs.
LabadchanP45,000.00 for actual damages, plus costs.
"Criminal Case No. 92-CR-1427
"Criminal Case No. 92-CR-1413
"Imprisonment from Four (4) Years as MINIMUM to Six (6)
"Imprisonment from Four (4) Years as MINIMUM to Six (6) Years as MAXIMUM and to pay the costs.
Years as MAXIMUM and to pay Cherry Pi-ay P20,000.00 for
moral damages, plus costs. "Criminal Case No. 92-CR-1428

"Criminal Case No. 92-CR-1414 "Imprisonment from One (1) Year, Eight (8) Months and
Twenty-One (21) Days of prision correccional as MINIMUM to
"Imprisonment from One (1) Year, Eight (8) Months and Five (5) Years, Five (5) Months and Eleven (11) Days
Twenty-One (21) Days of prision correccional as MINIMUM to ofprision correccional as MAXIMUM and to pay the costs.
Five (5) Years, Five (5) Months and Eleven (11) Days
of prision correccional as MAXIMUM and to pay Victoria As- "Criminal Case No. 93-CR-1644
il P15,000.00 for actual damages, plus costs.
"Imprisonment from One (1) Year, Eight (8) Months and
"Criminal Case No. 92-CR-1415 Twenty-One (21) Days of prision correccional as MINIMUM to
Five (5) Years, Five (5) Months and Eleven (11) Days
"Imprisonment from One (1) Year, Eight (8) Months and ofprision correccional as MAXIMUM and to pay Alfredo C.
Twenty-One (21) Days of prision correccional as MINIMUM to Arcega P25,000.00 for actual damages, plus costs.
Five (5) Years, Five (5) Months and Eleven (11) Days
of prision correccional as MAXIMUM and to pay Cherry Pi- "Criminal Case No. 93-CR-1645
ay P20,000.00 for moral damages, plus costs.
 "To suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine "Imprisonment from One (1) Year, Eight (8) Months and
of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00), with Twenty-One (21) Days of prision correccional as MINIMUM to
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the Five (5) Years, Five (5) Months and Eleven (11) Days
costs. She shall also pay Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos of prision correccional as MAXIMUM and to pay Adeline
(P25,000.00) each to Peter Arcega, Lorenzo Belino, Mariano Tiangge y Marcos P17,000.00 for actual damages, plus costs.
Damolog, Brando Salbino, Dembert Leon and Alfredo Arcega
for actual damages, plus costs. "With respect to accused Conchita Tagle in Criminal Cases Nos. 92-CR-
1396 and 92-CR-1397, let these cases be sent to the files without
"Criminal Case No. 93-CR-1646 prejudice to their revival as soon as she shall have been arrested and
brought to the jurisdiction of this Court.
"Imprisonment from One (1) Year, Eight (8) Months and
Twenty-One (21) Days of prision correccional as MINIMUM to "In order that Conchita Tagle may not escape the clutches of the law,
Five (5) Years, Five (5) Months and Eleven (11) Days let Alias Warrants of Arrest issue addressed to the PNP Chief of Police,
of prision correccional as MAXIMUM and to pay Brando B. La Trinidad, Benguet and the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) in
Salbino P25,000.00 for actual damages, plus costs. Manila and in Baguio City. Further, the Commission of Immigration and
Deportation (CID), Manila is ordered to include her name in the its
"Criminal Case No. 93-CR-1647 Hold-Departure List.
"Imprisonment from One (1) Year, Eight (8) Months and "SO ORDERED.37
Twenty-One (21) Days of prision correccional as MINIMUM to
Five (5) Years, Five (5) Months and Eleven (11) Days Appellant filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision asserting
of prision correccional as MAXIMUM and to pay Mariano that the trial court had erred in giving credence to the testimonies of
Damolog P25,000.00 for actual damages, plus costs. the complaining witnesses and in finding her guilty of the crimes
charged despite the "failure" of the prosecution to fully establish the
Criminal Case No. 93-CR-1649
elements of the crimes beyond reasonable doubt.38 Finding no merit in
"Imprisonment from One (1) Year, Eight (8) Months and the motion, the trial court, on 03 April 1995, denied a reconsideration
Twenty-One (21) Days of prision correccional as MINIMUM to of its decision.39 The following day, appellant filed a notice of
Five (5) Years, Five (5) Months and Eleven (11) Days appeal.40 The trial court gave due course to the appeal on 17 April
of prision correccional as MAXIMUM and to pay Lorenzo 1995.41
Belino P25,000.00 for actual damages, plus costs.
The Instant Appeal. -
"Criminal Case No. 93-CR-1651
Appellant continues to profess before this Court her innocence of the
"Imprisonment from One (1) Year, Eight (8) Months and accusation. She reiterates her assertion that the trial court has erred in
Twenty-One (21) Days of prision correccional as MINIMUM to giving credence to the testimonies of the complaining witnesses and in
Five (5) Years, Five (5) Months and Eleven (11) Days finding her guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the various offenses she
of prision correccional as MAXIMUM and to pay Peter has been charged with by the prosecution.42 She avers that her
Arcega P25,000.00 for actual damages, plus costs. transactions with the complainants have been limited to her assisting
them secure their respective travel visa specifically for tourist and that
"Criminal Case No. 93-CR-1652
her assistance to them (has been) only to refer them to travel agencies
such as the Dynasty Travel and Tours and the Mannings International. Recruitment is defined by Article 13, paragraph (b), of the same Code
She insists that she has remitted the amounts solicited from the as referring -
complainants to the travel agencies, or to Maritess Tapia and Carol
Cornelio, earning only the commissions for bringing in clients x x x to any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting,
interested in getting tourist visas.43 utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract
services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad,
cräläwvirtualibräry

At the outset, it might be explained that this appeal involves the whether for profit or not; Provided, That any person or entity which, in
conviction of appellant not only for the crime of illegal recruitment in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more
large scale for which the penalty of life imprisonment is imposed but persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement.
also for other offenses for which lesser penalties have been meted by
the trial court upon appellant. This Court has appellate jurisdiction over Illegal recruitment is committed when two elements concur:
ordinary appeals in criminal cases directly from the Regional Trial
1) That the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to
Courts when the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher.44 The enable one to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of
Rules of Court, allows, however, the appeal of criminal cases involving workers; and
penalties lower than reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment under the
circumstances stated in Section 3, Rule 122, of the Revised Rules of 2) That the offender undertakes either any activity within the meaning
Criminal Procedure. Thus - of recruitment and placement defined under Article 13(b), or any
prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34.46
(c) The appeal to the Supreme Court in cases where the penalty
cräläwvirtualibräry

imposed is life imprisonment, or where a lesser penalty is imposed but Any person who commits the prohibited acts enumerated in Article
involving offenses committed on the same occasion or arising out of 13(b) of the Labor Code shall be liable under Article 38(a)
the same occurrence that gave rise to the more serious offense for
thereof.47 The proviso in Article 13(b) lays down a rule of evidence that
which the penalty of death or life imprisonment is imposed shall be by
where a fee is collected in consideration of a promise or offer of
filing a notice of appeal in accordance with paragraph (a) of this
employment to two or more prospective workers, the individual or
Section.
entity dealing with them shall be deemed to be engaged in the act of
In giving due course to the notice of appeal filed by appellant, the trial recruitment and placement.48 The article also provides that
court has directed that the entire records of the seventeen cases recruitment includes the act of referral or the act of passing along or
should be forwarded to this Court.45 It might be observed that this forwarding of an applicant for employment after an initial interview of a
appeal, which has been assigned only one docket number, involves selected applicant for employment to a selected employer, placement
cases, although spawned under different circumstances could be said officer or bureau.49
cräläwvirtualibräry

to somehow be linked to the incident giving rise to the case for illegal
recruitment in large scale. The cases have thus been correctly The Court agrees with the trial court that appellant, indeed, violated
consolidated and heard jointly below. The appeal made directly to this the law against illegal recruitment.
Court of the seventeen cases, each of which incidentally should have
The prosecution was able to prove by overwhelming evidence that
been assigned a separate docket number in this Court, is properly
appellant did represent herself as being in a position to get for the
taken.
aspiring overseas contract workers good-paying jobs abroad. Appellant
Article 38(a) of the Labor Code considers illegal any recruitment was thus able to demand and receive various amounts from the
activity undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of authority. applicants. The latter would then be briefed by appellant on the
requirements for employment overseas. Appellant herself testified, "A Yes, sir.
thus:
"Q Where is that?
Q From 1986 when separated from Friendship Recruitment Agency and
before you were put to jail did you have any occupation? "A Mannings International is a licensed agency and Dynasty Travel and
Tours is licensed to issue tickets for applicants to go abroad.
"A Yes, sometimes we brought vegetables and flowers to Manila for
resale. "Q You said that Dynasty Travel and Tours is licensed to issue tickets
for applicants going abroad what do you mean by applicants going
"Q Aside from buying and selling vegetables down in Manila did you abroad?
have any other source of income?
"A Those applicants to work as a contract worker and who are ready to
"A Sometimes I helped some applicants who are interested to go leave for abroad and they are being issued tickets.
abroad and asked if I know some agencies who can assist them to go
abroad. "Q Were you actually able to help or assist some overseas worker-
applicants?
"Q Were you able to assist some people to look for an agency to assist
them to go abroad? "A Yes, sir.

"A Yes, sir. "Q Do you remember some of them?

"Q Were you being paid when you assist these people applying for "A Cherry Piay, Corazon del Rosario, Arthur Juan, Francisco Labadchan
overseas employment? and others. (Underscoring supplied.)50 cräläwvirtualibräry

"A Yes, sir. Appellant at one point claimed that she had helped complainants only
in acquiring for them plane tickets and tourist visas. On cross-
"Q By whom? examination, however, she admitted that she had made referrals of job
applicants to recruitment agencies.51 She evidently knew all along that
"A The travel agencies give me some amount of commission.
the persons she was dealing with were applicants for employment
"Q What are the names of these agencies which you know? abroad.

"A Dynasty Travel and Tours and Mannings International. The law requires that the above activities of appellant should have first
been authorized by the POEA.52 Rule II, Book II, of the POEA Rules
"x x x . and Regulations Governing Overseas Employment provides:

"Q Do you know also if this Dynasty Travel and Tours and Mannings SEC. 11. Appointment of Representatives. Every appointment of
International is duly licensed by the government to recruit applicants representatives or agents of licensed agency shall be subject to prior
abroad? approval or authority of the Administration.

"A Yes, sir. "The approval may be issued upon submission of or compliance with
the following requirements:
"Q Do you have any document to prove that it is registered?
"a. Proposed appointment or special power of attorney; Altogether, the evidence against appellant has established beyond any
discernible shadow of doubt that appellant is indeed guilty of illegal
"b. Clearances of the proposed representative or agent from NBI; recruitment on various counts. Being neither a licensee nor a holder of
authority to recruit, appellant must suffer under Article 39(c) of the
"c. A sworn or verified statement by the designating or appointing Labor Code the penalty of imprisonment of not less than four years nor
person or company assuming full responsibility for all acts of the agent more than eight years or a fine of not less than P20,000.00 nor more
or representative done in connection with the recruitment and than P100,000.00 or both such imprisonment and fine, at the
placement of workers. discretion of the court. In imposing the penalty, the provisions of the
Revised Penal Code on the application of the circumstances that could
"Approval by the Administration of the appointment or designation
modify the criminal liability of an accused cannot be considered, these
does not authorize the agent or representative to establish a branch or
extension office of the licensed agency represented. provisions being inapplicable to special laws.58

"Any revocation or amendment in the appointment should be Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law,59 whenever the offense is
communicated to the Administration. Otherwise, the designation or punishable by a special law, the court shall impose on the accused an
appointment shall be deemed as not revoked or amended. indeterminate sentence, "the maximum term of which shall not exceed
the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less than
The claim that appellant did not categorically represent herself as a the minimum term prescribed by the same."60 Accordingly, in imposing
licensed recruiter, or that she merely helped the complainants secure the penalty of four (4) years to six (6) years on appellant for each of
tourist visas, could not make her less guilty of illegal recruitment,53 it the five cases of illegal recruitment, the trial court has acted correctly.
being enough that he or she gave the impression of having had the
authority to recruit workers for deployment abroad.54 Illegal recruitment is committed in large scale if it is perpetrated
against three or more persons "individually or as a group." Its
cräläwvirtualibräry

The fact that, with the exception of the cases involving Cherry Pi-ay requisites are that: (1) the person charged with the crime must have
and Corazon del Rosario, only the complainant in each of the cases, undertaken recruitment activities as so defined by law, (2) the same
have testified against appellant in the illegal recruitment cases does person does not have a license or authority to do that, and (3) the
not thereby make the case for the prosecution weak. The rule has questioned act is committed against three or more persons.61 The
always been that the testimony of witnesses is to be weighed, not that prosecution has been able to successfully show that, for a fee,
the witnesses be numbered, and it is not an uncommon experience to appellant, not being authorized to recruit workers for abroad, did so in
have a conclusion of guilt reached on the basis of the testimony of a Criminal Case No. 93-CR-1645 against seven complainants. For this
single witness.55 Corroborative evidence is necessary only when there offense, Article 39(a) of the Labor Code imposes the penalty of life
are reasons to warrant the suspicion that the witness has perjured imprisonment and a fine of one hundred thousand pesos
himself or that his observations have veered from the truth.56 (P100,000.00). This penalty was thus likewise aptly meted out upon
appellant by the trial court.
The absence of receipts to evidence payment to an indictee in a
criminal case for illegal recruitment does not warrant an acquittal of Conviction for these various offenses under the Labor Code does not
the accused, and it is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution's cause. bar the punishment of the offender for estafa. Illegal recruitment is
As long as the prosecution is able to establish through credible a malum prohibitum offense where criminal intent of the accused is not
testimonial evidence that the accused has involved himself in an act of necessary for conviction while estafa is malum in se which requires
illegal recruitment, a conviction for the offense can very well be criminal intent to warrant conviction.62 Under Article 315, paragraph
justified.57 2(a),63 of the Revised Penal Code, the elements of the offense
(estafa) are that (1) the accused has defrauded another by abuse of next lower should be based on the penalty prescribed by the Code
confidence or by means of deceit and (2) damage or prejudice capable for the offense, without first considering any modifying
of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party or third circumstance attendant to the commission of the crime. The
person.64 Clearly, these elements have sufficiently been shown in the determination of the minimum penalty is left by law to the sound
cases under review. discretion of the court and it can be anywhere within the range of
the penalty next lower without any reference to the periods into
The penalty for the crime is prescribed by Article 315, first to fourth which it might be subdivided. The modifying circumstances are
paragraphs, of the Revised Penal Code as follows: considered only in the imposition of the maximum term of the
indeterminate sentence.
1st. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period
to prision mayor in its minimum period, if the amount of the fraud "The fact that the amounts involved in the instant case
is over 12,000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000 pesos, and if exceed P22,000.00 should not be considered in the initial
such amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this determination of the indeterminate penalty; instead, the matter
paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one should be so taken as analogous to modifying circumstances in
year for each additional 10,000 pesos; but the total penalty which the imposition of the maximum term of the full indeterminate
may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases, sentence. This interpretation of the law accords with the rule that
and in connection with the accessory penalties which may be penal laws should be construed in favor of the accused. Since the
imposed and for the purpose of the other provisions of this Code, penalty prescribed by law for the estafa charge against accused-
the penalty shall be termed prision mayor or reclusion temporal, appellant is prision correccional maximum to prision
as the case may be. mayor minimum, the penalty next lower would then be prision
correccional minimum to medium. Thus, the minimum term of the
2nd. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and indeterminate sentence should be anywhere within six (6) months
medium periods, if the amount of the fraud is over 6,000 pesos and one (1) day to four (4) years and two (2) months x x x."66
but does not exceed 12,000 pesos;
"3rd. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period The Court reiterates the above rule; however, in fixing the maximum
to prision correccional in its minimum period if such amount is term, the prescribed penalty of prision correccional maximum period
over 200 pesos but does not exceed 6,000 pesos; and to prision mayor minimum period should be divided into "three equal
portions of time," each of which portion shall be deemed to form one
"4th. By arresto mayor in its maximum period, if such amount period; hence -
does not exceed 200 pesos, provided that in the four cases
mentioned, the fraud be committed by any of the following Minimum Period Medium Period Maximum Period
means: x x x."
From 4 years, 2 months From 5 years, 5 months From 6 years, 8
In the case of People vs. Gabres,65 the Court has had occasion to so months
state that - and 1 day to 5 years, and 11 days to 6 years, and 21 days to 8
years
"Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum term of 5 months and 10 days 8 months and 20 days -
the penalty shall be `that which, in view of the attending
circumstances, could be properly imposed' under the Revised in consonance with Article 65,67 in relation to Article 64,68 of the
Penal Code, and the minimum shall be `within the range of the Revised Penal Code.
penalty next lower to that prescribed' for the offense. The penalty
When the amount involved in the offense exceeds P22,000.00, the In Criminal Case No. 92-CR-1426 where appellant defrauded Corazon
penalty prescribed in Article 315 of the Code "shall be imposed in its del Rosario in the amount of P40,000.00, appellant shall suffer the
maximum period," adding one year for each additional P10,000.00 indeterminate penalty of two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1)
although the total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed 20 day of prision correccional medium to seven (7) years, eight (8)
years. The maximum penalty should then be termed as prision months and twenty-one (21) days of prision mayor minimum.
mayor or reclusion temporal as the case may be. In fine, the one year
period, whenever applicable, shall be added to the maximum period of In Criminal Case No. 92-CR-1428 where appellant fraudulently solicited
the principal penalty of anywhere from 6 years, 8 months and 21 days the amount of P24,200.00 from Arthur Juan, appellant shall pay him
to 8 years. actual damages in that amount and shall suffer the indeterminate
penalty of from one (1) year, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21)
Accordingly, with respect to the cases of estafa filed by the days (imposed by the court a quo) of prision correccional minimum
complainants who individually charged appellant with illegal period to six (6) years, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days
recruitment, the applicable penalties would, respectively, be, as of prision mayor minimum.
follows:
In Criminal Case No. 92-CR-1652 where appellant defrauded Adeline
In Criminal Case No. 92-CR-1397 where appellant defrauded Francisco Tiangge the amount of P18,500.00, appellant shall pay her the same
T. Labadchan in the amount of P45,000.00, two years for the additional amount as actual damages and shall suffer the indeterminate penalty
amount of P23,000.00 in excess of P22,000.00 provided for in Article of from one (1) year, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days
315 shall be added to the maximum period of the prescribed penalty of prision correccional minimum to five (5) years, five (5) months and
of prision correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum (or added eleven (11) days of prision correccional maximum.
to anywhere from 6 years, 8 months and 21 days to 8 years). As such,
aside from paying Labadchan the amount of P45,000.00 by way of In Criminal Case No. 93-CR-1645, the prosecution has successfully
actual damages, the Court deems it proper to sentence appellant to the established its case against appellant for illegal recruitment in large
indeterminate penalty of three (3) years, six (6) months and twenty- scale. Evidently banking on her reputation in the community as a job
one (21) days of prision correccional medium to eight (8) years, eight recruiter, appellant was able to make the seven complainants believe
(8) months and twenty-one (21) days of prision mayor medium. that they could land various jobs in Taiwan. Confident of her
assurances, each complainant parted with P25,000.00 for supposed
In Criminal Case No. 92-CR-1414, appellant defrauded Victoria Asil in processing and placement fees.
the amount of P15,000.00. Hence, aside from paying Victoria Asil the
amount of P15,000.00 by way of actual damages, appellant shall also It would appear that of the seven complainants for illegal recruitment
suffer the indeterminate penalty of one (1) year, eight (8) months and in large scale, only five69 of them filed separate charges
twenty-one (21) days of prision correccional medium to five (5) years, of estafa against appellant. Accordingly, appellant was only and could
five (5) months and eleven (11) days of prision correccional maximum. only be held liable for five counts of estafa arising from the charge of
illegal recruitment in large scale. Since appellant collected the amount
In Criminal Case No. 92-CR-1415 where appellant defrauded Cherry Pi- of P25,000.00 from each of the five (5) victims, she must be held
ay in the amount of P18,000.00, appellant, besides paying Cherry Pi-ay subject to the penalty in its maximum period or prision mayor in its
that amount by way of actual damages, shall also suffer the minimum period (not any higher on account of the fact that the
indeterminate penalty of one (1) year, eight (8) months and twenty- amount in excess of P22,000.00 provided for by Article 315 of the
one (21) days of prision correccional minimum to five (5) years, five Revised Penal Code is less than P10,000.00).70 Applying the
(5) months and eleven (11) days of prision correccional maximum. Indeterminate Sentence Law, and there being no attending
circumstances, appellant shall bear, the indeterminate penalty of one
(1) year, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days of prision period as MINIMUM, to seven (7) years, eight (8) months and twenty-
correccional medium as minimum penalty to six (6) years, eight (8) one (21) days of prision mayor minimum period as MAXIMUM.
months and twenty-one (21) days of prision mayorminimum as
maximum penalty for each offense. In addition, appellant should pay 5) In Criminal Case No. 92-CR-1428, accused-appellant is
the five (5) victims the amount of P25,000.00 each as actual damages. sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of from one (1) year, eight (8)
months and twenty-one (21) days of prision correccional minimum
The actual damages awarded here shall be subject to diminution or period as MINIMUM, to six (6) years, eight (8) months and twenty-one
cancellation should it be shown that appellant had already paid the (21) days of prision mayor minimum period as MAXIMUM.
complainants.
6) In Criminal Case No. 93-CR-1644, accused-appellant is
WHEREFORE, the Decision finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of from one (1) year, eight (8)
doubt of the crimes of illegal recruitment, illegal recruitment in large months and twenty-one (21) days of prision correccional minimum
scale and estafa is hereby AFFIRMED subject to the modifications period as MINIMUM, to six (6) years, eight (8) months and twenty-one
hereunder specified, and only to the extent thereof, in the following (21) days of prision mayor minimum period as MAXIMUM and to pay
cases: Alfredo Arcega the amount of P25,000.00 by way of actual damages.

1) In Criminal Case No. 92-CR-1397, accused-appellant is 7) In Criminal Case No. 93-CR-1646, accused-appellant is
sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of from three sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of from one (1) year, eight (8)
(3) years, six (6) months and twenty-one (21) days of prision months and twenty-one (21) days of prision correccional minimum
correccional medium period as MINIMUM, to eight (8) years, eight (8) period as MINIMUM, to six (6) years, eight (8) months and twenty-one
months and twenty-one (21) days of prision mayor medium period as (21) days of prision mayor minimum period as MAXIMUM and to pay
MAXIMUM and to pay Francisco T. Labadchan the amount Brando Salbino the amount of P25,000.00 by way of actual damages.
of P45,000.00 by way of actual damages.
8) In Criminal Case No. 93-CR-1647, accused-appellant is
2) In Criminal Case No. 92-CR-1414, accused-appellant is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of from one (1) year, eight (8)
sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of from one (1) year, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days of prision correccional minimum
months and twenty-one (21) days of prision correccional minimum period as MINIMUM, to six (6) years, eight (8) months and twenty-one
period as MINIMUM, to five (5) years, five (5) months and eleven (11) (21) days of prision mayor minimum period as MAXIMUM and to pay
days of prision correccional maximum period as MAXIMUM and to pay Mariano Damolog the amount of P25,000.00 by way of actual
Victoria Asil the amount of P15,000.00 by way of actual damages. damages.

3) In Criminal Case No. 92-CR-1415, accused-appellant is 9) In Criminal Case No. 93-CR-1649, accused-appellant is
sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of from one (1) year, eight (8) sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of from one (1) year, eight (8)
months and twenty-one (21) days of prision correccional minimum months and twenty-one (21) days of prision correccional minimum
period as MINIMUM, to five (5) years, five (5) months and eleven (11) period as MINIMUM, to six (6) years, eight (8) months and twenty-one
days of prision correccional maximum period as MAXIMUM. (21) days of prision mayor minimum period as MAXIMUM and to pay
Lorenzo Belino the amount of P25,000.00 by way of actual damages.
4) In Criminal Case No. 92-CR-1426, accused-appellant is
sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of from two (2) 10) In Criminal Case No. 93-CR-1651, accused-appellant is
years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional medium sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of from one (1) year, eight (8)
months and twenty-one (21) days of prision correccional minimum
period as MINIMUM, to six (6) years, eight (8) months and twenty-one
(21) days of prision mayor minimum period as MAXIMUM and to pay
Peter Arcega the amount of P25,000.00 by way of actual damages.

11) In Criminal Case No. 92-CR-1652, accused-appellant is

sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of from one (1) year, eight (8)
months and twenty-one (21) days of prision correccional minimum
period as MINIMUM, to five (5) years, five (5) months and eleven (11)
days of prision correccional maximum period as MAXIMUM and to pay
Adeline Tiangge the amount of P17,000.00 by way of actual damages.

The awards of damages in Criminal Cases No. 92-CR-1396, No. 92-CR-

1413, No. 92-CR-1416, No. 92-CR-1425, and No. 92-CR-1427, all for
illegal recruitment, as well as No. 93-CR-1645 for illegal recruitment in
large scale, except for the award of P25,000.00 by way of actual
damages to Dember Leon (no estafa case having been instituted), are
DELETED, either because similar awards have already been provided
for by the trial court, or for insufficiency of proof, in the estafa cases
aforenumbered.

Costs against accused-appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., Bellosillo, Panganiban, and Quisumbing, JJ., concur.