G.R. No.

197539               June 2, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
ANGELITA I. DAUD, HANELITA M. GALLEMIT and RODERICK GALLEMIT y TOLENTINO, Accused.
RODERICK GALLEMIT y TOLENTINO, Accused-appellant.

DECISION

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:

For Our consideration is an appeal from the Decision  dated March 18, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-
1

H.C. No. 03168, which affirmed the Joint Decision  dated January 15, 2007 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
2

Parañaque City, Branch 195, in Criminal Case Nos. 03-0122 to 30, finding accused-appellant Roderick Gallemit y
Tolentino guilty of the crimes of ( 1) illegal recruitment in large scale, as defined and penalized under Article II, Section
6, in relation to Section 7(b) of Republic Act No. 8042, otherwise known as the "Migrant Workers and Overseas
Filipinos Act of 1995;" and (2) estafa, as defined and penalized under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal
Code, but modified the penalties imposed upon appellant for said crimes.

In an Information dated January 3, 2003, docketed as Criminal Case No. 03-0122, Angelita I. Daud (Daud), Hanelita M.
Gallemit (Hanelita), and appellant Roderick Gallemit y Tolentino were charged before the RTC with illegal recruitment in
large scale, allegedly committed as follows:

That on or about or sometime during the period from February 5, 2001 to August 2001, in the City of Parañaque,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating
together and both of them mutually helping and aiding one another, representing themselves to have the capacity to
contract, enlist and transport Filipino workers for employment abroad, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, for a fee, recruit and promise employment abroad to complainants Marcelo De Guzman, Evangeline Relox,
Maricel Rayo, Brigida Rayo, Gina Decena, Nenita Policarpio, Myrna Crisostomo and Francisco Poserio, without first
securing the required license or authority from the Department of Labor and Employment thus deemed committed in
large scale and therefore amounting to economic sabotage. 3

Eight more Informations, all dated January 3, 2003, docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 03-0123 to 03-0130, charged
Daud, Hanelita, and appellant before the RTC with eight counts of Estafa, committed separately upon eight private
complainants, namely, Marcelo I. De Guzman (De Guzman), Evangeline I. Relox, Marcelo E. Rayo, Brigada A. Rayo,
Gina T. Decena (Decena), Nenita F. Policarpio, Myrna S. Crisostomo and Francisco S. Poserio (Poserio), respectively.

The Information in Criminal Case No. 03-0123 alleged:

That on or about covering the period from February 2001 up to March 2001, in the City of Parañaque, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together and all
of them mutually helping and aiding one another, did then and there willfully and feloniously defraud Marcelo de
Guzman y Ignacio pertinent to his overseas job employment if he would deliver to them the amount of ₱545,000.00 by
means of other similar deceit knowing it to be false and only made to induce the aforementioned complainant to give
and deliver the said amount of ₱545,000.00 and accused once in possession of the same, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously misapply and misappropriate the said amount to their own personal use and benefit to the
damage and prejudice of the said MARCELODE GUZMAN y IGNACIO in the aforementioned amount. 4

The seven other Informations in Criminal Case Nos. 03-0124 to 03-0130 were similarly worded as the aforequoted
Information, except as to the name of the private complainant and the amount purportedly collected from him/her, to
wit:

Docket No. Private Complainant Amount Collected

Crim. Case No. 03-0124 5
Evangeline I. Relox, ₱25,000.00
Crim. Case No. 03-0125 6
Marcelo E. Rayo ₱45,000.00
Crim. Case No. 03-0126 7
Brigada A. Rayo ₱28,000.00
 Crim. Case No. 03-0127 8
Gina T. Decena ₱70,000.00
Crim. Case No. 03-0128 9
Nenita F. Policarpio ₱50,000.00
Crim. Case No. 03-0129 10
Myrna S. Crisostomo ₱24,500.00
Crim. Case No. 03-0130 11
Francisco S. Poserio ₱70,000.00

Only appellant was apprehended, while his co-accused Daud and Hanelita eluded arrest and remained at large.

The nine criminal cases against appellant before the RTC were consolidated. When arraigned, appellant pleaded not
guilty to all the charges against him. Thereafter, joint trial of the nine criminal cases ensued.

The prosecution offered as evidence the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) Certification dated
September 19, 2002 stating that Green Pasture Worldwide Tour and Consultancy, with address at India St., Don
Bosco, Parañaque City, set up and operated by appellant and his co-accused, is not licensed to recruit workers for
overseas employment. 12

Of all the private complainants, only De Guzman, Decena, and Poserio testified against Gallem it. The presentation of a
POEA representative was dispensed with after the defense admitted the due execution and genuineness of the POEA
Certification dated September 19, 2002. 13

Evidence for the defense consisted solely of appellant’s testimony.

After trial on the merits, the RTC rendered its Decision dated January 15, 2007 finding appellant guilty of Illegal
Recruitment in Large Scale and Estafa on three (3) counts. The dispositive portion of the judgment reads:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:

(1) In Criminal Case No. 03-0122, the Court finds accused Roderick Gallemit y Tolentino, GUILTY
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT as principal of the crime of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale in
violation of Section 6 in relation to Section 7 of RA 8042, otherwise known as the Migrant Workers and
Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 and hereby sentences him to a penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of
Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (₱500,000.00).

(2) In Criminal Case No. 03-0123, the Court finds accused Roderick Gallemit y Tolentino GUILTY
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT as principal of the crime of Estafa under Article 315 paragraph 2(a) of
the Revised Penal Code and hereby sentences him to suffer the Indeterminate Penalty of two (2) years
and four (4) months as minimum to thirteen (13) years as maximum which carries with it the accessory
penalty of suspension from public office, from the right to follow a profession or calling, and that of
perpetual special disqualification from the right of suffrage. The accused is further sentenced to pay
complaining witness Marcelo De Guzman y Ignacio the amount of Eighty Thousand Pesos (₱80,000.00)
plus twelve percent (12%) interest from the date of the filing of the Information on February 3, 2003,
with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, plus the costs of suit;

(3) In Criminal Case No. 03-0127,the Court finds accused Roderick Gallemit y Tolentino GUILTY
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT as principal of the crime of Estafa under Article 315 paragraph 2(a) of
the Revised Penal Code and hereby sentences him to suffer the indeterminate Penalty of two (2) years,
four (4) months as minimum to nine (9) years as maximum which carries with it the accessory penalty of
suspension from public office, from the right to follow a profession or calling, and that of perpetual
special disqualification from the right of suffrage. The accused is further sentenced to pay the costs of
suit; and

(4) In Criminal Case No. 03-0130, the Court finds accused Roderick Gallemit y Tolentino GUILTY
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT as principal of the crime of Estafa under Article 315 paragraph 2(a) of
the Revised Penal Code and hereby sentences him to suffer the Indeterminate Penalty of two (2) years
and four (4) months as minimum to twelve (12) years and two (2) months as maximum which carries
with it the accessory penalty of suspension from public office, from the right to follow a profession or
 calling, and that of perpetual special disqualification from the right of suffrage. The accused is further
sentenced to pay costs of suit.

(5) Criminal Case Nos. 03-0124, 03-0125, 03-0126, 03-0128, and 03-0129, for failure to prosecute, are
hereby ordered Dismissed, as against accused Roderick Gallemit.

Considering that accused ANGELITA I. DAUD and HANELITA M. GALLEMIT remain at large for more than six (6)
months since the issuance and delivery of the warrant of arrest to the proper police or peace officer, the cases against
them are hereby ordered ARCHIVED pursuant to Administrative Circular No. 7-A-92. Let an alias warrant of arrest be
issued against them. 14

Following the denial of his Motion for Reconsideration by the RTC in an Order  dated April 3, 2007, appellant filed an
15

appeal before the Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals summarized the private complainants’ testimonies against appellant, viz:

Marcelo de Guzman[(De Guzman)], a dentist by profession with a clinic in Bulacan, testified that sometime in January
2001, he was introduced by his patient Modesta Marqueda to her cousin, accused [Daud]. [Daud] encouraged [De
Guzman] to apply for work abroad and convinced him that she would be able to send him to Korea. To prove to [De
Guzman] that she was capable of sending workers abroad, [Daud] invited him to visit her office located at Taft Avenue,
Manila.

A month later, [De Guzman] and his cousins Maricel Rayo, Brigida Rayo, Myrna Crisostomo, Francisco Poserio,
Evangeline Relox, [Decena] and Nenita Policarpio, wentto see [Daud] at the Jemimah International Manpower
Services, located at Taft Avenue, Manila where the latter was then working as a liaison officer. The group was shown
job orders and photos of [Daud] with Korean employees to prove that she was indeed sending workers abroad. It was
at this office that [De Guzman] first met [appellant] and [Hanelita].

Meanwhile, [Daud], together with [Hanelita] and [appellant], put up their own business named Green Pastures
Worldwide Tours and Consultancy Corporation in their residence at No. 4 Sta. Maria Apartment, India St., Better Living
Subdivision, Barangay Don Bosco, Parañaque City.

Having been convinced by the documents shown to him at the Taft Avenue office, [De Guzman] paid [Daud] the
amount of ₱35,000[.]00 as initial payment for his placement fee at the latter’s office and residence in Parañaque City on
February 2, 2001. On February 5, 2001, [De Guzman] gave [Daud] the amount of ₱15,000[.]00 which was witnessed by
Hanelita. He gave another ₱15,000.00 on February 22, 2001. However, he lost the original receipts.

On March 3, 6 and 7, 2001, [De Guzman] again gave [Daud] x x x different amounts consisting of ₱35,000.00,
₱30,000.00 and ₱15,000.00, respectively, at her office in Parañaque City (Exhibits "A" to "C"). In [De Guzman]’s
presence, [Daud] counted the money, issued receipts therefor as "processing fees of Nike applicants", affixed her
signature after signing the receipts in the name of "Nimfa Min". [Daud] explained to him that "Nimfa Min" was her
contact who happened to be the wife of a Korean national. [De Guzman] trusted [Daud] and accepted her explanation.
Whenever he gave his payment to [Daud], it was in the presence of Hanelita and [appellant] but he did not require the
two to sign as witnesses because he trusted them as they were members of the same family. [De Guzman] was told by
[Daud] and [appellant] that he and his group would be leaving in two week’s time.

[De Guzman] and his companions were instructed to appear before the Korean Embassy and were promised that they
would be able to leave on March 11, 2001 as trainee workers in Korea where they would earn a monthly salary of
US$400, overtime pay, with benefits of free board and lodging and 30-day leave within a year. De Guzman’s group
were shown photocopies of their passport and stamped visas for Korea. However, they were not given their working
permits and job contracts.

When their departure date was getting near, [Daud] postponed it thrice. Eventually, [De Guzman] asked from accused
[Daud] a photocopy of his passport with a stamped Korean Visa. Upon inquiry with the Korean Embassy, [De Guzman]
was told that it was fake. He proceeded to the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) and verified the
registration of Green Pastures Worldwide Tour and Consultancy Corporation. The POEA informed them that it was not
registered with the POEA and gave[De Guzman] a certification to the effect that the said agency was not licensed to
recruit employees for abroad (Exhibit D).
Embarrassed because of the money given by his cousins, [De Guzman] verbally asked [Daud], Hanelita and [appellant]
to return the money. They promised him that they would settle the matter but they failed to return the money. x x x.

Gina Decena, for her part testified that sometime in January 2001, she was introduced by her cousin, Maricel Rayo, to
accused [Daud], [Hanelita] and [appellant], at the Makati Medical Towers where Maricel had her medical examination.
[Decena] again met the three accused at their office at No. 4 Sta. Maria Apartment, Better Living Subdivision,
Parañaque City when Maricel obtained a copy of her medical certificate. They enticed [Decena] to apply at their agency
by showing her job orders that offered $400 [a] month salary, 150% overtime pay, free board and lodging as well as
photographs of prospective Korean employers. [Appellant] even gave her a copy of the job order. The three accused
assured [Decena] that they had already sent several applicants for employment abroad. Convinced, [Decena] and her
husband Marcelo Rayo applied at their agency. They were instructed to undergo medical examination, to attend a
Korean Language seminar, and to pay ₱70,000.00 processing fee.

Thus, on February 15, 2001, [Decena] and her husband each gave accused [Daud] the amount of ₱35,000.00 as
placement fees. During trial, [Decena] presented her receipt for ₱35,000.00 which was received and signed by [Daud].

Thereafter, the couple were told to wait for two weeks for the processing of their visas. As two weeks have passed and
nothing happened to their applications, [Decena] and her husband went to the POEA to verify the status of the agency.
They were informed to the effect that said agency was not licensed to send workers abroad. [Decena] and her husband
went back to the agency and tried to look for the accused but they were all gone. They later came to know, through [De
Guzman], that [appellant] was apprehended. She identified her sworn statement in court.

Sometime in January 2001, Francisco Poserio [(Poserio)] was brought along by his cousin [De Guzman] to No. 4 Sta.
Maria Apt., India St., Better Living Subdivision, Barangay Don Bosco, Parañaque City. While thereat, [De Guzman]
introduced [Daud], Hanelita and [appellant] as the owners of Green Pastures Worldwide Tours and Consultancy and
that they were sending workers to Korea. The three accused encouraged [Poserio] to apply for work in Korea where he
could get a job which offered a monthly salary of US$400 with free meals and housing, 150% pay on overtime work and
vacation leave of thirty (30) days in a two-year contract. To convince [Poserio] that they can send workers to Korea,
they showed him job orders from Hyundai Group and Nike requiring workers for Korea, a copy of a Korean visa of one
of their job applicants, and photos of [Daud] in Korea with a Korean national who would be [Poserio]’s prospective
employer if he applied with their agency. Further, he would be able to earn back his placement fee in three months
work.

Enticed, [Poserio] mortgaged his property to get funds for his job application. [Daud] and Hanelita informed him to
undergo a medical examination and seminar and even gave him a referral. On January 27, 2001, he gave his passport,
medical examination result, seminar result and certification for employment. He was then told to pay ₱100,000.00 as
processing fee for his job application. On March 3, 2001, he gave his down payment of ₱25,000.00 to [Daud] in the
presence of Hanelita and [appellant]. He was told to wait for two weeks for the processing of his papers. On July 2001,
he was informed that additional amount was needed to process his papers. Thus, on July 5, 2001, he gave ₱45,000.00
as additional payment to [Daud] in the presence of Hanelita. He was again told to wait for another three weeks. He was
even promised that they would return his money if he would notbe sent abroad. A year after his payment, [Poserio] was
still not able to leave the country. Upon verification with the POEA, he and the other job applicants discovered that the
said agency was not licensed to recruit workers for overseas employment. He talked over the phone with the accused
and demanded the return of his money. When they failed to return his money, he filed a complaint with the Parañaque
police.

All three complainants positively identified [appellant] in court.  (Citations omitted.)

16

The Court of Appeals similarly provided a gist of appellant’s testimony, thus:

Roderick Gallemit [(appellant)] denied owning the agency, undertaking any recruitment act or receiving any amount
from the complainants considering that his name did not appear in the receipts. He admitted that he is married to co-
accused [Hanelita] and that co-accused [Daud] is his mother-in-law.

He knew private complainants [De Guzman] and [Poserio] who were introduced to him by [Daud] who was then working
as a liaison officer at Jemimah International Manpower Services located in Taft Avenue, Manila. [Appellant] denied
knowing the other complainants. He was just brought along by [Daud] since he was also one of the job seekers
applying at the Jemimah International Manpower Services where [Daud] worked. [Daud] told him that private
complainant [De Guzman] is her business partner. [Poserio] was one of those applying for a job abroad and [De
Guzman] would refer them to [Daud]. Thus, [De Guzman] frequented their apartment in Parañaque.

He admitted that, from February 2001 to August 2001, he had been staying at the apartment in India Street, Better
Living Subdivision, Parañaque City he shared with his wife Hanelita, their child and his mother-in-law [Daud]. He and
his wife were not employed since they were applying for a job abroad. His siblings help him out by sending him money
for his job application. He was aware that his mother-in-law [Daud] was a recruiter and owned an agency named Green
Pasture Worldwide Travel and Tours which she operated in the same apartment.

He claimed that [Daud] has only one employee, a certain Badjong, who processed documents. At first he did not apply
with [Daud] because her business was still new. He applied with her when she convinced him that she could process
his passport and papers to Korea.

He denied he was present when the complainants gave their payments to [Daud]. He insisted that he was not involved
with [Daud]’s business and that he was always out of the house as he would often go to Cavite to ask for financial help
from his siblings. x x x.  (Citations omitted.)
17

In its Decision dated March 18, 2011,the Court of Appeals affirmed appellant’s conviction by the RTC, but modified the
indeterminate penalties imposed on appellant for the three counts of estafa. The appellate court decreed:

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision finding accused-appellant RODERICK GALLEMIT y TOLENTINO guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale and of Estafa is AFFIRMED with modification with respect to the
indeterminate penalties imposed on appellant for the three counts of estafa, to wit:

(1) In Criminal Case No. 03-0123, appellant is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of two (2)
years and four (4) months of prision correccional as minimum to thirteen (13) years of reclusion
temporal as maximum.

(2) In Criminal Case No. 03-0127, appellant is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of two (2)
years and four (4) months of prision correccional as minimum to nine (9) years of prision mayor as
maximum.

(3) In Criminal Case No. 03-0130, appellant is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of two (2)
years and four (4) months of prision correccional as minimum to twelve (12) years of prision mayor as
maximum.

In all other respects, the assailed Decision is AFFIRMED. 18

Hence, appellant comes before us via the instant appeal with the same assignment of errors which he raised before the
Court of Appeals:

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF LARGE-SCALE

ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT AND ESTAFA DESPITE THE PROSECUTION’S FAILURE TO PROVE HIS GUILT
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

II

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF ESTAFADESPITE

THE ABSENCE [OF] THE ELEMENT OF DECEIT.

Illegal recruitment in large scale

Appellant anchors his bid for acquittal on the failure of the prosecution to prove that he gave private complainants the
distinct impression that he had the power or ability to send them abroad for work such that they were convinced to part
with their money. Any encouragement or promise of employment abroad was solely made by Daud. Appellant points
out that it was only his alleged presence at the time private complainants were making their payments to Daud that led
said private complainants to believe that appellant participated in the recruitment scheme.

The Office of the Solicitor General, as counsel for the appellee, insists that appellant acted in conspiracy with his co-
accused in engaging in illegal recruitment activities, specifically performing the following acts: (1) Appellant, together
with his co-accused, owned and operated Green Pasture Worldwide Tour and Consultancy Corporation; (2) Appellant,
together with his co-accused, encouraged private complainants to apply for jobs abroad with their agency, promising
private complainants salary of US$400.00, 150% overtime pay, and free board and lodging; (3) Appellant, together with
his co-accused, assured private complainants that they could leave for Korea within a short period after paying their
placement fees; and (4) Appellant was present everytime private complainants made payments to his co-accused
Daud. In addition, private complainants De Guzman, Decena, and Poserio positively identified and pointed to appellant
in court as one of the persons who recruited them for work abroad. 19

Article 13(b) of the Labor Code defines recruitment and placement as "any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting,
transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers; and includes referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for
employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not." In the simplest terms, illegal recruitment is committed by
persons who, without authority from the government, give the impression that they have the power to send workers
abroad for employment purposes. 20

Republic Act No. 8042 broadened the concept of illegal recruitment under the Labor Code and provided stiffer
penalties, especially for those that constitute economic sabotage, i.e., Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale and Illegal
Recruitment Committed by a Syndicate.

Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042 defined illegal recruitment as follows:

SEC. 6. Definition. - For purposes of this Act, illegal recruitment shall mean any act of canvassing, enlisting,
contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers and includes referring, contract services, promising or
advertising for employment abroad, whether for profit or not, when undertaken by a non-licensee or non-holder of
authority contemplated under Article 13(f) of Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, otherwise known as the Labor
Code of the Philippines: Provided, That any such non-licensee or non-holder who, in any manner, offers or promises for
a fee employment abroad to two or more persons shall be deemed so engaged. It shall likewise include the following
acts, whether committed by any person, whether a non-licensee, non-holder, licensee or holder of authority:

xxxx

(m) Failure to reimburse expenses incurred by the worker in connection with his documentation and processing for
purposes of deployment, in cases where the deployment does not actually take place without the worker’s fault. Illegal
recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall be considered an offense involving economic
sabotage.

Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring
or confederating with one another. It is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons
individually or as a group.

To constitute illegal recruitment in large scale, three elements must concur: (a) the offender has no valid license or
authority required by law to enable him to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers; (b) the offender
undertakes any of the activities within the meaning of

"recruitment and placement" under Article13(b) of the Labor Code, or any of the prohibited practices enumerated under
Article 34 of the said Code (now Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042); and (c) the offender committed the same against
three or more persons, individually or as a group. 21

Both the RTC and the Court of Appeals ruled that all the foregoing elements of illegal recruitment in large scale are
present in the case at bar. As the Court of Appeals discussed in detail:

First, neither the agency "Green Pastures World Wide Tours and Consultancy" nor appellant himself had a valid license
or authority to engage in the recruitment and placement of workers. This was established by the POEA certification
stating that the said agency located in that apartment was not licensed to recruit employees for abroad. A license is a
document issued by the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) authorizing a person or entity to operate a
private employment agency, while an authority is a document issued by the DOLE authorizing a person or association
to engage in recruitment and placement activities as a private recruitment entity. It is the lack of the necessary license
or authority that renders the recruitment activity, as in this case, unlawful or criminal.

Second, despite not having such authority, appellant, along with his co-accused, nevertheless engaged in recruitment
activities, offering and promising jobs to private complainants and collecting from them various amounts as placement
fees. This is substantiated by the respective testimonies of the three private complainants who fell victim to their illegal
activities. Marcelo de Guzman testified that appellant was physically present during the time that he and his
companions were being shown job orders and while he was paying for the fees for himself and in behalf of his
companions. Francisco Poserio testified that appellant was one of those who apprised him of job benefits and tried to
convince him to apply for overseas employment through their agency. Gina Decena mentioned that [appellant] even
gave her a copy of the job order.

We find no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the lower court that there was conspiracy among the accused in the
commission of the offense. Direct proof of previous agreement to commit a crime is not necessary. It may be deduced
from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated, or inferred from the acts of the accused which point
to a joint purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest. Conspiracy exists where the participants
performed specific acts with such closeness and coordination as unmistakably to indicate a common purpose or design
in committing the crime.

The testimonies of the complainants on the matter are affirmative in nature and sufficiently corroborative of each other
to be less than credible. It would be contrary to human nature and experience for several persons to conspire and
accuse appellant of a crime and send him to prison just to appease their feeling of rejection and vindicate the frustration
of their dreams to work abroad if all he did was just to reside in the same apartment where his mother-in-law [Daud]
operated her recruitment agency. It is in this light that We find any inconsistencies that accused-appellant harps on in
the tesimonines of the complainants to be inconsequential. What is important is that they have positively identified
accused-appellant as one of those who enticed them to part with their money in exchange for promised jobs abroad.

The crime of illegal recruitment, according to the Supreme Court is committed when, among other things, a person,
who without being duly authorized according to law, represents or gives the distinct impression that he or she has the
power or the ability to provide work abroad convincing those to whom the representation is made or to whom the
impression is given to thereupon part with their money in order to be assured of that employment. This is what obtains
in this case.

Contrary to appellant’s mistaken notion, it is not the issuance or signing of receipts for the placement fees that makes a
case for illegal recruitment, but rather the undertaking of recruitment activities without the necessary license or
authority. The absence of receipts to evidence payment is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution’s cause. A person
charged with the illegal recruitment may be convicted on the strength of the testimony of the complainants, if found to
be credible and convincing.

Considering the evidence on record, We agree with the trial court that accused-appellant engaged in recruitment of
workers which was illegal and in large scale. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed
against three or more persons individually or as a group. In this case, three complainants testified against appellant’s
acts of illegal recruitment.  (Citations omitted.)
22

The Court finds no cogent reason to deviate from the findings and conclusions of the RTC and the Court of Appeals.
The prosecution witnesses were positive and categorical in their testimonies that they personally met appellant; that
they knew appellant was associated with Green Pasture Worldwide Tour and Consultancy; and that appellant had
performed recruitment activities such as promising employment abroad, encouraging job applications, and providing
copies of job orders. The private complainants’ testimonies are consistent and corroborate one another on material
points, such as the amount of the placement fees asked, and the purported country of destination and nature of work.

It was not necessary for the prosecution to still prove that appellant himself received the placement fees from private
complainants and issued receipts for the same, given the finding of both the RTC and the Court of Appeals of the
existence of conspiracy among appellant and his co-accused Hanelita and Daud, appellant’s wife and mother-in-law,
respectively. When there is conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.  It is not essential that there be actual proof that
23

all the conspirators took a direct part in every act. It is sufficient that they acted in concert pursuant to the same
objective.24
Between the categorical statements of the private complainants, on the one hand, and the bare denial of appellant, on
the other hand, the former must perforce prevail. An affirmative testimony is far stronger than a negative testimony
especially when the former comes from the mouth of a credible witness. Denial, same as an alibi, if not substantiated
by clear and convincing evidence, is negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law. It is considered
with suspicion and always received with caution, not only because it is inherently weak and unreliable, but also
because it is easily fabricated and concocted. 25

Furthermore, without any evidence to show that private complainants were propelled by any ill motive to testify falsely
against appellant, their testimonies deserve full faith and credit. After all, the doctrinal rule is that findings of fact made
by the trial court, which had the opportunity to directly observe the witnesses and to determine the probative value of
the other testimonies, are entitled to great weight and respect because the trial court is in a better position to assess the
same, an opportunity not equally open to the appellate court. The absence of any showing that the trial court plainly
overlooked certain facts of substance and value that, if considered, might affect the result of the case, or that its
assessment was arbitrary, impels us to defer to the trial court’s determination according credibility to the prosecution
evidence.  This is more true if the findings of the trial court were affirmed by the appellate court, since it is settled that
26

when the trial court’s findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, said findings are generally binding upon this
Court.27

Given the foregoing, we uphold the conviction of appellant for illegal recruitment in a large scale, which constitutes
economic sabotage. The penalty of life imprisonment and the fine of ₱500,000.00, imposed upon appellant for the said
offense by the RTC, and affirmed by the Court of Appeals, is in accord with Section 7(b) of Republic Act No. 8042,
which provides:

Sec. 7. Penalties.–

(a) Any person found guilty of illegal recruitment shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of not less than
six (6) years and one (1) day but not more than twelve (12) years and a fine of not less than Two
hundred thousand pesos (₱200,000.00) nor more than Five hundred thousand pesos (₱500,000.00).

(b) The penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of not less than Five hundred thousand pesos
(₱500,000.00) nor more than One million pesos (₱1,000,000.00) shall be imposed if illegal recruitment
constitutes economic sabotage as defined herein. (Emphasis ours.)

Estafa

We likewise affirm the conviction of appellant for three counts of estafa committed against the private complainants in
Criminal Case Nos. 03-0123, 03-0127, and 03-0130, based on the very same evidence that proved appellant’s criminal
liability for illegal recruitment.

It is settled that a person may be charged and convicted separately of illegal recruitment under Republic Act No. 8042,
in relation to the Labor Code, and estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a)of the Revised Penal Code. As we explained
in People v. Cortez and Yabut :28

In this jurisdiction, it is settled that a person who commits illegal recruitment may be charged and convicted separately
of illegal recruitment under the Labor Code and estafa under par. 2(a) of Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code. The
offense of illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum where the criminal intent of the accused is not necessary for
conviction, while estafa is malum in se where the criminal intent of the accused is crucial for conviction. Conviction for
offenses under the Labor Code does not bar conviction for offenses punishable by other laws.

Conversely, conviction for estafa under par. 2(a) of Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code does not bar a conviction for
illegal recruitment under the Labor Code. It follows that one’s acquittal of the crime of estafa will not necessarily result
in his acquittal of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale, and vice versa. (Citations omitted.)

Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code defines estafa as:

Art. 315. Swindling (estafa). - Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow x x x:

xxxx
2. 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 a fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency,
business or imaginary transactions; or by means of other similar deceits.

The elements of estafa are: (a) that the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit, and
(b) that damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party or third person. 29

Appellant contends that he cannot be convicted of estafa because the element of deceit is lacking. He insists on the
absence of proof that he made any false statement or fraudulent representation to private complainants.

We are not persuaded. As we had previously discussed herein, private complainants were able to establish, through
their positive and credible testimonies, that appellant acted in conspiracy with his co-accused to mislead private
complainants into believing that appellant and his co-accused, for a fee, can deploy private complainants abroad for
employment. Decena testified that appellant gave her a copy of the purported job order for Korea, while Poserio
avowed that appellant encouraged him to apply for work abroad. Daud, appellant’s fellow conspirator, accepted
placement fees from private complainants, even issuing receipts for some; instructed private complainants to undergo
medical examination; and took private complainants’ passports. The representations made by appellant and his co-
accused to private complainants were actually false and fraudulent, not only because they were not duly authorized to
undertake recruitment for overseas employment, but also because there were no actual jobs waiting for private
complainants in Korea and private complainants never had a chance to leave for work abroad.

Appellant also argues that the second element of estafa, which is prejudice or pecuniary loss, was not established
during trial as the prosecution was unable to present any receipt signed by appellant proving that he received money
from private complainants.

We disagree once more with appellant. We reiterate that when conspiracy has been established, the act of one
conspirator is the act of all. All three private complainants testified that they paid placement fees to Daud, who issued
receipts for some amounts either in her name or in the name of one "Nimfa Min." Moreover, the payment of placement
fees to illegal recruiters is not evidenced by receipts alone; it can also be established by testimonies of witnesses. In
People v. Pabalan,  we held:
30

Although not all of the amounts testified to by complainants were covered by receipts, the fact that there were no
receipts for some of the amounts delivered to him does not mean that appellant did not accept or receive such
payments. This Court has ruled in several cases that the absence of receipts in a criminal case for illegal recruitment
does not warrant the acquittal of the accused and is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. As long as the witnesses
had positively shown through their respective testimonies that the accused is the one involved in the prohibited
recruitment, he may be convicted of the offense despite the want of receipts.

The Statute of Frauds and the rules of evidence do not require the presentations of receipts in order to prove the
existence of a recruitment agreement and the procurement of fees in illegal recruitment cases. The amounts may
consequently be proved by the testimony of witnesses. (Citation omitted.)

Again, there is no cogent reason for us to disturb the finding of the RTC, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, that both
elements of estafa are present in Criminal Case Nos. 03-0123, 03-0127, and 03-0130. Thus, we sustain appellant’s
conviction for estafa, punishable under Article 315, paragraph 2(a), of the Revised Penal Code.

The penalty for estafa depends on the amount of defraudation.  Per Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code:
1âwphi1

Art. 315. Swindling (estafa). – Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow shall
be punished by:

1st. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period, if the amount of
the fraud is over 12,000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000 pesos; and if such amount exceeds the latter sum, the
penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional 10,000
pesos; but the total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases, and in connection
with the accessory penalties which may be imposed and for the purpose of the other provisions of this Code, the
penalty shall be termed prision mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be[.]

The prescribed penalty for estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, when the amount of the fraud is over
₱12,000.00 but not exceeding ₱22,000.00, is prision correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum (i.e., from 4
years, 2 months, and 1 day to 8 years). Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum term shall be within the
range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Revised Penal Code, or anywhere within prision correccional
minimum and medium (i.e., from 6 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months).  Consequently, the minimum terms in
31

Criminal Case Nos. 03-0123,03-127, and 03-0130 were correctly fixed by the RTC, and affirmed by the Court of
Appeals, at 2 years and 4 months of prision correccional.

The maximum term under the Indeterminate Sentence Law shall be that which, in view of attending circumstances,
could be properly imposed under the rules of the Revised Penal Code. To compute the minimum, medium, and
maximum periods of the prescribed penalty for estafa when the amount of fraud exceeds ₱12,000.00, the time included
in prision correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum shall be divided into three equal portions, with each portion
forming a period. Following this computation, the minimum period for prision correccional maximum to prision mayor
minimum is from 4 years, 2 months, and 1 day to 5 years, 5 months, and 10 days; the medium period is from 5 years, 5
months, and 11 days to 6 years, 8 months, and 20 days; and the maximum period is from 6 years, 8 months, and 21
days to 8 years. Any incremental penalty (i.e., one year for every ₱10,000.00 in excess of ₱22,000.00) shall thus be
added to anywhere from 6 years, 8 months, and 21 days to 8 years, at the discretion of the court, provided that the total
penalty does not exceed 20 years. 32

In Criminal Case Nos. 03-0123, 03-127, and 03-0130, the maximum term shall be taken from the maximum period of
the prescribed penalty, which is 6 years, 8 months, and 21 days to 8 years. The Court of Appeals fixed the maximum
term at 8 years.

But then, since private complainants were defrauded in the amounts exceeding ₱22,000.00, incremental penalty shall
be imposed upon appellant, determined as follows:
1âwphi1

Criminal Case Difference After Quotient After

Amount Incremental
No. (Private Subtracting Dividing by
Defrauded Penalty 33

Complainant) ₱22,000.00 ₱10,000.00

03-0123 (De Guzman) ₱80,000.00 ₱58,000.00 5.8 5 years
03-0127 (Decena) ₱35,000.00 ₱13,000.00 1.3 1 year
03-130 (Poserio) ₱70,000.00 ₱48,000.00 4.8 4 years

The incremental penalty shall be added to the maximum term of 8 years fixed by the Court of Appeals. Thus, we agree
with the Court of Appeals in imposing the maximum penalty in Criminal Case No. 03-0123at thirteen (13) years of
reclusion temporal; in Criminal Case No. 03-0127 at nine (9) years of prision mayor; and in Criminal Case No. 03-0130
at twelve (12) years of prision mayor.

Lastly, it is still incumbent upon appellant to indemnify private complainants for the amounts paid to him and his
conspirators, with legal interest at the rate of 6% per annum, from the time of demand, which, in this case, shall be
deemed as the same day the Informations were filed against appellant, until the said amounts are fully paid. 34

WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM with MODIFICATIONS the Decision dated March 18, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 03168, to read as follows:

1. In Criminal Case No. 03-0122, appellant Roderick T. Gallemit is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
illegal recruitment in large scale, constituting economic sabotage, as defined and penalized in Section 6, in
relation to Section 7(b), of Republic Act No. 8042, for which he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of life
imprisonment and is ordered to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (₱500.000.00);

2. In Criminal Case No. 03-0123, appellant Roderick T. Gallemit is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of estafa, as defined and penalized in Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code, for
which he is sentenced to a prison term of two (2) years and four (4) months of prision correccional, as
 minimum, to thirteen years (13) of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and ordered to indemnify private
complainant Marcelo I. De Guzman in the amount of Eighty Thousand Pesos (₱80,000.00) as actual damages,
with legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum from January 3, 2003, until the said amount is fully paid;

3. In Criminal Case No. 03-0127, appellant Roderick T. Gallemit is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of estafa, as defined and penalized in Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal C ode, for
which he is sentenced to a prison term of two (2) years and four

(4) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to nine (9) years of prision mayor, as maximum, ordered to
indemnify private complainant Gina T. Decena in the amount of Thirty-Five Thousand Pesos (₱35,000.00) as
actual damages, with legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum from January 3, 2003, until the said amount
is fully paid; and

4. In Criminal Case No. 03-0130, appellant Roderick T. Gallemit is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of estafa, as defined and penalized in Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code, for
which he is sentenced to a prison term of two (2) years and four (4) months of prision correccional, as
minimum, to twelve (12) years of prision mayor, as maximum, and ordered to indemnify private complainant
Francisco S. Poserio in the amount of Seventy Thousand Pesos (₱70,000.00) as actual damages, with legal
interest of six percent (6%) per annum from January 3, 2003, until the said amount is fully paid.

SO ORDERED.