THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 178337. June 25, 2009.]

CARMEN RITUALO y RAMOS , petitioner, vs . PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES , respondent.

DECISION

CHICO-NAZARIO , J : p

For review is the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals promulgated on 23 April

2007 in CA-G.R. CR. No. 29393 entitled, "People of the Philippines v. Carmen Ritualo y
Ramos", a rming with modi cation, the Decision 2 dated 1 December 2004 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 199, Las Piñas City, in Criminal Cases No. 01-0076
and No. 01-0077.
In this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of
Court, petitioner Carmen Ritualo y Ramos (petitioner Ritualo) prays for the reversal of
the appellate court's decision a rming with modi cation the decision of the trial court
nding her "guilty beyond reasonable doubt of [committing] the crimes of . . . Simple
Illegal Recruitment [de ned and punished] under Section 7 of Republic Act No. 8042,
otherwise known as the 'Migrant Workers Act of 1995'," 3 and "Estafa". 4
This case originated from two Informations, both dated 2 January 2001, which
charged Ritualo with the crimes of Illegal Recruitment de ned and penalized by
Republic Act No. 8042; and Estafa under Art. 315, par. 2 (a) of the Revised Penal Code,
respectively. The accusatory portion of the first Information reads as follows: cDICaS

That on or about the 1st day of May, 2000, in the City of Las Piñas,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named
accused, falsely representing herself to have the capacity and power to contract,
enlist and recruit workers for employment abroad, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully, and feloniously collect for a fee, recruit and promise employment/job
placement abroad to Felix Biacora without rst securing the required license or
authority from the Department of Labor and Employment. 5

The one for Estafa states, viz.:

That during the periods (sic) from May 1, 2000 to June 1, 2000, in the City
of Las Piñas, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above named accused, with intent of gain, by means of false pretenses or
fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the
fraud, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud the
Complainant Felix Biacora amounting to P80,000.00 committed in the following
manner to wit: that the Accused represented to the Complainant that she was
authorized or licensed by the Department of Labor and Employment to recruit
workers for overseas employment and that she could send Complainant to work
abroad (Australia) as farm worker as soon as possible, knowing very well that
such representation is false and was intended only to get money from the
Complainant and the Complainant after relying from the said representations
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2020 [Link]
 made by the accused, handed to the accused the said amount and the accused,
once in possession of the money, misappropriated, misapplied and converted the
same for her personal use and bene t, and not withstanding repeated demands
failed and refused to pay the said amount of P80,000.00 to the damage and
prejudice of the Complainant in the aforementioned amount of P80,000.00. 6
The foregoing were docketed as Criminal Cases No. 01-0076 and No. 0077 and
raffled to Branch 275 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Las Piñas City.
Upon arraignment on 24 May 2001, petitioner Ritualo, duly assisted by counsel
de oficio, pleaded "Not Guilty" to the crimes charged. 7
On 26 May 2003, during the joint trial of the cases, petitioner Ritualo orally
manifested in open court that earnest efforts were being undertaken to settle the civil
aspect thereof. Thus, with the conformity of the accused, herein petitioner Ritualo,
coupled with the latter's express waiver apropos the attachment of double jeopardy,
the RTC ordered 8 the provisional dismissal of the two cases.
On 13 October 2003, however, the RTC ordered 9 the revival of the cases upon
the motion of the prosecution, on the ground that Ritualo reneged on her undertaking as
embodied in a handwritten note entitled, "Kasunduan" viz.:
May 26, 2003

Kasunduan
Ako si Carmen Ritualo, ay sa araw na ito May 26, 2003, nagbabayad kay
Felix Biacora ng halagang Sampung-libong Piso (P10,000.00) at ang natirang
Twenty One Thousand Pesos ay babayaran ko sa loob ng Tatlong Buwan
magmula ngayon. TaISEH

(Sgd.)
Carmen Ritualo
Akusado
Sumang-ayon:
(Sgd.)
Felix Biacora
Complainant 1 0

In the ensuing trial, the prosecution presented two witnesses, namely, Felix
Biacora, the victim; 1 1 and Belen Blones, employee of the Licensing Branch of the
Philippines Overseas Employment Agency (POEA). Taken altogether, the evidence of
the prosecution established the following facts:
In 1993, Felix Biacora went to Saudi Arabia for overseas employment that was
facilitated by one Cynthia Libutan (Libutan) who worked for a recruitment agency. 1 2
Several years after his return to the country, Biacora accidentally met Libutan in
Baclaran Church sometime in 2000. After they exchanged pleasantries, the former
signi ed to the latter his desire to seek another overseas employment. Libutan then
gave Biacora the name, address and contact number of her friend, one Carmen Ritualo,
the petitioner herein, who was able to help Libutan's sister nd work in Australia.
Biacora thereafter called petitioner Ritualo to set up a meeting.
On 1 May 2000, accompanied by his wife, Biacora went to the house of petitioner
Ritualo and inquired from her whether she could help him secure overseas employment
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2020 [Link]
 in Australia. Petitioner Ritualo answered in the a rmative, and to be convincing,
brought out travel documents of several people she was able to "help", who were then
supposedly scheduled to leave for abroad pretty soon. 1 3 Biacora was then assured
that:
[He could] leave for Australia [in a month's time] if [he] will give [petitioner
Ritualo] a total amount of P160,000.00, and [his] salary would be US$700.00 per
month as a farm worker. 1 4

On the above-quoted representation on the same date, Biacora paid petitioner

Ritualo the amount of P40,000.00 as downpayment, with the balance to be completed
before he left for Australia. Upon receipt of the money, petitioner Ritualo issued Biacora
a Cash Voucher 1 5 as evidence of said payment. To complete their transaction, Biacora
left her a copy of his Bio-data. 1 6
On 4 May 2000, Biacora again gave petitioner Ritualo P20,000.00 as additional
payment, making the total amount received by the latter P60,000.00. Again, petitioner
Ritualo issued a Cash Voucher. 1 7
Subsequently, Biacora was informed by petitioner Ritualo that all he needed in
securing an employment in Australia was his Passport and an endorsement from the
Representative of his district. Accompanied by petitioner Ritualo and one Anita
Seraspe, the assistant 1 8 of the former, Biacora went to the Batasan Pambansa to
secure the necessary endorsement. Thereafter, all three went to the Australian
Embassy to apply for Biacora's working visa.
On 1 June 2000, Biacora went to see petitioner Ritualo to follow up the date of
his departure. Petitioner Ritualo asked from Biacora another P20,000.00 and told the
latter to be patient. As with the other amounts given, proof of payment 1 9 was similarly
issued to acknowledge receipt thereof. ITAaCc

Several dates were set for Biacora's departure, but none pushed through. To top
it all, his Australian Visa application was denied by the Australian Embassy.
Consequently, on 9 September 2000, Biacora demanded from petitioner Ritualo the
return of the P80,000.00. The latter promised to pay back the money on the 13th of
September 2000. None came.
Thereafter, Biacora led the subject criminal complaints against petitioner
Ritualo.
In two Certi cations dated 23 October 2000 2 0 and 5 November 2003, 2 1
respectively, both identi ed by Belen Blones of the Licensing Division of the POEA, it
was con rmed that "per available records of [its] O ce, CARMEN RITUALO, in her
personal capacity is not licensed by this Administration to recruit workers for overseas
employment"; 2 2 and that "[a]ny recruitment activity undertaken by [her] is deemed
illegal". 2 3
To rebut the foregoing evidence presented by the prosecution, the defense
presented a diametrically opposed version of the facts of the present case through the
sole testimony of Ritualo.
In her testimony, Ritualo narrated that it was Libutan and Biacora who asked her
to introduce them to a certain Anita Seraspe, the person responsible for sending
petitioner Ritualo's own sister to Australia; 2 4 that she had no agreement with Biacora
respecting the latter's employment in Australia; that any talk of money was made
among Libutan, Biacora and Seraspe only; that she received a total of P80,000.00 from
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2020 [Link]
 Biacora, but that the same was merely entrusted to her because Libutan and Biacora
had just met Seraspe, 2 5 and that she turned over all the payments to Seraspe who
acknowledged receipt of the same by writing on pieces of paper said acceptance; that
she accompanied Biacora to Batasan Pambansa at his request; that she did not earn
any money out of her referral and introduction of Libutan and Biacora to Seraspe; that
even if she did not earn any money out of the subject transaction, she returned
P10,000.00 and P31,000.00, or a total of P41,000.00, to Biacora out of fear that the
latter would le charges against her; that she tried to nd Seraspe, but the latter could
not be found at her last known address; and that she gave Biacora an additional
P6,000.000 to obviate any more scandal befalling her family. 2 6
On 1 December 2004, after trial, the RTC found the evidence presented by the
prosecution to be more credible and logical than that presented by the defense and
thus, convicted Ritualo for the crimes of Simple Illegal Recruitment and Estafa, de ned
and penalized under the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipino Act of 1995 and the
Revised Penal Code, respectively. The dispositive portion of the trial court's judgment
stated:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court nds accused CARMEN
RITUALO y RAMOS, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of:

1. Simple Illegal Recruitment (Criminal Case Number 01-0076) under Section

7 of Republic Act No. 8042 otherwise known as the 'Migrant Workers Act of
1995,' and sentences her to suffer an Indeterminate penalty of
imprisonment of Six (6) years and ONE (1) day, as minimum, to EIGHT (8)
years, as maximum, and to pay a fine of P200,000.00.

2. In Criminal Case Number 01-0077 for Estafa, herein accused is hereby

sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of prison term of six (6)
months and One (1) day of Prission (sic) Correctional (sic), as minimum, to
seven (7) years, eleven (11) months and eleven (11) days of Prision Mayor,
as maximum and is ORDERED to indemnify Felix Biacora actual damages
in the amount of P66,000.00 which is minus the amount of P14,000.00
which the private complainant admitted to have been refunded to him. aDcTHE

Cost de oficio. 2 7

Ritualo's Motion for Reconsideration of the trial court's decision was

subsequently denied in an Order 2 8 dated 21 January 2005.
In an Order 2 9 dated 1 March 2005, the RTC granted and approved the Notice of
Appeal 3 0 filed by Ritualo.
The Court of Appeals, in its Decision promulgated on 23 April 2007, a rmed the
judgment of the RTC insofar as the conviction of Ritualo was concerned. As reasoned
by the Court of Appeals, "[a]s against the positive and categorical testimony of the
[Biacora], [Ritualo's] denials cannot prevail". 3 1 Particularly, the appellate court held that
Ritualo's "acts of promising and assuring employment overseas to [Biacora] [fell]
squarely within the ambit of recruitment and placement as de ned by [The Migrant
Workers Act or Republic Act No. 8042]". 3 2 With respect to the charge of Estafa under
the Revised Penal Code, the appellate court likewise found that all the elements of said
crime existed in the case at bar, i.e., "[Ritualo] misrepresented herself to the [Biacora] as
the person who could send him to Australia for employment, and by reason of
misrepresentations, false assurances and deceit, [Biacora] was induced to part with his
money in payment of placement fees, thereby causing him damage and prejudice". 3 3
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2020 [Link]
 The penalties imposed on Ritualo by the trial court, however, were modi ed by
the Court of Appeals on the ground that the latter erred in imposing in the Illegal
Recruitment case, an indeterminate sentence ranging from six (6) years and one (1)
day, as minimum, to eight (8) years, as maximum, and to pay a ne of P200,000.00," 3 4
in view of the penalty prescribed under Sec. 7 of Republic Act No. 8042; and, in the
Estafa case, another indeterminate sentence ranging from six (6) months and one (1)
day of prision correcional, as minimum, to seven (7) years, eleven (11) months and
eleven (11) days of prision mayor, as maximum, contrary to the wordings of Art. 315 of
the Revised Penal Code.
The fallo of the Court of Appeals decision is restated:
UPON THE VIEW WE TAKE OF THESE CASES, THUS, the appealed decision
nding the accused-appellant Carmen Ritualo y Ramos guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of Simple Illegal Recruitment and Estafa is AFFIRMED, with the following
MODIFICATIONS —
1. In Criminal Case No. 01-0076 (Simple Illegal Recruitment), the
accused-appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty of
imprisonment of twelve (12) years and to pay a fine of P500,000.00.
2. In Criminal Case No. 01-0077 (Estafa), the accused-appellant is
sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of four (4) years and two
(2) months of prision correctional (sic), as minimum, to twelve (12)
years of prision mayor, as maximum, and to indemnify the private
complainant Felix Biacora the sum of P66,000.00 with the interest
thereon at the legal rate from September 21, 2000 until the same is
fully paid.
Costs shall also be taxed against the accused-appellant. 3 5

Hence, Ritualo filed the instant petition for review.

In this petition, Ritualo prayed for the reversal of the decision of the RTC, as
a rmed with modi cation by the Court of Appeals, on the basis of the following
assignment of errors:
I.
WHETHER THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING WITH
MODIFICATION THE DECISION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT DESPITE THE
FACT THAT THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD COULD NOT SUPPORT A CONVICTION;
and

II.
ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT THE PETITIONER IS CULPABLE, THE HONORABLE
COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN MODIFYING THE DECISION OF THE REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT AS REGARDS THE TERM OF SENTENCE IN THE ILLEGAL
RECRUITMENT CASE. 3 6

Essentially, she argues that there "was no proof beyond reasonable doubt that . . .
[she] gave Biacora a distinct impression that she had the power or ability to send him
abroad for work such that the latter was convinced to part with his money". 3 7
Petitioner Ritualo maintains that Biacora transacted with Seraspe and not with her.
Assuming for the sake of argument that she and Biacora had any agreement with each
other, petitioner Ritualo insisted that it was merely to facilitate the latter's application
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2020 [Link]
 for an Australian Visa. Particularly, she pointed out that the prosecution failed to
present other witnesses who could have corroborated the claim of Biacora that she
(Ritualo) promised him employment abroad. Anent the penalty imposed by the courts,
petitioner disputed the appellate court's reasoning and claimed that the same was
improper in view of the ruling of this Court in People v. Gallardo, 3 8 in which therein
respondent was also convicted of Simple Illegal Recruitment. CIcTAE

The O ce of the Solicitor General, for the People of the Philippines, on the other
hand, asserted that the ndings of the Court of Appeals were supported by the records
of the case, i.e., "Biacora was consistent in his testimony that it was petitioner who
illegally recruited him for work as a farmhand in Australia". Thus, "[a]s against the
positive and categorical testimony of the private complainant (Biacora), petitioner's
denial cannot prevail".
We find no merit in the petition.
Having weighed the evidence for the contending parties, there is no cogent
reason to reverse the ndings and conclusion of the RTC as a rmed by the Court of
Appeals.
The crime of Simple Illegal Recruitment is de ned and penalized under Sec. 6 of
Republic Act No. 8042, which reads:
(a) To charge or accept directly or indirectly any amount greater than
that speci ed in the schedule of allowable fees prescribed by the Secretary of
Labor and Employment, or to make a worker pay any amount greater than that
actually received by him as a loan or advance;
(b) To furnish or publish any false notice or information or document
in relation to recruitment or employment;
(c) To give any false notice, testimony, information or document or
commit any act of misrepresentation for the purpose of securing a license or
authority under the Labor Code;
(d) To induce or attempt to induce a worker already employed to quit
his employment in order to offer him another unless the transfer is designed to
liberate a worker from oppressive terms and conditions of employment;

(e) To in uence or attempt to in uence any person or entity not to

employ any worker who has not applied for employment through his agency;

(f) To engage in the recruitment or placement of workers in jobs

harmful to public health or morality or to the dignity of the Republic of the
Philippines;
(g) To obstruct or attempt to obstruct inspection by the Secretary of
Labor and Employment or by his duly authorized representative;
(h) To fail to submit reports on the status of employment, placement
vacancies, remittance of foreign exchange earnings, separation from jobs,
departures and such other matters or information as may be required by the
Secretary of Labor and Employment;
(i) To substitute or alter to the prejudice of the worker, employment
contracts approved and veri ed by the Department of Labor and Employment
from the time of actual signing thereof by the parties up to and including the
period of the expiration of the same without the approval of the Department of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2020 [Link]
 Labor and Employment;

(j) For an o cer or agent of a recruitment or placement agency to

become an o cer or member of the Board of any corporation engaged in travel
agency or to be engaged directly or indirectly in the management of a travel
agency; HDIATS

(k) To withhold or deny travel documents from applicant workers

before departure for monetary or nancial considerations other than those
authorized under the Labor Code and its implementing rules and regulations;

(l) Failure to actually deploy without valid reason as determined by the

Department of Labor and Employment; and

(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.
The persons criminally liable for the above offenses are the principals,
accomplices and accessories. In case of juridical persons, the o cers having control,
management or direction of their business shall be liable.
Art. 315, par. 2 (a) of the Revised Penal Code, on the other hand, enumerates one
of the modes of committing estafa, thus:
xxx xxx xxx
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 ctitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power,
in uence, quali cations, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary
transactions, or by means of other similar deceits.

Illegal recruitment is committed when two essential elements concur:

(1) that the offender has no valid license or authority required by law
to enable him to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers,
and
(2) that the offender undertakes any activity within the meaning of
"recruitment and placement" de ned under Article 13 (b), or any prohibited
practices enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code. 3 9

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 pro t or not: Provided,
that any person or entity which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee
employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2020 [Link]
 placement. (Emphasis supplied.)

In this case, the rst element is, indeed, present. The prosecution established,
through Belen Blones of the Licensing Branch of the POEA, who identi ed and
con rmed the two Certi cations issued by the POEA Licensing Branch, that "per
available records of [its] O ce, CARMEN RITUALO, in her personal capacity is not
licensed by this Administration to recruit workers for overseas employment". 4 0 ISDHcT

As to the second element, it must be shown that the accused gave the private
complainant the distinct impression that he/she had the power or ability to send the
private complainant abroad for work, such that the latter was convinced to part with
his/her money in order to be employed. 4 1 Thus, to be engaged in illegal recruitment, it
is plain that there must at least be a promise or an offer of employment from the
person posing as a recruiter whether locally or abroad. 4 2 In the case at bar, the second
element is similarly present. As testi ed to by Biacora, petitioner Ritualo professed to
have the ability to send him overseas to be employed as a farm worker in Australia with
a monthly salary of US$700.00. 4 3 To further wet Biacora's appetite, petitioner Ritualo
even showed him purported travel documents of other people about to depart, whose
overseas employment she supposedly facilitated. That petitioner Ritualo personally
assisted Biacora in the completion of the alleged requirements, i.e., securing a Letter of
Request and Guarantee from the Representative of his Congressional District in
Batangas to ensure the approval of Biacora's application for an Australian Visa, even
accompanying Biacora to the Australian Embassy, all clearly point to her efforts to
convince Biacora that she (petitioner Ritualo) had, indeed, the ability and in uence to
make Biacora's dream of overseas employment come true.
The claim of petitioner Ritualo that it was Anita Seraspe who was really the
recruiter and the one who pro ted from the subject illegal transaction holds no water.
Petitioner Ritualo's act of receiving payment from Biacora and issuing personal
receipts therefor; of personally assisting Biacora to complete the “necessary—
documents; of failing to present evidence to corroborate her testimony despite several
opportunities given her by the trial court; of petitioner Ritualo having been positively
identi ed as the person who transacted with Biacora and promised the latter an
overseas employment and who personally received money from Biacora, all
unhesitatingly point to petitioner Ritualo as the culprit.
The following oral and documentary evidence are worth reproducing:
COURT:
Q: How many times did you receive money from private complainant?

WITNESS:
Three (3) times, Your Honor.
Q: The first time?
A: My first time is Php40,000.00, Your Honor.
Q: The second time?

A: Php20,000.00, Your Honor.

Q: Third time?
A: Php20,000.00, Your Honor.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2020 [Link]
 Q: When you received these amounts of money, who issued the private
complainant a receipt? CDESIA

A: I was the one, Your Honor. 4 4

The first Cash Voucher issued by petitioner Ritualo declares:

CASH VOUCHER

5-1-2000
Payment for document Australia fourty (sic) thousand (sic) pesos (sic) only
(P40,000.00)
RECEIVED from Felix Evangelista Biacora the amount of PESOS
fourty thousand pesos (P40,000.00) in full payment of amount described
above.
By: (Sgd.) Carmen Ritualo 4 5

The second, on 4 May 2000, states:

CASH VOUCHER
5-4-2000
Payment for document Australia twenty (sic) thousand (sic) pesos (sic) only
(P20,000.00)
RECEIVED from Felix Biacora the amount of PESOS twenty
thousand (P20,000.00) in full payment of amount described above.
By: (Sgd.) Carmen Ritualo 4 6

And the third receipt reads:

RECEIPT

No. _____________Date: 6-1-2000

RECEIVED from Felix Biacora the sum of Pesos Twenty thousand
(P20,000.00) as payment for for Visa.
Partial _______Cash _____/__
Balance ______Check No. _______
(Sgd.) Carmen Ritualo
Authorized Signature 4 7
Petitioner Ritualo next tried to impress upon this Court that she received nary a
centavo from the subject illegal transaction; therefore, she should not be held liable.
We reject this outright. In the rst place, it has been abundantly shown that she
really received the monies from Biacora. Secondly, even without consideration for her
services, she still engaged in recruitment activities, since it was satisfactorily shown
that she promised overseas employment to Biacora. And, more importantly, Sec. 6 of
Republic Act No. 8042 does not require that the illegal recruitment be done for profit.
Petitioner Ritualo boldly but vainly tried to inject reasonable doubt by
complaining that the RTC and the Court of Appeals a rmed her conviction despite
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2020 [Link]
 failure of the prosecution to present other vital witness, i.e., Biacora's wife, who
accompanied her husband to the house of petitioner Ritualo and, hence, witnessed
what happened on the rst meeting between the latter and Biacora. Non-presentation
of said witness, according to petitioner Ritualo, raises the presumption that her
testimony, if presented, would be adverse to the prosecution. ScaEIT

The prosecution is entitled to conduct its own case and to decide what
witnesses to call to support its charges. 4 8 The defense posture that the non-
presentation of the wife of Biacora constitutes suppression of evidence favorable to
petitioner Ritualo is fallacious. In fact, the same line of reasoning can be used against
petitioner Ritualo. If the defense felt that the testimony of Biacora's wife would support
her defense, what she could and should have done was to call her (Biacora's wife) to
the stand as her own witness. One of the constitutional rights of the accused is "to have
compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of
evidence in his behalf". And, in the same vein, since petitioner Ritualo is setting the cloak
of liability on Seraspe's shoulder, she (petitioner Ritualo) could and should have had the
former subpoenaed as well.
As held by this Court, the adverse presumption of suppression of evidence does
not, moreover, apply where the evidence suppressed is merely corroborative or
cumulative in nature. 4 9 If presented, Biacora's wife would merely corroborate Biacora's
account which, by itself, already detailed what occurred on the day of the parties' rst
meeting at the house of petitioner Ritualo. Hence, the prosecution committed no fatal
error in dispensing with the testimony of Biacora's wife.
Finally, Biacora, the private complainant in this case, did not harbor any ill motive
to testify falsely against petitioner Ritualo. The latter failed to show any animosity or ill
feeling on the part of Biacora that could have motivated him to falsely accuse her of the
crimes charged. It would be against human nature and experience for strangers to
conspire and accuse another stranger of a most serious crime just to mollify their hurt
feelings. 5 0
The totality of the evidence in the case at bar, when scrutinized and taken
together, leads to no other conclusion than that petitioner Ritualo engaged in recruiting
and promising overseas employment to Felix Biacora under the above-quoted Sec. 6 of
Republic Act No. 8042 vis-à-vis Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code. Hence, she cannot now
feign ignorance of the consequences of her unlawful acts.
As to the sentence imposed upon petitioner Ritualo for the crime of simple illegal
recruitment, this Court clari es that the penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals — a
sentence of 12 years imprisonment and a ne of P500,000.00 — is partly incorrect, as
petitioner Ritualo is a non-licensee. 5 1 Under Sec. 7 (a) of Republic Act No. 8042, simple
illegal recruitment is punishable by imprisonment of not less than six (6) years and one
(1) day but not more than twelve (12) years and a ne of not less than Two Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00) nor more than Five Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P500,000.00). Applying the provisions of Section 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence law,
however, the correct penalty that should have been imposed upon petitioner Ritualo is
imprisonment for the period of eight (8) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to twelve
(12) years, as maximum. 5 2 The imposition of a fine of P500,000.00 is also in order.
With respect to the criminal charge of estafa, this Court likewise a rms the
conviction of petitioner Ritualo for said crime. The same evidence proving petitioner
Ritualo's criminal liability for illegal recruitment also established her liability for estafa.
It is settled that a person may be charged and convicted separately of illegal
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2020 [Link]
 recruitment under Republic Act No. 8042 in relation to the Labor Code, and estafa under
Art. 315, paragraph 2 (a) of the Revised Penal Code. As this Court held in People v.
Yabut: 5 3 HIaTCc

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.

The prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner Ritualo was
similarly guilty of estafa under Art. 315 (2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code committed —
By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts
executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud:

(a) By using ctitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power,

in uence, quali cations, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary
transactions, or by means of other similar deceits.

Both elements of the crime were established in this case, namely, (a) petitioner
Ritualo defrauded complainant by abuse of con dence or by means of deceit; and (b)
complainant Biacora suffered damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation as
a result. 5 4 Biacora parted with his money upon the prodding and enticement of
petitioner Ritualo on the false pretense that she had the capacity to deploy him for
employment in Australia. In the end, Biacora was neither able to leave for work
overseas nor did he get his money back, thus causing him damage and prejudice.
Hence, the conviction of petitioner Ritualo of the crime of estafa should be upheld.
While this Court affirms the conviction of the petitioner Ritualo for estafa, we find,
however, that both the trial court and the appellate court erroneously computed the
penalty of the crime. The amount of which the private complainant, Biacora, was
defrauded was Eighty Thousand Pesos (P80,000.00) and not merely Sixty Six Thousand
Pesos (P66,000.00).
Under the Revised Penal Code, an accused found guilty of estafa shall be
sentenced to:
Art. 315. Swindling (estafa). — Any person who shall defraud another
by any of the means mentioned herein below 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 under the
provisions of this Code, the penalty shall be termed prision mayor or reclusion
temporal, as the case may be.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2020 [Link]
 2nd. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium
periods, if the amount of the fraud is over 6,000 pesos but does not exceed
12,000 pesos;

3rd. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision

correccional in its minimum period if such amount is over 200 pesos but does not
exceed 6,000 pesos; and DISTcH

4th. By arresto mayor in its maximum period, if such amount does not
exceed 200 pesos, . . . .

Computing the penalty for the crime of Estafa based on the above-quoted
provision, the proper penalty to be imposed upon petitioner Ritualo is the maximum
term of prision correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum as mandated by
Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code. But considering that the amount defrauded
exceeded Twenty-Two Thousand Pesos (P22,000.00), per the same provision, the
prescribed penalty is not only imposed in its maximum period, but there is imposed an
incremental penalty of one (1) year imprisonment for every Ten Thousand Pesos
(P10,000.00) in excess of the cap of Twenty-Two Thousand Pesos (P22,000.00). 5 5 As
this Court held in People v. Gabres, 5 6 "[t]he fact that the amounts involved in the instant
case exceed P22,000.00 should not be considered in the initial determination of the
indeterminate penalty; instead, the matter should be so taken as analogous to
modifying circumstances in the imposition of the maximum term of the full
indeterminate sentence". 5 7 And with respect to the computation of the minimum term
of the indeterminate sentence, in this case, given that the penalty prescribed by law for
the estafa charge against petitioner Ritualo is prision correccional maximum to prision
mayor minimum, the penalty next lower would then be prision correccional minimum to
medium per Art. 64 in relation to Art. 65, both of the Revised Penal Code.
Preceding from the above discussion, thus, the prison term to be imposed upon
petitioner Ritualo vis-à-vis the crime of Estafa is as follows: the minimum term should
be anywhere within six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and two (2) months
of prision correccional; while the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence should
be within the range of six (6) years, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days to eight
(8) years of prision mayor considering that the amount involved exceeds P22,000.00,
plus an added ve (5) years, as there are ve (5) increments of P10,000.00 over the cap
of P22,000.00. 5 8
Lastly, regarding the award of indemnity due from petitioner Ritualo, both the
RTC and Court of Appeals ordered her to pay Biacora the amount of Sixty-Six Thousand
Pesos (P66,000.00), instead of the original amount defrauded, which is Eighty
Thousand Pesos (P80,000.00), in view of petitioner Ritualo's payment of Fourteen
Thousand Pesos (P14,000.00). A thorough scrutiny of the record of the case, however,
yields the nding that as of the date of revival of the case before the RTC, or on 13
October 2003, only the amount of Twenty-One Thousand Pesos (P21,000.00) remains
unpaid. The Motion to Revive Case dated 2 October 2003 led by the prosecution
attached the letter-request of private complainant Biacora, elucidating thus:
I, MR. FELIX BIACORA, complainant against MRS. CARMEN RITUALO with
Case No. 01-0076-77. This case is temporary (sic) dismissed on May 26, 2003 in
Branch 1999 (sic).

On May 26, 2003 MRS. CARMEN RITUALO made written promise that she
will pay the balance amounting P21,000.00 Twenty Thousand Pesos after 3
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2020 [Link]
 months but she failed.
Due that (sic) her promise did not materialized (sic), I personally request
the Hon. Court to REVIVE this case.

Respectfully yours,
(Sgd.) MR. FELIX BIACORA

With the foregoing submission of Biacora, out of the amount of Eighty Thousand
Pesos (P80,000.00), only Twenty-One Thousand Pesos (P21,000.00) remains unpaid.
Accordingly, the civil liability of petitioner Ritualo is now merely Twenty-One Thousand
Pesos (P21,000.00). SAHaTc

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in

CA-G.R. CR No. 29393 promulgated on 23 April 2007 is AFFIRMED with the following
MODIFICATIONS:
(1)In Criminal Case No. 01-0076, petitioner Carmen Ritualo is found GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Simple Illegal Recruitment, and is sentenced
to suffer an indeterminate prison term of eight (8) years and one (1) day as minimum,
to twelve (12) years, as maximum, and to pay a fine of P500,000.00; and
(2)In Criminal Case No. 01-0077, petitioner Carmen Ritualo is also found GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa and sentenced to suffer an
indeterminate prison term of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional,
as minimum, to eleven (11) years and eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days of
prision mayor, as maximum.
Petitioner Carmen R. Ritualo is similarly ORDERED to indemnify Felix E. Biacora
the amount of P21,000.00. Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.
Ynares-Santiago, Velasco, Jr., Peralta and Bersamin, * JJ., concur.

Footnotes
*Associate Justice Lucas P. Bersamin was designated to sit as additional member replacing
Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura per Raffle dated 22 June 2009.

[Link] by Court of Appeals Associate Justice Renato C. Dacudao with Associate Justices
Noel G. Tijam and Sesinando E. Villon, concurring; rollo, pp. 95-115.

[Link] by Hon. Joselito J. Vibandor, Presiding Judge, RTC Branch 199, Las Piñas City; id. at
58-70.

[Link], p. 269.
[Link].

[Link]. at 1.
[Link]. at 3.

[Link]. at 83.

[Link]. at 130.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2020 [Link]

 [Link]. at 134.

[Link]. at 170.
[Link], 10 March 2003; TSN, 5 May 2003.

[Link]. at 4-5.
[Link], p. 8.

[Link].

[Link]. at 164.
[Link], 10 March 2003; TSN, 5 May 2003.

[Link], p. 164.
[Link], 5 May 2003, p. 20.

[Link] as "Receipt"; records, p. 165.

[Link] cation issued by Hermogenes C. Mateo, Director II, Licensing Branch, POEA; Exhibit "E";
records, p. 168.
[Link] Q. Bay, Director II, Licensing Branch, POEA; Exhibit "F-1"; records, p. 169.

[Link]. at 168.
[Link]. at 169.

[Link], 16 February 2004, pp. 55-56.

[Link]. at 56.
[Link], 14 April 2004, pp. 85-86.

[Link], p. 70.
[Link], p. 289.

[Link]. at 304.

[Link]. at 300-301.
[Link], p. 111.

[Link]. at 112.
[Link]. at 113.

[Link]. at 112.

[Link]. at 114.
[Link]. at 24-25.

[Link]. at 27.
38.436 Phil. 698 (2002).

[Link] v. Navarra, Sr., 404 Phil. 693, 701 (2001).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2020 [Link]

 [Link], pp. 168-169.

[Link] v. Angeles, 430 Phil. 333, 346 (2002).

[Link].
[Link]-a davit which was admitted in evidence and its contents con rmed on the
witness stand by Biacora.

[Link], 16 February 2004, pp. 18-19.

[Link] "B-1"; records, p. 164.

[Link] "B-3"; id. at 164.

[Link] "C"; id. at 165.

[Link] v. Armentano, G.R. No. 90803, 3 July 1992, 211 SCRA 82, 87.

[Link] v. People, G.R. No. 173824, 28 August 2008, 563 SCRA 577, 593, citing People v. De
Jesus, G.R. No. 93852, January 24, 1992, 205 SCRA 383, 391.
[Link] v. Reichl, 428 Phil. 643, 664 (2002).

[Link]. 7, Republic Act No. 8042.

SEC. [Link]. —

(a)Any persons 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 ne or not less than Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00) nor
more than Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00);
(b)The penalty of life imprisonment and a ne of not less than Five hundred thousand
pesos (P500,000.00) nor more than One million pesos (P1,000,000.00) shall be imposed
if illegal recruitment constitutes economic sabotage as defined herein.

[Link] v. Hu, G.R. No. 182232, 6 October 2008, 567 SCRA 696, 713-714.
53.374 Phil. 575, 586 (1999).

[Link] v. Temporada, G.R. No. 173473, 17 December 2008.

[Link] that the total penalty that may be imposed shall not exceed 20 years.

56.335 Phil. 242 (1997).

[Link]. at 257.
[Link] additional ve (5) years is in view of the ve (5) increments of Ten Thousand Pesos
(P10,000.00) representing the difference of the amount defrauded by petitioner Ritualo,
which is Eighty Thousand Pesos (P80,000.00), or Fifty Eight Thousand Pesos
(P58,000.00) more than the cap of Twenty-Two Thousand Pesos (P22,000.00) provided
by law.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2020 [Link]