June 28, 2017
G.R. No. 214500
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee
vs.
MICHELLE DELA CRUZ, Accused-Appellant
***
Before this Court is an appeal from the Decision dated July 2, 2013 of the Court of Appeals (CA):
1
Appellant was charged with illegal recruitment in large scale and three (3) counts of
estafa
1. illegal recruitment in large scale
accused not being authorized by the POEA of DOLE to recruit workers for
overseas employment, promised and recruit the complainants for an overseas job placement
abroad
said complainants paid and delivered the total amount of Php300,000.00 as processing fees
of their papers,
despite said promise, accused failed to deploy complainants and despite demand
to reimburse/return the amount which complainants paid as processing fees, accused did
then and there refuse and fail to reimburse/return to said complainants the
aforesaid amount, thus in large scale amounting to economic sabotage, in violation of the
aforecited law.
2. ESTAFA 1
accused defraud complainant ARMEL Y AGUILAR UY
by means of false manifestation and fraudulent representation prior to or
simultaneously with the commission of the fraud
she made to the complainant to the effect that she have a power and capacity to
recruit workers for the employment of complainant as Domestic Helper in Korea and
could facilitate the necessary papers to meet the requirements and by means of other deceit
of similar import induced and succeeded in inducing complainant to give and deliver in the
total amount of Phpl00,000.00,
3. ESTAFA 2
accused defraud complainant ADONA LUNA QUINES LAV ARO
-SAME METHOD WITH ESTAFA 1-
4. ESTAFA 3
accused defraud complainant SHERYL AGUILAR REFORMADO
-SAME METHOD WITH ESTAFA 1-
The prosecution presented the three (3) private complainants as witnesses to prove the crime of
Illegal Recruitment on Large Scale, namely: Aguilar-Uy, Reformado, Lavaro, and Rosales from the
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA).
Testimony of first private complainant Armely Aguilar-Uy:
o Aguilar-Uy claimed that appellant recruited her to work in South Korea as domestic helper.
She was told that she will receive ₱50,000.00 for eight hours of work and an overtime pay
totalling to ₱80,000.00 per month.
7
o Appellant informed her that she has twelve (12) visas with her and still needed two more
persons to go to South Korea. Appellant required her to submit the requirements that will be
8
sent to South Korea for authentication.
o Aguilar-Uy testified that appellant asked for ₱l00,000.00 from them as payment for expenses
needed to go to South Korea. Aguilar-Uy added that considering that she is also paying for
her niece, Sheryl Reformado, who also wants to work abroad, she gave appellant the total
amount of ₱200,000.00.
o Thereafter, Aguilar-Uy waited for their visas until January 2005, but none were given to them.
Aguilar-Uy called up and texted appellant several times to no avail. Upon realizing that they
will no longer be able to get their visas, she told appellant to return their passports instead
but again appellant did not reply.
o Finally, when they eventually met on February 18, 2005, appellant asked her anew for
additional payment of $72 to renew their visas. Aguilar-Uy narrated that appellant gave them
a stub which purported to be coming from the Embassy of the Republic of South Korea.
9
However, when they presented the same to the Korean Embassy, they were told that all their
documents were fake. Aguilar-Uy then lodged a complaint against the appellant before the
Presidential Task Force Anti-Illegal Recruitment Agency. Appellant promised them that she
would pay them back but failed to do so. Aguilar-Uy identified the appellant in open court.
10
Testimony of second private complainant Sheryl Reformado:
o She came to know appellant through their neighbor Gemma Dimatera and her sister Maggie
Dela Cruz, who were also applying for work with appellant. 11
o Gemma Dimatera and Maggie Dela Cruz went to her place and informed her that appellant
needed two more applicants to go to South Korea as overseas workers. As agreed upon
12
per phone conversation with appellant, they met in front of the Korean Embassy located in
Makati.
o Appellant immediately asked for ₱40,000.00 from them since the working visa she had with
her will expire. She corroborated the claim of AguilarUy that on different dates, they gave
13
appellant the total amount of ₱200,000.00. They waited for the processing of their passport
14
and visa from November 2004 up to February 2005 but none were given to them as
promised. Appellant gave them many alibis.
Testimony of third private complainant Adona Lavaro:
o appellant told her that her employer, Mr. Simeon Right, was looking for a domestic helper.
Lavaro testified that appellant told her that she will be the one to facilitate the processing of
her documents and assured her that she would be able to work in South Korea. 17
o appellant asked her for money to be able to work in South Korea. She claimed to have given
appellant the amounts of (1) ₱40,000.00 as terminal fee, (2) ₱40,000.00 as processing fee;
(3) $72 for the visa, (4) traveler's checks in the amount of US$200, and (5) ₱2,050.00 as
terminal fee.
o Lavaro waited for appellant's instruction or call but when appellant finally called her, it was
only to ask her anew for money. At this time, she already started to doubt appellant. She
later learned that appellant has also been asking money from other people who also wants
to work abroad. Lavaro also identified appellant in open court. 18
evidence to prove the payments made by private complainants to appellant,
Amount Date Given Payment Details
Received by Accused Michelle
₱ 40,000.0020 09/21/04
Dela Cruz
Listed as payment with alleged
₱ 20,000.0021 09/27/04 signature of Accused Michelle
Dela Cruz in a green notebook22
Listed as payment with alleged
₱ 20,000.0023 10/04/04 signature of Accused Michelle
Dela Cruz in a green notebook
Listed as payment with alleged '
₱ 30,000.0024 10/09/04 signature of Accused Michelle
Dela Cruz in a green notebook
Listed as payment with alleged
₱ 4,000.0025 10/13/04 signature of Accused Michelle
Dela Cruz in a green notebook
Listed as payment with alleged
₱ 2,80026 10/12/04 signature of Accused Michelle
Dela Cruz in a green notebook
Listed as payment with alleged
₱ 8,000 or $14427 10/04/04 signature of Accused Michelle
Dela Cruz in a green notebook
Deposited in the Metrobank
₱ l0,000.0028 10/15/04
account of Norlita Hinagpis
Deposited in the Equitable PCI
₱ 10,000.0029 10/15/04
Bank account of Mario Castillo
Deposited in the Metrobank
₱ 4,000.0030 11/12/04
account of Norlita Hinagpis
Deposited in the Metrobank
₱ 2,000.0031 01/05/05
account of Norlita Hinagpis
₱ 150,800.00 TOTAL
Rosalina Rosales testified that as per Certification, appellant Dela Cruz is not
authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment during the year 2005 up to the
present.
APPELANT’S DEFENSE
1. appellant testified that prior to her arrest, she has worked in South Korea as an OFW
for five years and three months. She alleged that private complainants, namely,
Armely Aguilar, Adona Lavaro and Sheryl Aguilar were introduced to her by a certain Alma
Palomares, the sister of her compadre Aldrin who was also an OFW in South
Korea. Thereafter, private complainants asked her the necessary requirements for them to
33
be able to work in South Korea
2. Appellant denied that she promised private complainants any deployment abroad,
specifically in South Korea. She claimed that she just told them to secure the needed
documents. Appellant averred that she introduced the complainants to her agent named
"Rosa," who assisted her in going to Korea. She also admitted that she assisted the
complainants in securing the original copies of ITR, employment certificate and bank
certificate to get a tourist visa. However, after introducing the complainants to "Rosa",
appellant claimed to be unaware anymore as to what happened next because she went to
the province as she was pregnant that time. 34
3. She averred that the amount of ₱40,000.00 was personally delivered to her and thereafter
she gave the amount to Alma Palomares. She said she did not know what Alma did with the
money. She further added that private complainants filed a case against her just because
she was the one who talked to them and they could not contact Aldrin, who was still in South
Korea at that time.
4. On cross-examination, appellant testified that she facilitated for a fee the procurement of
private complainants' papers like ITR, bank certificate and certificate of employment. She
confirmed having received the amount of ₱40,000.00 for the facilitation of said documents.
She claimed that Madam Rosa, Alma Palomares and private complainants were the ones
communicating with each other. 36
5. Appellant likewise admitted that the documents which she produced for private complainants
were all fake. She recalled that her first entry to South Korea was illegal because she also
used fake ITR, bank certificate and certificate of employment. Appellant, however, averred
that she merely referred private complainants to the person who faked all her papers but she
has no hand in the preparation of the fake documents
On October 21, 2010, the RTC found the accused-appellant guilty of the cime of illegal
recruitment in large scale and estafa.
CA
CA affirmed the Decision
Supreme Court
ISSUE: Appellant avers that she cannot be held criminally liable for illegal recruitment because she
merely assisted private complainants in processing their travel documents without any promise of
employment. She asserts that the prosecution failed to establish whether she
actually undertook any recruitment activity or any prohibited practice enumerated
under Art. 13 (b) or Art. 34 of the Labor Code.
RULING: The appeal lacks merit.
The crime of illegal recruitment is defined and penalized under Sections 6 and 7 of Republic
Act (R.A.) No. 8042, or the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, as follows:
40
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, x xx:
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.
Thus, in order to hold a person liable for illegal recruitment , the following
elements must concur:
1. the offender undertakes any of the activities within the meaning of "recruitment and
placement" under Article l 3(b) of the Labor Code, or any of the prohibited practices
enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code (now Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042)
2. the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable him to lawfully
engage in recruitment and placement of workers. In the case of illegal recruitment in large
scale, as in this case, a third element is required: that the offender commits any of the acts
of recruitment and placement against three or more persons, individually or as a group.
In the instant case, appellant committed the acts enumerated in Section 6 of R.A.
8042. As testified to by Aguilar-Uy, Reformado and Lavaro, appellant gave them
an impression that she is capable of sending them to South Korea as domestic
helpers.
Testimonies
The testimonial evidence presented by the prosecution clearly shows that, in consideration of a
promise of overseas employment, appellant received monies from private complainants.
This Court has consistently conformed to the rule that findings of the trial
o court on the credibility of witnesses deserve great weight. .
o testimonies were consistent and substantially corroborate each other on
material points, such as the amount of the fees they gave to appellant, the country of
destination and the nature of work. It was also established that appellant gave private
complainants the impression that she had the ability to send them to South Korea for work in
such a manner that the latter were convinced to part with their money in order to be
employed. Without any evidence to show that private complainants were propelled by any ill
motive to testify falsely against appellant, we shall accord their testimonies full faith and
credit.
Referral defense
Meanwhile, appellant's defense that she merely referred private complainants to a certain
"Madam Rosa" fails to convince as the same was unsupported by any evidence.
Between the categorical statements of the private complainants and the bare denial of
appellant, 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 well-established in jurisprudence that a person may be charged and convicted for
both illegal recruitment and estafa.
- illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum, while estafa is mala in se. In the first, the criminal
intent of the accused is not necessary for conviction. In the second, such intent is imperative.
Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code is committed by any
person who defrauds another by using fictitious name, or falsely pretends to possess power,
influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by
means of similar deceits executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of fraud. 52
The elements of estafa by means of deceit are the following: (a) that there must be a false pretense
or fraudulent representation as to his power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency,
business or imaginary transactions; (b) that such false pretense or fraudulent representation was
made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; (c) that the offended
party relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means and was induced to part with
his money or property; and (d) that, as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage. 53
The prosecution has established that appellant defrauded private complainants by leading
them to believe that she has the capacity to send them to South Korea for work as domestic
helpers, even as she does not have a license or authority for the purpose.
- Such misrepresentation came before private complainants delivered various amounts for
purportedly travel expenses and visa assistance to appellant. Clearly, private complainants
would not have parted with their money were it not for such enticement by appellant. As a
consequence of appellant's false pretenses, the private complainants suffered
damages as the promised employment abroad never materialized and the money they paid
were never recovered.
