PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO.

2018

(As amended)

DECREE MAKING ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT A CRIME OF ECONOMIC SA OTAGE AND PUNIS!A LE "IT! LIFE IMPRISONMENT

I. FULL TE#T

WHEREAS, despite existing provisions of law and the continuing efforts to eliminate them, illegal recruiters, have continued to proliferate and victimize unwary workers; WHEREAS, illegal recruiters have defrauded and caused untold sufferings to thousands of Filipino workers and their families; WHEREAS, experience shows that because of light penalties, illegal recruiters have become more callous and bolder in their modus operandi and usually carry out their activities as syndicates or in large scale; NOW, THEREFORE, I, FER I!"! E# $"R%&', (resident of the Republic of the (hilippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the %onstitution, do hereby order) 'ection *# "rticles +, and +- of (residential ecree !o# ../, as amended, otherwise known as the 0abor %ode of the (hilippines, is hereby further amended to read as follows) 1"rt# +,# Illegal Recruitment. 2 3a4 "ny recruitment activities, including the prohibited practices enumerated under "rticle +. of this %ode, to be undertaken by non2licensees or non2holders of authority shall be deemed illegal and punishable under "rticle +- of this %ode# 5he $inistry of 0abor and Employment or any law enforcement officers may initiate complaints under this "rticle# 3b4 Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall be considered an offense involving economic sabotage and shall be penalized in accordance with "rticle +hereof# Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three 3+4 or more persons conspiring and6or confederating with one another in carrying out any unlawful or illegal transaction, enterprise or scheme defined under this first paragraph hereof# Illegal recruitment is deemed 1

committed in large scale if committed against three 3+4 or more persons individually or as a group# 3c4 5he $inister of 0abor and Employment or his duly authorized representatives shall have the power to cause the arrest and detention of such non2licensee or non2holder of authority if after investigation it is determined that his activities constitute a danger to national security and public order or will lead to further exploitation of 7ob2seekers# 5he $inister shall order the search of the office or premises and seizure of documents paraphernalia, properties and other implements used in illegal recruitment activities and the closure of companies, establishment and entities found to be engaged in the recruitment of workers for overseas employment, without having been licensed or authorized to do so# 1"rt# +-# Penalties. 2 3a4 5he penalty of imprisonment and a fine of &ne 8undred 5housand (esos 3(*99,9994 shall be imposed if illegal recruitment constitutes economic sabotage as defined herein; 3b4 "ny licensee or holder of authority found violating or causing another to violate any provision of this 5itle or its implementing rules and regulations shall, upon conviction thereof, suffer the penalty of imprisonment of not less than two years nor more than five years or a fine of not less than (*9,999 nor more than (:9,999 or both such imprisonment and fine, at the discretion of the court; 3c4 "ny person who is neither a licensee nor a holder of authority under this 5itle found violating any provision thereof or its implementing rules and regulations shall, upon conviction thereof, suffer the penalty of imprisonment of not less than four years nor more than eight years or a fine of not less than (/9,999 nor more than (*99,999 or both such imprisonment and fine, at the discretion of the %ourt; 3d4 If the offender is a corporation, partnership, association or entity, the penalty shall be imposed upon the officer or officers of the corporation, partnership, association or entity responsible for violation; and if such officer is an alien, he shall, in addition to the penalties herein prescribed be deported without further proceedings; 3e4 In every case, conviction shall cause and carry the automatic revocation of the license or authority and all the permits and privileges granted to such person or entity under this 5itle, and the forfeiture of the cash and surety bonds in favor of the &verseas Employment evelopment ;oard or the 2

!ational 'eamen ;oard, as the case may be, both of which are authorized to use the same exclusively to promote their ob7ectives# 'ection /# 5his ecree shall take effect immediately# one in the %ity of $anila, this /<th day of =anuary, *-,<#

II. E#PLANATION

"!AT IS ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT$ Illegal Recruitment. (a) Any recruitment activities, including the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of this Code, to be underta en by non!licensees or non!holders of authority shall be deemed illegal and punishable under Article 3" of this Code. #he $inistry of %abor and &mployment or any la' enforcement officers may initiate complaints under this Article. "!EN IS ILLEGAL SA OTAGE$ RECRUITMENT CONSIDERED ECONOMIC

Illegal recruitment 'hen committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall be considered an offense involving economic sabotage and shall be penali(ed in accordance 'ith Article 3" hereof. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring and)or confederating 'ith one another in carrying out any unla'ful or illegal transaction, enterprise or scheme defined under this first paragraph hereof. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group. "!AT ARE T!E PO"ERS OF SECRETAR% OF T!E DEPARTMENT OF LA OR AND EMPLO%MENT$ #he $inister of %abor and &mployment or his duly authori(ed representatives shall have the po'er* #o cause the arrest and detention of such non!license or non! holder of authority if after investigation it is determined that his activities constitute a danger to national security and public order or 'ill lead to further e+ploitation of ,ob! see ers. #he $inister shall order the search of the office or premises and sei(ure of documents paraphernalia, properties and other implements used in illegal recruitment activities and the closure of companies, establishment and entities found to be engaged in the recruitment of 'or ers for overseas employment, 'ithout having been licensed or authori(ed to do so. 4

"!AT ARE T!E APPLICA LE PENALTIES UNDER P.D. 2018$

(a) #he penalty of the imprisonment and a fine of -ne .undred #housand /esos (/011,111) shall be imposed if illegal recruitment constitutes economic sabotage as defined herein2 (b) Any licensee or holder of authority found violating or causing another to violate any provision of this #itle or its implementing rules and regulations shall, upon conviction thereof, suffer the penalty of imprisonment of not less than t'o years nor more than five years or a fine of not less than /01,111 nor more than /31,111 or both such imprisonment and fine, at the discretion of the Court2 (c) Any person 'ho is neither a licensee nor a holder of authority under this #itle found violating any provision thereof or its implementing rules and regulations shall, upon conviction thereof, suffer the penalty of imprisonment of not less than four years nor more than eight years or a fine of not less than /41,111 nor more than /011,111 or both such imprisonment and fine, at the discretion of the Court2 (d) If the offender is a corporation, partnership, association or entity, the penalty shall be imposed upon the officer or officers of the corporation, partnership, association or entity responsible for violation2 and if such officer is an alien, he shall, in addition to the penalties herein prescribed be deported 'ithout further proceedings2 (e) In every case, conviction shall cause and carry the automatic revocation of the license or authority and all the permits and privileges granted to such person or entity under this #itle, and the forfeiture of the cash and surety bonds in favor of the -verseas &mployment 5evelopment 6oard or the 7ational 8eamen 6oard, as the case may be, both of 'hich are authori(ed to use the same e+clusively to promote their ob,ectives9.

III. &URISPRUDENCE

Re'()*+, -. /0e P0+*+''+nes SUPREME COURT Man+*a T!IRD DI1ISION

G.R. N-. 102083

Ma4 156 1778

PEOPLE OF T!E P!ILIPPINES6 '*a+n/+..8a''e**ee6 9s. DELIA SADIOSA 4 CA ENTA6 a,,(sed8a''e**an/.

R-$&R-, :.*p Accused!appellant 5elia 8adiosa 'as recruitment; in an information that reads* charged 'ith ;illegal

#hat on or about and during the period comprise (sic) from :anuary 0""4 to $arch 0""4, in /asay City, $etro $anila, /hilippines and 'ithin the ,urisdiction of this .onorable Court, the above named accused 5elia 8adiosa y Cabenta, 'ell no'ing that she is not a duly licensed ,ob recruiter, by means of false representations and fraudulent allegations to the effect that she could secure employment as domestic helpers abroad for 6enilda 8abado y 5omingo, $arcela #abernero y $an(ano, &rly #uliao y 8abado and Cely 7avarro y $an(ano, did then and there 'illfully (sic), unla'fully and feloniously recruit aforesaid persons and collected from them the amount of /<,111.11 each, 'hich amount 'ere given to the accused by the aforesaid complainants upon receipt of 'hich, far from complying 'ith her obligation aforestated, accused appropriated for herself the said amount and failed to deploy complainants abroad. Contrary to la'. 0

=pon arraignment, accused!appellant pleaded ;not guilty.; 4 At the trial that ensued, the prosecution proved the follo'ing operative facts and circumstances surrounding the commission of the crime* Arsenia Conse 'ent to 6ayombong, 7ueva &ci,a in early 0""4 'here she met the four complainants, Cely 7avarro, $arcela $an(ano, &rly #uliao and 6enilda 5omingo. 8he enticed the four to apply for overseas employment informing them that she had a cousin 'ho could send them to >u'ait as domestic helpers. Apparently convinced by Arsenia Conse, the four 'ent 'ith her on ?ebruary 3, 0""4 to $anila. =pon arrival, they proceeded to Room 401, 5iamond 6uilding, %ibertad 8t., /asay City 'here Arsenia Conse introduced the group to accused!appellant 5elia 8adiosa. #he four then applied for 'or as domestic helpers. 3 -n that occasion, accused!appellant assured the four that she could dispatch them to >u'ait 4 and forth'ith demanded /<,111.11 from each of them for processing fee and /0,111.11 for passport (/0,311.11 from complainant Cely 7avarro). 3 8he assured the group that she 'ould facilitate the processing of all the necessary documents needed by them. 8he further promised them that upon payment of the re@uired fees, they 'ould be able to leave for >u'ait immediately. #he four did give accused!appellant the money demanded although on different dates. #he latter issued the corresponding receipts A therefor. Again, she assured them that they could leave for >u'ait on different dates* Cely 7avarro and &rly #uliao on ?ebruary 0B, 0""4 'hich 'as rescheduled t'ice on ?ebruary 0", 0""4 and on ?ebruary 43, 0""4, B and 6enilda 5omingo and $arcela $an(ano on $arch 0B, 0""4 'hich 'as moved t'ice on ?ebruary 44, 0""4 and on $arch 0B, 0""4. < .o'ever, not one of them 'as able to leave for >u'ait. Chen they as ed for the return of their money, accused! appellant refused and ignored their demand. Conse@uently, the four filed the complaint for illegal recruitment against accused! appellant. In addition to the complainantsD testimonies, the prosecution presented Eirginia 8antiago, a 8enior -fficer in the %icensing 6ranch and Inspection 5ivision of the /hilippine -verseas &mployment Administration (/-&A). 8he testified that accused!appellant 'as neither licensed nor authori(ed to recruit 'or ers for overseas employment. " Accused!appellant herself too the 'itness stand and testified in her defense. 8he resolutely denied having a hand in the illegal recruitment, claiming that she merely received the money on behalf of one $rs. Fanura 01 'ho o'ned the recruitment agency called 8taff -rgani(ers, Inc. 8he accepted the money in her capacity as an officer of the said recruitment agency. #o bolster 7

this claim, she presented evidence that she remitted the money to $rs. Fanura 'orth /43,111.11 00 although she failed to remit the remaining amount of /<,111.11 since she 'as already in detention. 04 Accused!appellant further claimed that although she 'as not listed in the /-&A as an employee of the recruitment agency of $rs. Fanura, she had a special po'er of attorney issued by her employer to receive payments from applicants. #he trial court found accused!appellant guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale defined by Article 3< (b) and penali(ed under Article 3" (a) of the %abor Code, as amended by /residential 5ecree 7os. 0"41 and 410< and disposed of said case as follo's* C.&R&?-R&, the accused is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the charge in the information and is hereby sentenced to life imprisonment and pay a fine of /011,111.11. #he accused is hereby ordered to indemnify 6enilda 8abado y 5omingo, the sum of /<,111.112 $arcela #abernero y $an(ano, the sum of /<,111.112 &rly #uliao y 8abado, the sum of /<,111.11 and Cely 7avarro y $an(ano, the sum of /<,111.11. #o pay the costs. 03 Accused!appellant no' assails the trial courtDs 5ecision 'ith the follo'ing assignment of errors* I #.& %-C&R C-=R# &RR&5 I7 7-# 8#A#I7F C%&AR%G A75 5I8#I7C#%G #.& ?AC#8 A75 #.& %AC -7 C.IC. I#8 :=5F$&7# C-7EIC#I7F #.& ACC=8&5!A//&%%A7# CA8 6A8&52 II #.& %-C&R C-=R# &RR&5 I7 7-# 5I8$I88I7F $-#= /R-/RI- #.& I7?-R$A#I-7 ?-R 7-# C-7?-R$I7F 8=68#A7#IA%%G #- #.& /R&8CRI6&5 ?-R$, /AR#IC=%AR%G A8 #- #.& 5&8IF7A#I-7 -? #.& -??&78& A75 CA=8& -? #.& ACC=8A#I-72 III #.& %-C&R C-=R# &RR&5 I7 7-# 5I8$I88I7F $-#= /R-/RI- #.& I7?-R$A#I-7 I7 EI&C -? I#8 I7C-78I8#&7# A75 C-7#RA5IC#-RG, C-7?%IC#I7F A75 IRR&C-7CI%A6%& C.ARF&8 -? ;I%%&FA% R&CR=I#$&7#;, &8#A?A =75&R AR#IC%& 303, /ARAFRA/. 0(b) A75 &8#A?A =75&R #.& 8A$& AR#IC%& 6=# =75&R /ARAFRA/. 4(a) -? #.& R&EI8&5 /&7A% C-5& A75 I7 C-75=C#I7F #RIA% #.&R&=75&R2 IE 8

#.& %-C&R C-=R# &RR&5 I7 7-# ACH=I##I7F #.& ACC=8&5! A//&%%A7# A75 I7 C-7EIC#I7F .&R -? #.& ;#.& C.ARF& I7 #.& I7?-R$A#I-7;2 E #.& %-C&R C-=R# &RR&5 I7 7-# ?I75I7F #.A# #.& %IA6I%I#G -? #.& ACC=8&5!A//&%%A7#, I? A7G, I8 -7%G CIEI%, 7-# CRI$I7A% I7 7A#=R&2 EI #.& %-C&R C-=R# &RR&5 I7 -R5&RI7F #.& ACC=8&5!A//&%%A7# #- I75&$7I?G #.& /RIEA#& C-$/%AI7A7#8 #.& 8=$ -? /<,111.11 &AC.. Appellant clearly focuses on the validity and sufficiency of both the information filed against her and the decision rendered in due course by the trial court. 8he asserts that there 'as a violation of the constitutional mandate that a ,udgment of conviction must state clearly and distinctly the facts and the la' on 'hich it is based. Cith regard to the information filed against her, appellant contends that it did not substantially conform to the prescribed form, particularly as to the designation of the offense and cause of accusation. It should be observed in the afore@uoted information that its caption indicates that she is being charged 'ith ;illegal recruitment; only 'hile the allegations therein substantiate the crimes of illegal recruitment and estafa committed by fraud or deceit. It is 'ell!settled in our ,urisprudence that the information is sufficient 'here it clearly states the designation of the offense by the statute and the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense. 04 .o'ever, there is no need to specify or refer to the particular section or subsection of the statute that 'as violated by the accused. 7o la' re@uires that in order that an accused may be convicted, the specific provision penali(ing the act charged should be mentioned in the information. 03 Chat identifies the charge is the actual recital of the facts and not that designated by the fiscal in the preamble thereof. It is not even necessary for the protection of the substantial rights of the accused, nor the effective preparation of his defense, that the accused be informed of the technical name of the crime of 'hich he stands charged. .e must loo to the facts alleged. 0A In the instant case, the information filed against accused!appellant sufficiently sho's that it is for the crime of illegal recruitment in 9

large scale, penali(ed in for ;illegal elements of follo's*

as defined in Art. Art. 3" of the same recruitment; only. the crime of illegal

3< (b) of the %abor Code and Code although it is designated as =nder the Code, the essential recruitment in large scale are as

(0) the accused engages in the recruitment and placement of 'or ers, as defined under Article 03 (b) or in any prohibited activities under Article 34 of the %abor Code2 (4) accused has not complied 'ith the guidelines issued by the 8ecretary of %abor and &mployment, particularly 'ith respect to the securing of a license or an authority to recruit and deploy 'or ers, 'hether locally or overseas2 and (3) accused commits the same against three (3) or more persons, individually or as a group. 0B All these elements are to be found in the information. It alleges that accused!appellant, no'ing fully 'ell that she 'as ;not a duly licensed ,ob recruiter,; falsely represented that she could ;secure employment as domestic helpers abroad; for the four complainants. As such, the purpose of the re@uirement under 8ec. <, Rule 001 0< to inform and apprise the accused of the true crime of 'hich she 'as charged, 0" has been complied 'ith. #he main purpose of the re@uirement that the acts or omissions complained of as constituting an offense must be stated in ordinary and concise language is to enable a person of common understanding to no' 'hat offense is intended to be charged so that he could suitably prepare for his defense. It is also re@uired so that the trial court could pronounce the proper ,udgment. 41 #his gives substance to the constitutional guarantee that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. 40 In the instant case, the Court agrees 'ith the 8olicitor Feneral that accused!appellant 'as fully accorded the right to be informed of the charges against her. #he fact that she put up the defense of having accepted the money only in her capacity as an officer of the recruitment agency sho's that she fully understood the nature and cause of the accusation against her. ?urthermore, it is incorrect for accused!appellant to maintain that the information filed against her contained conflicting and irreconcilable charges of illegal recruitment, estafa under Article 303 par. 0(b) of the Revised /enal Code and estafa under the same article but under par. 4 (a) thereof. Chile on its face the allegations in the information may constitute estafa, this Court agrees 'ith the 8olicitor Feneral that it merely describes ho' accused!appellant 'as able to consummate the act of illegal recruitment through false and fraudulent representation by 10

pretending that she 'as a duly!licensed recruiter 'ho could secure employment for complainants in >u'ait. #hese allegations in the information therefore do not render the information defective or multiplicitous. It is apropos to underscore the firmly established ,urisprudence that a person 'ho has committed illegal recruitment may be charged and convicted separately of illegal recruitment under the %abor Code and estafa under Article 303 of the Revised /enal Code. 44 #he crime of illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum 'here the criminal intent of the accused is not necessary for conviction, 'hile estafa is malum in se 'here the criminal intent of the accused is necessary for conviction. 43 In other 'ords, a person convicted under the %abor Code may be convicted of offenses punishable by other la's. 44 .o'ever, any person or entity 'hich in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to t'o or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement. 43 Chen the persons recruited are three or more, the crime becomes illegal recruitment in large scale under Art. 3< (b) of the %abor Code. In both bases, it is the lac of a necessary license or permit that renders such recruitment activities unla'ful and criminal. 4A In the case at bar, accused!appellant could have been validly charged separately 'ith estafa under the same set of facts in the illegal recruitment case, but she 'as fortunate enough not to have been so charged. 7evertheless, there is no doubt from a reading of the information, that it accurately and clearly avers all of the ingredients that constitute illegal recruitment in large scale. #he prosecutor simply captioned the information 'ith the generic name of the offense under the %abor Code illegal recruitment. 7o misconceptions 'ould have been engendered had he been more accurate in the drafting of the information considering that there are at least four inds of illegal recruitment under the la'. 4B -ne is simple illegal recruitment committed by a licensee or holder of authority. #he la' penali(es such offender 'ith imprisonment of ;not less than t'o years nor more than five years or a fine of not less than /01,111 nor more than /31,111, or both such imprisonment and fine.; Any person ;'ho is neither a licensee nor a holder of authority; commits the second type of illegal recruitment. #he penalty imposed for such offense is ;imprisonment of not less than four years nor more than eight years or a fine of not less than /41,111 nor more than /011,111 or both such imprisonment and fine at the discretion of the court.; #he third type of illegal recruitment refers to offenders 'ho either commit the offense alone or 'ith another person against three or more persons individually or as a group. A syndicate or a group of three or more 11

persons conspiring and confederating 'ith one another in carrying out the act circumscribed by the la' commits the fourth type of illegal recruitment by the la'. ?or the third and fourth types of illegal recruitment the la' prescribes the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of /011,111. .ence, to avoid misconception and misinterpretation of the information, the prosecutor involved in this case should have indicated in its caption, the offense he had clearly alleged in its body, that the crime charged 'as for illegal recruitment in large scale. .o'ever, such omission or lac of s ill of the prosecutor 'ho crafted the information should not deprive the people of the right to prosecute a crime 'ith so grave a conse@uence against the economic life of the aggrieved parties. Chat is important is that he did allege in the information the facts sufficient to constitute the offense of illegal recruitment in large scale. As regards accused!appellantDs contention that the @uestioned decision is void because it failed to state clearly and distinctly the facts and the la' on 'hich it 'as based, this Court is not inclined to grant credence thereto. #he constitutional re@uirement that every decision must state distinctly and clearly the factual and legal bases therefor should indeed be the primordial concern of courts and ,udges. 6e that as it may, there should not be a mechanical reliance on this constitutional provision. #he courts and ,udges should be allo'ed to synthesi(e and to simplify their decisions considering that at present, courts are harassed by cro'ded doc ets and time constraints. #hus, the Court held in 5el $undo v. Court of Appeals* It is understandable that courts 'ith heavy doc ets and time constraints, often find themselves 'ith little to spare in the preparation of decisions to the e+tent most desirable. Ce have thus pointed out that ,udges might learn to synthesi(e and to simplify their pronouncements. 7evertheless, concisely 'ritten such as they may be, decisions must still distinctly and clearly e+press at least in minimum essence its factual and legal bases. 4< In 7icos Industrial Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 4" the Court states the reason for the constitutional re@uirements thus* It is a re@uirement of due process that the parties to a litigation be informed of ho' it 'as decided, 'ith an e+planation of the factual and legal reasons that led to the conclusions of the court. #he court cannot simply say that ,udgment is rendered in favor of I and against G and ,ust leave it at that 'ithout any ,ustification 'hatsoever for its action. #he losing party is entitled to no' 'hy he lost, so he may appeal to a higher court, if permitted, should he 12

believe that the decision that does not clearly and distinctly state the facts and the la' on 'hich it is based leaves the parties in the dar as to ho' it 'as reached and is especially pre,udicial to the losing party, 'ho is unable to pinpoint the possible errors of the court for revie' by a higher tribunal. 31 =nder Art. I, 8ec. " of the 0"B3 Constitution that contained a provision similar to Art. EIII, 8ec. 04 of the present Constitution, the Court e+presses in 6ernabe v. Feralde( the follo'ing rationale as to the 'ide discretion en,oyed by a court in framing its decision* . . . In the . . . case of $endo(a v. Court of ?irst Instance of Hue(on City, (%!3A04, :une 4B, 0"B3, 30 8CRA 3A") citing :ose v. 8antos, (%! 43301, -ctober 31, 0"B1, 33 8CRA 33<) it 'as pointed out that the standard ;e+pected of the ,udiciary ;is that the decision rendered ma es clear 'hy either party prevailed under the applicable la' to the facts as established. 7or is there any rigid formula as to the language to be employed to satisfy the re@uirement of clarity and distinctness. #he discretion of the particular ,udge in this respect, 'hile not unlimited, is necessarily broad. #here is no sacramental form or 'ords 'hich he must use upon pain of being considered as having failed to abide by 'hat the Constitution directs.;; (30 8CRA 3A" at 3B3) 30 After careful reflection, this Court finds that the @uestioned decision of the court a @uo e+plained the factual findings and legal ,ustifications, at least in minimum essence, 'hich led to the conviction of accused!appellant. #hus, the sub,ect decision of :udge 6alta(ar Relativo 5i(on, after @uoting the information for ;Illegal Recruitment; and stating accusedDs plea of not guilty, goes on to summari(e the evidence for the prosecution and the defense as testified to by their respective 'itnesses. 6efore dra'ing a conclusion, it gives an ;A7A%G8I8 -? &EI5&7C& -7 R&C-R5; as follo's* #he testimony of the four complaining 'itnesses are found to be credible and reliable observing that they ans'ered the @uestions propounded by the prosecutor and the defense counsel in a categorical, straightfor'ard, spontaneous and fran manner and they remained consistent, calm and cool on cross!e+amination. #hat even 'ith the rigid cross!e+amination conducted by the defense counsel the more their testimonies became firmer and clearer that they 'ere victims of false pretenses or fraudulent acts of the accused. #he herein accused falsely pretended to have possessed po'er, influence and @ualifications to secure employment as domestic helpers abroad. And because of her fraudulent acts accused 'as able to collect from the four victims the sum of /<,111.11 each J&+h. A, C, &, ? (4)K. 13

Eerily, the accused admitted that she managed a consultancy firm under the business name of 5C8 8ervice $anagement and the nature of her 'or is to recruit domestic helpers for employment abroad. 8he further admitted having received the amount of /<,111.11 from each of the complainants as processing fee, although she is shifting responsibility to a certain $rs. Fanura to 'hom she delivered the sum of /43,111.11 (&+h. 0, 0!A). 8he miserably failed to present this $rs. Fanura to testify in this regard despite all efforts e+erted by this court, hence, such assertion of the accused is disregarded, not being reliable. #he fact remains that it 'as she 'ho transacted 'ith the complainants, and that accused is neither licensed nor authori(ed to recruit 'or ers for overseas employment (&+hibit F). 34 Chile it may be true that the @uestioned decision failed to state the specific provisions of la' violated by accused!appellant, it ho'ever clearly stated that the crime charged 'as ;Illegal Recruitment.; It discussed the facts comprising the elements of the offense of illegal recruitment in large scale that 'as charged in the information, and accordingly rendered a verdict and imposed the corresponding penalty. #he dispositive portion of the decision @uoted earlier, clearly states that appellant 'as found ;guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the charge in the information.; As earlier stated, the ;charge in the information; referred to by the decision could mean only that of illegal recruitment in large scale and not to any other offense. #he situation 'ould have been altogether different and in violation of the constitutional mandate if the penalty imposed 'as for illegal recruitment based on established facts constituting simple illegal recruitment only. As it is, the trial courtDs omission to specify the offense committed, or the specific provision of la' violated, is not in derogation of the constitutional re@uirement that every decision must clearly and distinctly state the factual and legal bases for the conclusions reached by the trial court. #he trial courtDs factual findings based on credible prosecution evidence supporting the allegations in the information and its imposition of the corresponding penalty imposed by the la' on such given facts are therefore sufficient compliance 'ith the constitutional re@uirement. #his Court agrees 'ith the trial court that the prosecution evidence has sho'n beyond reasonable doubt that accused!appellant engaged in unla'ful recruitment and placement activities. Accused! appellant promised the four complainants employment as domestic helpers in >u'ait. Article 03 (b) of the %abor Code defines recruitment and placement as referring to ;any act of canvassing, 14

enlisting, contracting, transporting, utili(ing, hiring, or procuring 'or ers, and includes referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for employment locally or abroad 'hether for profit or not2 provided that any person or entity 'hich in any manner offers or promises for a fee employment to t'o or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment andplacement.; 33 All the essential elements of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale, 'hich 'e have enumerated above, are present in this case. #he prosecution clearly established the fact that accused!appellant had no license to recruit from the /-&A. Get, the latter entertained the four complainants 'hen they applied, promised them ,obs as domestic helpers in >u'ait, and collected fees from them for processing travel documents only to renege on her promise and fail to return the money she collected from complainants despite several demands. As 'ith the trial court, this Court entertains serious doubts regarding accused!appellantDs claim that she 'as only acting in behalf of a certain $rs. Fanura. Accused!appellant failed to present evidence to corroborate her testimony. 7either did she present $rs. Fanura despite several opportunities given her by the trial court. #he undisputed fact is that appellant 'as positively identified as the person 'ho transacted 'ith the four complainants, promised them ,obs and received money from them. -n this score, the court a @uo found the prosecution evidence ;credible and reliable; and observed that the complaining 'itnesses testified and ans'ered @uestions ;in a categorical, straightfor'ard, spontaneous and fran ; manner. 34 As this Court has consistently held in a long line of cases, the trial court 'as concededly in the best position to test the credibility of appellant. 8ince the trial court did not give credence to accused!appellantDs version, this Court is not persuaded by her arguments. ?or engaging in recruitment of the four complainants 'ithout first obtaining the necessary license from the /-&A, accused!appellant, therefore, is guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale, an offense involving economic sabotage. 8he should, accordingly, be punished 'ith life imprisonment and a fine of /011,111 under Article 3" (a) of the %abor Code, as amended. In light of the above dis@uisition, there is no more need to resolve the other assigned errors. C.&R&?-R&, the appealed decision of the Regional #rial Court of /asay City, 6ranch 003 finding appellant 5elia 8adiosa y Cabenta F=I%#G beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale and imposing on her life imprisonment, the payment of the fine of /011,111.11 and the reimbursement of the amounts defrauded from complainants is hereby A??IR$&5. Costs against accused!appellant. 15

8- -R5&R&5. 7arvasa, C.:., >apunan and /urisima, ::., concur.

16

Re'()*+, -. /0e P0+*+''+nes SUPREME COURT Man+*a SECOND DI1ISION G.R. N-s. 115::88:7 Se'/em)e; 1<6 1772 PEOPLE OF T!E P!ILIPPINES6 '*a+n/+..8a''e**ee6 9s. LANIE ORTI=8MI%AKE6 a,,(sed8a''e**an/.

R&FA%A5-, :.*p Accused!appellant %anie -rti(!$iya e 'as charged 'ith illegal recruitment in large scale in the Regional #rial Court of $a ati on a complaint initiated by &lenita $arasigan, Imelda Fenerillo and Rosamar del Rosario. In addition, she 'as indicted for estafa by means of false pretenses in the same court, the offended party being &lenita $arasigan alone. #he information in the charge of illegal recruitment in large scale in Criminal Case 7o. "4!A033 reads as follo's* #hat in or about the period comprised from :une 0""4 to August 0""4, in the $unicipality of /araLa@ue, $etro $anila, /hilippines and 'ithin the ,urisdiction of this .onorable Court, the above! named accused, falsely representing herself to have the capacity and po'er to contract, enlist and recruit 'or ers for employment abroad did then and there 'illfully, unla'fully, and feloniously collect for a fee, recruit and promise employment),ob placement abroad to the follo'ing persons, to 'it* 0) Rosamar del Rosario2 4) &lenita $arasigan2 3) Imelda Fenerillo, 'ithout first securing the re@uired license or authority from the 5epartment of %abor and &mployment, thus amounting to illegal recruitment in large scale, in violation of the aforecited la'. 0 #he information in the charge for estafa in Criminal Case 7o. "4! A034 alleges* #hat in or about or sometime in the month of August, 0""4, in the $unicipality of /araLa@ue, $etro $anila, /hilippines and 'ithin the 17

,urisdiction of this .onorable Court, the above!named accused, by means of false pretenses e+ecuted prior to or simultaneously 'ith the commission of the fraud, falsely pretending to have the capacity and po'er to send complainant &lenita $arasigan to 'or abroad, succeeded in inducing the latter to give and deliver to her the total sum of /43,111.11, the accused no'ing fully 'ell that the said manifestations and representation are false and fraudulent and calculated only to deceive the said complainant to part 'ith her money, and, once in possession thereof, the said accused did then and there 'illfully, unla'fully and feloniously appropriate, apply and convert the same to her o'n personal use and benefit, to the damage and pre,udice of the said &lenita $arasigan, in the aforementioned amount of /43,111.11. 4 =pon arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges and the cases 'ere tried ,ointly in 6ranch 043 of the Regional #rial Court of $a ati. -f the three complainants in the case for illegal recruitment in large scale, $arasigan 'as the only one 'ho testified at the trial. #he t'o other complainants, Fenerillo and 5el Rosario, 'ere unable to testify as they 'ere then abroad. $arasigan testified that she 'as a 34 year!old unmarried sales representative in 0""4 'hen she 'as introduced to appellant by her co!complainants. 3 Appellant promised $arasigan a ,ob as a factory 'or er in #ai'an for a /3,111.11 fee. At that time, $arasigan had a pending application for overseas employment pending in a recruitment agency. Reali(ing that the fee charged by appellant 'as much lo'er than that of the agency, $arasigan 'ithdre' her money from the agency and gave it to appellant. 4 $arasigan paid appellant /3,111.11, but she 'as later re@uired to ma e additional payments. 6y the middle of the year, she had paid a total of /43,111.11 on installment basis. 3 8ave for t'o receipts, A $arasigan 'as not issued receipts for the foregoing payments despite her persistence in re@uesting for the same. $arasigan 'as assured by appellant that obtaining a #ai'anese visa 'ould not be a problem. B 8he 'as also sho'n a plane tic et to #ai'an, allegedly issued in her name. < Appellant issued $arasigan a photocopy of her plane tic et, " the original of 'hich 'as promised to be given to her before her departure. 01 $arasigan 'as never issued a visa. 00 7either 'as she given the promised plane tic et. =nable to depart for #ai'an, she 'ent to the travel agency 'hich issued the tic et and 'as informed that not only 'as she not boo ed by appellant for the alleged flight, but that the staff in the agency did not even no' appellant. %ater, $arasigan proceeded to the supposed residence of appellant and 'as informed that appellant did not live there. 04 =pon 18

verification 'ith the /hilippine -verseas &mployment Administration (/-&A), it 'as revealed that appellant 'as not authori(ed to recruit 'or ers for overseas employment. 03 $arasigan 'anted to recover her money but, by then, appellant could no longer be located. #he prosecution sought to prove that Fenerillo and 5el Rosario, the t'o other complainants in the illegal recruitment case, 'ere also victimi(ed by appellant. In lieu of their testimonies, the prosecution presented as 'itnesses %ilia Fenerillo, the mother of Imelda Fenerillo, and Eictoria Amin, the sister of 5el Rosario. %ilia Fenerillo claimed that she gave her daughter /<,111.11 to cover her application for placement abroad 'hich 'as made through appellant. 04 #'ice, she accompanied her daughter to the residence of appellant so that she could meet her2 ho'ever, she 'as not involved in the transactions bet'een her daughter and appellant. 03 7either 'as she around 'hen payments 'ere made to appellant. Imelda Fenerillo 'as unable to leave for abroad and %ilia Fenerillo concluded that she had become a victim of illegal recruitment. #he prosecution presented Eictoria Amin, the sister of Rosamar 5el Rosario, to sho' that the latter 'as also a victim of illegal recruitment. Eictoria Amin testified that appellant 'as supposed to provide her sister a ,ob abroad. 8he claimed that she gave her sister a total of /01,111.11 'hich 'as intended to cover the latterDs processing fee. 0A Eictoria Amin never met appellant and 'as not around 'hen her sister made payments. 8he assumed that the money 'as paid to appellant based on receipts, allegedly issued by appellant, 'hich her sister sho'ed her. 0B 5el Rosario 'as unable to leave for abroad despite the representations of appellant. Eictoria Amin claimed that her sister, li e $arasigan and Fenerillo, 'as a victim of illegal recruitment. #he final 'itness for the prosecution 'as Ri(a 6alberte, 0< a representative of the /-&A, 'ho testified that appellant 'as neither licensed nor authori(ed to recruit 'or ers for overseas employment, /-&A certificate certification. 0" =pon the foregoing evidence, the prosecution sought to prove that although t'o of the three complainants in the illegal recruitment case 'ere unable to testify, appellant 'as guilty of committing the offense against all three complainants and, therefore, should be convicted as charged. -n the other hand, appellant, 'ho 'as the sole 'itness for the defense, denied that she recruited the complainants for overseas employment and claimed that the payments made to her 'ere 19

solely for purchasing plane tic ets at a discounted rate as she had connections 'ith a travel agency. 41 8he denied that she 'as paid by $arasigan the amount of /43,111.11, claiming that she 'as paid only /<,111.11, as sho'n by a receipt. 8he further insisted that, through the travel agency, 40 she 'as able to purchase discounted plane tic ets for the complainants upon partial payment of the tic et prices, the balance of 'hich she guaranteed. According to her, the complainants 'ere supposed to pay her the balance but because they failed to do so, she 'as obliged to pay the entire cost of each tic et. #he evidence presented by the parties 'ere thus contradictory but the trial court found the prosecutionDs evidence more credible. -n 5ecember 0B, 0""3, ,udgment 'as rendered by said court convicting appellant of both crimes as charged. 44 In convicting appellant of illegal recruitment in large scale, the lo'er court adopted a previous decision of 6ranch B< of the $etropolitan #rial Court of /araLa@ue as a basis for the ,udgment. 8aid previous decision 'as a conviction for estafa promulgated on :uly 4A, 0""3, 43 rendered in Criminal Cases 7os. B4<34!33, involving the same circumstances in the instant case, 'herein complainants Fenerillo and 5el Rosario charged appellant 'ith t'o counts of estafa. #his decision 'as not appealed and had become final and e+ecutory. In thus convicting appellant in the illegal recruitment case, the decision therein of the Regional #rial Court stated that the facts in the foregoing estafa cases 'ere the same as those in the illegal recruitment case before it. It, therefore, adopted the facts and conclusions established in the earlier decision as its o'n findings of facts and as its retionale for the conviction in the case before it. 44 In Criminal Case 7o. "4!A033, the $a ati court sentenced appellant to serve the penalty of life imprisonment for illegal recruitment in large scale, as 'ell as to pay a fine of /011,111.11. Appellant 'as also ordered to reimburse the complainants the follo'ing payments made to her, vi(.* (a) $arasigan, /43,111.112 (b) Fenerillo, /4,311.112 and (c) 5el Rosario, /4,311.11. In the same ,udgment and for the estafa charged in Criminal Case 7o. "4!A034, the $a ati court sentenced appellant to suffer imprisonment of four (4) years and t'o (4) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (<) years of prision mayor, as ma+imum, and to pay the costs. In the instant petition, appellant see s the reversal of the foregoing ,udgment of the Regional #rial Court of $a ati convicting her of illegal recruitment in large scale and estafa. 8pecifically, she insists that the trial court erred in convicting her of illegal recruitment in large scale as the evidence presented 'as insufficient. 20

$oreover, appellant claims that she is not guilty of acts constituting illegal recruitment, in large scale or other'ise, because contrary to the findings of the trial court, she did not recruit the complainants but merely purchased plane tic ets for them. ?inally, she contends that in convicting her of estafa, the lo'er court erred as she did not misappropriate the money paid to her by $arasigan, hence there 'as no damage to the complainants 'hich 'ould substantiate the conviction. Ce uphold the finding that appellant is guilty but 'e are, compelled to modify the ,udgment for the offenses she should be convicted of and the corresponding penalties therefor. Appellant maintains that her conviction for illegal recruitment in large scale is erroneous. It is her vie' that in the prosecution of a case for such offense, at least three complainants are re@uired to appear as 'itnesses in the trial and, since $arasigan 'as the only complainant presented as a 'itness, the conviction 'as groundless. #he 8olicitor Feneral also advocates the conviction of appellant for simple illegal recruitment 'hich provides a lo'er penalty. #he Court finds the arguments of the 8olicitor Feneral meritorious and adopts his position. #he %abor Code defines recruitment and placement as ;. . . any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting transporting, utili(ing, hiring or procuring 'or ers and includes referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, 'hether for profit or not . . . .; 43 Illegal recruitment is li e'ise defined and made punishable under the %abor Code, thus* Art. 3<. Illegal Recruitment.

(a) Any recruitment activities, including the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of this Code, to be underta en by non! licensees or non!holders of authority shall be deemed illegal and punishable under Article 3" of this Code. . . . (b) Illegal recruitment 'hen committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall be considered an offense involving economic sabotage and shall be penali(ed in accordance 'ith Article 3" hereof. . . . Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group. Art. 3". /enalties.

21

(a) #he penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of -ne .undred #housand /esos (/011,111.11) shall be imposed if Illegal Recruitment constitutes economic sabotage as defined herein2 +++ +++ +++

(c) Any person 'ho is neither a licensee nor a holder of authority under this #itle found violating any provision thereof or its implementing rules and regulations shall, upon conviction thereof, suffer the penalty of imprisonment of not less than four (4) years nor more than eight (<) years or a fine of not less than /41,111.11 nor more than /011,111.11, or both such imprisonment and fine, at the discretion of the court. . . . 4A 5uring the pendency of this case, Republic Act 7o. <144, other'ise no'n as the ;$igrant Cor ers and -verseas ?ilipinos Act of 0""3,; 'as passed increasing the penalty for illegal recruitment. #his ne' la', ho'ever, does not apply to the instant case because the offense charged herein 'as committed in 0""4, before the effectivity of said Republic Act 7o. <144. .ence, 'hat are applicable are the aforecited %abor Code provisions. It is evident that in illegal recruitment cases, the number of persons victimi(ed is determinative. Chere illegal recruitment is committed against a lone victim, the accused may be convicted of simple illegal recruitment 'hich is punishable 'ith a lo'er penalty under Article 3"(c) of the %abor Code. Corollarily, 'here the offense is committed against three or more persons, it is @ualified to illegal recruitment in large scale 'hich provides a higher penalty under Article 3"(a) of the same Code. #he position of the 8olicitor Feneral is that the conviction of appellant should be merely for the lesser offense of simple illegal recruitment. .e submits that the Regional #rial Court of $a ati erred in convicting appellant of illegal recruitment in large scale because the conviction 'as based on an earlier decision of the $etropolitan #rial Court of /araLa@ue 'here appellant 'as found guilty of estafa committed against Fenerillo and 5el Rosario. It is argued that the $a ati court could not validly adopt the facts embodied in the decision of the /araLa@ue court to sho' that illegal recruitment 'as committed against Fenerillo and 5el Rosario as 'ell. Illegal recruitment 'as allegedly proven to have been committed against only one person, particularly, &lenita $arasigan. Appellant, therefore, may only be held guilty of simple illegal recruitment and not of such offense in large scale. .e further submits that the adoption by the $a ati court of the facts in the decision of the /araLa@ue court for estafa to constitute the basis of the subse@uent conviction for illegal recruitment is 22

erroneous as it is a violation of the right of appellant to confront the 'itnesses, that is, complainants Fenerillo and 5el Rosario, during trial before it. .e cites the pertinent provision of Rule 003 of the Rules of Court, to 'it* 8ec. 0. Rights of accused at the trial. prosecutions, the accused shall be entitled* +++ +++ +++ In all criminal

(f) #o confront and cross!e+amine the 'itnesses against him at the trial. &ither party may utili(e as part of its evidence the testimony of a 'itness 'ho is deceased, out of or cannot, 'ith due diligence be found in the /hilippines, unavailable or other'ise unable testify, given in another case or proceeding, ,udicial or administrative, involving the same parties and sub,ect matter, the adverse party having had the opportunity to cross!e+amine him. +++ +++ +++

It 'ill be noted that the principle embodied in the foregoing rule is li e'ise found in the follo'ing provision of Rule 031* 8ec. 4B. #estimony or deposition at a former proceeding. #he testimony or deposition of a 'itness deceased or unable to testify, given in a former case or proceeding, ,udicial or administrative, involving the same parties and sub,ect matter, may be given in evidence against the adverse party 'ho had the opportunity to cross!e+amine him. =nder the aforecited rules, the accused in a criminal case is guaranteed the right of confrontation. 8uch right has t'o purposes* first, to secure the opportunity of cross!e+amination2 and, second, to allo' the ,udge to observe the deportment and appearance of the 'itness 'hile testifying. 4B #his right, ho'ever, is not absolute as it is recogni(ed that it is sometimes impossible to recall or produce a 'itness 'ho has already testified in a previous proceeding, in 'hich event his previous testimony is made admissible as a distinct piece of evidence, by 'ay of e+ception to the hearsay rule. 4< #he previous testimony is made admissible because it ma es the administration of ,ustice orderly and e+peditious. 4" =nder these rules, the adoption by the $a ati trial court of the facts stated in the decision of the /araLa@ue trial court does not fall under the e+ception to the right of confrontation as the e+ception contemplated by la' covers only the utili(ation of

23

testimonies of absent 'itnesses made in previous proceedings, and does not include utili(ation of previous decisions or ,udgments. In the instant case, the prosecution did not offer the testimonies made by complainants Fenerillo and 5el Rosario in the previous estafa case. Instead, 'hat 'as offered, admitted in evidence, and utili(ed as a basis for the conviction in the case for illegal recruitment in large scale 'as the previous decision in the estafa case. A previous decision or ,udgment, 'hile admissible in evidence, may only prove that an accused 'as previously convicted of a crime. 31 It may not be used to prove that the accused is guilty of a crime charged in a subse@uent case, in lieu of the re@uisite evidence proving the commission of the crime, as said previous decision is hearsay. #o sanction its being used as a basis for conviction in a subse@uent case 'ould constitute a violation of the right of the accused to confront the 'itnesses against him. As earlier stated, the $a ati courtDs utili(ation of and reliance on the previous decision of the /araLa@ue court must be re,ected. &very conviction must be based on the findings of fact made by a trial court according to its appreciation of the evidence before it. A conviction may not be based merely on the findings of fact of another court, especially 'here 'hat is presented is only its decision sans the transcript of the testimony of the 'itnesses 'ho testified therein and upon 'hich the decision is based. ?urthermore, this is not the only reason 'hy appellant may not be held liable for illegal recruitment in large scale. An evaluation of the evidence presented before the trial court sho's us that, apart from the adopted decision in the previous estafa case, there 'as no other basis for said trial courtDs conclusion that illegal recruitment in large scale 'as committed against all three complainants. #he distinction bet'een simple illegal recruitment and illegal recruitment in large scale are emphasi(ed by ,urisprudence. 8imple illegal recruitment is committed 'here a person* (a) underta es any recruitment activity defined under Article 03(b) or any prohibited practice enumerated under Articles 34 and 3< of the %abor Code2 and (b) does not have a license or authority to la'fully engage in the recruitment and placement of 'or ers. 30 -n the other hand, illegal recruitment in large scale further re@uires a third element, that is, the offense is committed against three or more persons, individually or as a group. 34 In illegal recruitment in large scale, 'hile the la' does not re@uire that at least three victims testify at the trial, it is necessary that there is sufficient evidence proving that the offense 'as committed against three or more persons. #his Court agrees 'ith the trial court 24

that the evidence presented sufficiently proves that illegal recruitment 'as committed by appellant against $arasigan, but the same conclusion cannot be made as regards Fenerillo and 5el Rosario as 'ell. #he testimonies of FenerilloDs mother, %ilia Fenerillo, and 5el RosarioDs sister, Eictoria Amin, reveal that these 'itnesses had no personal no'ledge of the actual circumstances surrounding the charges filed by Fenerillo and 5el Rosario for illegal recruitment in large scale. 7either of these 'itnesses 'as privy to the transactions bet'een appellant and each of the t'o complainants. #he 'itnesses claimed that appellant illegally recruited Fenerillo and 5el Rosario. 7onetheless, 'e find their averments to be unfounded as they 'ere not even present 'hen Fenerillo and 5el Rosario negotiated 'ith and made payments to appellant. ?or insufficiency of evidence and in the absence of the third element of illegal recruitment in large scale, particularly, that ;the offense is committed against three or more persons,; 'e cannot affirm the conviction for illegal recruitment in large scale. 7onetheless, 'e agree 'ith the finding of the trial court that appellant illegally recruited $arasigan, for 'hich she must be held liable for the lesser offense of simple illegal recruitment. AppellantDs defense that she did not recruit $arasigan but merely purchased a plane tic et for her is belied by the evidence as it is undeniable that she represented to $arasigan that she had the ability to send people to 'or as factory 'or ers in #ai'an. .er prete+t that the fees paid to her 'ere merely payments for a plane tic et is a desperate attempt to e+onerate herself from the charges and cannot be sustained. ?urthermore, no improper motive may be attributed to $arasigan in charging appellant. #he fact that $arasigan 'as poor does not ma e her so heartless as to contrive a criminal charge against appellant. 8he 'as a simple 'oman 'ith big dreams and it 'as appellantDs duplicity 'hich reduced those dreams to naught. $arasigan had no motive to testify falsely against appellant e+cept to tell the truth. 33 6esides, if there 'as anyone 'hose testimony needed corroboration, it 'as appellant as there 'as nothing in her testimony e+cept the bare denial of the accusations. 34 If appellant really intended to purchase a plane tic et and not to recruit $arasigan, she should have presented evidence to support this claim. Also, in her testimony, appellant named an employee in the travel agency 'ho 'as allegedly her contact person for the purchase of the tic et. 8he could have presented that person, or some other employee of the agency, to sho' that the transaction

25

'as merely for buying a tic et. .er failure to do the foregoing acts belies her pretensions. #he Court li e'ise affirms the conviction of appellant for estafa 'hich 'as committed against $arasigan. Conviction under the %abor Code for illegal recruitment does not preclude punishment under the Revised /enal Code for the felony of estafa. 33 #his Court is convinced that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant violated Article 303(4) (a) of the Revised /enal Code 'hich provides that estafa is committed* 4. 6y means of any of the follo'ing false pretenses or fraudulent acts e+ecuted prior to or simultaneously 'ith the commission of the fraud* (a) 6y using fictitious name or falsely pretending to possess po'er, influence, @ualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of other similar deceits. #he evidence is clear that in falsely pretending to possess po'er to deploy persons for overseas placement, appellant deceived the complainant into believing that she 'ould provide her a ,ob in #ai'an. .er assurances made $arasigan e+haust 'hatever resources she had to pay the placement fee re@uired in e+change for the promised ,ob. #he elements of deceit and damage for this form of estafa are indisputably present, hence the conviction for estafa in Criminal Case 7o. "4!A034 should be affirmed. =nder the Revised /enal Code, an accused found guilty of estafa shall be sentenced to* . . . #he penalty of prision correccional in its ma+imum period to prision mayor in its minimum period, if the amount of the fraud is over 04,111 but does not e+ceed 44,111 pesos, and if such amount e+ceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its ma+imum period, adding one year for each additional 01,111 pesos. . . . 3A #he amount involved in the estafa case is /43,111.11. Applying the Indeterminate 8entence %a', the ma+imum penalty shall be ta en from the ma+imum period of the foregoing basic penalty, specifically, 'ithin the range of imprisonment from si+ (A) years, eight (<) months and t'enty!one (40) days to eight (<) years. -n the other hand, the minimum penalty of the indeterminate sentence shall be 'ithin the range of the penalty ne+t lo'er in degree to that provided by la', 'ithout considering the incremental penalty for the amount in e+cess of /44,111.11. 3B #hat penalty immediately lo'er in degree is prison correccional in its minimum and medium periods, 'ith a duration of si+ (A) months 26

and one (0) day to four (4) years and t'o (4) months. -n these considerations, the trial court correctly fi+ed the minimum and ma+imum terms of the indeterminate sentence in the estafa case. Chile 'e must be vigilant and should punish, to the fullest e+tent of the la', those 'ho prey upon the desperate 'ith empty promises of better lives, only to feed on their aspirations, 'e must not be heedless of the basic rule that a conviction may be sustained only 'here it is for the correct offense and the burden of proof of the guilt of the accused has been met by the prosecution. C.&R&?-R&, the ,udgment of the court a @uo finding accused! appellant %anie -rti(!$iya e guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of illegal recruitment in large scale (Criminal Case 7o. "4! A033) and estafa (Criminal Case 7o. "4!A034) is hereby $-5I?I&5, as follo's. 0) Accused!appellant is declared guilty beyond reasonable doubt of simple illegal recruitment, as defined in Article 3<(a) of the %abor Code, as amended. 8he is hereby ordered to serve an indeterminate sentence of four (4) years, as minimum, to eight (<) years, as ma+imum, and to pay a fine of /011,111.11. 4) In Criminal Case 7o. "4!A034 for estafa, herein accused! appellant is ordered to serve an indeterminate sentence of four (4) years and t'o (4) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (<) years of prision mayor, as ma+imum, and to reimburse &lenita $arasigan the sum of /43,111.11. In all other respects, the aforestated ,udgment is A??IR$&5, 'ith costs against accused!appellant in both instances. 8- -R5&R&5. /uno, $endo(a and #orres, :r., ::., concur.

27