Encarnacion Flores v. People of the Philippines
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Encarnacion Flores was accused of Illegal Recruitment and Estafa in two separate informations. The private complainant, Pedro Oval, learned from petitioner's sister that petitioner could send people abroad for work. Oval went to petitioner's residence and was told that she could send people abroad if money was given to her. On February 20, 1986, Oval gave petitioner P2,000.00 for his passport. On March 26, 1986, petitioner demanded P13,000.00 for Oval's job as a can maker in Japan, which Oval also gave. No receipts were issued. Petitioner secured a passport and visa for Oval, but it was a tourist visa, not a work visa, preventing him from leaving for Japan. Oval demanded his money back. Petitioner returned P1,000.00 and promised to return the balance by August 15, 1986. Pacifico de Jesus had a similar experience. Oval and de Jesus reported the matter to the police. At the police detachment, petitioner acknowledged her obligation and signed a promissory note for P23,000.00 payable to Oval and de Jesus by August 15, 1986. Petitioner failed to return the money. Procedural History: Oval filed complaints for Illegal Recruitment and Estafa. Informations were filed, and the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch XLI, convicted petitioner in a consolidated decision on August 22, 1988. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision in toto. The Petition: Petitioner seeks review of the CA decision, arguing it is not in accord with law and jurisprudence, specifically questioning the sufficiency of evidence for conviction beyond reasonable doubt, the admissibility of the promissory note signed without counsel, and the CA's disregard of a recantation affidavit from Pedro Oval.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed serious error of law by affirming the RTC decision convicting the petitioner of illegal recruitment and estafa despite the evidence not sustaining a verdict of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Whether the "receipt" signed by petitioner acknowledging her obligation to repay P23,000.00 should have been given probative weight, considering it was signed in the presence of police officers shortly after arrest without warrant and without benefit of counsel. Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in disregarding the affidavit of recantation executed by Pedro R. Oval.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the conviction of the petitioner for Illegal Recruitment and Estafa is upheld.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of Illegal Recruitment and Estafa conviction: The Court held that the petitioner's defense that she did not recruit Oval for employment abroad is beside the point. The undisputable fact is that she gave Oval the distinct impression that she had the power or ability to send people abroad for work, which convinced him to give her money. The definition of 'recruitment' under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code, as amended, includes any act of canvassing, enlisting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers, and encompasses referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not. The law further states that any person or entity that, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement. Petitioner admitted she is not licensed by the POEA to recruit workers. Regarding Estafa, the Court found that petitioner made false manifestations and fraudulent representations to Pedro Oval, inducing him to deliver P15,000.00 for a job in Japan. Her subsequent actions, such as returning only P1,000.00 and promising to return the balance, and the promissory note she signed, corroborated the prosecution's evidence that she indeed received the money and failed to fulfill her promise, thereby causing damage to Oval. On the admissibility of the promissory note: The Court acknowledged that the promissory note was likely signed without the presence of counsel. However, it found no direct or positive evidence that the degree of constraint or duress was sufficient to overcome petitioner's mind and will. The alleged duress was merely petitioner's apprehension of being detained by the policemen. The Court noted that petitioner promised to send Oval to Japan and demanded and received payment for this effort, which contradicts her claim of not receiving the amounts. Her refund of P1,000.00 and promise to return the rest further supported the finding that she had indeed received the money. On the recanted testimony of Pedro Oval: The Court found the recantation of Oval's testimony to be unreliable and an afterthought. Oval's claim that he mistakenly stated before the fiscal and the court that he gave the money to petitioner was deemed incredible, especially after he had gone through the process of having her arrested, positively identifying her, and repeating the accusation in court. The Court reiterated its stance that affidavits of recantation are generally viewed with suspicion, especially when they are easily secured, possibly for monetary consideration, and can make a solemn trial a mockery. Therefore, the recantation was not given probative value.
Main Doctrine
The definition of 'recruitment' under the Labor Code, as amended, must be applied in its legal sense, not merely by dictionary definition. A person commits illegal recruitment when they engage in activities of canvassing, enlisting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers, or promising or advertising employment for a fee, without the necessary license or authority. The commission of estafa through false manifestations and fraudulent representations, coupled with the failure to deliver on the promised overseas employment, is established by the evidence, and a subsequent recantation of testimony is generally considered unreliable and an afterthought.