People v. Ong
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Accused-appellant Benzon Ong y Sate was charged with illegal recruitment in large scale and seven counts of estafa. The prosecution presented evidence that Ong represented himself as having the capacity to contract, enlist, hire, and transport Filipino workers for employment abroad. He promised job placements in Taiwan to several individuals, collecting placement and processing fees from them. Specifically, Noel Bacasnot paid P10,000.00 as downpayment for a P30,000.00 placement fee. Ruth Eliw, Sally Kamura, and Solidad Malinias each paid P40,000.00, with a handwritten agreement acknowledging P45,000.00 as additional payment and promising departure within three weeks. Samuel Bagni, Teofilo Gallao, Jr., Paul Esteban, and David Joaquin were also swindled, paying various amounts totaling P40,000.00, P40,000.00, P37,500.00, and P30,000.00 respectively. Ong failed to fulfill his promises and could not be located. An entrapment operation led to his arrest, and a certification from the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Regional Extension Unit (POEA-REU) confirmed he was not licensed to recruit for overseas employment. Francisca Cayaya's complaint for estafa was dismissed due to her failure to testify. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 5, Baguio City, found accused-appellant Benzon Ong y Sate guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a P100,000.00 fine. He was also found guilty of seven counts of estafa, with indeterminate prison terms ranging from four years and two months to nine years, and ordered to indemnify the eight private complainants in the aggregate amount of P277,500.00 with legal interest. The Petition: Accused-appellant appealed the RTC decision, contending that the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimonies of the complaining witnesses and in finding him guilty when the prosecution allegedly failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Issue(s)
Whether the accused-appellant committed illegal recruitment in large scale. Whether the accused-appellant committed estafa. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court, finding accused-appellant Benzon Ong y Sate guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal recruitment in large scale and seven counts of estafa. The penalties imposed by the trial court were upheld.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of illegal recruitment in large scale: The Court held that the accused-appellant engaged in acts of recruitment and placement as defined under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code. He represented himself as capable of deploying workers abroad, quoted salary rates, and collected placement fees. The Court noted that even if he merely "suggested" where complainants could apply, his act constituted "referral" under the Labor Code. Furthermore, the evidence showed he made misrepresentations regarding his authority and collected fees. The prosecution established that he was neither licensed nor authorized to recruit, and he committed these unlawful acts against more than three persons, thus satisfying the elements of illegal recruitment in large scale. The Court emphasized that the absence of receipts is not fatal to the prosecution's case, as credible testimonial evidence suffices to prove illegal recruitment. On the issue of estafa: The Court found that the elements of estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code were present. The accused-appellant misrepresented himself as capable of arranging job placements in Taiwan, inducing the complainants to part with their money through deceitful false pretenses. As a result, the complainants suffered damage and prejudice, which are capable of pecuniary estimation. The Court reiterated the established jurisprudence that a person convicted of illegal recruitment may also be convicted of estafa, as illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum (criminal intent not necessary) while estafa is malum in se (criminal intent necessary), thus avoiding double jeopardy. On the issue of proof beyond reasonable doubt: The Court found that the prosecution's evidence proved the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The complainants positively identified him as the person who recruited them and collected fees. Their testimonies were consistent and credible, with no showing of ill motive. In contrast, the accused-appellant's defenses, including denials and claims of forged signatures, were unsubstantiated. He failed to present evidence to corroborate his claims or to rebut the prosecution's evidence, such as presenting the alleged recruitment agency or its manager. The Court concluded that the accused-appellant's mere denials could not prevail against the positive and categorical testimonies of the complainants.
Main Doctrine
A person convicted of illegal recruitment may, in addition, be convicted of estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code, as illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum while estafa is malum in se.