People v. Saulo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Accused-appellant Romulo Saulo, along with Amelia de la Cruz and Clodualdo de la Cruz, were charged with illegal recruitment in large scale under Article 38(b) of the Labor Code and three counts of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code. The accused allegedly conspired to recruit and promise employment abroad to Leodegario Maullon, Beny Maligaya, and Angeles Javier for a fee, without the required license or authority from the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). Specifically, Beny Maligaya paid P35,000.00, Angeles Javier paid P20,000.00, and Leodigario Maullon paid a total of P30,400.00 for promised overseas employment in Taiwan. The accused were not licensed recruiters. Accused-appellant pleaded not guilty, while Amelia and Clodualdo de la Cruz remained at large. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal recruitment in large scale and three counts of estafa. The RTC sentenced Saulo to life imprisonment and a fine of P100,000.00 for illegal recruitment, and imposed indeterminate penalties for each count of estafa, ordering him to indemnify the complainants. Accused-appellant appealed the decision. The Petition: Accused-appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that he was merely a co-applicant and was also deceived by Amelia and Clodualdo de la Cruz, denying receipt of any money or signing of receipts. He also contended that licenses are issued only to corporations, not natural persons.
Issue(s)
Whether the accused-appellant is guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale. Whether the accused-appellant is guilty of estafa. Whether the accused-appellant can be convicted of both illegal recruitment and estafa.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court, finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal recruitment in large scale and three counts of estafa, with modifications to the penalties imposed for estafa. Dispositive Portion: The Court affirmed the conviction and modified the penalties for estafa as follows: Criminal Case No. Q-91-21908 (Beny Maligaya): Indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional medium, as minimum to nine (9) years of prision mayor, as maximum. Indemnification of P35,000.00. Criminal Case No. Q-91-21909 (Angeles Javier): Indeterminate penalty of one (1) year, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days of prision correccional minimum to five (5) years, five (5) months and eleven (11) days of prision correccional maximum. Indemnification of P20,000.00. Criminal Case No. Q-91-21910 (Leodigario Maullon): Indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional medium, as minimum to eight (8) years of prision mayor, as maximum. Indemnification of P30,400.00. Criminal Case No. Q-91-21911 (Illegal Recruitment): Life imprisonment and a fine of P100,000.00.
Ratio Decidendi
On the charge of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale: The Court held that the essential elements of illegal recruitment in large scale were present: (1) the accused engaged in recruitment and placement of workers; (2) the accused did not have the required license or authority from the DOLE; and (3) the accused committed the offense against three or more persons. The prosecution successfully established that the accused-appellant promised employment abroad and received fees from the complainants without the necessary license. The Court reiterated that the absence of a license renders all recruitment activities criminal, regardless of whether the accused is a natural person or a corporation, as per Article 13(b) of the Labor Code. The accused-appellant's defense that he was merely a co-applicant and was deceived by others was found to be self-serving and uncorroborated, failing to overcome the credible testimonies of the complainants. The Court emphasized that a conviction for illegal recruitment can stand on the credible testimonies of complainants, even in the absence of receipts. On the charge of Estafa: The Court affirmed the conviction for estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code. The elements of estafa, namely (1) defrauding another by abuse of confidence or deceit, and (2) causing damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation, were met. The accused-appellant's false assurances of overseas employment induced the complainants to part with their money, resulting in damage when the promised employment did not materialize. The Court found that the complainants' testimonies clearly established the deceit employed by the accused-appellant. The Court also clarified the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law and the penalty provisions for estafa, particularly when the amount of fraud exceeds P22,000.00, requiring the addition of one year for each additional P10,000.00. On the conviction for both Illegal Recruitment and Estafa: The Court reiterated the well-established jurisprudence that a person may be charged and convicted for both illegal recruitment and estafa. This is because illegal recruitment is considered a malum prohibitum, where criminal intent is not necessary for conviction, while estafa is a malum in se, where criminal intent is an essential element. The acts constituting illegal recruitment (recruiting without a license) and estafa (defrauding through deceit) are distinct, and the same set of facts can give rise to both offenses. Therefore, the conviction for both offenses is permissible and does not violate the prohibition against double jeopardy.
Main Doctrine
A person may be convicted for both illegal recruitment and estafa, as illegal recruitment is a malum prohibitum and estafa is a malum in se. The absence of a license or authority to recruit renders all recruitment activities criminal.