People v. Lapasaran
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Arlene N. Lapasaran, an employee of Silver Jet Travel Tours Agency, undertook to process the papers for Menardo Villarin's deployment and employment in South Korea for a fee of ₱85,000.00. Menardo paid the fee in installments. Menardo departed for South Korea but was incarcerated and deported due to fake travel documents provided by petitioner. Petitioner promised to send Menardo back but failed to do so. When Menardo and his sister demanded a refund, petitioner refused and suggested legal action. It was later discovered that petitioner was no longer connected with Silver Jet. Procedural History: Separate charges for illegal recruitment and estafa were filed against petitioner before the RTC of Manila. The RTC found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of both charges. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC Decision with modification on the penalty for estafa. The Petition: Petitioner assails the CA Decision and Resolution, raising the sole issue of whether the laws on illegal recruitment and estafa are applicable.
Issue(s)
Whether the laws on illegal recruitment are applicable in this case. Whether the laws on estafa are applicable in this case.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated June 28, 2007 and its Resolution dated September 12, 2007, in CA-G.R. CR No. 29898, are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the laws on illegal recruitment are applicable: Yes, the laws on illegal recruitment are applicable. The Court held that petitioner gave Menardo the distinct impression that she had the power to send him abroad for work, inducing him to part with his money. Her misrepresentation of authority and collection of fees constituted illegal recruitment under Republic Act No. 8042. The Court clarified that it is enough that she gave the impression of authority to recruit, even if she did not represent herself as a licensed recruiter. On Whether the laws on estafa are applicable: Yes, the laws on estafa are applicable. The Court found that petitioner's representation of capability to send Menardo to South Korea for employment, without the necessary authority or license, constituted deceit. This misrepresentation induced Menardo to give his money, causing him damage. The Court reiterated the well-established principle that a person can be convicted of both illegal recruitment and estafa because illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum (where criminal intent is not necessary for conviction), while estafa is malum in se (where criminal intent is imperative). The Court gave weight to the findings of the trial and appellate courts regarding the credibility of prosecution witnesses, stating that appellate courts generally do not disturb such findings unless certain facts of substance were plainly overlooked.
Main Doctrine
A person may be convicted of both illegal recruitment and estafa, as illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum (criminal intent not necessary) while estafa is malum in se (criminal intent imperative).