People v. Domingo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Larry "Lauro" Domingo (appellant) was charged with Illegal Recruitment (Large Scale) and 23 counts of Estafa. The Information for Illegal Recruitment alleged that the appellant, without a license from the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), undertook illegal recruitment activities from November 1999 to January 2000, involving numerous individuals, constituting economic sabotage. The Estafa charges alleged that the appellant, through deceit and false pretenses, defrauded complainants by promising employment abroad and inducing them to part with their money. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 11, convicted the appellant of Illegal Recruitment (Large Scale) and two counts of Estafa, while acquitting him in other Estafa cases. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's decision. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, raising the same contentions. The Petition: The appellant argued that the trial court erred in finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt, citing the lack of receipts and the retraction of a key witness. He also contended that the appellate court erred in affirming the conviction.
Issue(s)
Whether the appellant is guilty of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale. Whether the appellant is guilty of Estafa. Whether the retraction of a witness negates the prosecution's evidence. Whether the absence of receipts affects the conviction for illegal recruitment and estafa.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the decision of the Court of Appeals. The appellant was found guilty of Illegal Recruitment (Large Scale) and two counts of Estafa. The Court held that the prosecution sufficiently proved the elements of both crimes beyond reasonable doubt. The Court also ruled that the retraction of a witness does not necessarily vitiate the original testimony, especially when executed after a considerable lapse of time and appears to be an afterthought. The absence of receipts does not absolve the appellant, as the promise of employment for a fee is sufficient for illegal recruitment, and the deceitful misrepresentation constitutes estafa.
Ratio Decidendi
On the guilt for Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale: The Court reiterated the definition of "recruitment and placement" under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code, which includes promising or advertising for employment, whether for profit or not, and that any person offering or promising employment for a fee to two or more persons is deemed engaged in recruitment and placement. Article 38(a) of the Labor Code states that recruitment activities by non-licensees are illegal. Illegal recruitment is considered large scale if committed against three or more persons. The prosecution successfully proved that the appellant, a non-licensee, undertook recruitment activities by promising employment abroad to multiple complainants, thereby committing illegal recruitment in large scale. The Court emphasized that even if no cash was given at the time of the promise, the act of promising employment for a fee is sufficient for conviction. On the guilt for Estafa: The Court affirmed the conviction for Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code. The elements of this crime were established: (1) the appellant deceived the complainants by falsely representing his capacity to provide employment abroad; (2) the complainants paid appellant placement and medical fees based on these false pretenses; and (3) the complainants suffered damages when the promised employment did not materialize and the amounts paid were not returned. The Court clarified that illegal recruitment is a malum prohibitum, while estafa is a malum in se, meaning a person can be convicted of both offenses. On the retraction of witness Simeon Cabigao: The Court held that a retraction does not automatically nullify a prior testimony. The recantation of Simeon Cabigao, executed three years after the complaint was filed, was considered an afterthought and lacked probative value. The Court gave more weight to the consistent and credible testimonies of the other four complainants whose testimonies remained unimpaired. The Court stressed that a solemn testimony given in court should not be set aside lightly, especially by a mere affidavit executed later. On the absence of receipts: The Court ruled that the absence of receipts acknowledging payment to the appellant does not exonerate him. The testimonies of the complaining witnesses, who categorically stated that they paid the appellant for promised overseas employment, were sufficient to establish his culpability. The Court reiterated that Article 13(b) of the Labor Code considers recruitment activities even if they are not for profit, and the act of promising employment for a fee is the gravamen of the offense. The misrepresentation and inducement to part with money for non-existent employment constitute estafa, regardless of whether formal receipts were issued.
Main Doctrine
A person can be convicted of both illegal recruitment and estafa, as illegal recruitment is a malum prohibitum and estafa is a malum in se. The elements of illegal recruitment in large scale require proof that the accused undertook recruitment activities without the necessary license or authority and committed the act against three or more persons. The elements of estafa under Article 315, par. 2(a) require deceit, false pretenses, and damage to the victim.