People v. Centeno
MODIFICATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Accused-appellant Jose L. Centeno, along with Cecille Amara, Adora Centeno, Cristy Celis, and Bernardino Navallo, were charged with two counts of Syndicated and Large Scale Illegal Recruitment and three counts of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). The charges stemmed from allegations that they recruited individuals for overseas employment without the necessary license, collected placement fees, and failed to deploy the workers or reimburse their expenses. Specifically, in Criminal Case No. 08-259342, the accused allegedly recruited Danilo Pactol y Jalalon and ten others, collecting P854,540.00. In Criminal Case No. 08-259343, Ruben B. Salvatierra was allegedly defrauded of P95,000.00. The Estafa charges involved similar misrepresentations and collection of fees from Ruben B. Salvatierra (P95,000.00), Elizabeth Castillo (P95,000.00), and Revilla Buendia (P70,000.00). Procedural History: Only the accused-appellant was arrested and arraigned. He pleaded not guilty. The prosecution presented private complainants and a POEA Officer as witnesses. The defense presented the accused-appellant as its sole witness. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 8, found the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of Syndicated and Large Scale Illegal Recruitment and three counts of Estafa. The RTC sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of P100,000.00 for each illegal recruitment charge, and indeterminate penalties for the Estafa charges, ordering him to indemnify the complainants. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC Decision with modification, increasing the fine for illegal recruitment to P500,000.00 each and modifying the penalty for one Estafa charge. The Petition: The accused-appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that both parties had exhaustively discussed the issues before the CA and thus would no longer submit supplemental briefs.
Issue(s)
Whether the accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of Syndicated and Large Scale Illegal Recruitment and three counts of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code. Whether the penalties imposed by the lower courts for Estafa are in accordance with law, considering the amendments introduced by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10951. Whether the imposition of legal interest on actual damages was correctly applied.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the CA Decision with modification regarding the penalties for Estafa in light of R.A. No. 10951. The Court found the accused-appellant guilty of two counts of Syndicated and Large Scale Illegal Recruitment and three counts of Estafa. The penalties for illegal recruitment were affirmed, including the fine of P500,000.00 each. For the Estafa convictions, the Court modified the penalties to conform to R.A. No. 10951, imposing an indeterminate penalty of four (4) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to one (1) year and eight (8) months of prision correccional, as maximum, for each count. The Court also clarified the imposition of legal interest on actual damages.
Ratio Decidendi
On the charge of Syndicated and Large Scale Illegal Recruitment and Estafa: The Court affirmed the convictions. For Illegal Recruitment, all elements were present: the manpower company lacked a license, the accused-appellant engaged in recruitment activities in concert with at least two others, and the offense was committed against three or more persons. The penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00 each was consistent with Section 7(b) of R.A. No. 8042. The same acts could be the basis for Estafa. The elements of Estafa by deceit were present: false pretenses regarding the capacity to deploy workers abroad, reliance by the complainants who parted with their money, and resulting damage. The accused-appellant misrepresented the company's capabilities, inducing the complainants to pay placement fees, which were never returned. Conviction for one offense does not bar conviction for the other as they are independent. On the modification of penalties for Estafa due to R.A. No. 10951: The Court applied R.A. No. 10951 retroactively, as it was favorable to the accused-appellant. Section 85 of R.A. No. 10951 amended Article 315 of the RPC, increasing the threshold amounts for penalties. The amounts involved in the Estafa cases (P95,000.00 and P70,000.00) now fall under a lower penalty bracket. The Court imposed an indeterminate penalty of four (4) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to one (1) year and eight (8) months of prision correccional, as maximum, for each count of Estafa, in accordance with the amended law. On the imposition of legal interest on actual damages: The Court clarified the application of interest rates based on Nacar v. Gallery Frames. Since the payment of placement fees in Estafa does not constitute a loan or forbearance of money but is in consideration for a service, the interest on actual damages commenced from the time of judicial demand (filing of the Informations on February 11, 2008). The interest rate was set at 12% per annum from February 11, 2008, until June 30, 2013, and 6% per annum from July 1, 2013, until the finality of the decision. Thereafter, the total amount earns 6% per annum until full payment.
Main Doctrine
The same acts may serve as basis for conviction for both Illegal Recruitment and Estafa. The penalty for Estafa must be revisited in view of RA No. 10951, which has retroactive effect when favorable to the accused. Interest on actual damages in Estafa, when not a loan or forbearance of money, commences from judicial demand if the claim is reasonably certain.