People v. Imperio
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Between June and July 2011, accused-appellant Oliver Imperio y Antonio approached Shane S. Llave offering data encoder jobs in California, USA via his aunt, prompting Llave to pay P7,000 as processing fee without receipt and refer others: Magellan Concrenio III (promised utility work in Canada, paid P10,000 partially via bank deposit), Edralin D. Sta. Maria, Cherry Beth A. Barabas, John Daryl V. De Leon, Annavey C. Flores, Maricor Ventura, Ma. Camella C. Luzana, and Gregorio C. Daluz (each promised jobs abroad with salaries up to P90,000 or US$3,000, paying P7,000 each). Imperio demanded additional P1,500 notarization fees per applicant and required document submissions for US Embassy visas despite varied destinations. Despite repeated follow-ups, no deployments occurred, leading the victims to file NBI complaints. NBI Agent Yehlen Agus confirmed via POEA Certification that Imperio lacked recruitment authority. On January 11, 2012, entrapment ensued where Imperio received P21,000 (P7,000 each from Barabas, De Leon, Sta. Maria) issuing a receipt, resulting in his arrest. Imperio claimed payments were for Llave's P35,000 loan at 20% interest, introduced via friendship, denying recruitment. Procedural History: RTC Pasig City Branch 166 convicted Imperio of Large Scale Illegal Recruitment (March 16, 2016), sentencing life imprisonment, P500,000 fine, actual damages to Llave (P7,000), Sta. Maria (P7,000), Concrenio (P10,000), with mittimus to NBP; relied on three witnesses' corroborated testimonies and POEA cert. CA affirmed (Feb. 10, 2017) adding 6% interest from finality, upholding credibility and three-victim threshold. SC notified for briefs (Oct. 2, 2017); parties adopted CA briefs. The Petition: Imperio argued RTC erred in crediting prosecution testimonies due to inconsistencies (e.g., Llave's unclear meeting date), unnatural acts (no receipts, Canada job but US Embassy fee), Sta. Maria influenced by others not Imperio, and disregarded his denial that payments settled Llave's loan; claimed entrapment receipt coerced post-arrest.
Issue(s)
Whether the prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt for Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale, considering testimonial inconsistencies, lack of receipts, and defense denial. What is the appropriate penalty for Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale amounting to economic sabotage by a non-licensee?
Ruling
Appeal dismissed; RTC/CA judgments affirmed with modification: fine increased to P5,000,000; actual damages earn 6% interest from finality until paid. Imperio guilty of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale under RA 8042, as amended.
Ratio Decidendi
On Proof of Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: The elements concur: (1) POEA Certification (May 31, 2013) proves Imperio's lack of license, unrebutted; (2) Llave, Concrenio, Sta. Maria positively testified and corroborated that Imperio promised USA/Canada jobs, collected fees (P7,000-P10,000), demanded documents/notarization, creating distinct impression of deployment ability per People v. Sison (816 Phil. 8, 22-23 (2017)) and Art. 13(b), Labor Code; failed to deploy/reimburse per Sec. 6(m), RA 8042. Minor inconsistencies (e.g., meeting dates) are collateral, not touching essentials, per Calma v. People (820 Phil. 848, 866 (2017)); positive IDs prevail over self-serving denial/alibi per People v. Leoño (G.R. No. 244379, Dec. 5, 2019). No receipt needed, as recruitment need not involve profit upfront per People v. Domingo (602 Phil. 1037, 1045-1046 (2009)). RTC/CA credibility findings binding absent error per People v. Tolentino (762 Phil. 592, 613 (2015)). Three testifying victims suffice for large scale per Sec. 6, RA 8042. (2) Imperio directly dealt with Sta. Maria, collecting fee, contra his claim. Thus, economic sabotage proven. On Penalty: RA 10022 (eff. May 7, 2010) amends Sec. 7(b), RA 8042 to life imprisonment and P2M-P5M fine for economic sabotage by non-licensee (crime Jan. 11, 2012 post-amendment); maximum P5M imposed. CA's 6% interest from finality proper for determinate damages.
Main Doctrine
Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale under RA 8042, as amended by RA 10022, requires: (1) the offender has no valid license or authority from POEA to engage in recruitment; (2) the offender undertakes recruitment activities such as promising or advertising employment abroad, whether for profit or not; and (3) said acts are committed against three or more persons individually or as a group, elevating it to economic sabotage. The prosecution must prove the accused gave complainants the distinct impression of ability to deploy them abroad, inducing them to part with money, but absence of receipts is immaterial as recruitment may be for profit or not. Testimonies of at least three victims, positively identifying the accused and corroborated on material points, suffice even if minor inconsistencies exist on collateral matters, prevailing over bare denials or alibis. Factual findings on credibility by trial courts, affirmed by CA, bind the Supreme Court absent clear error. Penalties are life imprisonment and fine of P2M to P5M (maximum for non-licensees) under RA 10022, with actual damages bearing 6% interest from finality.