G.R. No. 125903
November 15, 2000
PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, vs. ROMULO SAULO, AMELIA DE LA CRUZ, and CLODUALDO DE LA CRUZ,. accused ROMULO SAULO, accused-appellant.
ROMULO SAULO,
AMELIA DE LA CRUZ, and CLODUALDO DE LA CRUZ were charged with Illegal
Recruitment in Large Scale (Art. 38 b in rel. to Art. 39. a of the Labor Code)
when they, after consipiring with each other, pretended to offended parties(LEODEGARIO MAULLON, BENY MALIGAYA and
ANGELES JAVIER) as having the capacity to recruit and deploy
workers overseas for employment when the truth was that they do not have such license
or authority to do so. Due to such misrepresentation, the offended party parted
with their money as fee for the promised employment which never materialized.
As such, Cases for Estafa are likewise filed against R. Saulo, A. De la Cruz,
and C. De la Cruz.
Both Dela Cruz
remained at large while Saulo was arraigned and made to face the charges.
For his defense,
Saulo denied the accusations against him, arguing that he was neither an overseas employment recruiter nor an agent
for one. He asserted that he too was an applicant for overseas employment
together with Amelia de la Cruz. He claimed to have met all three complainants
at A. De LA Cruz’ house in order to follow up their applications. He also
denied having received money from complainants.
Saulo was found
guilty beyond reasonable doubt for three counts of Estafa and of Illegal Recruitment.
ISSUE: Whether or not Saulo is guilty of Estafa and
Illegal Recruitment.
Whether or not accused may be convicted for
both Estafa (mala in se) and Illegal Recruitment (mala prohibitum)
Ruling:
Accused
is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Recruitment
All elements of Illegal Recruitment in Large
Scale was present:
(1) the accused engages in the recruitment and placement of workers, as defined under Article 13 (b) or in any prohibited activities under Article 34 of the Labor Code; (2) accused has not complied with the guidelines issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment, particularly with respect to the securing of a license or an authority to recruit and deploy workers, whether locally or overseas; and (3) accused commits the same against three (3) or more persons, individually or as a group.
The Court gave credence to the prosecution
witnesses, clearly establishing that accused Saulo asked for money in order to
process their papers and promised them employment in Taiwan; that complainants parted
with their money, relying on the misrepresentation of Saulo; that Saulo was not
authorized or licensed.
The self-serving and uncorroborated denial of
accused cannot prevail over the straightforward and explicit statements of the complainants
in the absence of ill-motives.
The fact that accused did not sign the
receipts of payments does not weaken the prosecution’s case as illegal
recruitment may still be proven by clear and convincing testimonies of
witnesses.
The defense of accused that he could not have
committed illegal recruitment because a POEA officer testified that licenses
for recruitment and placement are issued only to corporations and not to
natural persons is specious and illogical. A person, natural or juridical, who
engages in recruitment activities sans license or authority (non-licensee/
nonholder of authority) is liable for illegal recruitment.
Accused
is guilty of Estafa
The elements of estafa under Art. 315,
paragraph 2 (a), of the Revised Penal Code are: (1) that the accused has
defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by deceit, and (2) that damage or
prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party or
third person. Xxx Owing to accused-appellant’s false assurances that he
could provide them with work in another country, complainants parted with their
money, to their damage and prejudice, since the promised employment never
materialized.
Accused may be found
guilty of both Estafa and Illegal Recruitment. The reason for this
is that illegal recruitment is a malum prohibitum, whereas estafa is malum
in se, meaning that the
criminal intent of the accused is not necessary for conviction in the former
(in malum prohibitum), but is required in the latter (malum in se).
_______
Other Issues tackled
: Penalty applicable pursuant to the Indeterminate Sentence Law; Article 65 in
relation to Art. 64
Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the
maximum term of the penalty shall be that which, in view of the attending
circumstances, could be properly imposed under the Revised Penal Code, and the
minimum shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed
for the offense.
(P.S.
R.A. 10951 adjusted the penalty imposable
for Estafa)
0 comments:
Post a Comment