10/2/2016

G.R.No.171448

FIRSTDIVISION

PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,G.R.No.171448
PlaintiffAppellee,
Present:
PUNO,C.J.,Chairperson,
versusSANDOVALGUTIERREZ,
CORONA,
*AZCUNA,and
GARCIA,JJ.
CHARLIECOMILAandPromulgated:
AIDACOMILA,
AccusedAppellants.February28,2007
xx

DECISION

GARCIA,J.:

[1]
OnApril5,1999,intheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)ofBaguioCity,anInformation forIllegal
Recruitment committed in large scale by a syndicate, as defined and penalized under Article 13(6) in
relationtoArticles38(b),34and39ofPresidentialDecreeNo.442,otherwiseknownastheNewLabor
Code, as amended, was filed against Charlie Comila, Aida Comila and one Indira Ram Singh Lastra,
allegedlycommittedasfollows:

Thatonoraboutthe7thdayofSeptember,1998,intheCityofBaguio,Philippines,andwithinthe
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, conspiring, confederating, and mutually
aiding one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously offer, recruit, and promise
employment as contract workers in Italy, to the herein complainants, namely: MARLYN ARO y
PADCAYAN, ANNIE FELIX y BAKISAN, ELEONOR DONGGAAS y ANGHEL, ESPERANZA
BACKIAN y LADEY, ZALDY DUMPILES y MALIKDAN, JOEL EDIONG y CALDERON, RICKY
WALDO y NICKEY, JEROME MONTAEZ y OSBEN, DOVAL DUMPILES y SAPAY, JONATHAN
NGAOSI y DUMPILES, EDMUND DIEGO y SUBIANGAN and MARLON PETTOCO y SUGOT,
withoutsaidaccusedhavingfirstsecuredthenecessarylicenseorauthorityfromtheDepartmentofLabor
andEmployment.

CONTRARYTOLAW.

TheInformationwasdocketedintheRTCasCrim.CaseNo.16427R and raffled to Branch 60

thereof.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/171448.htm

1/11

10/2/2016

G.R.No.171448

[2]
OnthesamedateApril 5, 1999 and in the same court, twelve (12) separate Informations for
Estafa were filed against the same accused at the instance of the same complainants. Docketed as
CriminalCaseNos.16428Rto16439Randlikewiseraffledtothesamebranchofthecourt,thetwelve
(12)InformationsforEstafa,varyingonlyasregardsthenamesoftheoffendedpartiesandtherespective
amountsinvolved,uniformlyrecite:

Thatonoraboutthe10thdayofNovember,1998,intheCityofBaguio,Philippines,andwithinthe
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually
aiding one another did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud one ZALDY
DUMPILESYMALIKDANbywayoffalsepretenses,whichareexecutedpriortoorsimultaneouslywith
thecommissionofthefraud,asfollows,towit:theaccusedknowingfullywellthathe/she/theyis/arenot
AUTHORIZED job RECRUITERS for persons intending to secure work abroad convinced said Zaldy
Dumpiles y Malikdan and pretended that he/she/they could secure a job for him/her abroad, for and in
considerationofthesumofP25,000.00andrepresentingtheplacementandmedicalfeeswhenintruthand
in fact could not the said Zaldy Dumpiles y Malikdan deceived and convinced by the false pretenses
employedbytheaccusedpartedawaythetotalsumofP25,000,00infavoroftheaccused,tothedamage
andprejudiceofthe saidZaldyDumpilesyMalikdan in theaforementioned amountof TWENTY FIVE
THOUSANDPESOS(P25,000.00),Philippinecurrency.

CONTRARYTOLAW.

OfthethreeaccusednamedinalltheaforementionedtwosetsofInformations,onlyaccusedAida
ComilaandCharlieComilawerebroughtunderthejurisdictionofthetrialcourt,thethird,IndiraRam
SinghLastra,beingthenandstillisatlarge.

Arraignedwithassistanceofcounsel,accusedAidaComilaandCharlieComilaenteredapleaof
NOTGUILTYnotonlytotheInformationforIllegalRecruitment(Crim.CaseNo.16427R)butalsoto
thetwelve(12)InformationsforEstafa(Crim.CaseNos.16428Rto16439R).

Thereafter,ajointtrialofthecasesensued.

Ofthetwelve(12)complainantsinboththeillegalrecruitmentandestafacharges,theprosecutionwas
abletopresentonlyseven(7)ofthem,namely:AnnieFelixyBakisanRickyWaldoyNickeyJonathan
NgaosiyDumpilesMarilynAroyPadcayanEdmundDiegoySubianganJeromeMontaezyOsben
and Eleonor Donggaas y Anghel. A certain Jose Matias of the Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration(POEA)wassupposedtotestifyfortheprosecutionbuthistestimonywasdispensedafter
the defense agreed that he will merely testify to the effect that as per POEA records, accused Aida
Comila and Charlie Comila were not duly licensed or authorized to recruit workers for overseas
employment.

[3]
Inaconsolidateddecision datedOctober3,2000,thetrialcourtfoundbothaccusedGUILTYbeyond
reasonabledoubtofthecrimesofIllegalRecruitmentcommittedinlargescalebyasyndicate,ascharged
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/171448.htm

2/11

10/2/2016

G.R.No.171448

inCrim.CaseNo.16427R,andofestafa,aschargedinCrim.CaseNos.16430R16431R,16432R,
16434R,16436R,16438R,and16439R.TheotherinformationsforestafainCrim.CaseNos.16428
R,16429R,16433R,16435Rand16437Rwere,however,dismissedforlackofevidence.Wequote
thefalloofthetrialcourtsdecision:

WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,thiscourtherebyfindstheaccused,AidaComilaandCharlieComila:

1.InCriminalCaseNo.16427R,GUILTYbeyondreasonabledoubtofthecrimeof
Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale Committed by a Syndicate. They are hereby
sentencedtoeachsufferthepenaltyoflifeimprisonmentandafineofP100,000.00

2.InCriminalCaseNo.16430R,GUILTYbeyondreasonabledoubtofthecrimeof
Estafa. There being no mitigating and aggravating circumstances and applying the
provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, they are hereby sentenced to each
suffer an indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision
correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years of prision mayor, as maximum. They
shall also jointly and severally pay the complainant, Marilyn Aro, the sum of
P25,500.00plusinterestfromthedatethisInformationwasfileduntilitisfullypaid

3.InCriminalCaseNo.16431R,GUILTYbeyondreasonabledoubtofthecrimeof
Estafa. There being no mitigating and aggravating circumstances and applying the
provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, they are hereby sentenced to each
suffer an indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision
correccional, as minimum, to ten (10) years of prision mayor, as maximum. They
shall also jointly and severally pay the complainant, Annie Felix, the sum of
P50,000.00plusinterestfromthedatethisInformationwasfileduntilitisfullypaid

4.InCriminalCaseNo.16432R,GUILTYbeyondreasonabledoubtofthecrimeof
Estafa. Therebeingno mitigatingand aggravating circumstances,andapplyingthe
provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, they are hereby sentenced to each
suffer an indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision
correccional, as minimum, to ten (10) years of prision mayor, as maximum. They
shallalsojointlyandseverallypaythecomplainant,EleanorDonggaas,thesumof
P50,000.00plusinterestfromthedatethisInformationwasfileduntilitisfullypaid

5.InCriminalCaseNo.16434R,GUILTYbeyondreasonabledoubtofthecrimeof
Estafa. There being no mitigating and aggravating circumstances and applying the
provisionsofIndeterminateSentenceLaw,theyareherebysentencedtoeachsuffer
an indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision
correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years of prision mayor, as maximum. They
shall also jointly and severally pay the complainant, Edmund Diego, the sum of
P25,000.00plusinterestfromthedatethisInformationwasfileduntilitisfullypaid

6.InCriminalCaseNo.16436R,GUILTYbeyondreasonabledoubtofthecrimeof
Estafa. Therebeingno mitigatingand aggravating circumstances,andapplyingthe
provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, they are hereby sentenced to each
suffer an indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2)months of prision
correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years of prision mayor, as maximum. They
shall also jointly and severally pay the complainant, Jonathan Ngaosi, the sum of
P25,000.00plusinterestfromthedatethisInformationwasfileduntilitisfullypaid

7.InCriminalCaseNo.16438R,GUILTYbeyondreasonabledoubtofthecrimeof
Estafa. Therebeingno mitigatingand aggravating circumstances,andapplyingthe
provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, they are hereby sentenced to each
suffer an indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision
correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years of prision mayor as maximum. They
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/171448.htm

3/11

10/2/2016

G.R.No.171448

shall also jointly and severally pay the complainant, Ricky Waldo, the sum of
P25,000.00plusinterestfromthedatethisInformationwasfileduntilitisfullypaid

8.InCriminalCaseNo.16439R,GUILTYbeyondreasonabledoubtofthecrimeof
Estafa. Therebeingno mitigatingand aggravating circumstances,andapplyingthe
provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, they are hereby sentenced to each
suffer an indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision
correccional, as minimum to eight (8) years of prision mayor, as maximum. They
shall also jointly and severally pay the complainant, Jerome Montaez, the sum of
P25,000.00plusinterestfromthedatethisInformationwasfiledand

9.CriminalCasesNos.16428R16429R16433R16435Rand16437Rarehereby
DISMISSEDforlackofevidence.

In the service of the various prison terms herein imposed upon the accused Aida Comila and Charlie
Comila,theprovisionsofArticle70oftheRevisedPenalCodeshallbeobserved.

Astotheaccused,IndiraSighnLastra,letallthesecasesbearchivedinthemeantimeuntilthesaid
accusedisarrested.

SOORDERED.

[4]
PursuanttoaNoticeofAppeal filedbythetwoaccused,thetrialcourtforwardedtherecordsof
the cases to this Court in view of the penalty of life imprisonment meted in Crim. Case No. 16427R
[5]
(IllegalRecruitmentinlargescale).InitsResolution ofOctober3,2001,theCourtresolvedtoaccept
[6]
[7]
theappealandthesubsequentrespectivebriefsfortheappellants andtheappellee aswellasthe
[8]
appellantsreplybrief.
[9]
Thereafter, and consistent with its pronouncement in People v. Mateo, the Court, via its
[10]
Resolution
of September 22, 2004, transferred the cases to the Court of Appeals (CA) for
appropriate action and disposition. In the CA, the cases were assigned one docket number and thereat
docketedasCAG.R.CRH.C.No.01615.

[11]
Inadecision
promulgatedonDecember29,2005,theappellatecourtaffirmedthatofthetrial
court,towit:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated October 3, 2000 of the Regional Trial
CourtofBaguioCity,Branch60,inCriminalCasesNos.16427Rto16439Rfindingaccusedappellants
guilty of (1) illegal recruitment committed in large scale and (2) seven (7) counts of estafa is hereby
AFFIRMEDandUPHELD.

Withcostsagainsttheaccusedappellants.

SOORDERED.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/171448.htm

4/11

10/2/2016

G.R.No.171448

ThecasesareagainwiththisCourtinviewoftheNoticeofAppeal

[12]
interposedbytheherein

accusedappellantsfromtheaforementionedaffirmatoryCAdecision.

Acting thereon, the Court required the parties to simultaneously submit their respective
supplementalbriefs,iftheysodesire.

[13]
In their respective manifestations,
the parties opted not to file any supplemental brief and
insteadmerelyreiteratedwhattheyhavesaidintheirearlierappellantsandappellee'sbriefs.

[14]
TheOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneral,inthebrief
itfiledforappelleePeople,summarizesthe
factsofthecaseinthefollowingmanner:

AnnieFelixwasintroducedbyhersisterinlaw,EllaBakisan,toappellantAidaComilainAugust
1998(pp.3,24,tsn,September14,1999).EllaBakisantoldherthatappellantAidaComilacouldhelpher
find work abroad as she was recruiting workers for a factory in Palermo, Italy (ibid.). Annie Felix then
wenttomeetappellantAidaComilaattheJollibeeoutletalongMagsaysayAvenue,BaguioCityinAugust,
1998 to inquire about the supposed work in Italy (pp. 34, tsn, ibid.). There were other applicants, aside
fromAnnieattheJollibeeoutletatthetime,similarlyinquiringabouttheprospectivejobsabroad(ibid.).

Annie met appellant again at the St. Theresas College on or about September 6 or 7, 1998 (p.11,
ibid.).therewerearoundfifty(50)tosixty(60)applicantsatthattime(ibid.).Appellantintroducedthemto
acertainErlindaRamos,oneoftheagentsofMrs.IndiraLastra,arepresentativeoftheFarEastTrading
Corporation (p.4,11, ibid.). Accordingly, Erlinda Ramos would be responsible for the processing of the
applicantsvisas(ibid.).ErlindaRamosevenshowedthemthecopyofthejoborderfromItaly(ibid.).Like
Ramos,appellantlikewiseintroducedherselftoAnnieandtheotherapplicantsasanagentofLastra(pp.3
4,ibid.).

Annie submitted all her requirements to appellant, along with the amount of two thousand pesos
(P2,000.00)asprocessingfee(p.6,tsn,ibid.).Shealsopaidatotaloftwentythreethousand(P23,000.00)
aspartialpaymentofherplacementfeeoffiftythousandpesos(P50,000.00)onoraboutSeptember6or7,
1998.Appellant issued a common receipt detailing the amounts she received not only from Annie Felix
(23,000.00) but also for her fellow applicants, Zaldy Dumpiles (P23,000.00), Joel Ediong (P25,000.00),
andRickyBaldo(P25,000.00)(p.8,tsn,ibid.).

Annie went to Manila several times to complete her medical examination as required (pp. 1416,
tsn,ibid.).ConsideringappellantAidaComilaspregnancyatthattime,herhusbandCharlieComila,alsoan
agent of Lastra, accompanied Annie and the other applicants during their medical checkup (pp. 2224,
ibid.).

On the last week of October, 1998, Annie again paid appellant the total amount of twenty five
thousand pesos (P25,000.00) to complete her placement fee of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00). Annie
was told that her flight to Italy was scheduled on September 14, 1998 (p. 20, ibid.). Later on, Erlinda
RamostoldAnniethatherflighttoItalywasrescheduledtoOctober,1998duetoatyphoon(p.20,ibid.).

TherewereotherslikeAnnieFelixwhoweresimilarlyenticedtoapplyforthepromisedjobinItaly
(pp. 45, tsn, September22,1999).Among them were Ricky Waldo, Edmund Diego, Eleanor Dongaas,
Jonathan Ngaosi, Marilyn Aro and Jerome Montaez (pp. 45 1928, tsn, September 22, 1999, afternoon
session).

InthebriefingatSt.TheresasCollege,NavyRoad,Pacdal,BaguioCity,(p.7,tsn,September22,
1999pp.2930,tsn,September14,1999)appellantbriefedRickyWaldoandtherestoftheapplicantson
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/171448.htm

5/11

10/2/2016

G.R.No.171448

theirapplicationrequirements(pp.78,tsn,Sept.22,1999).ThebriefingwasconductedbyappellantsAida
Comila,CharlieComila,andErlindaRamoswhoalternatelytalkedaboutthedocumentstobesubmitted
for the processing of their applications and the processing fee of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) they
havetopay(p.8,tsn,September22,1999).Inthesamebriefing,theywerealsotoldthatErlindaRamos
wasscheduledtogotoItalyonSeptember14,1998andthatwhoeverwouldpayP25,000.00first,orhalfof
theP50,000.00processingfeewouldbeabletogowithhertoItaly(p.8.tsn,September22,1999).Perthe
jobordershowntoJonathanNgaosi,forinstance,maleworkersweretoreceiveasalaryoftwothousand
three hundred dollars ($2,300.00) plus an additional eight dollars ($8.00) for overtime work (p.8, tsn,
September21,1999,afternoonsession).

After undergoing the required medical examination in Manila, applicants Ricky Waldo and
company paid the following amounts for their respective processing fees, which were duly receipted by
appellantAidaComilainthreeseparatedocuments,thus:

82398,receivedtheamountofP14,000.00fromEllaBakisan.Signed,AidaComila.Thesecond
documentagainisapieceofpaperofwhichthefollowingiswritten:9798.Receivedtheamountofthe
following: Philip Waldo, P20,000.00 Doval Dumpiles, P23,000.00 Edmund Diego, P25,000.00 Jerome
Montaez,P25,000.00TotalP93,000.00.ReceivedbyA.Comila.The3rddocumentispageofayellowpad
and it reads 9798, received the following amounts from Zaldy Dumpiles P23,000.00 Joel Ediong
P25,000.00 Ricky Waldo P25,000.00 Annie Felix P23,000.00 Marlon Tedoco P23,000.00. Total
P119,000.00. Received by Aida Comila witnesses Ella Bakisan. (p.14, tsn, of witness Edmund Diego,
September22,1999,morningsession).

Consideringthepaymentstheymade,RickyWaldosflighttoItalywasscheduledonSeptember14,
1999whilethoseofMarilynAro,EdmundDiego,JeromeMontanez,JonathanNgaosi,andEleanorDonga
aswerescheduledonOctober27,1999(pp.89,tsn,September22,1999pp.3233,tsn,September14,
1999pp.24,tsn,September15,1999p.24,September21,1999p.10,tsn,September22,1999,morning
sessionp.27,tsn,September22,1999,afternoonsession).

LikeAnnieFelix,RickyWaldosflightdidnotpushthroughasscheduledonSeptember14,1999
(pp.3234,tsn,September14,1999pp.24,tsn,September15,1999).AppellantAidaComilaexplained
thatthereschedulingwasduetotyphoon(ibid.).RickysflightwasthenrescheduledtoOctober7,1999
but was again moved to October 27, 1999 as, according to appellant Aida Comila, there were some
problemsinhispapersandthatoftheotherapplicants(pp.23,ibid.).

OnOctober25,1998,appellantAidaComilacalledtheapplicantsforabriefingattheSt. Therese
Building at the Navy Base, Baguio City (p.24, tsn, September 21, 1999). In the same briefing, Erlinda
Ramos, as representative of the supposed principal, Indira Lastra, explained to the applicants that their
flightonOctober27,1999wascancelledbutwillberescheduled(ibid.).AppellantAidaComilatoldthem
thattheyhavetowaitforthenoticefromtheItalianEmbassy(ibid.).

OnthefirstweekofNovember,1998,appellantCharlieComilatoldMarilynAroandseveralother
applicants that their visas would be released (p. 25, September, 21, 1999). Appellant Charlie Comila
accompaniedthemandtheotherstotheElcoBuildingatShawBoulevard,Pasig City purportedly to see
Erlinda Ramos (p.25, tsn, September 21, 1999). When Erlinda Ramos arrived, she told Marilyn and the
otherapplicantstowaitforthereleaseoftheirvisas,thefollowingday(p.25,ibid.).Marilynandtherest
camebackeachdayforonewholeweekbutthepromisedvisaswerenotreleasedtothem(ibid.).

MarilynandtheotherapplicantscomplainedtoappellantCharlieComilaaboutthedelayandtold
him of their doubts about their application and the promised job in Italy (ibid.). At this point, appellant
CharlieComilaassuredthemthattheyshouldnotworryandthateverythingwillbealright(ibid).Appellant
CharlieComilathenbroughtthemtoIndiraLastra(p.26,ibid.).

MarilynAro,AnnieFelix,andtherestwereallshockedtofindoutthatIndiraLastrawasactually
aninmateofManila(Quiapo)cityjail.(p.26,ibid.p.13,tsn,September14,1999).Theyfeltatoncethat
they were, indeed, victims of illegal recruitment (ibid.).When they demanded the return of their money
fromIndiraLastra,thelattertoldthemtowithdrawtheirmoneyfromappellantAidaComila(p.26.ibid.).

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/171448.htm

6/11

10/2/2016

G.R.No.171448

UpontheirreturntoBaguio,MarilynsgroupproceededtoappellantAidaComilasresidenceatKm.
6, La Trinidad, Benguet to demand the return of their money (p. 27, tsn, ibid.). Appellant Aida Comila,
however,toldthemtowaitasIndiraLastrawillsoonbeoutofjailandwillpersonallyprocesstheirpapers
at the Italian Embassy (ibid.). Marilyn and the other applicants followedup several times with appellant
Aida Comila the return of the amounts of money they paid for their supposed placement fee, but were
simply told to wait (ibid.). the last time complainants visited them, appellants Aida Comila and Charlie
ComilawerealreadyinaBulacanjail(p.27,ibid.).

InApril, 1999, Marilyn Aro, Edmund Diego, Annie Felix, Eleanor Dongaas, Jerome Montanez,
RickyWaldoandJonathanNgaosifiledtheircomplaintagainstappellantsAidaComilaandCharlieComila
beforetheCriminalInvestigationGroup(CIG).

InthesamemonthofApril1999,separateInformationsforestafaandillegalrecruitmentcommitted
inlargescalebyasyndicateorviolationofArticle13(b)inrelationtoArticle38(b)34,and39ofP.D.No.
442,otherwiseknownastheLaborCodeofthePhilippineswerefiledagainstappellantsCharlieComila,
AidaComilaandIndiraLastra.

Intheirappellantsbrief,accusedappellantswouldfaultthetwocourtsbelowin(1)findingthem
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of illegal recruitment and estafa and (2) totally
disregardingthedefenseofdenialhonestlyadvancedbythem.

ItisnotdisputedthataccusedappellantsCharlieComilaandAidaComilaarehusbandandwife.
Neitherisitdisputedthathusbandandwifeknewandarewellacquaintedwiththeircoaccused,Indira
RamSinghLastra,andoneErlindaRamos. It is their posture, however, that from the very beginning,
appellant Aida Comila never professed that she had the authority to recruit and made it clear to the
applicantsforoverseasemploymentthatitwasErlindaRamoswhohadsuchauthorityandwhoissued
thejobordersfromItaly.Uponthispremise,thisappellantcontendsthatthesubsequenttransactionsshe
hadwiththeapplicantsnegatethepresenceofdeceit,anessentialelementofestafaunderparagraph2(a)
ofArticle315oftheRevisedPenalCode.Onthechargeofillegalrecruitment,thisappellantarguesthat
she was merely trying to help the applicants to process their papers, believing that Indira Ram Sighn
LastraandErlindaRamoswouldreallysendtheapplicantstoItaly.WithrespecttocoappellantCharlie
Comila,thedefensesubmitsthattheprosecutionmiserablyfailedtoprovehisparticipationintheillegal
recruitmentandestafa.
Theappealmustfail.

Afteracarefulandcircumspectreviewoftherecords,wearefullyconvincedthatboththetrial
and appellate courts committed no error in finding both appellants guilty beyond moral certainty of
doubt of the crimes charged against them. Through the respective testimonies of its witnesses, the
prosecutionhassatisfactorilyestablishedthatbothappellantswerethenengagedinunlawfulrecruitment
andplacementactivities.ThecombinedtestimoniesoftheprosecutionwitnessespointtoappellantAida
Comila as the one who promised them foreign employment and assured them of placement overseas
through the help of their coaccused Indira Ram Singh Lastra. For sure, it was Aida herself who
informedthemoftheexistenceofjobordersfromPalermo,Italy,andofthedocumentsneededforthe
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/171448.htm

7/11

10/2/2016

G.R.No.171448

processing of their applications. Aida, in fact, accompanied the applicants to undergo medical
examinationsinManila.AndrelyingcompletelyonAidasrepresentations,theapplicantscomplainants
entrustedtheirmoneytoheronlytodiscoverlaterthattheirhopesforanoverseasemploymentwerebut
vain.Inthewordsofthetrialcourt:

Aida Comila cannot escape culpability by the mere assertion that the recruitment activities were
donebyEllaBakisan,ErlindaRamosandIndiraLastraasifshewasjustamereobserveroftheactivities
goingonrightunderhernose,especiallysothatthesevencomplainantswhotestifiedallpointedtoheras
theirrecruiter.Shecouldnotadequatelyexplainwhy:(1)shehadtoshowandexplainthejoborderandthe
work and travel requirements to the complainants (2) she had to meet the complainants at Jollibee,
Magsaysay Ave., Baguio City and in her residence (3) she had to be present at the briefings for the
applicants(4)shereceivedtheplacementfeesevenifsheclaimsthatshereceivedthemfromEllaBakisan
(5)shehadtogodowntoManilaandaccompaniedthecomplainantsfortheirmedicalexaminationand(6)
shehadtogooutofherwaytodoallthesethingsevenwhenshewaspregnantandwasabouttogivebirth.
Certainly,shewasnotasocialworkerorahumanitarianwhohadallthetimeinthisworldtogooutofher
waytorenderfreeservicestootherpeoplewhomshedidnotknoworjustmet.Tobesure,AidaComila
hadchildrentoattendtoandahusbandwhowasunemployedtobeabletoconductsuchtimeconsuming
[15]
charitableactivities.

[16]
RunninginparallelveiniswhattheCAwroteinitsappealeddecision:

As regards appellant Aida Comilas contention that she did not represent herself as a licensed
recruiter, and that she merely helped complainants avail of the job opportunity on the belief that Indira
LastraandErlindaRamoswouldreallysendthemtoItaly,thesamehardlydeservesmerit.Thecrimeof
illegalrecruitmentiscommittedwhen,amongotherthings,apersonwho,withoutbeingdulyauthorized
accordingtolawrepresentsorgivesthedistinctimpressionthatheorshehasthepowerortheabilityto
provideworkabroadconvincingthosetowhomtherepresentationismadeortowhomtheimpressionis
giventothereuponpartwiththeirmoneyinordertobeassuredofthatemployment.

Infact,evenifthereisnoconsiderationinvolved,appellantwillstillbedeemedashavingengaged
inrecruitmentactivities,sinceitwassufficientlydemonstratedthatshepromisedoverseasemploymentto
privatecomplainants.Tobeengagedinthepracticeandplacement,itisplainthattheremustatleastbea
promiseorofferofanemploymentfromthepersonposingasarecruiterwhetherlocallyorabroad.

AsregardsappellantCharlieComila,itisinconceivableforhimtofeignignoranceoftheillegal
recruitment activities of his wife Aida, and of his lack of participation therein. Again, we quote with
[17]
approvalwhatthetrialcourthassaidinitsdecision:

Charlie Comila could not, likewise, feign ignorance of the illegal transactions. It is contrary to
humanexperience,hence,highlyincredibleforahusbandnottohaveknowntheactivitiesofhiswifewho
was living with him under the same roof. In fact, he admitted that when Aida gave birth, he had to
accompanythecomplainantstoManilafortheirmedicalexaminationandagain,onanothertrip,tobring
them to the office of Erlinda Ramos to followup their visas. The fact that he knew the ins and outs of
ManilawasadesperateexcuseorreasonwhyheaccompaniedthecomplainantstoManilaconsideringthat,
asheandhiswifeclaimed,theyhavenothingtodowiththerecruitmentactivities.Furthermore,ifheand
hiswifehadnothingtodowiththerecruitmentofthecomplainants,whydidhehavetosigntheletterand
accommodate the request of Myra Daluca whom they have not really known. But damning was his
statementthathesignedtheletterbecauseAidawasnottheretosignit.Suchastatementwouldonlyshow
thattheywereindeedpartiestotheseillegaltransactions.CharlieComilawouldevenclaimthathewasjust
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/171448.htm

8/11

10/2/2016

G.R.No.171448

an elementary graduate and so he did not understand what he was asked to sign. But his booking sheet
showedthathewasahighschoolgraduate.Hewasaconductorofabuscompanywhoshouldknowand
understandhowtoreadandwrite.Furthermore,hewasalreadyagrownupmaninhisthirtieswhoknew
whatwasrightandwrongandwhatheshouldorshouldnotdo.

Itiswellestablishedinjurisprudencethatapersonmaybechargedandconvictedforbothillegal
recruitment and estafa. The reason therefor is not hard to discern: illegal recruitment is malum
prohibitum,whileestafaismaluminse.Inthefirst,the criminal intent of the accused is not necessary
forconviction.Inthesecond,suchanintentisimperative.EstafaunderArticle315,paragraph2,ofthe
Revised Penal Code, is committed by any person who defrauds another by using fictitious name, or
falsely pretends to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or
imaginary transactions, or by means of similar deceits executed prior to or simultaneously with the
[18]
commission of fraud.
Here, it has been sufficiently proven that both appellants represented
themselvestothecomplainingwitnessestohavethecapacitytosendthemtoItalyforemployment,even
astheydonothavetheauthorityorlicenseforthepurpose.Doubtless,itisthismisrepresentationthat
inducedthecomplainantstopartwiththeirhardearnedmoneyforplacementandmedicalfees.Suchact
onthepartoftheappellantsclearlyconstitutesestafaunderArticle315,paragraph(2),oftheRevised
PenalCode.

Appellantsnextbewailtheallegedtotaldisregardbythetwocourtsbelowtheirdefenseofdenial
which,haditbeendulyconsideredandappreciated,couldhavemeritedtheiracquittal.

TheCourtdisagrees.Thetwocourtsbelowdidconsidertheirdefenseofdenial. However, given

thepositiveandcategoricaltestimoniesofthecomplainantswhowereoneinpointingtoappellants,in
cahoots with their coaccused Indira Ram Singh Lastra, as having recruited and promised them with
overseasemployment,appellantsdefenseofdenialmustinevitablycollapse.
All told, we rule and so hold that the two courts below committed no error in adjudging both
appellantsguiltybeyondreasonabledoubtofthecrimesofillegalrecruitmentcommittedbyasyndicate
inlargescaleandofestafainseven(7)counts.Wealsorulethatthepenaltiesimposedbythecourtof
origin,asaffirmedbytheCA,accordwithlawandjurisprudence.

INVIEWWHEREOF,theinstantappealisDISMISSEDandtheappealeddecisionoftheCA,
affirmatoryofthatthetrialcourt,isAFFIRMEDintoto.

Costsagainstappellants.

SOORDERED.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/171448.htm

CANCIOC.GARCIA

9/11

10/2/2016

G.R.No.171448

CANCIOC.GARCIA
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice
Chairperson

ANGELINASANDOVALGUTIERREZ
RENATOC.CORONA
AssociateJustice
AssociateJustice

(ONOFFICIALLEAVE)

ADOLFOS.AZCUNA
AssociateJustice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above
decisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionofthe
CourtsDivision.

REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice

*OnOfficialLeave.
[1]
Rollo,p.8.
[2]
Id.at1032.
[3]
Id.at4464.
[4]
Id.at65.
[5]
Id.at70.
[6]
Id.at83103.
[7]
Id.at132181.
[8]
Id.at185188.
[9]
G.R.Nos.14767887,July7,2004,433SCRA640.
[10]
Rollo,p.195.
[11]
PennedbyAssociateJusticeMartinS.Villarama,Jr.withAssociateJusticesRebeccadeGuiaSalvadorandJaparB.Dimaampao,concurring
Id.at198219.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/171448.htm

10/11

10/2/2016

G.R.No.171448

[12]
Supranote4.
[13]
Id.at2527.
[14]
Id.at142152.
[15]
Id.at61.
[16]
Supranote11.
[17]
Supranote15.
[18]
Peoplev.Hernandez,G.R.Nos.14122136,March7,2002,378SCRA593.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/171448.htm

11/11