People v. Arabia 12 September 2001 J.

Gonzaga-Reyes 3) He committed the same against 3 or more persons, individually or

as a group.
FACTS
In 1992, complainants Violeta de la Cruz, Remelyn Jacinto, Teresita Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code defines recruitment and placement as
Lorenzo, Rolando Rustia and Noel de la Cruz met appellants Dioscora follows:
Arabia and Francisca Tomas at the residence of Arabia, where appellants
convinced them and other applicants to apply for jobs in Taiwan. The "xxx [A]ny act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing,
complainants were informed of a P16,000 placement fee each. hiring or procuring workers [which] includes referrals, contact services,
promis[es] or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for
Each of the complainants, except Rustia who gave P23,000, gave P16,000 to profit or not: Provided, That any person or entity which, in any manner,
Arabia at her residence and in the presence of Tomas. Arabia, however, did offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons shall be
not issue any receipt upon assurance that she would not fool them. deemed engagement in recruitment and placement."

On the arranged date of departure (18 December 1992), complainants were All the essential elements of the crime of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale
not able to leave because appellants told them that the person who was have been established. Appellants recruited at least 4 persons, giving them
supposed to accompany them to Taiwan did not arrive. The departure date the impression that they had the capability to send them to Taiwan for
was thus reset to 16 January 1993, but complainants were still unable to employment. They collected various amounts without license to do so. The
leave because of the same excuse given. fact that an accused did not issue the receipts for amounts received has no
bearing so long as complainants show through testimonies and affidavits
They tried to refund the money to no avail. Records showed that that the accused was involved in the prohibited recruitment. The Statute
appellants were neither licensed nor authorized to recruit workers for of Frauds and the rules of evidence do not require the presentations of
overseas employment. receipts to prove existence of a recruitment agreement and the
procurement of fees in illegal recruitment cases. The complainants were
Both appellants were charged and convicted in the TC of Illegal positive and categorical in their testimonies that they personally met
Recruitment in Large Scale (Art. 38 (a) in relation to Art. 39 (b) of the Arabia and Tomas and that they asked for money in exchange for promised
Labor Code as amended by P.D. 2018), and 5 counts of estafa. employment overseas. Mere denials and pinpointing of the crime to one
Rebecca de Jesus who was never produced in court cannot prevail.
Appellants argue: There is no receipt to prove alleged payment of a fee; the
complainant testimonies do not corroborate one another as to time and WON guilty of estafa. GUILTY in 3 counts only
place of the payment to the accused; and the illegal recruiter is one As to the 5 counts of estafa, a person convicted of illegal recruitment under
Rebecca de Jesus and that they are also victims of the latter. the Labor Code can be convicted of violation of the RPC provisions on
estafa, provided the elements of the crime are present. The elements of
WON guilty of large-scale illegal recruitment. estafa are:
Held: YES 1) that the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by
Large-scale illegal recruitment has the following essential elements: means of deceit, and
1) The accused undertook [a] recruitment activity defined under 2) that damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused
Article 13(b) or any prohibited practice under Art. 34, Labor Code. to the offended party or third person.
2) He did not have the license or the authority to lawfully engage in
the recruitment and placement of workers. We are convinced that appellants defrauded Violeta de la Cruz, Remelyn
Jacinto and Teresita Lorenzo through deceit. The 3 complainants each
parted with P16,000. However, appellants should be acquitted of 2 counts
of estafa, with complainant Rolando Rustia involving P23,000 and with
complainant Noel De La Cruz involving P16,000. Both Rustia and de la Cruz
did not appear in court to testify. The prosecution did not present any
testimonial or documentary evidence to prove the estafa committed
against Rustia and de La Cruz.

DECISION: TC ruling finding Arabia and Tomas guilty of Illegal

Recruitment in Large Scale and Estafa in 3 counts is hereby AFFIRMED.
However, they are ACQUITTED of 2 counts of estafa for insufficiency of
evidence. SO ORDERED.