Professional Documents
Culture Documents
StatCon Case Digest People Vs Temporada PDF
StatCon Case Digest People Vs Temporada PDF
Facts:
Accused-appellant Beth Temporada was convicted of the crime of large scale illegal recruitment,
or violation of Article 38 of the Labor Code, as amended, and five (5) counts of estafa under
Article 315, par. (2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
RTC Judgment:
The accused is also ordered to pay jointly and severally the complainants
actual damages as follows:
CA Judgment:
WHEREFORE, with MODIFICATION to the effect that in Criminal Cases Nos. 02-208373, 02-
208375, & 02-208376, appellant is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of six (6)
years of prision correccional maximum, as minimum, to ten (10) years and one (1) day of
prision mayor maximum, as maximum;
and in Criminal Case No. 02-208374, she is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty
of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor medium, as minimum, to twelve (12)
years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal minimum, as maximum, the appealed
decision is AFFIRMED in all other respects.
ISSUE/S:
a. Whether or not the trial court erred in finding the appellant guilty of illegal recruitment and
five (5) counts of estafa.
b. Whether or not the indeterminate penalties imposed for the five (5) counts of estafa were
proper.
RULING:
a. Appellant is guilty.
The totality of the evidence, thus, established that appellant acted as an indispensable
participant and effective collaborator of her co-accused in the illegal recruitment of
complainants.
Anent the conviction of appellant for five (5) counts of estafa, we, likewise, affirm the
same. Well-settled is the rule that a person convicted for illegal recruitment under the
Labor Code may, for the same acts, be separately convicted for estafa under Article 315,
par. 2(a) of the RPC.
The same evidence proving appellants criminal liability for illegal recruitment also
established her liability for estafa.
b. In one case, where the statute was ambiguous and permitted two reasonable
interpretations, the construction which would impose a less severe penalty was adopted.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals is MODIFIED with respect to the
indeterminate penalties imposed on appellant for the five (5) counts of estafa, to wit: