G.R. No.

181244               August 9, 2010

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
ANITA "KENNETH" TRINIDAD, Defendant and Appellant.

Facts:

Elizabeth de Villa (De Villa), together with her cousin Elma Hernandez (Hernandez), and Gemma dela
Cruz (dela Cruz) went to the house of Anita Trinidad (Trinidad) for possible job placement as domestic
helpers in Italy. Convinced by Trinidad’s representation that she can send them to Italy, De Villa,
Hernandez, and dela Cruz each agreed to give appellant P240,000.00, representing the price of plane
tickets and the processing of papers.

De Villa, Hernandez, and dela Cruz were able to leave the Philippines. However, instead of sending them
to Italy, Trinidad and accused Mauro Marasigan (Marasigan) sent them to Bangkok, Thailand and told
them that they (Trinidad and Marasigan) will secure the visas for Italy in Bangkok because it would be
easier to get an Italian visa in Bangkok.

After staying idle for four months in Bangkok, De Villa, Hernandez, and dela Cruz, together with other
recruits, were taken by appellant and Marasigan to Morocco, again, allegedly for the purpose of securing
their Italian visa there.

The group stayed in Morocco for two months but Trinidad continued to fail to deliver her promise of
securing Italian visas for them. Hence, they returned to Bangkok and stayed there for another month
during which Trinidad persisted in dissuading them from returning to the Philippines, assuring them that
she would send them to Italy. They failed to be further dissuaded, however, and they returned to the
Philippines and filed a complaint against appellant and her companions.

In her defense, Trinidad maintained that she simply indorsed complainants to Marasigan, after which, she
no longer had any participation in their transactions.

Issue: Is Trinidad liable for illegal recruitment?

Ruling:

Yes.

Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042 or the "Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995" defines
illegal recruitment as "any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or
procuring workers and includes referring contract services, promising or advertising for employment
abroad, whether for profit or not, when undertaken by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority
contemplated under Article 13(f) of the Labor Code of the Philippines.

It is clear from De Villa, Hernandez, and dela Cruz that Trinidad engaged in recruitment activities.1awph!
1 The respective testimonies of private complainants clearly established that appellant promised them
employment in Italy and that she asked money from them for the processing of their papers. Relying upon
Trinidad’s representations, complainants parted with their money. That Trinidad recruited them without
the requisite license from the POEA makes her liable for illegal recruitment.
In the instant case, appellant is guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale because it was committed
against three private complainants. The Supreme Court imposed upon Trinidad the penalty of life
imprisonment and fine of P500,000.00 pursuant to Section 7(b) of Republic Act No. 8042.
198. G.R. No. 168445 November 11, 2005
People of the Philippines vs. Capt. Florencio O. Gasacao
Facts:
Capt. Florencio was the Crewing Manager of Great Eastern Shipping Agency, a licensed local
manning agency, while his nephew Jose Gasacao was the president. As the crewing manager,
appellant’s duties included receiving job applications, interviewing the applicants and informing them of
the agency’s requirement of payment of performance or cash bond prior to deployment.
Both Capt. Florencio and Jose Gasacao was charged with Large Scale Illegal Recruitment
defined under Sec. 6 par. (a) (l) and (m) of RA 8042 or the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of
1995 and penalized under Sec. 7 (b) of the same law before the RTC.
Only appellant was arrested while Jose Gasacao remained at large. Appellant pleaded not guilty.
Issue:
WON Appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of large scale illegal recruitment.
Held:
Yes. Appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of large scale illegal recruitment.
Although the manning agency was a holder of a valid authority when appellant recruited the
complainants, appellant may still be held liable and guilty of illegal recruitment. Complainants established
that appellant is not a mere employee but it is him who made representations with them that he can
secure overseas employment for them upon payment of cash bond. In People vs. Cabais, the Court held
that an employee of a company or corporation engaged in illegal recruitment may be held liable as
principal, together with his employer, if tit is shown that he actively and consciously participated in the
recruitment process.
To prove illegal recruitment, it must be shown that appellant gave complainants the distinct
impression that he had the power or ability to send complainants abroad for work such that the latter were
convinced to part with their money in order to be employed. Appellants act of promising the private
complainants that they will be deployed abroad within 3 months after he have paid the cash bond clearly
shows that he is engaged in illegal recruitment.
In this case, 5 complainants testified against appellants acts of illegal recruitment, thereby
rendering his acts tantamount to economic sabotage.
Definition:
RA 8042, Section 6
Illegal recruitment – any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, procuring
workers and includes referring, contract services, promising or advertising for employment abroad,
whether for profit or not, when undertaken by a non-licensee or non-holder or authority contemplated
under Article 13 (f) of Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, otherwise known as LC of the Phils.
Provided, that such non-licensee or non-holder who, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee
employment abroad to two or more persons shall be deemed so engaged. It shall likewise include the
following acts, whether committed by any persons, whether a non-licensee, non-holder, licensee or holder
of authority
(a) To charge or accept directly or indirectly any amount greater than the specified in the schedule of
allowable fees prescribed by the Secretary of Labor and Employment, or to make a worker pay any
amount greater than that actually received by him as a loan or advance;
(l) Failure to actually deploy without valid reason a determined by DOLE; and
(m) Failure to reimburse expenses incurred by the workers in connection with his documentation and
processing for purposes of deployment, in cases where the deployment does not actually take place
without the worker’s fault. Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall be
considered as offense involving economic sabotage.
Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate carried out by a group of 3 or more persons
conspiring or confederating with one another. It is deemed committed in large scale if committed against
3 or more persons individually or as a group.
License – is a document issued by the DOLE authorizing a person or entity to operate a private
employment agency, while an authority is a document issued by the DOLE authorizing a person or
association to engage in recruitment and placement activities as a private recruitment entity. Even
licensee or holders of authority can be held liable for illegal recruitment should they commit any of the
above-mentioned acts.
G.R. No. 179907 Lapasaran vs. People

February 12, 2009

III, J. NACHURA FILRO: 007

FACTS:

In September 2001, private complainant Menardo Villarin (Menardo) and his sister
Vilma Villarin (Vilma) met petitioner Arlene N. Lapasaran, who worked at Silver Jet Travel
Tours Agency (Silver Jet) at SIMCAS Building, Makati. For a fee of P85,000.00, petitioner
undertook the processing of the papers necessary for the deployment (under a tourist visa) and
employment of Menardo in South Korea. Petitioner informed Menardo that he would be
employed as “factory worker,” which was, subsequently, changed to “bakery worker.”
Thereafter, Menardo paid the said fee in installments.

After two postponements in his flight schedule, Menardo finally left for South Korea on
November 25, 2001. Unfortunately, he was incarcerated by South Korean immigration
authorities and was immediately deported to the Philippines because the travel documents
issued to him by the petitioner were fake. He immediately contacted petitioner and informed
her of what happened. Thereupon, petitioner promised to send him back to South Korea, but
the promise was never fulfilled. Consequently, Menardo and his sister Vilma demanded the
return of the money they paid, but petitioner refused and even said, “Magkorte na lang tayo.” It
was later found out that petitioner was no longer connected with Silver Jet.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the laws on illegal recruitment and estafa are applicable in the case at
bar.

LAWS INVOLVED:

Secs.6 and 7 (a) of RA 8042.

RULING:

Illegal recruitment is committed when it is shown that petitioner gave the complainant
the distinct impression that she had the power or ability to send the complainant abroad for
work, such that the latter was convinced to part with his money in order to be employed. To be
engaged in the practice of recruitment and placement, it is plain that there must, at least, be a
promise or an offer of employment from the person posing as a recruiter whether locally or
abroad. Petitioner’s misrepresentations concerning her purported power and authority to
recruit for overseas employment, and the collection from Menardo of various amounts, clearly
indicate acts constitutive of illegal recruitment.

ROSA C. RODOLFO v. PEOPLE, GR NO. 146964, 2006-08-10

Facts:

Petitioner was charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati for illegal recruitment...
the trial court took note of the fact that while the information reflected the commission of illegal
recruitment in large scale, only the complaint of the two of the five complainants was proven.

accused-appellant approached private complainants Necitas Ferre and Narciso Corpus

individually and invited them to apply for overseas employment in Dubai... private complainants
gave certain amounts to appellant for processing and other fees.

private complainants and all the other applicants were not able to depart on the said date as their
employer allegedly did not arrive.

the prosecution presented Jose Valeriano, a Senior Overseas Employment Officer of the
Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA), who testified that accused-appellant was...
neither licensed nor authorized by the then Ministry of Labor and Employment to recruit workers
for overseas employment.

For her defense, appellant denied ever approaching private complainants to recruit them for
employment in Dubai. On the contrary, it was the private complainants who asked her help in
securing jobs abroad.

appellate court affirmed the judgment of the trial court but modified the penalty imposed due to
the trial court's failure to apply the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

Issues:

IN FINDING THE PETITIONER-ACCUSED GUILTY WHEN THE PROSECUTION

FAILED TO PROVE HER GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT

Ruling:

The elements of the offense of illegal recruitment, which must concur, are: (1) that the offender
has no valid license or authority required by law to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement
of workers; and (2) that the offender undertakes any activity within the meaning of... recruitment
and placement under Article 13(b), or any prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of
the Labor Code.[13] If another element is present : that the accused commits the act against three
or more persons, individually or as a group, it... becomes an illegal recruitment in a large scale

That petitioner issued provisional receipts indicating that the amounts she received from the
private complainants were turned over to Luzviminda Marcos and Florante Hinahon does not
free her from liability. For the act of recruitment may be "for profit or not." It is sufficient... that
the accused "promises or offers for a fee employment" to warrant conviction for illegal
recruitment
Court held that issuance of receipts for placement fees does not make a case for illegal
recruitment.
 BETTY KING vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. No. 131540

Facts:
Betty King discounted with complainant Ellen Fernandez several Equitable Bank checks
postdated from July 23 to 29, 1992 in the total amount of P1, 070,000.00 in exchange
for cash in the amount of P1, 000,000.00. When the checks were deposited for
payment, they were dishonored by the drawee bank because they were drawn against
an account without sufficient funds. Betty King failed to make good the checks despite
demand. During the hearing on the merits of this case on September 17, 1998, the
prosecution offered in evidence its documentary evidence. Betty King admitted the
genuineness and due execution of the documents presented.
As noted earlier, Betty King filed a Demurrer to Evidence without leave of court. In
doing so, she waived her right to present evidence and submitted the case for judgment
on the basis of the documentary exhibits adduced by the prosecution.
In affirming the trial court, the Court of Appeals explained that the prosecution proved all
the elements of the crime. The CA also pointed out that the failure of Betty King to sign
the pretrial order was not fatal to the prosecution, because her conviction was based on
the evidence presented during the trial.
Ellen Fernandez sent Betty King a registered mail, informing the latter that the checks
had been dishonored. But the records show that petitioner did not receive it. In fact,
Postmaster Wilfredo Ulibarri’s letter addressed to complainant’s counsel certified that
the subject registered mail was returned to sender on September 22, 1992.
Issue:
(1) Admissibility of documentary evidence
(2) Sufficiency of the prosecution evidence
Held:
We emphasized that "the full payment of the amount appearing in the check within five
banking days from notice of dishonor is a complete defense. The absence of a notice of
dishonor necessarily deprives an accused an opportunity to preclude a criminal
prosecution. Accordingly, procedural due process clearly enjoins that a notice of
dishonor be actually served on petitioner. Petitioner has a right to demand and the
basic postulates of fairness require that the notice of dishonor be actually sent to and
received by her to afford her the opportunity to avert prosecution under BP 22.
Notwithstanding the clear import of the postmaster’s certification, the prosecution failed
to adduce any other proof that petitioner received the post office notice but unjustifiably
refused to claim the registered mail. It is possible that the drawee bank sent petitioner a
notice of dishonor, but the prosecution did not present evidence that the bank did send
it, or that petitioner actually received it. It was also possible that she was trying to flee
from complainant by staying in different addresses. Speculations and possibilities,
however, cannot take the place of proof. Conviction must rest on proof beyond
reasonable doubt. Clearly, the evidence on hand demonstrates the indelible fact that
petitioner did not receive notice that the checks had been dishonored. Necessarily, the
presumption that she knew of the insufficiency of funds cannot arise.
Thus, in order to create the prima facie presumption that the issuer knew of the
insufficiency of funds, it must be shown that he or she received a notice of dishonor
and, within five banking days thereafter, failed to satisfy the amount of the check or
make arrangement for its payment. Petitioner Betty King is ACQUITTED for failure of
the prosecution to prove all the elements of the crimes charged.
Eduardo Vaca vs. Ca

VACA VS. CA
(GR 43596, 31 October 1936)

Facts:

Eduardo Vaca is the president and owner of Ervine International while Fernando Nieto, Vaca’s son-in-law, is
the firm’s purchasing manager. They issued a check for P10,000 to the General Agency for Reconnaissance,
Detection and Security (GARDS) and drawn against China Bank. When deposited with PCIBank, the check was
dishonored for insufficiency of funds. GARDS sent a demand letter but the drawers failed to pay within the
time given (7 days from notice). A few days later, however, Vaca issued a check to GARDS for P19,866.16,
drawn against Associated Bank, replacing the dishonored check. GARDS did not return the dishonored check.
Later on, GARDS Acting Operations Manager filed a criminal suit against Vaca and Nieto for violation of BP 22.
The trial court sentenced each to 1 year imprisonment and to pay a fine of P10,000 and costs.

Issue [1]:
Whether the drawers had knowledge of insufficient funds in issuing the check.

Held [1]: Section 2 of BP 22 provides a presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds if the drawer fails
to maintain sufficient funds within 90 days after the date of the check, or to make arrangement for payment in
full by the drawee of such check within 5 days after receiving notice that such check has not been paid by the
drawee. Herein, the second check supposedly replacing the dishonored check is actually the payment of two
separate bills, and was issued 15 days after notice. Such “replacement” cannot negate the presumption that
the drawers knew of the insufficiency of funds.

Issue [2]: Whether the absence of damages incurred by the payee absolves the drawers from liability.

Held [2]: The claim — that the case was simply a result of a misunderstanding between GARDS and the
drawers and that the security agency did not suffer any damage from the dishonor of the check — is flimsy.
Even if the payee suffered no damage as a result of the issuance of the bouncing check, the damage to the
integrity of the banking system cannot be denied. Damage to the payee is not an element of the crime
punished in BP 22.

Note: In this case, the Court recognized the contribution of Filipino entrepreneurs to the national economy;
and that to serve the ends of criminal justice, instead of the 1 year imprisonment, a fine of double the amount
of the check involved was imposed as penalty. This was made to redeem valuable human material and
prevent unnecessary deprivation of personal liberty and economic usefulness with due regard to the
protection of the social order.
RICARDO SUAREZ, petitioner, vs people of the Philippines, G.R. NO. 172573, June 19,2008

Facts

This is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the decision of the CA reinstating the
Municipal Trial Court in Cities’ (MTCC) decision finding the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt for
violation of BP 22.

Ricardo Suarez, herein petitioner, is the owner of the Suarez Commercial. In order to open a
credit line, he issued two postdated checks in favor to the private respondent, A.H. Shoppers’ Mart, Inc.
(Shoppers’ Mart), who is engage in business establishment engaged in operating a grocery and
department store.

When the checks became due, it was dishonored by the drawee bank for having been drawn
against a closed account. Shoppers’ Mart sent the petitioner a demand letter to pay for the value of the
checks, but the petitioner failed to make payment.

The MTCC ruled against the petitioner, but it was reversed by the RTC. Dissatisfied with the
decision, private respondent appealed to CA, which reinstated the earlier decision of the MTCC. Hence,
this petition.

Issue

WON the prosecution was able to proved the element of knowledge of insufficiency of funds to
hold the petitioner liable for violation of B.P. Blg. 22.

Ruling
 The Court answered in the negative. According to the Court, under BP 22 there is a presumption
of knowledge of insufficiency of funds when it is proved that the issuer had received a notice and that
within five banking days from its receipt, he failed to pay the amount of the check or to make
arrangements for its payment. The full payment of the amount appearing in the check within five
banking days from notice of dishonor is a complete defense.

In this case, the Court finds that the prosecution proved that a notice of dishonor was sent to
petitioner through registered mail. The prosecution presented a copy of the demand letter and properly
authenticated the registry return receipt. However, the prosecution did not prove that the petitioner
received the notice of dishonor. Registry return cards must be authenticated to serve as proof of receipt
of letters sent through registered mail.

Decision: The petitioner is acquitted on reasonable doubt.

John Dy vs. People of the Phils., et. al., G.R.
No. 158312, Nov. 14, 2008
Full Text

Facts: John Dy has been the distributor of W.L. Food Products (W.L. Foods) in Naga City, Bicol,
under the business name Dyna Marketing. Dy would pay W.L. Foods in either cash or check
upon pick up of stocks of snack foods at the latters branch or main office in Quezon City.

On June 24, 1992, Dys driver went to the branch office of W.L. Foods to pick up stocks of snack
foods. He picked up merchandise worth P106,579.60. In return, the driver handed checker
Maraca a blank Far East Bank and Trust Company (FEBTC) Check postdated July 22, 1992. The
check was signed by Dy though it did not indicate a specific amount.

Yet again, on July 1, 1992, the same driver obtained snack foods from Maraca in the amount of
P226,794.36 in exchange for a blank FEBTC Check  July 31, 1992.

In both instances, the driver was issued an unsigned delivery receipt. The amounts for the
purchases were filled in later by Evelyn Ong, accountant of W.L. Foods, based on the value of
the goods delivered. When presented for payment, FEBTC dishonored the checks for
insufficiency of funds.

Later, the bank sent another letter to the WL Foods counsel advising her check was returned to
the drawee bank for the reasons stop payment order and drawn against uncollected deposit
(DAUD), and not because it was drawn against insufficient funds as stated in the first letter.

Dys savings deposit account ledger reflected a balance of P160,659.39 as of July 22, 1992.

When William Lim, owner of W.L. Foods, phoned Dy about the matter, the latter explained that
he could not pay since he had no funds yet. This prompted the former to send petitioner a
demand letter, which the latter ignored.

On July 16, 1993, Lim charged Dy with two counts of estafa. He was also charged violation of
B.P. 122. He was convicted by the RTC. CA upheld the RTC ruling.

Issue:

(1) WON the issuances of checks were valid, provided that the checks, with no specified amount,
were delivered

(2) WON Dy must be acquitted

Held: (1) Yes.

Section 191 of the Negotiable Instruments Law[14] defines issue as the first delivery of an
instrument, complete in form, to a person who takes it as a holder. Significantly, delivery is the
final act essential to the negotiability of an instrument. Delivery denotes physical transfer of the
instrument by the maker or drawer coupled with an intention to convey title to the payee and
recognize him as a holder.[15] It means more than handing over to another; it imports such
transfer of the instrument to another as to enable the latter to hold it for himself.

In this case, even if the checks were given to W.L. Foods in blank, this alone did not make its
issuance invalid. When the checks were delivered to Lim, through his employee, he became a
holder with prima facie authority to fill the blanks. This was, in fact, accomplished by Lims
accountant.

The pertinent provisions of Section 14 of the Negotiable Instruments Law are instructive:

SEC. 14. Blanks; when may be filled.Where the instrument is wanting in any material
particular, the person in possession thereof has a prima facie authority to complete it by
filling up the blanks therein. And a signature on a blank paper delivered by the person
making the signature in order that the paper may be converted into a negotiable
instrument operates as a prima facie authority to fill it up as such for any amount. .
(Emphasis supplied.)

Hence, the law merely requires that the instrument be in the possession of a person other than the
drawer or maker. From such possession, together with the fact that the instrument is wanting in a
material particular, the law presumes agency to fill up the blanks.[17] Because of this, the burden
of proving want of authority or that the authority granted was exceeded, is placed on the person
questioning such authority.[18]

(2) Yes. The circumstances prove that the said checks were issued in good faith, therefore
negating the element of deceit.
 Tan vs. People
500 SCRA 172 G.R. No. 145006 (August 30, 2006)
Digested by: ANM Cabreros

#5
FACTS:

Carolyn Zaragoza (private respondent) met the accused (herein petitioner) David Tan through a common friend. They
had a load transaction which was followed by another loan transaction in the amount of P1 Million, and for which she gave the
accused a Metrobank check in the amount of O950,000.00 having deducted the 5% interest from said loan. Thereafter, the
accused issued several PCI Bank Checks, which were deposited at her account with the City Trust Bank. The checks bounced for
reason "Account Closed." She thereafter tried to contact the accused but Tan refused to talk to her. The accused was sent by
her lawyer a formal demand through registered mail, for him to pay in cash the bounced/dishonored checks but to no avail.
They filed a case against Tan, MTC found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of BP 22.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration where he argued that no evidentiary weight should be given to the
demand letter sent to him because, although included in the formal offer of evidence by the prosecution, it was not presented
during trial for proper identification, hence, it should not have been admitted into evidence even if the defense failed to object
to the formal offer thereof. Petitioner insisted that the prosecution did not have proof of notice of dishonor, thus, his guilt had
not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

ISSUE:
WON a Notice of Dishonor is indispensable in determining the guilt of a maker or drawer for intentionally issuing a
check which to his knowledge is insufficient in funds.

HELD:
YES.
Section 2 of BP 22 provides: The making, drawing and issuance of a check payment of which is refused by the drawee
because of insufficient funds in or credit with such bank, when presented within ninety (90) days from the date of the check,
shall be prima facie evidence of knowledge of such insufficiency of funds or credit unless such maker or drawer pays the holder
thereof the amount due thereon, or makes arrangements for payment in full by the drawee of such check within five (5)
banking days after receiving notice that such check has not been paid by the drawee.

For this presumption to arise, the prosecution must prove the following:

(a) the check is presented within ninety (90) days from the date of the check;
(b) the drawer or maker of the check receives notice that such check has not been paid by the drawee; and
(c) the drawer or maker of the check fails to pay the holder of the check the amount due thereon, or make arrangements for
payment in full within five (5) banking days after receiving notice that such check has not been paid by the drawee.

In other words, the presumption is brought into existence only after it is proved that the issuer had received a notice
of dishonor and that within five days from receipt thereof, he failed to pay the amount of the check or to make arrangements
for its payment. The presumption or prima facie evidence as provided in this section cannot arise, if such notice of nonpayment
by the drawee bank is not sent to the maker or drawer, or if there is no proof as to when such notice was received by the
drawer, since there would simply be no way of reckoning the crucial 5-day period. Furthermore, the notice of dishonor must be
in writing; a verbal notice is not enough.
Since the prosecution failed to present evidence during trial that a written demand had been sent to and received by
petitioner, the second element, that the accused had knowledge of the insufficiency of funds, had not been established.

PETITION PARTIALLY GRANTED.

Tan was ACQUITTED of the crime of Violation of BP 22 but ordered to pay the private complainant.
JOSEPHINE DOMAGSANG vs. COURT OF
APPEALS. G.R. NO. 139292. December 5,
2000.
FACTS:

Ignacio Garcia gave petitioner a loan. Petitioner issued and delivered 18 postdated checks. When
the checks were drawn, all were dishonored due the account being closed. Garcia supposedly
wrote a letter to demand.

Petitioner contends that he did not receive a demand letter and the checks were not issued as
payment but as evidence of indebtedness. The lower court convicted petitioner.

ISSUE: Whether verbal notice is enough for conviction of petitioner.

RULING:

The SC said that verbal notice is not enough as written notice of dishonor should be received by
petitioner to convict him. A mere oral notice or demand to pay would appear to be insufficient
for conviction under the law. The spirit of the law is not only for the person to be punished but
also to be duly notified of the checks dishonor. The supposed letter of demand was not given
weight because prosecution failed to formally offer it as evidence.

The SC acquitted petitioner but ordered her to pay the amount plus interest.