People vs Domingo

GR no 181475, April 7, 2009

Facts:
RTC rendered a Decision finding herein appellant guilty of one count of illegal recruitment in large scale
and two counts of Estafa.
This is based from the complaints of 23 persons, of which 5 testified accusing him of promising
employment in Marianas Island and Saipan and asking the amounts ranging from 10, 000 to 30, 000 from
each complainant representing expenses for passporting, NBI clearance and medical examination. All
complaints were scheduled for departure but such never materialized. One of the five who testified,
Simeon Cabigao later recanted his testimony.
Appellant denies all accusation against him and contends that it was Danilo Gimeno who undertook
recruitment activities. He questions the trial court’s decision since there is no receipt or document
presented as evidence showing that he received money from complaints, and its failure to give weight to
Cabigao’s retraction.
Aggrieved by the above decision, appellant filed an appeal to the CA, which affirmed RTC’s decision.
Hence, this appeal.
Issue:
WON the trail court erred in convicting the accused appellant of illegal recruitment in large scale and
Estafa although the crime was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Held:
No. The Court affirmed the decision of the CA.
The Court has held that the following are the essential elements of illegal recruitment in large scale: 1) the
person charged undertook a recruitment activity under Article 13(b) or any prohibited practice under
Article 34 of the Labor Code; (2) he/she did not have the license or the authority to lawfully engage in the
recruitment and placement of workers; and (3) he/she committed the prohibited practice against three or
more persons individually or as a group.
Here, the Court finds that the prosecution ably discharged its onus of proving the guilt beyond reasonable
doubt of appellant of the crimes charged. As to the lack of receipt, it is sufficient that the appellant
promised or offered employment for a fee to the complaining witnesses to warrant his conviction for
illegal recruitment under Article 13(b). As to Cabigao’s retraction, the Court notes that it has not
overcome the testimonies of the four other complainants, whose credibility has not been impaired.
Also, the Court stresses, citing People vs Comila, that a person may be charged and convicted of both
illegal recruitment and estafa. Appellant, who did not have the authority or license to recruit and deploy,
misrepresented to the complaining witnesses that he had the capacity to send them abroad for
employment. This misrepresentation, which induced the complaining witnesses to part off with their
money for placement and medical fees, constitutes estafa under Article 315, par. 2(a) of the Revised Penal
Code.