PEOPLE v 

OWEN MARCELO CAGALINGAN AND BEATRIZ B. CAGALINGAN

G.R. No. 198664, November 23, 2016

BERSAMIN, J.:

Facts:

Accused-appellants were charged with Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale and

were indicted for three (3) counts of estafa in the same court by private complainants.

Spouses represented themselves to have the capacity to contract, enlist, hire

and transport Filipino workers for employment in Macau, China without first having
secured or obtained the required license or authority from the government agency.

And for three counts of estafa by defrauding Reynalyn Cagalingan, Roselle

Cagalingan and Arcele J. Bacorro by means of false manifestation and fraudulent
representations which they made to said private complainants to the effect that they had
the power and capacity to recruit and employ her abroad as a worker in Macao, China
and induced and succeeded in inducing the said private complainants to give and
deliver, as in fact the latter gave and deliver (sic), to said accused the amount of Php
40,000.00.

The accused spouses denied the charges against them.

The spouses were found guilty under the RTC but declines to award damages
in estafa cases since they were provided already in the case of Illegal Recruitment in
Large Scale.

The spouses appealed to the CA but the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC.

Issue: Whether the CA erred when it affirmed the ruling of the RTC.

Ruling: NO.

To constitute illegal recruitment in large scale, three elements must

concur: (a) the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable him
to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers; (b)  the offender
undertakes any of the activities within the meaning of "recruitment and placement"
under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code, or any of the prohibited practices enumerated
under Article 34 of the same Code (now Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042);
and, (c) the offender committed the same against three (3) or more persons, individually
or as a group.

In the case at bench, all three (3) elements were established during trial. First, it
was proved by private complaints that accused spouses were not licensed or authorized
to engage in recruitment activities. Second, private complainants testified and proved
that indeed accused spouses undertook acts constituting recruitment and placement as
defined under Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code. They testified that they were induced,
offered and promised by accused spouses employment in Macau, China for two (2)
years for a fee. And third, there are five (5) complainants against whom accused
spouses are alleged to have recruited.

Spouses are likewise liable for estafa under Article 315 (2) (a) of the Revised
Penal Code. We are convinced that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt
Accused Spouses' guilt for three (3) counts of Estafa.

There are three ways of committing estafa under Article 315 (a) of the Revised
Penal Code: (1) by using a fictitious name; (2) by falsely pretending to possess
power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary
transactions; and (3) by means of other similar deceits

In the present case, private complainants were led to believe by accused

spouses that they possessed the power and qualifications to provide them with work in
Macau when in fact they were neither licensed nor authorized to do so. Private
complainants were deceived by accused spouses by pretending that the latter could
arrange their employment in Macau, China. With these misrepresentations, false
assurances and deceit, they suffered damages and they were forced to part with their
hard-earned money

We next ascertain if the CA properly affirmed the imposition of the penalties for
illegal recruitment in large scale and the three counts of estafa. For the three counts
of estafa, the relevant legal provision is Article 315, first paragraph, of the Revised
Penal Code

Disposition: The court affirms the decision of the CA with modification.

1. In Criminal Case No. 2003-173, the accused-appellants shall suffer the penalty of life
imprisonment and fine of P1,000,000.00 each;

2. In each of Criminal Case No. 2003-124, Criminal Case No. 2003-125, and Criminal
Case No. 2003-238, the accused-appellants shall suffer an indeterminate penalty of four
years of prision correcional, as minimum, to seven years, eight months, and 21 days
of prision mayor;

3. The accused-appellants shall indemnify complainants Arcele J. Bacorro, Reynalyn

Cagalingan, Roselle Q. Cagalingan, and Laarni E. Sanchez in the respective amounts
of P40,000.00, P40,000.00, P40,000.00, and P11,500.00 plus interest of 6% per
annum from the finality of this decision until the amounts are fully paid; and

4. The accused-appellants shall pay the costs of suit.