Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > April 2008 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 176737 : April 16, 2008] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. MA. JULIE JOY CESAR AND JUN CESAR :

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 16 April 2008:

G.R. No. 176737 (People of the Philippines v. Ma. Julie Joy Cesar and Jun Cesar)

This is an appeal from the August 18, 2006 Decision^[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01864 entitled People of the Philippines v. Ma. Julie Joy Cesar and Jun Cesar which affirmed the August 26, 2002 Joint Decision^[2] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 27 in Manila, in Criminal Case Nos. 95-145621 to 95-145630 for illegal recruitment and nine (9) counts of estafa.

The facts are as follows:

Between April to July of 1995, accused-appellants Ma. Julie Joy Cesar and Jun Cesar worked at the All Brothers Recruitment Agency (All Brothers) and held office in Ermita, Manila.  During this period, Albert T. Bermudez, Ricardo Mendoza, Jr., John Carlo S. Villanueva, Manuel R. Mendoza, Ricardo E. Geronimo, James M. Zaragoza, Ma. Precila P. Romero, Carmencita Averin, and Gerardo Mendoza went to All Brothers to look for overseas employment.

Ricardo Mendoza, Jr. met Julie and Jun at the All Brothers office sometime in June 1995.  He was told that for All Brothers to place him as a factory worker in Taiwan, he would have to pay a placement fee of PhP 75,000.  After paying the amount, he signed a contract and was told he would be deployed on August 20, 1995, but this never materialized.  He later discovered that Julie and Jun were not licensed by the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA) to recruit workers for overseas employment.  He was unable to receive a refund of the placement fee in spite of demands made on Julie and Jun.^[3]

Villanueva likewise went to All Brothers in June 1995.  In exchange for employment as a worker in Taiwan, he was made to pay a placement fee of PhP 65,000.  He was scheduled to leave for Taiwan on August 20, 1995 but was later told that there was a problem with his papers.  He unsuccessfully demanded a refund of the placement fee he paid in full.^[4]

Gerardo met Julie and Jun at All Brothers on June 26, 1995.  He signed a contract for deployment in Taiwan and paid a PhP 75,000 placement fee.  He went back in August 1995 but was told that Julie was no longer reporting for work.^[5]

Similarly, Manuel Mendoza applied at All Brothers in June 1995 for a job in Taiwan as factory worker.  He paid PhP 45,000 as partial payment of the PhP 80,000 placement fee asked of him.  When Julie was no longer reporting at All Brothers, Jun repeatedly assured him he would still be deployed.  He was never able to leave for Taiwan although he was told he would be deployed in August 1995.^[6]

According to POEA Senior Employment Officer Lydia M. Espinosa, accused-appellants were neither licensed nor authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment.^[7]

On September 29, 1995, Informations for illegal recruitment and nine (9) counts of estafa were filed against Julie and Jun.^[8]

In her defense, Julie denied the accusations against her.  She said that she had no dealings with complainants Ricardo Mendoza, Jr., Villanueva, and Bermudez and denied having recruited any of the complainants.  She alleged that she knew a certain "Emmanuel Mendoza" as an agent for job applicants but denied that he made any payments to her.^[9]

Jun, on the other hand, maintained that he received partial payments made by Ricardo Mendoza, Jr. and Villanueva upon Julie's instructions.  He did not have any dealings with any of the applicants.  He asserted that he did not benefit from any of the amounts paid by All Brother's applicants.^[10]

On August 26, 2002, the RTC rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, this Court finds accused MA. JULIE JOY CESAR a.k.a. MA. JULITA JOY GOTLEANG CESAR a.k.a. MARIA JULIETA JOY CESAR and SERVILLANO CESAR, JR, a.k.a. JUN CESAR, "GUILTY" beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of Illegal Recruitment in large scale (Crim. Case No. 95-145621) and four (4) counts of Estafa (Crim. Cases Nos. 95-145623, 95-145624, 95-145625 and 95-145626) and hereby sentences them as follows:

1)	In Crim. Case No. 95-145621, to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment; to pay the fine of P100,000.00 each, and to pay the costs.
2)	In Crim. Case No. 95-145623, to suffer the indeterminate sentence of six (6) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods, as the minimum to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, as the maximum, plus five (5) years considering that the amount defrauded by the accused exceeds the sum of P22,000.00 computed at one year for each additional P10,000.00 out of the P53,000.00 in excess thereof; to indemnify private complainant Gerardo R. Mendoza, the amount of P75,000.00 and to pay the costs.
3)	In Crim. Case No. 95-145624, to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of from six (6) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods, as the minimum to four years (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, as the maximum plus five years considering that the amount defrauded exceeds P22,000.00, computed at one (1) year for each additional P10,000.00 out of the P53,000.00 in excess thereof; to indemnify complainant Carlo S. Villanueva in the sum of P75,000.00; and to pay the costs.
4)	In Crim. Case No. 95-145625, to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of from six (6) months and one (1) day of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, as the minimum to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, as the maximum plus two (2) years considering that the amount defrauded by the accused exceeds the sum of P22,000.00 computed at one (1) year for each additional P10,000.00 out of the P23,000.00 in excess thereof; to indemnify the complainant Manuel R. Mendoza a.k.a. Emmanuel R. Mendez the amount of P45,000.00; and to pay the costs.
5)	In Crim. Case No. 95-145626, to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of from six (6) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods as the minimum to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods [as] the maximum, plus five years considering that the amount defrauded by the accused exceeds P22,000, computed at one (1) year for each additional P10,000 out of the P53,000 in excess thereof; to indemnify private complainant Ricardo [R. Mendoza, Jr.] the amount of P75,000; and to pay the costs.

For the failure of the prosecution to present evidence, accused are "ACQUITTED", in Criminal Cases Nos. 95-145622, 95-145627, 95-145629 and 95-145630.

SO ORDERED.^[11]

On appeal, the CA, in its August 18, 2006 Decision, affirmed the RTC Decision with a modification on the penalties imposed on three counts of estafa.  The appellate court ruled that accused-appellants had a common design and unity of purpose in recruiting complainants for overseas deployment without the necessary authorization.  The prosecution was able to establish that accused-appellants' acts constituted illegal recruitment in large scale.

The CA likewise ruled that accused-appellants also committed estafa when they deceived the private complainants into believing that they were authorized and capable of sending them to Taiwan for employment.

It disposed of the case as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the August 22, 2002 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 27, rendered in Criminal Case Nos. 95-145621 to 95-145630, is hereby MODIFIED as follows:

1. In Crim. Case No. 145621, no modification.
   
   
2. In Crim. Case No. 95-145623, in addition to the indemnity and costs of suit already awarded by the trial court, the penalty imposed by the trial court is modified to an indeterminate sentence of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional as minimum to thirteen (13) years and two (2) months of prision mayor as maximum.
   
   
3. In Crim. Case No. 95-145624, in addition to the indemnity and costs of suit already awarded by the trial court, the penalty imposed by the trial court is modified to an indeterminate sentence of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional as minimum to thirteen (13) years and two (2) months of prision mayor as maximum.
   
   
4. In Crim. Case No. 95-145625, in addition to the indemnity and costs of suit already awarded by the trial court, the penalty imposed by the trial court is modified to an indeterminate sentence of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional as minimum to ten (10) years and (two) months of prision mayor as maximum.
   
   
5. In Crim. Case No. 95-145626, in addition to the indemnity and costs of suit already awarded by the trial court, the penalty imposed by the trial court is modified to an indeterminate sentence of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional as minimum to thirteen (13) years and two (2) months of prision mayor as maximum.
   

SO ORDERED.^[12]

On September 17, 2007, this Court required the parties to submit supplemental briefs if they so desired.  The parties manifested their willingness to submit the case on the basis of the records already submitted.

Only Jun appealed the CA Decision although Julie filed a Motion for Reconsideration before the CA on September 25, 2006.^[13]  On January 30, 2008, this Court required the CA to inform the Court of its action on Julie's Motion for Reconsideration.  The CA denied Julie's Motion in a Resolution dated March 13, 2008.

Accused-appellant Jun raised two issues for the appellate court's consideration.  These issues are now deemed adopted in the present appeal:

I.

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT JUN CESAR GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIMES CHARGED DESPITE THE PATENT WEAKNESS OF THE PROSECUTION'S EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM

II.

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT GIVING EXCULPATORY WEIGHT TO THE DEFENSE INTERPOSED BY THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT JUN CESAR.^[14]

The appeal should be dismissed.

Anent the first issue, People v. Alvarez^[15] enumerates three elements that must concur in illegal recruitment in large scale:

(1) The accused undertook any recruitment activity defined under Art. 13 (b) or any prohibited practice enumerated under Art. 34 of the Labor Code;

(2) He did not have the license or the authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers; and

(3) He committed the same against three or more persons, individually or as a group.

As the appellate court observed, the aforementioned elements are present in this case.  As to the first element, it was shown that Julie told private complainants "that she had the power and capacity to recruit them as factory workers in Taiwan of given the necessary placement fee of PhP75,000."^[16]  The second element was established with information from the POEA, which certified that Julie was not licensed to recruit workers for overseas employment.  As the illegal recruitment involved at least three private complainants, the last element was also satisfied.

The participation of Jun in Julie's illegal recruitment cannot be disputed.  He received payment, issued receipts, and facilitated in the processing of private complainants' passports.  He conspired with Julie in duping private complainants.  He should, therefore, be held similarly responsible for the illegal recruitment committed.  It is immaterial that he did not profit from his acts.

As to the estafa charge, Article 315, paragraph 2(a) the Revised Penal Code (RPC) provides three ways of committing estafa: (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.^[17]

Accused-appellants were shown to have committed estafa by falsely pretending to have the authority to send private complainants abroad for employment.  They were able to convince the private complainants to pay them substantial sums of money in exchange for employment that never materialized.  As correctly held by the CA, the assurances and misrepresentation by accused-appellants constitute estafa under Art. 315, par. 2(a) of the RPC.

The second issue interposed by accused-appellant Jun likewise has no merit.  He claims that he never represented himself as having the capacity to send private complainants to Taiwan and merely worked as an employee of the recruitment agency.  This defense, however, is untenable.  The private complainants dealt with both accused-appellants, and Jun received the private complainants himself when Julie stopped reporting for work.  By his acts, he conspired with Julie in pretending to be capable and authorized to provide overseas employment.  An illegal recruiter need not even expressly represent to his victim that he has the ability to send workers abroad.^[18]  He was Julie's co-conspirator in undertaking illegal recruitment activities, regardless of his position as mere employee.^[19]

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the August 18, 2006 Decision of the CA in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01864, finding accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of illegal recruitment in large scale and four (4) counts of estafa, is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Rollo, pp. 4-21.  Penned by Associate Justice Vicente Q. Roxas and concurred in by Associate Justices Ruben T. Reyes and Rebecca De Guia-Salvador.

^[2] CA rollo, pp. 52-90.  Penned by Judge Teresa P. Soriaso.

^[3] Id. at 61-62.

^[4] Id. at 63-64.

^[5] Id. at 65-66.

^[6] Id. at 68-69.

^[7] Id. at 69-70.

^[8] Id. at 15-34.

^[9] Id. at 70-76.

^[10] Id. at 78-80.

^[11] Supra note 2, at 84-86.

^[12] Supra note 1, at 20-21.

^[13] CA rollo, pp. 260-261.

^[14] Id. at 120.

^[15] G.R. No. 142981, August 20, 2002, 387 SCRA 448.  See also People v. Baytic, G.R. No. 150530, February 20, 2003, 398 SCRA 18.

^[16] Rollo, p. 15.

^[17] People v. Billaber, G.R. Nos. 114967-68, January 26, 2004, 421 SCRA 27.

^[18] People v. Gamboa, G.R. No. 135382, September 29, 2000, 341 SCRA 451.

^[19] People v. Cosa, G.R. No. 116626, July 10, 1998, 292 SCRA 292, 302-303.