Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2009 > December 2009 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 169964 : December 09, 2009] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. REMEDIOS FORTALEZA:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 09 December 2009:

G.R. No. 169964 - (People of the Philippines v. Remedios Fortaleza), -

On July 26, 2000, appellant Remedios Fortaleza was charged with the crimes of illegal recruitment^[1] and six counts of estafa.^[2] The accusatory portion of the Information for Illegal Recruitment reads as follows:

That in or about and sometime during the period from August, 1999 to January, 2000, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in the City of Makati, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, [appellant] did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously enlist and recruit the private complainants, namely: CRESENCIO P. SAHORDA, JONATHAN V. IPAC, REYNALDO R- JIMENEZ, JOEY^[3] REYES TAONG, ERNESTO V. GUADALUPE^[4] and JOSEPH R. VALLE, for overseas job placement without any valid license or authority from the POEA, and having failed to actually deploy said complainants without any valid reason and without the latter's fault, the said accused likewise failed to reimburse the expenses incurred by the said private complainants in connection with the documentation and processing for purposes of their deployment, and since the offense was carried out against the six (6) complainants, the offense involves economic sabotage, in �violation of the aforecited law.

CONTRARY TO LAW.^[5]

Except for the dates of commission, the names of complainants and the amounts defrauded,^[6] the Informations for estafa similarly read as follows:

That on or about________________, in/the City of Makati, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of This Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of false pretenses and fraudulent acts, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud complainant________________in. the following manner, to wit: said accused by means of false manifestations and false representations which she made to the complainant to the effect that she has the power and capacity to recruit and work for the employment of complainant to work abroad and could facilitate the necessary papers in connection therewith if given the necessary amounts to meet the requirements thereof, and by means of other deceit of similar import, induced and succeeded in inducing complainant to give and deliver and in fact the latter gave and delivered to said accused the total amount of _____________________ on the strength of said manifestations, the accused knowing fully well that the same were false and fraudulent and were made only to obtain as in fact she obtained the total amount of________,    
which amount the accused applied and used for her own personal use and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of __________________________.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

Appellant pleaded "not guilty" when arraigned. Trial on the merits thereafter ensued.

Complainants Cresencio Sahorda (Sahorda), Jonathan Ipac (Ipac), Reynaldo Jimenez (Jimenez), Joel Tacong (Tacong), Joseph R. Valle (Valle) and Ernesto Guadalupe, Jr. (Guadalupe) testified that appellant represented herself as having the capacity to send them for employment abroad for a fee. Each of the complainants thus gave various amounts to appellant as placement fees. When the promised deployment did not materialize, they demanded reimbursement of the amounts but appellant failed to return the same. Thus, they filed the instant cases. During trial, the prosecution presented a Certification issued by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration stating that appellant was not licensed and without authority to recruit workers for employment abroad.

The defense presented the appellant herself as well as complainants Sahorda and Ipac. Appellant admitted that she received various amounts from the complainants as placement fees' but averred that she turned over the same to Pacific International Shipping Company of which she was allegedly an agent. She also claimed that the complainants agreed that the amounts which she received as placement fees be converted into personal loans. Complainants Sahorda and Ipac testified that the placement fees which they gave to appellant were converted into personal loans in their favor.

On rebuttal, the prosecution presented complainant Guadalupe who categorically declared that there was no agreement between the complainants and the appellant to convert the amounts defrauded into personal loans.

The trial court lent credence to the prosecution's version. It found that:

The prosecution has established with sufficient evidence that accused Remedios Foitaleza had made false representations with the complainants that she could work and facilitate their employment as overseas seamen provided that they pay the required placement fees. The acts and representations made by the accused in this regard constitute a promise of employment which is tantamount to and falls within the purview of the term recruitment as defined in Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042.

It also bears stressing that the complainants, in a credible and straightforward manner, were able to identify the accused as the same person who promised them overseas employment for a fee and guaranteed their departure abroad as seamen within the specified period. And despite the direct and positive evidence presented by the prosecution against the accused and the strong testimonial accounts of the witnesses who testified against her, she only managed to raise the defense of denial. Apart from her bare and self-serving testimony and the defense's preposterous claim of conversion, no corroborative evidence was however presented by the defense to prove her innocence.^[7]

xxxx

Finally, in a desperate attempt to secure an acquittal, the defense gratuitously maintained that two of the complainants had agreed to convert the money which were paid to the accused as placement fees into loans. The ludicrous posture taken by the defense on this issue should be rejected and its claim of conversion deserves scant consideration since the evidence on record shows that the payments made by the complainants were intended to cover the cost of placement fees mat the accused collected in connection with their job application. The position of the defense in this regard becomes more untenable if we are to consider that the illegal act constituting the offense was already consummated when the alleged conversion took place. This supervening event will not, in any way, extinguish the criminal culpability of the accused for violating the law in question.^[8]

xxxx

Considering that the accused by means of false pretenses, had deliberately misrepresented to the complainants that she had the power and capacity to recruit the applicants for overseas employment for the puipose of collecting money from them in the guise of placement fees and had reneged on her promise to employ them abroad and failed to return the money she collected from the private complainants, despite several demands, she is therefore liable for estafa under Article 315 par. 2(a), of the Revised Penal Code. However, the accused should be convicted of five (5) counts only of estafa since the complaint of Ernesto V. Guadalupe Jr. for Estafa was not sufficiently established on account of the failure of the prosecution to present his testimony thereon. In view thereof, accused should only be convicted of five (5) counts of estafa.^[9]

Thus, on October 21, 2002, the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 62, rendered its Decision ^[10] finding appellant guilty of illegal recruitment and five counts of estafa. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding Remedios Fortaleza guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal in all the six (6) cases at bench (5 for Estafa and 1 for Large Scale Illegal Recruitment), and she is hereby sentenced to suffer an imprisonment term of:

1. In Criminal Case No. 00-1292 for estafa involving the amount of P35,000.00, accused is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of Four (4) years and Two (2) months of  prision correccional as minimum to seven (7) years eight (8) months and twenty one (21) days to eight (8) years as maximum.
   
   
2. In Criminal Case No. 00-1293 for estafa involving the amount of P25,000.00, accused is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision  correccional as minimum to six (6) years eight (8) months twenty one (21) days to eight (8) years as maximum.
   
   
3. In Criminal Case No. 00-1294 for estafa involving the amount of P25,000.00, accused is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional as minimum to six (6) years eight (8) months twenty one (21) [days] to eight (8) years as maximum.
   
   
4. In Criminal Case No. 00-1295 for estafa involving the amount of P30,000.00, accused is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional as minimum to six (6) years eight (8) months twenty one (21) days to eight (8) years as maximum.
   
   
5. In Criminal Case No. 00-1296 for estafa involving the amount of P35,000.00, accused is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months [of prision] correccional as minimum to seven (7) years eight (8) months to twenty one (21) days to eight (8) years as maximum.
   
   
6. In Criminal Case No. 00-1291 for Large Scale Illegal Recruitment,accused is hereby  sentenced to suffer the penalty  of Life Imprisonment, to pay a fine of P500,000.00 and to pay the private complainants the following amounts: a) Joseph R. Valle, P35,000.00; b) Joel R. Taong, P25,000.00; c) Reynaldo R. Jimenez, P35,000.00 and d) Ernesto V. Guadalupe Jr, P35,000.00.
   
   Costs against the accused.^[11]

In its Decision^[12] dated May 31, 2005, the Court of Appeals affirmed with modifications the Decision of the trial court. The Court of Appeals found that appellant's claim that "there was conversion of the placement fees into loans only bolsters the fact that accused-appellant indeed received from private complainants the various sums of money as placement fees and that the promised employment did not materialize".^[13] The appellate court further held that the prosecution satisfactorily established that appellant was "able to collect money by falsely misrepresenting that she had the power and qualifications to recruit private complainants for overseas employment".^[14] The appellate court also held that appellant's claim "that the placement fees were converted into loans, deserves no merit, as said conversion or novation of the transaction is not a means of extinguishing criminal liability under Article 89, Revised Penal Code. Said conversion is merely a supervening event and did not obscure the fact that the cnme of estafa had been committed".^[15]

Anent the penalties imposed by the trial court in the crime of estafa, the Court of Appeals found the same to be erroneous and thus must be modified. The dispositive portion of the Decision of the Court of Appeals reads;

WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision dated October 21, 2002 is affirmed, subject to the modification of the penalty as follows:

(a)    In Criminal Case Nos. 00-1292 and 00-1296, accused-appellant is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as the minimum penalty, to nine (9) years of prision mayor, as the maximum penalty, and;

(b)    In Criminal Case Nos. 00-1293, 00-1294 and 00-1295, accused-appellant is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as minimum penalty, to eight (8) years of prision mayor, as the maximum penalty.

The Decision is affirmed in all other respects.

SO ORDERED.^[16]

We affirm the conviction of appellant for the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale. The prosecution satisfactorily established that appellant (a) had no valid license or authority required by law to enable her to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers; (b) appellant undertook 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 said Code (now Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042) and c) appellant committed the same against three or more persons, individually or as a group.^[17]

Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals correctly disregarded appellant's claim that she was a mere agent of Pacific International Shipping Company. Aside from her self-serving claim, she adduced no evidence to substantiate said claim. At any rate, it is settled jurisprudence that an agent may be held liable together with the principal if it is shown that the former actively participated in illegal recruitment.^[18]

Anent the penalty imposed in the crime of illegal recruitment, we find that modification is in order. As modified, the penalty for the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale is life imprisonment and a fine of P1,000,000.00 pursuant to Section 7 of Republic Act No. 8042.^[19]

Appellant's conviction for estafa is likewise proper. She committed fraudulent acts leading private complainants to believe that she had the power and authority to provide them employment abroad. As a result, complainants parted with their monies.

Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code provides that the imposable penalty is prision correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum if the amount defrauded is over P12,000.00 but does not exceed P22,000.00. When the amount exceeds P22,000.00, the penalty shall be imposed in its maximum. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum term is taken from the penalty next lower in degree or anywhere within prision correccional minimum and medium (i.e., from six months and one day to four years and two months). We find that the indeterminate penalties imposed by the Court of Appeals are proper. In addition, however, appellant should be ordered to indemnify complainants Joseph R. Valle, Joel R. Taong, Cresencio P. Sahorda, Jonathan V. Ipac and Reynaldo R. Jimenez the amounts of P35,000.00, P25,000.00, P25,000.00, P30,000.00 and P35,000.00, respectively.

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated May 31,2005 finding appellant guilty of illegal recruitment and five counts of estafa is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. As modified, appellant is sentenced as follows:

1. In Criminal Case No. 00-1291, appellant is found guilty of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P1,000,000.00.
   
   
2. In Criminal Case No. 00-1292, appellant is found guilty of the crime of estafa and is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correcdonal, as the minimum to nine (9) years of prision mayor, as the maximum and to indemnify Joseph R. Valle the amount of P35,000.00.
   
   
3. In Criminal Case No. 00-1293, appellant is found guilty of the crime of estafa and is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as the minimum to eight (8) years of prision mayor, as the maximum and to indemnify Joel R. Taong the amount of P25,000.00.
   
   
4. In Criminal Case No. 00-1294, appellant is found guilty of the crime of estafa and is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correctional, as the minimum to eight (8) years of prision mayor, as the maximum and to indemnify Cresencio P. Sahorda the amount of P15,000.00.
   
   
5. In Criminal Case No. 00-1295, appellant is found guilty of the crime of estafa and is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correctional, as the minimum to eight (8) years of prision mayor, as the maximum and to indemnify Jonathan V. Ipac the amount of P30,000.00.
   
   
6.  In Criminal Case No. 00-1296, appellant is found guilty of the crime of estafa and is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as the minimum to nine (9) years of prision mayor, as the maximum and to indemnify Reynaldo R. Jimenez the amount of P35,000.00.

SO ORDERED.

WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Conchita Carpio Morales (designated additional member per S.O. No. 807 in lieu of Brion, J, on leave), Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro (designated additional member per S.O. No. 776), Mariano C. Del Castillo and Roberto A. Abad, Members, Second Division, this 9^th day of December, 2009.

Endnotes:

---

^[1] CA rollo, pp. 7-8.

^[2] Id. at 9-14.

^[3] Sometimes referred to as Joel in other parts of the records.

^[4] Sometimes referred to as Ernesto V. Guadalupe Jr. in other parts of the records.

^[5] CA rollo, p. 7.

^[6] October 23, 1999 (Joseph R. Valle, P35.000.00), October 29, 1999 (Joel R. Taong, P25,000.00), November 9,1999 (Cresencio P. Sahorda, 525,000.00), November 12, 1999 (Jonathan V. Ipac, P30.000.00), November 15,1999 (Reynaldo R. Jimenez, P35,000.00) and January 7,2000 (Ernesto V. Guadalupe, P35,000.00); id. at 9-14.

^[7]  Id. at 29-30.

^[8] Id. at 31.

^[9] Id. at 33.

^[10] Id. at 25-34; penned by Judge Ricardo R. Rosario.

^[11] Id. at 33-34.

^[12] Id. at 139-156; penned by Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta and concurred in by Associate Justices Ruben T. Reyes and Josefina Guevara-Salonga.

^[13] Id at 147.

^[14] Id.

^[15] Id at 150.

^[16]  Id at 155-156.

^[17] See People v. Temporada, G.R-No. 173473, December 17, 2008, 574 SCRA 258, 279.

^[18]   Id. at 280.

^[19] Sec. 7. Penalties. -

    xxxx

(b) The penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of not less than Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) nor more than One million pesos (P1,000,000.00) shall be imposed if illegal recruitment constitutes economic sabotage as defined herein.
    
Provided, however, That the maximum penalty shall be imposed if the person illegally recruited is less than eighteen (18) years of age or committed by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority.