216 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Bautista

*
G.R. No. 113547. February 9, 1995.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

ANITA BAUTISTA y LATOJA, accused-appellant.

Criminal Law; Labor Law; Illegal Recruitment; Recruitment

and Placement, Defined.—The Labor Code defines recruitment
and placement as referring to "any act of canvassing, enlisting,
contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers,
and includes referrals, contract services, promising or advertising
for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not:
Provided that any person or entity which, in any manner, offers or
promises for a fee employment to two or more persons shall be
deemed engaged in recruitment and placement."

Same; Same; Same; Essential Elements of the Crime of Illegal

Recruitment in Large Scale.—It is settled that the essential
elements of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale are: (1)
the accused engages in the recruitment and placement of workers,
as defined under Article 13 (b) or in any prohibited activities
under Article 34 of the Labor Code; (2) accused has not complied
with the guidelines issued by the Secretary of Labor and
Employment, particularly with respect to the securing of a license
or an authority to recruit and deploy workers, either locally or
overseas; and (3) accused commits the same against three (3) or
more persons, individually or as a group.

Same; Same; Same; Appellant correctly held criminally liable

for illegal recruitment in large scale.—It is uncontroverted that
appellant and Rosa Abrero are not authorized or licensed to
engage in recruitment activities. Despite the absence of such
license or authority, appellant participated in the recruitment of
complainants. Since there are at least three (3) victims in this
case, appellant is correctly held criminally liable for illegal
recruitment in large scale.

Same; Estafa; Elements of Estafa.—The elements of estafa

are as follows: (1) that the accused defrauded another (a) by abuse
of confidence, or (b) by means of deceit; and (2) that damage or
/
prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the
offended party or third party.

________________

* SECOND DIVISION.

217

VOL. 241, FEBRUARY 9, 1995 217

People vs. Bautista

Same; Same; Penalty for estafa depends on the amount

defrauded.—The penalty for estafa depends on the amount
defrauded. Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code provides: "the
penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision
mayor in its minimum period (or imprisonment ranging from 4
years, 2 months and 1 day to 8 years), if the amount of the fraud
is over P 12,000.00 but does not exceed P22,000.00 pesos, and if
such amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this
paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period (6 years, 8
months and 21 days to 8 years), adding one year for each
additional P 10,000.00 pesos; but the total penalty which may be
imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such case, and in
connection with the accessory penalties which may be imposed
and for the purpose of the other provisions of this Code, the
penalty shall be termed prision mayor or reclusion temporal, as
the case may be."

APPEAL from a decision of the Regional Trial Court of

Manila, Br. 41.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
     The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
     Jose L. Aguilar for accused-appellant.

PUNO, J.:
1
Four (4) separate Informations were filed before the
Regional Trial Court of Manila (Branch XLI) against
accused ANITA BAUTISTA y LATOJA, charging her2 with
the crimes
3
of Illegal Recruitment In Large Scale and
Estafa.
Upon arraignment 4on January 29, 1992, accused
pleaded NOT GUILTY. The four (4) cases were tried
jointly.
After 5 trial, the court a quo found accused guilty as
charged. In the illegal recruitment case, she was meted the
penalty of life imprisonment and ordered to pay P
/
100,000.00 as fine. In the estafa cases, she was sentenced
from two (2) years, eight (8)

_______________

1 Rollo, pp. 8-11.

2 Docketed as Criminal Case No. 92-102377.
3 Docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 92-102378, 92-102379 and 92102380.
4 Original Records, p. 24.
5 Decision, February 14, 1992; Original Records, p. 50.

218

218 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Bautista

months and twenty one (21) days of prision correccional as

minimum, to six (6) years, five (5) months and eleven (11)
days of prision mayor as maximum for each count of estafa,
and pay each complainant the amount of P40,000.00 as
civil indemnity.
Accused, thru counsel, filed her Notice of Appeal, dated
March 6, 1992,
6
indicating her desire to elevate her case to
this Court. The records of the case were, however,
transmitted7 by the trial court to the Court of Appeals. In
its Decision dated November 26, 1993, the appellate court
affirmed appellant's conviction. However, it modified the
penalty for the three (3) estafa cases. The dispositive
portion of the decision of the appellate court states:

"WHEREFORE, in Criminal Case No. 92-102377, the Court finds

accused Anita Bautista GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT of the crime of illegal recruitment, described and
penalized under Article 13 (b), Article 38 (a) and (b) and Article 39
(a) of the Labor Code, and imposes upon her the penalty of life
imprisonment and fine of P100,000.00. x x x.
"Insofar as Criminal Case No. 92-102378, Criminal Case No.
92102379 and Criminal Case No. 92-102380, the Court renders
judgment, finding accused Anita Bautista GUILTY BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT of the crime of estafa, described and
penalized under Article 315 par. 2 (a) of the Revised Penal Code,
and sentencing her in each criminal case to the indeterminate
penalty of (sic) from FOUR (4) YEARS and TWO (2) MONTHS of
prision correccional, as minimum, to NINE (9) YEARS OF prision
mayor, as maximum, and to pay each complainants Remigio
Fortes, Anastacio Amor and Dominador Costales, the amount of
P40,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency, with costs. Accordingly, the penalty imposed upon
accused by the lower court is MODIFIED.
"IT IS SO ORDERED."
/
Pursuant to Section 13 of Rule 124, the appellate court
elevated to us the records of the case for review. Notice was
given to appellant for her to file additional Brief if she so
desires. None was filed in her behalf.

_______________

6 Original Records, p. 59.

7 Penned by Associate Justice Jaime M. Lantin and concurred in by
Associate Justices Angelina S. Gutierrez and Bernardo P. Pardo.

219

VOL. 241, FEBRUARY 9, 1995 219

People vs. Bautista

The facts are as found by the appellate court:

"Sometime in August 1991, accused Anita Bautista approached

Romeo Paguio at the latter's restaurant at 565 Padre Faura St.,
Manila, and offered job openings abroad. At that time, Paguio had
relatives who were interested to work abroad. Accused, who also
operated a restaurant nearby at Padre Faura, informed Paguio
that she knew somebody who could facilitate immediate
employment in Taiwan for Paguio's relatives. Accused Anita
Bautista introduced Rosa Abrero to Paguio. Abrero informed him
that the applicants could leave for Taiwan within a period of one-
month from the payment of placement fees. They informed Paguio
that the placement fee was P40,000.00 for each person. Paguio
contacted his relatives, complainants Remigio Fortes and
Dominador Costales who were his brothers-in-law, and Anastacio
Amor, a cousin, who lost no time raising the needed money and
gave the same to Paguio. The three were to work as factory
workers and were to be paid $850.00 monthly salary each. Paguio
gave Rosa Abrero P20,000.00, which would be used in following
up the papers of the complainants; later he gave accused
P40,000.00 and P60,000.00 in separate amounts, totalling
P100,000.00, as the remaining balance. Abrero and accused
Bautista promised Paguio and complainants that the latter could
leave for Taiwan before September 25, 1991. As September 25,
1991 approached, accused Bautista informed Paguio and
complainants that there was a delay in the latter's departure
because their tickets and visas had not yet been released. Accused
rescheduled the complainants' departure to October 10, 1991.
Came October 10,1991, and complainants were still not able to
leave. Paguio then required accused Bautista to sign the
"Acknowledgment Receipt," dated October 11,1991, in which
accused admitted having received the sum of P100,000.00 from
Paguio, representing payment of plane tickets, visas and other
travel documents (Exhibit A). Paguio asked accused to return
/
complainants' money; accused, however, promised that
complainants could leave for Taiwan before Christmas. From
POEA, Paguio secured a certification, dated January 9, 1992,
attesting that Annie Bautista and Rosa Abrero are not licensed or
authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment (Exhibit
B). Complainants Fortes, Amor and Costales, as well as Paguio,
gave their written statements at the Office of the Assistant Chief
Directorial Staff for Intelligence of the WPDC, complaining about
their being victims of illegal recruitment by Rosa Abrero and
Annie Bautista (Exhibits C, D, E, and F)."

The issue boils down to whether or not reasonable doubt

exists to warrant the acquittal of appellant Anita Bautista.

220

220 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Bautista

We find none.
The Labor Code defines recruitment and placement as
referring to "any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting,
transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, and
includes referrals, contract services, promising or
advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for
profit or not: Provided that any person or entity which, in
any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to two
or more persons8 shall be deemed engaged in recruitment
and placement."
It is settled that the essential elements of the crime of
illegal recruitment in large scale are: (1) the accused
engages in the recruitment and placement of workers, as
defined under Article 13 (b) or in any prohibited activities
under Article 34 of the Labor Code; (2) accused has not
complied with the guidelines issued by the Secretary of
Labor and Employment, particularly with respect to the
securing of a license or an authority to recruit and deploy
workers, either locally or overseas; and (3) accused commits
the same against
9
three (3) or more persons, individually or
as a group.
For her exculpation, appellant denied she recruited
complainants for employment abroad. She claimed Romeo
Paguio was the one who approached her and asked for
someone who could help his relatives work abroad. She
thus introduced Rosa Abrero, a regular customer at her
restaurant, to Paguio. In turn, Paguio introduced Abrero to
complainants in their subsequent meeting. Further,
appellant testified she was present during the recruitment
of complainants since their meetings with Abrero were held
at her restaurant. Appellant likewise stressed she did not
/
receive the amount of P100,000.00, as stated in the
Acknowledgment Receipt, dated October 11, 1991, but
merely acknowledged that said sum was received by Rosa
Abrero from Romeo Paguio.
Appellant's defense does not persuade us.
Appellant's active participation in the recruitment
process of complainants belies her claim of innocence.
Complainants' recruitment was initiated by appellant
during her initial meeting with Romeo Paguio. She gave
the impression to Romeo Paguio

_______________

8 Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code, as amended.

9 People vs. Comia, G.R. No. 109761, September 1, 1994.

221

VOL. 241, FEBRUARY 9, 1995 221

People vs. Bautista

and the complainants that her cohort, Rosa Abrero, could

send workers for employment abroad. She introduced Rosa
Abrero to Romeo Paguio. Both women assured the
departure of complainants to Taiwan within one month
from payment of the placement fee of P40,000.00 per
person. They even claimed that complainants would work
as factory workers for a monthly salary of $850.00 per
person. Moreover, it was appellant who informed Romeo
Paguio that complainants' scheduled trip to Taiwan would
be on October 10, 1991, instead of the original departure
date of September 25, 1991, due to some problems on their
visas and travel documents.
Her close association with Rosa Abrero is further
strengthened by the Acknowledgment Receipt, dated
October 11, 1991, which was prepared by Romeo Paguio for
the protection of complainants. The receipt reads:

"ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT
     P100,000.00                       October 11, 1991
     
     RECEIVED FROM: ROMEO PAGUIO, the amount of
ONE
HUNDRED THOUSAND (P100,000.00) PESOS,
Philippine Currency,
representing the payment (of) plane ticket, visa and other
travel
documents.
CONFORME:     /
    By:
(Sgd.) ROMEO   (Sgd.) MRS. ANNIE
PAGUIO BAUTISTA
    c/o Rosa Abrero
SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF:
(Sgd.) Anastacio Amor   Remigio Fortes
     Dominador Costales"

Said receipt shows that appellant collected the P100,000.00

for and in behalf of Rosa Abrero, and bolsters Romeo
Paguio's allegation that he gave P20,000.00 to Rosa Abrero,
while the rest was received by appellant. Notably, in its
Decision, dated February 14, 1992, the trial court observed:
222

222 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Bautista

"The denial(s) made by the accused of any participation in the

recruitment of the complainants do not persuade. The evidence at
hand shows that she acknowledged in writing the receipt of
P100,000.00 from witness Romeo Paguio who was all along
representing the complainants in securing employment for them
in Taiwan. Her denial of having actually received the money in
the sum of P100,000.00, the receipt of which she voluntarily
signed is not convincing. By her own admission, she is a
restaurant operator. In other words, she is a business woman. As
such, she ought to know the consequences in signing any receipt.
That she signed Exh. "A" only goes to show that fact, as claimed
by Romeo Paguio, that she actually received the same."

It is uncontroverted that appellant and Rosa Abrero are not 10

authorized or licensed to engage in recruitment activities.
Despite the absence of such license or authority, appellant
participated in the recruitment of complainants. Since
there are at least three (3) victims in this case, appellant is
correctly held
11
criminally liable for illegal recruitment in
large scale.
We shall now discuss appellant's culpability under the
Revised Penal Code, specifically Article 315 thereof,
inasmuch as her conviction for offenses under the Labor
Code does not
12
avert punishment for offenses punishable by
other laws.
The elements of estafa are as follows: (1) that the
accused defrauded another (a) by abuse of confidence, or (b)
by means of deceit; and (2) that damage or prejudice

/
capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended
party or third party.
In the case at bench, it is crystal clear that complainants
were deceived by appellant and Rosa Abrero into believing
that there are, indeed, jobs waiting for them in Taiwan.
The assurances given by these two (2) women made
complainants part with whatever resources they have, in
exchange for what they thought was a promising job
abroad. Thus, they sold their carabaos, mortgaged or sold
their parcels of land and even contracted loans

____________

10 Certification, dated January 9, 1992, of the Philippine Overseas

Employment Administration (POEA) marked as Exhibit "B"; Original
Records, p. 33.
11 See Article 38 of the Labor Code.
12 People vs. Turda, G.R. Nos. 97044-46, July 6,1994, 233 SCRA 702,
citing People vs. Alvarez, 45 Phil. 472, 478-479 (1923).

223

VOL. 241, FEBRUARY 9, 1995 223

People vs. Bautista

to raise the much needed money, the P40,000.00 placement

fee, required of them by accused and Rosa Abrero.
The penalty for estafa depends on the amount
defrauded. Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code provides:
"the penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period
to prision mayor in its minimum period (or imprisonment
ranging from 4 years, 2 months and 1 day to 8 years), if the
amount of the fraud is over P12,000.00 but does not exceed
P22,000.00 pesos, and if such amount exceeds the latter
sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be
imposed in its maximum period (6 years, 8 months and 21
days to 8 years), adding one year for each additional
P10,000.00 pesos; but the total penalty which may be
imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such case, and in
connection with the accessory penalties which may be
imposed and for the purpose of the other provisions of this
Code, the penalty shall be termed prision mayor or
reclusion temporal, as the case may be."
The amount defrauded in each estafa case (Criminal
Case Nos. 92-102378, 92-102379 and 92-102380) is
P40,000.00. As prescribed by Article 315, supra, the
penalty should be imposed in the maximum period (6 years,
8 months and 21 days to 8 years) plus one (1) year, there
being only one (1) P 10,000.00 in excess of P22,000.00.
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum /
 penalty should be taken from the aforesaid maximum
period, while the minimum term of the indeterminate
penalty shall be within the range of the penalty next lower
in degree, that is—prision correccional in its minimum and
medium periods which has a duration of 6 months, 1 day to
4 years and 2 months.
Considering the foregoing, the appellate court correctly
imposed the indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and
two (2) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to nine
(9) years of prision mayor, as maximum.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of the
Court of Appeals, finding appellant ANITA BAUTISTA
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of Illegal
Recruitment in Large Scale (Criminal Case No. 92-102377)
and Estafa (Criminal Case Nos. 92-102378, 92-102379 and
92-102380) is AFFIRMED. No Costs.

224

224 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Bautista

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa (C.J., Chairman), Bidin, Regalado and

Mendoza, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed.

Note.—Receipt of payments after the expiration of the

license for services rendered before does not constitute
illegal recruitment for purposes of criminal prosecution.
(Aquino vs. Court of Appeals, 204 SCRA 240 [1991])

—o0o—

225

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.