People V Saley

18. PEOPLE VS.
SALEY ISSUE: Can Saley be convicted of both estafa and illegal recruitment in
[G.R. No. 121179. July 2, 1998.] the various cases filed against her?
RULING: YES.
Topic: GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SPECIAL PENAL LAWS
Petitioner: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES Illegal recruitment is committed when two elements concur:
Respondent: ANTONINE B. SALEY a.k.a ANNIE B. SALEY 1) That the offender has no valid license or authority required by
Ponente: VITUG, J. law to enable one to lawfully engage in recruitment and
placement of worker; and
FACTS: 2) That the offender undertakes either any activity within the
meaning of recruitment and placement de��ned under Article
This case involves illegal recruiters who issue forged tourist visas to 13(b), or any prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34.
aspiring overseas contract workers. These aspiring workers pay huge
exorbitant “placement” fees for nothing really since they find themselves The prosecution was able to prove by overwhelming evidence that
unable to leave for their supposed country of employment or, if ever appellant did represent herself as being able to get for the aspiring
they are able to, soon find themselves unceremoniously repatriated. overseas contract workers good-paying jobs abroad. Appellant was thus
Saley seeks a reversal of the verdict finding her guilty of 11 counts of able to demand and receive various amounts from the applicants. The
estafa and 6 counts of illegal recruitment, one committed on a large claim that appellant did not categorically represent herself as a licensed
scale. All of the cases were consolidated at the instance of the recruiter, or that she merely helped the complainants secure "tourist
prosecution. visas," could not make her less guilty of illegal recruitment, it being
enough that he or she gave the impression of having had the authority to
In her defense, Saley said that she merely assisted the complainants in recruit workers for deployment abroad.
their overseas applications. She used to be a liaison officer in a
recruitment agency and would submit to POEA contracts for processing Altogether, the evidence against appellant has established beyond any
job orders for applicants. When the licensed agency closed, she went to discernible shadow of doubt that appellant is indeed guilty of illegal
Baguio to buy and sell vegetables and flowers. Even then, she would still recruitment on various counts. Being neither a licensee nor a holder of
assist applicants by recommending licensed agencies (Dynasty Travels authority to recruit, appellant must suffer under Article 39(c) of the
and Tours and Mannings International). From this activity she would Labor Code the penalty of imprisonment of not less than four years nor
derive commission. more than eight years or a fine of not less than P20,000.00 nor more
than P100,000.00 or both such imprisonment and fine, at the discretion
The trial court did not believe her alibi and found her guilty, giving her of the court. In imposing the penalty, the provisions of the Revised Penal
respective sentences for each of the 17 cases filed against her. She filed a Code on the application of the circumstances that could modify the
motion for reconsideration and was denied hence this appeal where she criminal liability of an accused cannot be considered, these provisions
maintains her innocence. being inapplicable to special laws.
Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, whenever the offense is the fact that the amount in excess of P22,000.00 provided for by Article
punishable by a special law, the court shall impose on the accused an 315 of the Revised Penal Code is less than P10,000.00). Applying the
indeterminate sentence, "the maximum term of which shall not exceed Indeterminate Sentence Law, and there being no attending
the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less than circumstances, appellant shall bear, the indeterminate penalty of one (1)
the minimum term prescribed by the same." Accordingly, in imposing year, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days of prision correccional
the penalty of four (4) years to six (6) years on appellant for each of the medium as minimum penalty to six (6) years, eight (8) months and
five cases of illegal recruitment, the trial court has acted correctly. twenty-one (21) days of prison mayor minimum as maximum penalty
for each offense. In addition, appellant should pay the five (5) victims the
Conviction for these various offenses under the Labor Code does not bar amount of P25,000.00 each as actual damages.
the punishment of the offender for estafa. Illegal recruitment is a malum
prohibitum offense where criminal intent of the accused is not necessary WHEREFORE, the Decision finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable
for conviction while estafa is malum in se which requires criminal intent doubt of the crimes of illegal recruitment, illegal recruitment in large
to warrant conviction. Under Article 315, paragraph 2(a), of the Revised scale and estafa is hereby AFFIRMED
Penal Code, the elements of the offense (estafa) are that (1) the accused
has defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit and DOCTRINE/S: Conviction for these various offenses under the Labor Code
(2) damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the does not bar the punishment of the offender for estafa. Illegal recruitment
offended party or third person. Clearly, these elements have sufficiently is a malum prohibitum offense where criminal intent of the accused is not
been shown in the cases under review. necessary for conviction while estafa is malum in se which requires
criminal intent to warrant conviction.
When the amount involved in the offense exceeds P22,000.00, the
penalty prescribed in Article 315 of the Code "shall be imposed in its
maximum period," adding one year for each additional P10,000.00
although the total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed 20
years. The maximum penalty should then be termed as prision mayor or
reclusion temporal as the case may be. In ��ne, the one year period,
whenever applicable, shall be added to the maximum period of the
principal penalty of anywhere from 6 years, 8 months and 21 days to 8
years.
Of the seven complainants for illegal recruitment in large scale, only five
of them filed separate charges of estafa against appellant. Accordingly,
appellant was only and could only be held liable for five counts of estafa
arising from the charge of illegal recruitment in large scale. Since
appellant collected the amount of P25,000.00 from each of the five (5)
victims, she must be held subject to the penalty in its maximum period
or prision mayor in its minimum period (not any higher on account of

People V Saley

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People V Saley

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People V Saley

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

18. PEOPLE VS.

You might also like