G.R. No.

207811, June 01, 2016

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DELIA MOLINA Y

CABRAL, Accused-Appellants.

DECISION

PERALTA, J.:

This is an appeal from the Decision1 dated December 14, 2012 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) affirming with modification the Decision2 dated May 31, 2010 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 143, Makati City, in two cases, Criminal Case
No. 07-1399 and Criminal Case No. 07-3108 against appellant Delia Molina for the
crimes of illegal recruitment in a large scale and illegal recruitment, respectively.

The facts follow.

Three informations were filed against appellant alleging the following:

chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

In Criminal Case No. 07-1399 for illegal recruitment in a large scale:

chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
That in or about and sometime between the months of
April 2006 and June 2006, in the City of Makati,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, being authorized by
the Department of Labor and Employment to recruit
workers for overseas employment, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously recruit and
promise complainant, namely:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Anthony Galiste: P75,000.00
Romulo Nones: P75,000.00
Elisa Escobar: P75,000.00
Geraldine Cariño: P75,000.00
Diony Aragaon: P75,000.00
Maribel Rosimo: P75,000.00
Gilbert Rosimo: P75,000.00
EricValdez: P75,000.00
for overseas job placement and in consideration of said
promise, said complainants paid and delivered to
accused sums of money as placement/processing fees
and having failed to actually deploy said complainants
without any valid reason and without the latter's fault,
the said accused failed to reimburse the expenses
incurred by the said private complainants in connection
 with the documentation and processing of their papers
for purposes of their deployment, to the damage and
prejudice of the above-named complainants.

Contrary to law.
In Criminal Case No. 07-3108 for illegal recruitment in a large scale
with another accused Vincent Zulueta (the case against the latter was
sent to the archives as he was at large):
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
That in or about the months of April and May 2006, in
the City of Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines, a place
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, conspiring and confederating
together and both of them mutually helping and aiding
one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully,
and feloniously recruit and promise employment/job
placement to RICHARD COLLAMAR, CAROL
COLLAMAR, and CECILLE M. BARTOLOME as
factory workers in Korea, and in consideration of said
promise collected from complainants the total amount
of P225,000.00 as placement/processing fees and both
accused despite receipt of the fees from complainants
failed to actually deploy said complainants without
valid reasons and without the workers' fault, and despite
demand to reimburse expenses to said complainants,
thus, in large scale amounting to economic sabotage.

Contrary to law.
In Criminal Case No. 08-066 for illegal recruitment:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
That in or about the period from April to June 2006, in
the City of Makati, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, being then authorized by the Philippine
Overseas Employment Administration to recruit
workers for overseas employment, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously recruit and
promise complainants ROSEMARIE A. RESPUETO
and LEO JOHN M. ALDAY overseas employment as
factory workers in South Korea, and in consideration of
said promise, complainants paid and delivered to
accused sums of money as placement/processing fees,
and having failed to actually deploy complainants
without any valid reason and without the latter's fault,
the accused failed to reimburse the expenses incurred by
complainants in connection with the documentation and
processing of their papers for purposes of deployment,
in violation of the aforecited law.

Contrary to law.
At the respective arraignment of the cases mentioned above, appellant pleaded not
guilty to each of the charges. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.

The following are the factual findings of the CA based on the trial conducted in the
RTC:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Re: Criminal Case Number 07-1399.

The following persons testified for the prosecution: Elisa Escobar

(hereafter, "Escobar"); Geraldine Cariño (hereafter, "Cariño"); and
Diony Aragon (hereafter, "Aragon"). The evidence for the Prosecution
is summarized thus: sometime in April 2006, Escobar went to the
office of the Southern Cohabite Landbase Management Corporation
(hereafter, "SCLMC") located at Makati City to meet Zulueta, an agent
of the SCLMC. Zulueta introduced Escobar to accused-appellant.
Accused-appellant told Escobar she will be employed as a factory
worker in Korea within 3 months from payment of the P75,000.00
placement fee. Escobar tendered the said amount to Zulueta at the
SCLMC office evidenced by the cash voucher dated 28 April 2006
signed by SCLAMCOR (Southern Cotabato Landbase Management
Corporation). The cash voucher acknowledged receipt of the
P75,000.00 from Escobar. It also stated that the P75,000.00 was for
payment of the processing fee for Korea. A month after paying the
placement fee, SCLMC informed Escobar she had to undergo Korean
Language Training. Escobar complied. When Escobar did not hear
from accused-appellant for another month, she decided to withdraw her
placement fee. Accused-appellant failed to return her money, thus
Escobar filed the suit for illegal recruitment.

Cariño testified she came to know accused-appellant sometime in April

2006, when Zulueta brought her to the office of the SCLMC at Makati
City. Zulueta and accused-appellant told Cariño she will be employed
as a factory worker in Korea within 3 months from payment of the
P75,000.00 placement fee. Cariño tendered the said amount to Zulueta
at the SCLMC office evidenced by the cash voucher dated 28 April
2006 signed by SCLAMCOR. The cash voucher acknowledged receipt
of the P75,000.00 from Cariño. It also stated that the P75,000.00 was
for payment of the processing fee for Korea. Accused-appellant was
beside Zulueta when the latter gave the cash voucher to Cariño. Cariño
was then asked to submit a medical examination and undergo Korean
Language Training to expedite her application. Three months after
complying with the requirements, Cariño was still not deployed for
employment abroad. Cariño then filed this case against accused-
appellant.

Sometime in 2006, Aragon was convinced by his friends to apply at

the SCLMC. Zulueta brought him to the SCLMC office. Zulueta
introduced Aragon to the accused-appellant. Accused-appellant told
Aragon he will be employed as a factory worker in Korea within 3
months from payment of the P75,000.00 placement fee. Aragon
tendered the said amount to Zulueta at the SCLMC office evidenced by
the cash voucher acknowledged receipt of the P75,000.00 from
Aragon. It also stated that the P75,000.00 was for payment of the
processing fee for Korea. Three months after paying the placement fee,
Aragon was not deployed for Korea. Aragon then asked accused-
appellant to return his P75,000.00. Accused-appellant told Aragon she
would give him P50,000.00, while Zulueta will give him P25,000.00.
Aragon filed the case because accused-appellant failed to return the
P75,000.00.3

Re: Criminal Case Number 07-3108

Cecille Bartolome (hereafter, "Bartolome") testified for the

prosecution. The evidence of the Prosecution is summarized, thus:
Bartolome met accused-appellant at the SCLMC office on 27 April
2006. In the office, accused-appellant and Zulueta told Bartolome and
her companions (namely Carol Collamar, Sosen Fernandez, and
Michelle Fernandez) they would be deployed to Korea as factory
workers within three months from payment of the P75,000.00
placement fee each. Bartolome tendered the said amount to Zulueta at
the SCLMC office evidenced by the cash voucher acknowledged
receipt of the P75,000.00 from Bartolome. It also stated that the
P75,000.00 was for payment of the processing fee for Korea. In July
2006, Bartolome and her companions went back to the SCLMC office
to inquire about the progress of their application. Accused-appellant
told Bartolome to wait. Bartolome was still not employed by
November 2006, so she decided to withdraw her money from accused-
appellant. Accused-appellant did not return the P75,000.00, so
Bartolome reported the matter to the National Bureau of Investigation
(hereafter, "NBI"). The NBI arrested accused-appellant on 5 January
2007. Accused-appellant issued PNB check number 7381 in favor of
Bartolome. The check bounced for being drawn against a closed
account.4

Re: Criminal Case Number 08-066

Leo John Alday (hereafter, "Alday") and Rosemarie Respueto

(hereafter, "Respueto") testified for the Prosecution. The evidence of
the Prosecution is summarized, thus: sometime in April 2006, Alday
went to the SCLMC to look for employment abroad. At the SCLMC
office, Alday met with Rolando Salilin (hereafter, "Salilin"), an agent
of the SCLMC. Salilin promised Alday he will be employed as factory
worker in Korea with a monthly salary of P80,000.00. Alday paid the
placement fee of P75,000.00. A month after paying the placement fee,
Alday was still not deployed for employment abroad. Alday thus filed
this case against accused-appellant.

Respuesto testified in May 2006, he went to the SCLMC to look for

employment abroad. At the SCLMC office, Respuesto met with Loreta
Gasi (hereafter, "Gasi"), an agent of the SCLMC. Gasi promised
 Respuesto she will be employed as factory worker in Korea with a
monthly salary of P80,000.00. Respueto paid the placement fee of
P90,000.00. Two months after paying the placement fee, Respueto was
still not deployed for employment abroad. In August 2006, Repuesto
decided to withdraw her money. Respuesto filed this case when
accused-appellant failed to return her
money.5ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
On the other hand, accused-appellant denied all the allegations against her and
presented the following defense:

The SCLMC is a recruitment agency, registered with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) and the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration
(POEA). Accused-appellant is the President of the SCLMC. The SCLMC employed
only three staff members, i.e. Amelita Plabay (secretary), Pedrito and Leonora (liaison
officers). Zulueta is not connected with the SCLMC but he was at the SCLMC office
because he tried to convince accused-appellant to be a distributor of Presense Green
Tea. Accused-appellant denied all the allegations against her. She denied meeting all
of the private complainants prior to the filing of the case. She added SCLMC could
not have conducted recruitment activities in April and May 2006 because its license to
conduct business was temporarily suspended by the POEA during that period. The
suspension was lifted on July 31, 2006. Accused-appellant surmised private
complainants filed cases against her upon the prodding of Alan Basa. She testified
when she was arrested by the NBI, Alan Basa asked her for P300,000.00, in exchange
for the dropping of the complaints against her. When accused-appellant refused to
give Alan Basa the money, the latter made sure complainants filed the cases against
her.

The RTC, on May 31, 2010, promulgated the Decision convicting accused-appellant
in Criminal Case No. 07-1399 for large scale illegal recruitment and Criminal Case
Number 07-3108 for illegal recruitment. Accused-appellant was, however, acquitted
in Criminal Case No. 08-066. The dispositive portion of the said Decision reads:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered
finding accused DELIA MOLINA Y CABRA GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the crimes charged and she is hereby sentenced as
follows:

a. In Crim. Case No. 07-1399, she is sentenced to suffer life

imprisonment, to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php
500,000.00), without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency,
and to indemnify the offended party Elisa Escobar, Geraldine Cariño,
and Diony Castillo Aragon the amount of Seventy-Five Thousand
Pesos (Php 75,000.00) each as actual damages and the costs;

b. In Criminal Case No. 07-3108, to suffer the indeterminate penalty of

SIX (6) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of prision correccional, as
minimum, to SEVEN (7) YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS and
TWENTY-ONE (21) DAYS of prision mayor as maximum and to
indemnify the offended party Cecille Bartolome the amount of
Seventy- Five Thousand Pesos (Php 75,000.00) and the costs;
 In Criminal Case No. 08-066, she is hereby ACQUITTED for
insufficiency of evidence.

SO ORDERED.
Accused-appellant filed an appeal before the CA and the latter, on December 14,
2012, rendered a Decision affirming the RTC with modification, the dispositive
portion of which reads, as follows:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision convicting accused-appellant in
Criminal Case Number 07-1399 (for large scale illegal recruitment)
and Criminal Case Number 07-3108 (for illegal recruitment) is
AFFIRMED with Modification:

1. Criminal Case Number 07-1399 (for large scale illegal recruitment):

accused-appellant is sentenced to life imprisonment, pay a fine of
P500,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency,
and to indemnify the offended party Elisa Escobar, Geraldine Cariño,
and Fiony Castillo Aragon the amount of P75,000.00 each as actual
damages, and the costs;

2. In Criminal Case Number 07-3108 (for illegal recruitment),

accused-appellant is sentenced to imprisonment of six (6) years and
one (1) day as minimum to 12 years as maximum, and to pay a fine of
P200,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency,
and to indemnify Bartolome the amount of P75,000.00, and the costs.

SO ORDERED.
Hence, the present appeal.

Accused-appellant insists that the prosecution failed to prove the elements of the
crime charged and that her guilt has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

The appeal must fail.

All the elements of the crime of illegal recruitment-in large scale are present, namely:
(1) the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable him to
lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers; (2) the offender undertakes
any of the activities within the meaning of "recruitment and placement" under Article
13 (b)6 of the Labor Code, or any of the prohibited practices enumerated under Article
34 of the said Code (now Section 6 of R.A. 8042); and (3) the offender committed the
same against three (3) or more persons, individually or as a group. More importantly,
all the said elements have been established beyond reasonable doubt.

It was accused-appellant herself who testified that SCLMC did not have authority to
operate its business on April and May, 2006, covering the dates that are alleged in the
Informations filed against her, proving that the first element of the crime is present.
She claimed the SCLMC's license was temporarily suspended by the POEA. during
the alleged date when the crimes were committed and that the suspension was lifted
on July 31, 2006. Accused-appellant further admitted that the SCLMC had no
authority to recruit workers for Korea because it had no job order to do so, thus:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Atty. Tacorda: I noticed, Madam Witness, that this Job Order are all
for Malaysia. Do you have any job order for Korea?

Witness: We don't have Job Order from Korea, ma'am.

Atty. Tacorda: Have you ever had job order from Korea before July
2006?

Witness: We don't have job order from Korea because only 7 agencies
are allowed to deploy workers to Korea.

Atty. Tacorda: So are you saying that Southern Cotabato Landbase

Management Corporation is not allowed to recruit workers from Korea
for purposes of overseas employment?

Witness: Yes, ma'am.7ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

Without any authority, accused-appellant still engaged in recruitment activities by
offering and promising jobs, and collecting placement fees as testified to by private
complainants Escobar, Cariño and Aragon.8 Thus, the second element of the crime is
present. Article 13, par. (b) of the Labor Code, reads as follows:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
(b) "Recruitment and placement" refers to any act of canvassing,
enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring
workers, and includes referrals, contract services, promising and
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.
In this case, the prosecution was able to prove that accused-appellant was engaged in
the recruitment and placement of the private complainant as the accused was the one
who told the private complainants that they will be sent to Korea as factory workers
within three months from payment of the placement fees and that the placement fees
were made in the office of the SCLMC in the presence of the accused-appellant or on
her instruction.

Anent the third element, accused-appellant committed the illegal recruitment against
three or more persons, namely, Anthony Galiste, Romulo Nones, Elisa Escobar,
Geraldine Cariño, Diony Aragon, Maribel Rosimo, Gilbert Rosimo and Eric Valdez.

Petitioner was also properly found guilty of the crime of simple illegal recruitment,
there being one complainant and the concurrence of the two essential elements of
illegal recruitment, to wit:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
(a) the accused-appellant had no valid license or authority required by
law to enable her to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of
workers per her testimony that SCLMC did not have authority to
operate its business on April and May 2006 as its license was
temporarily suspended by the POBA at that particular time. 9 Accused-
 appellant further testified that SCLMC had no authority to recruit
workers for Korea because it had no job order for that purpose.10

(b) the accused-appellant engaged in recruitment and placement of

private complainant Bartolome when she told the, latter that she will be
sent to Korea as a factory worker after payment of the placement
fee11 which private complainant Bartolome paid in the office of the
SCLMC in the presence of accused-
12
appellant. ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Furthermore, it is worthy to emphasize that under Section 6 13 of Republic Act No.
8042, illegal recruitment is defined as including any person, whether a non-licensee,
non-holder, licensee or holder of authority. Thus, the contention of accused-appellant
that she was a holder of a license to operate as a recruiter during the alleged period
when the crimes were committed does not matter because she was still performing an
act considered to be an illegal recruitment by failing to reimburse the expenses
incurred by the private complainants. Under Section 6 (m) of R.A. No. 8042, failure
to reimburse expenses incurred by the workers in connection with his documentation
and processing for purposes of deployment, in cases where the deployment does not
actually take place without the worker's fault, is considered as performing illegal
recruitment.

It must also be noted that accused-appellant's defense of denial cannot overcome the
positive testimonies of the witnesses presented by the prosecution. As is well-settled
in this jurisdiction, greater weight is given to the positive identification of the accused
by the prosecution witnesses than the accused's denial and explanation concerning the
commission of the crime.14

The CA was also correct in modifying the penalty imposed by the RTC in Criminal
Case No. 07-3108. The RTC mistakenly imposed the indeterminate penalty of six (6)
months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to seven (7) years, eight
(8) months and twenty-one (21) days of prision mayor as maximum. Under Section 7
(a) of R.A. No. 8042, a person found guilty of illegal recruitment shall suffer the
penalty of imprisonment of not less than six (6) years and one (1) day but not more
than twelve (12) years, and a fine of not less than two hundred thousand pesos
(P200,000.00) nor more than five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00). Thus, the
penalty of imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to twelve (12)
years as maximum, and the payment of a fine of two hundred thousand pesos
(P200,000.00) as imposed by the CA is more in accordance with the law penalizing
the crime of simple illegal recruitment.chanrobleslaw

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED and the CA Decision dated December

14, 2012 of the Court of Appeals, affirming with modification the Decision dated
May 31, 2010 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 143, Makati City, in Criminal Case
No. 07-1399 and Criminal Case No. 07-3108,  against appellant Delia Molina for the
crimes of illegal recruitment in a large scale and illegal recruitment, respectively,
is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.cralawlawlibrary
Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Perez, Mendoza,* and Reyes, JJ.,
concur.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Endnotes:

*
 Designated Additional Member in lieu of Associate Justice Jose
Catral Mendoza, per Raffle dated October 1, 2014.
1
 Penned by Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela, with
Associate Justices Isaias P. Dicdican and Michael P. Elbinias
concurring; rollo, pp. 2-25.
2
 Penned by Presiding Judge Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles, CA rollo,
pp. 65-77.
3
Rollo, pp. 6-8.
4
Id. at 8-9.
5
Id. at 9-10.
6
 [A]ny 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 or placement.
7
 TSN, January 25, 2010, pp. 53-54.
8
 TSN, December 10, 2007, pp. 8-15; TSN, December 10, 2007, pp 35-
44; and TSN January 14, 2008, pp. 4-15.
9
 TSN, January 25, 2010, pp. 43-52.
10
 TSN, January 25, 2010, pp. 53-54.
11
 TSN, March 10, 2008, p. 35.
12
 TSN, March 10, 2008, pp. 36-39.
13
 Sec. 6. DEFINITIONS. - For purposes of this Act, illegal recruitment
shall mean any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting,
utilizing, hiring, procuring workers and includes referring, contact
services, promising or advertising for employment abroad, whether for
profit or not, when undertaken by a non-license or non-holder of
authority contemplated under Article 13 (f) of Presidential Decree No.
442, as amended, otherwise known as the Labor Code of the
Philippines. Provided, that such non-license or non-holder, who, in any
manner, offers or promises for a fee employment abroad to two or
more persons shall be deemed so engaged, it shall likewise include the
following acts, whether committed by any persons, whether a non-
licensee, non-holder, licensee or holder of authority.

(a) To charge or accept directly or indirectly any amount greater than

the specified in the schedule of allowable fees prescribed by the
Secretary of Labor and Employment, or to make a worker pay any
amount greater than that actually received by him as a loan or advance;

(b) To furnish or publish any false notice or information or document

in relation to recruitment or employment;

(c) To give any false notice, testimony, information or document or

commit any act of misrepresentation for the purpose of securing a
license or authority under the Labor Code;

(d) To induce or attempt to induce a worker already employed to quit

his employment in order to offer him another unless the transfer is
designed to liberate a worker from oppressive terms and conditions of
employment;

(e) To influence or attempt to influence any persons or entity not to

employ any worker who has not applied for employment through his
agency;

(f) To engage in the recruitment of placement of workers in jobs

harmful to public health or morality or to dignity of the Republic of the
Philippines;

(g) To obstruct or attempt to obstruct inspection by the Secretary of

Labor and Employment or by his duly authorized representative;

(h) To fail to submit reports on the status of employment, placement

vacancies, remittances of foreign exchange earnings, separations from
jobs, departures and such other matters or information as may be
required by the Secretary of Labor and Employment;

(i) To substitute or alter to the prejudice,of. the worker, employment

contracts approved and verified by the Department of Labor and
Employment from the time of actual signing thereof by the parties up
to and including the period of the expiration of the same without the
approval of the Department of Labor and Employment;

(j) For an officer or agent of a recruitment or placement agency to

become an officer or member of the Board of any corporation engaged
in travel agency or to be engaged directly on indirectly in the
management of a travel agency;

(k) To withhold or deny travel documents from applicant workers

before departure for monetary or financial considerations other than
those authorized under the Labor Code and its implementing rules and
regulations;

(l) Failure to actually deploy without valid reasons as determined by

the Department of Labor and Employment; and

(m) Failure to reimburse expenses incurred by the workers in

connection with his documentation and processing for purposes of
deployment, in cases where the deployment does not actually take
place without the worker's fault. Illegal recruitment when committed
by a syndicate or in large scale shall be considered as offense involving
economic sabotage.

Illegal recruitment is-deemed committed by a syndicate carried out by

a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring or confederating with
one another. It is deemed committed in large scale if committed against
three (3) or more persons individually or as a group.

The persons criminally liable for the above offenses are the principals,
accomplices and accessories. In case of juridical persons, the officers
having control, management or direction of their business shall be
liable.
14
People v. Gharbia, 369 Phil. 942-953 (1999).