RITUALO VS PEOPLE

FACTS:

The case originated from two information charging Ritualo for Estafa and Illegal Recruitment.

Upon arraignment, Ritualo pleaded not guilty of both charges.

During the joint trial, Ritualo orally manifested in open court that earnest efforts were being undertaken
to settle the civil aspect thereof. Thus, with the conformity of the accused, herein petitioner Ritualo,
coupled with the latter's express waiver apropos the attachment of double jeopardy, the RTC ordered
the provisional dismissal of the two cases.

However, RTC revived the case because Ritualo reneged on her undertaking in her Kasunduan. During
trial, prosecutor presented 2 witnesses, Biacora who is also a victim and Blones who is an employee of
POEA.

BIACORA’S VERSION OF FACTS: Ritualo assured Biacora for employment in Australia. However, the
latter's visa was denied. Biacora then demanded for the return of his money. Ritualo promised to return
it, however, failed to do so.

BLONES’ EVIDENCE: with 2 certificates, identified Ritualo as unauthorized to recruit workers for
overseas employment.

Ritualo rebut, presented her opposed version of facts.

RITUALO’S VERSION OF FACTS: alleged that it was Biacora and Libuten who asked her to introduce to
Seraspe; that there was no agreement among themselves; that she is turnover the money to Seraspe;
that she only accompanied Biacora and received no payment; that even if she did not earn from the
transaction, she paid Biacora out of fear; and that she tried to find Seraspe but unable to locate her.

RTC AND CA RULING: GUILTY OF ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT AND ESTAFA

Ritualo was found the evidence presented by prosecution to be more credible and logical, thus, guilty of
Illegal Recruitment and Estafa

Ritualo filed for MR but was later on denied

Ritualo filed an appeal to the CA

CA affirmed the decision of the RTC, aside from the credibility of the testimony of the witnesses; found
Ritualo's acts of promising and assuring employment overseas falls within the ambit of recruitment and
placement under Migrant Workers Act (RA 8042) and that all elements of estafa is present in the case.

Penalty imposed by RTC was modified by the CA

Ritualo filed for a petition for review at SC praying the reversal of the decision on the grounds:
1. CA erred in affirming and modifying the decision of RTC despite the fact that evidence could not
support the conviction

(A) That there is no proof beyond reasonable doubt that she gave impression to Biacora that she can
send him for employment abroad and the witnesses failed to establish corroborated testimony proving
that she promised to Biacora employment;

(B) that she never receive money for the transaction to be liable of illegal recruitment

(C) maintain that the transaction was between Biacora and Seraspe;

(D) that her only participation was to accompany Biacora at the embassy

2. Assuming there is offense, CA erred in the terms of sentence in illegal recruitment

SC RULING: NO MERIT ON THE PETITION (AFFIRMED CONVICTION, MODIFIED PENALTY

1. There was no reason for setting aside the decision of RTC

Illegal recruitment is committed when two essential elements concur:

(1) that the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable him to lawfully
engage in the recruitment and placement of workers, and

(2) that the offender undertakes any activity within the meaning of "recruitment and placement"
defined under Article 13(b), or any prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code

Article 13(b) of the Labor Code defines recruitment and placement as:

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.

(A) In the case, the first element was present as evidence by the certification presented of Blones.
Second element was similarly present as testified by Biacora.

The claim of petitioner Ritualo that it was Anita Seraspe who was really the recruiter and the one who
profited from the subject illegal transaction holds no water. Petitioner Ritualo's act of receiving payment
from Biacora and issuing personal receipts therefor; of personally assisting Biacora to complete the
"necessary" documents; of failing to present evidence to corroborate her testimony despite several
opportunities given her by the trial court; of petitioner Ritualo having been positively identified as the
person who transacted with Biacora and promised the latter an overseas employment and who
personally received money from Biacora, all unhesitatingly point to petitioner Ritualo as the culprit.
 (B) reject the contention.

In the first place, it has been abundantly shown that she really received the monies from Biacora.
Secondly, even without consideration for her services, she still engaged in recruitment activities, since it
was satisfactorily shown that she promised overseas employment to Biacora. And, more importantly,
Sec. 6 of Republic Act No. 8042 does not require that the illegal recruitment be done for profit.

Tried to inject reasonable doubt to the RTC for non- presentation of Biacora's wife as witness

- The prosecution is entitled to conduct its own case and to decide what witnesses to call to support
its charges. The defense posture that the non-presentation of the wife of Biacora constitutes
suppression of evidence favorable to petitioner Ritualo is fallacious. In fact, the same line of reasoning
can be used against petitioner Ritualo. If the defense felt that the testimony of Biacora's wife would
support her defense, what she could and should have done was to call her (Biacora's wife) to the stand
as her own witness. One of the constitutional rights of the accused is "to have compulsory process to
secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf." And, in the same vein,
since petitioner Ritualo is setting the cloak of liability on Seraspe's shoulder, she (petitioner Ritualo)
could and should have had the former subpoenaed as well. The prosecution committed no fatal error in
dispensing with the testimony of Biacora's wife.

Ill motive to testify against Ritualo

Biacora, the private complainant in this case, did not harbor any ill motive to testify falsely against
petitioner Ritualo. The latter failed to show any animosity or ill feeling on the part of Biacora that could
have motivated him to falsely accuse her of the crimes charged. It would be against human nature and
experience for strangers to conspire and accuse another stranger of a most serious crime just to mollify
their hurt feelings.

The totality of the evidence in the case at bar, when scrutinized and taken together, leads to no other
conclusion than that petitioner Ritualo engaged in recruiting and promising overseas employment to
Felix Biacora under the above-quoted Sec. 6 of Republic Act No. 8042 vis - Ã -vis Article 13(b) of the
Labor Code. Hence, she cannot now feign ignorance of the consequences of her unlawful acts.

2.this Court clarifies that the penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals - a sentence of 12 years
imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00 - is partly incorrect, as petitioner Ritualo is a non-licensee.

Under Sec. 7(a) of Republic Act No. 8042, simple illegal recruitment is punishable by 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).
Applying the provisions of Section 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence law, however, the correct penalty
that should have been imposed upon petitioner Ritualo is imprisonment for the period of eight (8) years
and one (1) day, as minimum, to twelve (12) years, as maximum.52 The imposition of a fine of
P500,000.00 is also in order.

With respect to the criminal charge of estafa, this Court likewise affirms the conviction of petitioner
Ritualo for said crime. The same evidence proving petitioner Ritualo's criminal liability for illegal
recruitment also established her liability for estafa. It is settled that a person may be charged and
convicted separately of illegal recruitment under Republic Act No. 8042 in relation to the Labor Code,
and estafa under Art. 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code.

The offense of illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum where the criminal intent of the accused is not
necessary for conviction, while estafa is malum in se where the criminal intent of the accused is
crucial for conviction. Conviction for offenses under the Labor Code does not bar conviction for
offenses punishable by other laws. Conversely, conviction for estafa under par. 2(a) of Art. 315 of the
Revised Penal Code does not bar a conviction for illegal recruitment under the Labor Code. It follows
that one's acquittal of the crime of estafa will not necessarily result in his acquittal of the crime of
illegal recruitment in large scale, and vice versa.

Both elements of the crime were established in this case, namely, (a) petitioner Ritualo defrauded
complainant by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit; and (b) complainant Biacora suffered
damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation as a result. Biacora parted with his money upon
the prodding and enticement of petitioner Ritualo on the false pretense that she had the capacity to
deploy him for employment in Australia. In the end, Biacora was neither able to leave for work overseas
nor did he get his money back, thus causing him damage and prejudice. Hence, the conviction of
petitioner Ritualo of the crime of estafa should be upheld.

Computing the penalty for the crime of Estafa provided in Art 315 RPC, the proper penalty to be
imposed upon petitioner Ritualo is the maximum term of prision correccional maximum to prision
mayor minimum. But considering that the amount defrauded exceeded Twenty-Two Thousand Pesos
(P22,000.00), per the same provision, the prescribed penalty is not only imposed in its maximum period,
but there is imposed an incremental penalty of one (1) year imprisonment for every Ten Thousand Pesos
(P10,000.00) in excess of the cap of Twenty-Two Thousand Pesos (P22,000.00).

thus, the prison term to be imposed upon petitioner Ritualo vis - Ã -vis the crime of Estafa is as follows:
the minimum term should be anywhere within six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and two
(2) months of prision correccional; while the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence should be
within the range of six (6) years, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days to eight (8) years of prision
mayor considering that the amount involved exceeds P22,000.00, plus an added five (5) years, as there
are five (5) increments of P10,000.00 over the cap of P22,000.00.

With the foregoing submission of Biacora, out of the amount of Eighty Thousand Pesos (P80,000.00),
only Twenty-One Thousand Pesos (P21,000.00) remains unpaid. Accordingly, the civil liability of
petitioner Ritualo is now merely Twenty-One Thousand Pesos (P21,000.00)