FIRST DIVISION

February 26, 2020

G.R. No. 226140

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ANNA ESPIRITU AND ELLEN

MABBORANG,[*] ACCUSED, ISABEL RIOS Y CATAGBUI, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

DECISION

CAGUIOA, J:.

The case before the Court is an appeal of the Decision1 dated April 23, 2015 of the Court of Appeals
(CA) in CA G.R. CR-HC No. 06023 which affirmed with modification the Decision2 of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) in Criminal Case (CC) Nos. R-PSY-0900778-CR to R-PSY-0900786-CR dated
September 7, 2012 convicting accused-appellant Isabel Rios y Catagbui (Rios) as the principal in
Large Scale Illegal Recruitment penalized under Section 6(m)3 of Republic Act No. (RA) 8042 or the
Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 and eight counts of Estafa under Article 315(2)
(a)4 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).

Facts

The Information5 charging Rios for violation of RA 8042 in Criminal Case No. R-PSY-09-0078-CR
(Illegal Recruitment case), reads:

The undersigned State Prosecutor of the Department of Justice hereby accuses ISABEL RIOS, ANA
ESPIRITU and ELLEN MABBORANG, for violation of Section 6 specifically sub-sections letter (l)
and (m) of Republic Act No. 8042, otherwise known as the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos
Act of 1995, committed as follows:

That sometime during the period from July 2007 to December 2008 or thereabout, at J. Wardley
Building, San Juan Street, Pasay City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused being the owners, officers, employees of Green Pastures International Staffing
Incorporated ("Green Pastures") and engaged in the business of overseas recruitment as licensed
by the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency ("POEA"), did then and there willfully, unlawfully,
and criminally, with intent to defraud, promise employment and receive varying amounts as
placement and documentation fees from private complainants Liwayway M. Tiglao, Michael B.
Custodio, Marlone S. Papio, Eduardo N. Milanes, Elmer Q. de Mata, Rico H. Dacillo, Victoriano T.
Agcaoili, Jr., and Mylene U. Arevalo; and thereafter demand, on various occasions, placement and
documentation fees from said private complainants, but without valid reasons and through no fault of
said private complainants, accused fail to actually deploy them abroad; that despite repeated
demands to reimburse expenses incurred by private complainants in connection with their
documentation and processing for purposes of deployment, respondents fail and refuse and
continues to fail and refuse to reimburse the amounts received, to the damage and prejudice of
herein private complainants.

That the aforesaid acts of accused were committed against than (sic) three (3) persons namely,
Liwayway M. Tiglao, Michael B. Custodio, Marlone S. Papio, Eduardo N. Milanes, Elmer Q. de Mata,
Rico H. Dacillo, Victoriano T. Agcaoili, Jr., and Mylene U. Arevalo, thereby making such acts in large
scale, with accused employing deception and false representations as to theirr (sic) qualification,
license, authority and/or business transaction to make such placement for overseas work and to
actually deploy said private complainants.

CONTRARY TO LAW.6

In CC No. R-PSY-09-00779-CR for violation of Article 315(2)(a) of the RPC, the Information7 read:

That sometime during the period from July 2007 to December 2008 or thereabout, at J. Wardley
Building, San Juan Street, Pasay City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused, by means of deceit, fraudulent acts and false pretenses executed prior to or
simultaneous with the commission of the fraud, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and criminally
defraud and deceive private complainant ELMER DE MATA, and misrepresent themselves as
having the capacity to contract, enlist, and transport or actually deploy Filipino workers for
employment in Taiwan and Singapore; demand and receive from said private complainant de Mata
the total amount of NINETY THOUSAND PESOS (P90,000.00) as payment of private complainant
de Mata's application and processing fee, and by reason of the abovenamed (sic) accused
misrepresentation, false assurance and deceit, complainant de Mata was induced to part with and
deliver the said NINETY THOUSAND PESOS (P90,000.00) to herein accused; that contrary to the
representations and assurances of accused, they fail and continue to fail to actually deploy said
private complainant; that due to the unjustified failure to actually deploy private complainant de Mata
through no fault of the latter, said private complainant demanded the return of the amount of
NINETY THOUSAND PESOS (P90,000.00); but despite repeated demands, accused fail and refuse
and still fail and refuse to return the same, to the damage and prejudice of herein complainant
ELMER DE MATA.

CONTRARY TO LAW.8

Similarly-worded Informations for Estafa were issued involving the seven other private complainants
in the Illegal Recruitment case. The Estafa cases and private complainants are summarized in the
table below:

Docket Number Private Complainant Amount

CC No. R-PSY-0900779-CR9 Elmer De Mata (De Mata) P90,000.00

CC No. R-PSY-0900780-CR10 Victoriano Agcaloili, Jr. (Agcaoili) P50,000.00

CC No. R-PSY-0900781-CR11 Eduardo Milanes (Milanes) P95,000.00

CC No. R-PSY-0900782-CR12 Rico Dacillo (Dacillo) P95,000.00

CC No. R-PSY-0900783-CR13 Liwayway Tiglao (Tiglao) P80,000.00

CC No. R-PSY-0900784-CR14 Michael Custodio (Custodio) P100,000.00

CC No. R-PSY-0900785-CR15 Marlone Papio (Papio) P145,000.00

CC No. R-PSY-0900786-CR16 Mylene Arevalo (Arevalo) P60,000.00

Rios pleaded "not guilty" upon arraignment.17 The case proceeded only against Rios as accused
Anna Espiritu (Espiritu) and Ellen Mabborang (Mabborang) were at-large.
On November 7, 2009, before the trial on the merits started, Rios submitted a Confession of
Judgment18 to the RTC on the civil aspect of the Estafa cases with regard to complainants Tiglao (in
the amount of P70,000.00), Dacillo (P70,000.00), Milanes (P80,000.00), Papio (P55,000.00) and
Custodio (P60,000.00). Rios admitted that Green Pastures International Staffing Services, Corp.
(Green Pastures) had received the said amounts from them. However, Rios did not admit any
liability regarding complainants De Mata, Arevalo and Agcaoili. Rios reasoned that the latter did not
pay any money to her or to Green Pastures but dealt directly with Mabborang, a stranger to the
agency.

The RTC approved and granted the Confession of Judgment in its Order19 dated February 8, 2010
and a Writ of Execution20 was issued. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.

The prosecution's version of events was summarized by the CA, as follows:

Version of the Prosecution

To prove its case, the prosecution presented the following witnesses: Elmer Q. De Mata, Mylene
Arevalo, Liwayway M. Tiglao, Rico H. Dacillo, Eduardo Milanes, Michael B. Custodio, and Marlone
Papio.

Elmer Q. De Mata ("Elmer", for brevity) met accused-appellant Isabel Rios ("Isabel", for brevity),
owner of a recruitment agency in U.N. Ave., through accused Ellen Mabborang ("Ellen", for brevity).
Ellen had informed him that Isabel owns a recruitment agency (Green Pastures International Staffing
Services Corp.) deploying people for Taiwan. Sometime in November 2007, Ellen brought Elmer to
Isabel's agency located at 1991 Jayward Lee Building, Buendia, Pasay City wherein Elmer was
required to fill up an application form and bio-data. Thereafter, Ellen asked Elmer to submit a
medical certificate and required him to pay the amount of Php4,000.00 for the medical examination.
After undergoing medical examination, Ellen asked Elmer to pay the placement fee after one week,
which the latter complied with by initially paying the amount of Php40,000.00. Sometime in
December 2007, Elmer was asked to give the full payment and so he paid the remaining balance of
Php50,000.00 to Ellen. After payment in full of the placement fee, Elmer regularly visited the agency
of Isabel together with Ellen to follow up his application until June 2008 when he was required to
undergo another medical examination because the first medical certificate had already expired. Ellen
then asked Php4,000.00 from Elmer for said medical examination. Two months after the second
medical examination, Elmer confronted Ellen if she really gave the money to Isabel. Ellen responded
in the affirmative. However, Elmer panicked and thought that Ellen was just cheating him so he
decided to go to the POEA to file a complaint. At the POEA, Elmer found out that the agency of
Isabel is of good standing but the job order for Taiwan was only good for two persons and not for ten
persons as claimed by Ellen. When Elmer went to the agency of Isabel to withdraw his money since
Ellen failed to reimburse him the amount, he was shocked to learn that Ellen only remitted
Php35,000.00 to Isabel's agency. Elmer likewise testified that no receipt was issued by Ellen for the
payments he made to her and that he spent a total of Php90,000.00.

Mylene Arevalo ("Mylene", for brevity) knew accused-appellant Isabel and the two other accused,
Ellen and Ana Espiritu ("Ana", for brevity). Accused-appellant Isabel is the owner of Abundant Care
International Staffing Services Corp. while Ellen was a sub-agent of said agency. Sometime in 2007,
Mylene applied for employment in an electronic company in Taiwan with Green Pastures.
Accordingly, she was required by the personnel to fill up application forms. In view of her application,
Mylene paid Php60,000.00 to Ellen as her placement fee. But despite payment of the placement fee
and promises that Mylene would be deployed in December 2008, said promise of deployment to
Taiwan never came to be. No receipt was issued to her by Ellen for the payment of the placement
fee but the same was witnessed by "Kuya Marlon" who was also paying his placement fee at that
time. However, a certification from KAMPI (Kabalikat ng Migranteng Filipino) was issued to Mylene
to prove that she attended a Pre-Departure Orientation Seminar (PDOS) sponsored by the Green
Pastures International Staffing Services.

Liwayway Tiglao ("Liwayway") knew accused-appellant Isabel Rios as well as accused Ellen
Maborang and Ana Espiritu. Isabel is the Manager of Green Pastures International Staffing Services
Corp ("Green Pastures"). Sometime in December 2007, Liwayway applied for a job as factory worker
in Taiwan with Green Pastures. After Isabel and Ana reminded her to pay the placement fee,
Liwayway paid the amount of Php90,000.00 to Isabel. No receipt was issued to Liwayway for the
payment of said placement fee. Liwayway was promised to be deployed on December 29, 2007 to
Taiwan after she had signed forms, undergone physical examination, and attended the Pre-
Departure Orientation Seminar (PDOS). However, such promise of deployment did not materialize.
Worse, no reimbursement was made relative to the placement fee she paid was made. On cross-
examination, Liwayway clarified that it was Ana Espiritu who brought her to Green Pastures.

Rico Dacillo ("Rico") came to know accused-appellant Isabel Rios through accused Ana Espiritu.
Ana was the one who referred him to Green Pastures and was also the one who handled his
application. He applied as factory worker in Singapore with an expected income of Php20,000.00
with free lodging. In connection with his application for employment abroad, he paid the sum
Php95,000.00 as placement fee but no receipt was issued to him. However, Allied Bank Check No.
0011416 dated July 2, 2008 drawn under Account No. 003233-00582-2 in the amount of
Php95,000.00 was issued to Rico allegedly representing his reimbursement when the agency failed
to deploy him to Taiwan. Said check was allegedly given by Jenna, secretary of Green Pastures.
Nevertheless, Rico still remained unreimbursed since said check was drawn against a closed
account.

Eduardo Milanes ("Eduardo") came to know accused-appellant Isabel through accused Ana Espiritu.
On January 2, 2008, Eduardo applied as a factory worker for Singapore with Isabel's agency, Green
Pastures. Ana told Eduardo that he would be able to leave immediately after he pays the placement
fee of Php95,000.00. Eduardo then gave Ana the placement fee of Php95,000.00. However, no
receipt was issued to him. After paying said placement fee, Ana assured Eduardo that he would
leave in the third week of January 2008. But he was never deployed after said date. Eduardo
demanded the withdrawal of the placement fee that he paid. However, he was not able to recover
the same. Thus, Eduardo was constrained to file a case before the Department of Justice. After filing
a case, Eduardo received a text message asking him to withdraw the case filed and to go to 1311
Quirino Avenue cor. General Luna Extension, Paco, Manila. When Eduardo went to said address, he
saw the staff of the agency who promised that Eduardo would be given a partial refund. In view of
said promise, a claim stub for refund with Green Pastures was handed to him indicating that he
could get his refund on May 24, 2008. However, when said date arrived, no refund was given to him.

Michael Custodio ("Michael", for brevity) knew accused-appellant Isabel Rios as manager of Green
Pastures. On October 13, 2007, Ellen Maborang accompanied Michael to Green Pastures to apply
for overseas employment as a factory worker. Michael paid a total of Php140,000.00 as placement
fee to Ellen. Payment of Php70,000.00 was initially made for which Ellen executed an
acknowledgment receipt. Since Michael needed to pay the remaining balance, he was referred to E-
CASH PAYLITE to borrow money. Immediately after the loan of Michael was released by E-CASH
PAYLITE on November 27, 2008, he paid the remaining balance to Ellen. But no receipt was issued
to him. Michael was then promised to be deployed on December 05, 2008 but was not able to leave.
Thus, Michael decided to withdraw his application and demanded for reimbursement of his
placement fee. Two crossed checks. Allied Check Nos. 0011428 and 00111429 drawn under
Account No. 003233-00582-2 dated August 8, 2008 and July 21, 2008, respectively, were given to
Michael by Ellen in the amount of Php50,000.00 each. However, when Michael tried to encash the
checks before the drawee bank, he was informed that the subject account was already closed.
When Michael returned to the agency, he was promised that he would leave for deployment after
Chinese New Year in February 2009. When Michael was not able to leave after Chinese New Year,
the agency promised him again that he would leave after holy week. However, still he was not
deployed for employment.

Marlone Papio knew accused-appellant Isabel Rios and accused Ellen Maborang. On August 6,
2007, Marlone applied for overseas employment at Green Pastures. Ellen was the one who handled
his application, requiring him to pay the placement fee of Php145,000.00. Marlone paid the
placement fee of Php145,000.00 to Ellen. However, no receipt was issued to him. Since he was not
deployed abroad, he, together with Michael Custodio filed a case against the accused.21

After the prosecution rested its case, Rios filed a Demurrer to Evidence22 averring that the
prosecution's evidence had failed to prove that she violated Section 6, paragraphs (l) and (m) of RA
8042 and Article 315(2)(a) of the RPC. The RTC dismissed the Demurrer in its Order23 dated
December 29, 2010 and the trial proceeded.

The evidence for the defense, as summarized by the CA, is quoted as follows:

To refute the accusations leveled against the accused, the defense presented accused-appellant
herself, Isabel Rios, Senior Labor and Employment Licensing Officer of the POEA, Eraida Dumigpi,
and Evaluator of the POEA, Roberto De La Cruz.

In her defense, Isabel Rios admitted that she is the President and Manager of Green Pastures.
Green Pastures received Php70,000.00 from private complainant Liwayway Tiglao, Php 70,000.00
from private complainant Rico Dacillo, Php80,000.00 from Eduardo Milanes, Php55,000.00 from
Marlone Papio, and Php60,000.00 from Micheal (sic) Custodio, for which Green Pastures was willing
to give reimbursement. However, Isabel maintained that despite having a job order, they were not
able to deploy private complainants during that time because Taiwan was experiencing economic
problems wherein employers were forced to stop with the hiring. Also, Isabel denied having received
money from Victoriano Agcaoili, Jr., Mylene Arevalo, and Elmer de Mata.

Eraida Dumigpi testified that she is the Senior Labor and Employment Licensing Officer of the
POEA, with office address at POEA Building, Ortigas corner EDSA, Mandaluyong City. Green
Pastures is a duly licensed recruitment agency with the POEA and Isabel Rios is its president.

Roberto dela Cruz testified that indeed, Green Pastures had job orders for Taiwan as shown in the
Job Order Balance Report.24

The RTC Decision

In its Decision dated September 7, 2012, the RTC held that the prosecution was able to establish the
elements of violation of Section 6(l) and (m) of RA 8042. Rios was convicted as the principal in
Large Scale Illegal Recruitment and sentenced to Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five
Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00). Rios was likewise held guilty for eight (8) counts of Estafa
and for each count, she was sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of four
(4) years and two (2) months of prision correcional as minimum to eleven (11) years and one (1) day
of prision mayor as maximum. Rios was also ordered to reimburse the fees paid by the private
complainants.25 In arriving at its Decision, the trial court reasoned:
x x x [T]he fact that Green Pastures was a holder of a valid license at the time to deploy workers
abroad did not serve to benefit herein accused, as she was positively pointed to as one of the
persons who enticed the complainants to part with their money upon the fraudulent representation
that they would be able to secure for them employment abroad.

xxxx

In fine, this Court arrived at this conclusion after additionally considering the following established
acts of the accused: (1). her agency's acceptance of the placement fee given by the complainants;
(2). the fact that she communicated to the complainants the date of their departure, and, (3).
Accused's execution of Confession of Judgment dated 8 February 2010. All these acts indubitably
show that indeed accused was engaged in illegal recruitment together with the other two (2)
accused. Thus, illegal recruitment having been committed against eight (8) victims is illegal
recruitment in large scale x x x.

xxxx

The prosecution likewise established that the accused is guilty of the crime of Estafa as defined
under Article 315 par. 2 (a) of the Revised Penal Code x x x.

xxxx

In the instant case, all these elements are present: the accused, together with the other accused
who are at large, deceived the complainants into believing that the agency had the power and
capability to send them abroad for employment; that there were available jobs for them in Taiwan as
factory workers, that by reason or on the strength of such assurance, the complainants parted with
their money in payment of the placement fees; that complainants were never deployed abroad, and
that complainants waited for at least a year only to realized (sic) that they were hoodwinked as no
jobs were waiting for them abroad. As all these representations of the accused proved false,
paragraph 2 (a), Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code is thus applicable.26

The CA Decision

On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC Decision with modification. The CA maintained Rios' conviction
for violation of Section 6(m) of RA 8042. However, the CA removed Rios' conviction for violation of
Section 6(l) of RA 8042. The provision states:

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.

xxxx

(l) Failure to actually deploy without valid reasons as determined by the Department of Labor and
Employment; x x x (Emphasis supplied)
The CA held that under Section 6(l) of RA 8042, there must be independent evidence from the
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) to establish the reason for non-deployment, such as
the absence of a proper job order. The prosecution did not present any document from DOLE during
trial to establish the reason for the failure to deploy the private complainants. Thus, Rios could not
be held liable for violation of the said provision.

On the conviction for Large Scale Illegal Recruitment under Section 6(m) of RA 8042, the CA held:

In the case at bench, it is inarguable, as even admitted by accused-appellant in her confession of

judgment as to the civil aspect for the estafa case, that: 1) Green Pastures is a duly licensed
recruitment agency; 2) accused-appellant is the president and general manager of Green Pastures;
3) accused-appellant and co-accused Ana Espiritu received the placement fees of private
complainants Liwayway Tiglao, Rico Dacillo, Eduardo Milanes, Marlone Papio, and Michael
Custodio, for and in behalf of Green Pastures; and 4) Green Pastures failed to reimburse the
expenses incurred by private complainants in connection with their supposed deployment abroad.

Consequently, with the foregoing facts proven and admitted by accused-appellant, it is clear that
Green Pastures gave the distinct impression that it had the power and ability to send private
complainants abroad for work, otherwise private complainants would not have parted with their
money taking note that some of them even went to the extent of borrowing money. Thus, accused-
appellant, as president and general manager of Green Pastures, is liable as principal for violation of
Section 6(m) of R.A. 8042. It is inconsequential whether or not the prosecution failed to show proof
that private complainants parted with their money by virtue of accused-appellant's promises to send
them abroad. As president and general manager, it is of no doubt that accused-appellant was in the
forefront of the recruitment activities, otherwise she would have not received placement fees from
private complainants. Also, the positions held by accused-appellant vest upon her the authority of
managing, controlling and directing the corporate affairs. The attempt of accused-appellant to
escape liability by passing the blame to Ellen Maborang, a sub-agent or independent contractor, has
no bearing. It can be gleaned from the testimonies of private complainants that accused-appellant,
co-accused Ana, and Ellen cooperated and coordinated in recruiting applicants. It was both Ana, as
recruitment and marketing officer, and Ellen, as agent, who brought recruits to Green Pastures and
introduced them to accused-appellant. The success of their illegal scheme depended on their joint
efforts x x x.27

The CA likewise maintained Rios' conviction for eight counts of Estafa under Article 315(2)(a).
According to the CA, the same evidence proving Rios' liability for illegal recruitment also established
her liability for Estafa.28 The maximum periods of Rios' sentence in the Estafa cases were adjusted
by the CA in accordance with the amounts involved.29

Rios filed a Notice of Appeal30 on May 14, 2015, which was given due course by the CA on May 27,
2015.31 On May 4, 2017, Rios filed a Supplemental Brief32 arguing that the prosecution failed to
prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt as there was no direct evidence of her complicity in the
acts complained of. She did not directly transact with the private complainants or personally receive
any money from them. The private complainants dealt with Mabborang and Espiritu. The prosecution
did not even allege, much less prove, the existence of a conspiracy between Rios and her co-
accused. Rios was convicted as the principal in Large Scale Illegal Recruitment and Estafa but her
participation in the purported illegal acts was not established. Rios further asserts that the
Confession of Judgment is of doubtful validity and cannot be used as basis to determine her criminal
liability.

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed its Supplemental Brief33 on June 5, 2018 maintaining
that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt, Rios' guilt for the offenses charged.
According to the OSG, Rios cannot exculpate herself merely on the ground that she did not directly
transact with the private complainants as the latter positively identified her as one of the persons
who enticed them to part with their money based on the assurance that they would be deployed
abroad.

Issue

Whether the guilt of Rios was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court's Ruling

The CA Decision is affirmed with modification.

The Illegal Recruitment case

Recruitment, under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code, is defined 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.34

Under Article 38 of the Labor Code, Illegal Recruitment is defined as any act of recruitment
undertaken by unlicensed or unauthorized persons. With the amendments introduced by RA 8042,
Illegal Recruitment may be committed even by POEA-licensed recruiters or agencies, who commit
any of the prohibited acts under Section 635 of RA 8042. The Court notes that RA 8042 was
amended on March 8, 2010 by RA 1002236 or An Act Amending RA 8042. However, as the acts in
this case were committed in 2007-2008, RA 8042 is the relevant law that applies.

Herein accused Rios was charged and convicted of the Illegal Recruitment as penalized under
Section 6(m) of the law:

SEC. 6. DEFINITIONS. — x x x [I]llegal recruitment x x x shall likewise include the following acts,
whether committed by any person, whether a non-licensee, non-holder, licensee or holder of
authority.

xxxx

(m) Failure to reimburse expenses incurred by the worker 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.

Section 6(m) of RA 8042 pertains to Illegal Recruitment committed through the failure of any person
(whether or not a holder of license or authority) to reimburse documentation and processing
expenses incurred by the worker when the deployment did not occur without the worker's fault. This
provision also defines Syndicated Illegal Recruitment as being committed by three or more persons
and Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale as being committed against three or more persons.

Rios was convicted in her capacity as president and general manager of Green Pastures, Inc. While
corporate officers are generally not held personally liable for corporate acts as corporations have
separate and distinct legal personality from the persons comprising it, they may be found liable when
a specific provision of law makes them personally liable for a corporate action.37 This is the case
here as the last paragraph of Section 6 of RA 8042 specifically provides that when Illegal
Recruitment is committed by a juridical entity, the persons liable shall be the officers having control,
management or direction of the business.

In Heirs of Fe Tan Uy v. International Exchange Bank,38 the Court provided the requisites for
personal liability to attach to a director or officer for corporate acts:

Before a director or officer of a corporation can be held personally liable for corporate obligations,
however, the following requisites must concur: (1) the complainant must allege in the complaint that
the director or officer assented to patently unlawful acts of the corporation, or that the officer was
guilty of gross negligence or bad faith; and (2) the complainant must clearly and convincingly prove
such unlawful acts, negligence or bad faith.39

Thus, in Illegal Recruitment, a corporate officer or director may be held personally liable for
corporate acts if it is proven that he or she assented to patently unlawful acts of the corporation or
that the said officer or director was guilty of gross negligence and bad faith.

Based on the language of Section 6(m) of RA 8042, the elements of Illegal Recruitment through
failure to reimburse documentation and processing expenses, are:

1. The offender (whether or not a POEA-licensed or authorized recruiter or agency),

promises or gives the distinct impression that he or she has the capacity to deploy workers
for employment abroad;

2. The applicant pays money to the offender in connection with documentation and
processing fees for purposes of deployment;

3. The deployment does not take place without the applicant's fault; and,

4. The offender fails to reimburse the documentation and processing expenses incurred by
the applicant.

The Court affirms Rios' conviction for Large Scale Illegal Recruitment under Section 6(m) of RA
8042 committed against Tiglao, Dacillo, Milanes, Papio and Custodio. As regards the offense
purportedly committed by Rios against complainants De Mata, Arevalo and Agcaoili, the Court holds
that Rios' guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

In their testimonies, De Mata and Arevalo attested that it was Mabborang who transacted with them,
collected their money, and failed to reimburse them. De Mata testified:

[Prosecutor Fernandez: (To the Witness)]

Q After having filled up an application form and having paid the medical examination fee of P4,000,
what else did you do, Mr. Witness?

A After that we underwent a medical examination, sir and Ellen Mabborang told us to pay the
placement fee after one week.

Q And did you pay for that?

A I paid initially to Ellen Mabborang the amount of P40,000, sir.

Q What was that P 40,000.00for? (sic)

A For the initial payment of the placement fee for Taiwan, sir.

Q Did you ask for a receipt, Mr. Witness?

A Ellen Mabborang refused to issue a receipt, sir.

xxxx

Q After having complied with all the requirements by Ellen Mabborang, what happened to your
application for job abroad?

A In the month of December, we were asked to give the full payment, sir because I was able to give
P40,000 already, so I added P50,000 as I really wanted to be deployed in Taiwan, sir.

Q And who received the P50,000 from you?

A It was Ellen Mabborang who received the money from me, sir but I told Ellen Mabborang that I will
be paying directly the amount to the cashier, but she told me that she would just be the one who will
receive it, sir.

Q Did you actually accede to her Order?

A Yes, sir.

Q Do you have any evidence or receipt to show that Ellen Mabborang receive that P50,000 to (sic)
you?

A She also did not issue any receipt, sir.

Q So what happened after you have complied with all the requirements and the payment of
P90,000?

A After paying that P50,000 we kept on going to the agency, sir but Ellen Mabborang told us that
whenever we will go there, she should be there because she was the one who introduced us to the
agency whenever we will go there, sir until nothing happened to their promise of deployment.

xxxx

Q When nothing happened after the second medical examination, what did you do next, if any?

A After two (2) months of the second medical examination, I asked Ellen Mabborang if she really
gave the money to Isabel Rios, sir and she answered in the affirmative.

Q And so what was your reaction after that comment from Ellen Mabborang?
A We were then got panic (sic) and we thought that she was just cheating us, sir, "nagpanic po kasi
parang lokohan na po yong sa amin", so we decided to go to the office of the POEA to file a
complaint there. And at the POEA we found out that the agency of Isabel Rios is in good standing,
sir but we were told that the job order which was being offered to us by Ellen Mabborang was good
only for two persons, but Ellen Mabborang told us that they needed for ten persons, sir.

Q Did you ask for a certification from the POEA to the effect that accused Isabel Rios, Ana Espiritu
and Ellen Mabborang were not licensed to recruit workers abroad?

A Yes, sir we were issued a certification from the POEA that the agency of Isabel Rios is licensed.

xxxx

Q So after POEA Mr. Witness, what else did you do in connection with these criminal cases?

A Because the money that we gave we just borrowed, we decided to withdraw the same from the
agency but Ellen Mabborang was scared to show herself to us.

Q In what way that Ellen Mabborang got afraid of or scared of you?

A When we last saw her at the medical examination, sir she was almost hesitant in showing herself
to us because she said that she don't (sic) know what will be doing in case we would be seeing each
other at the agency, sir.

Q And so what did you do after you failed to refund your money from Ellen Mabborang?

A We went to the agency where we would be withdrawing, sir.

xxxx

Q What is the name of that agency?

A Green Pastures, sir.

Q What happened when you went back to Green Pastures International Staffing Incorporated or the
agency of the accused?

A That was where we found out that it was only P35,000 which Ellen Mabborang remitted to the
agency of Isabel Rios, sir.

xxxx

Q By the way, what was the role of Ellen Mabborang in the agency of Isabel Rios, the Green
Pastures International Staffing Incorporated?

A Recruiter, sir.

Q What was her specific job in that office?

A Recruiting applicants for work abroad, sir.

Q So after you went back to the recruitment agency, what happened next, Mr. Witness?

A When I came to know, sir that only the amount of P35,000 was remitted by Ellen Mabborang to
Isabel Rios, I got shock (sic) and I didn't know what to do, sir.

Q When you got shock (sic), what did you do to pursue your goal of recovering your money?

A I talked to Ellen Mabborang, sir and I asked her about the remaining money which I paid.

Q What was the response of Ellen Mabborang?

A She said that she also has a fund in the agency of Isabel Rios, sir.

Q And what happened next, did you make any comment?

A I told her that I have nothing to do with her fund, sir I just asked her to return my money because I
only just borrowed it from somebody.

Q Was she able to return the money?

A No, sir.40

Arevalo testified similarly as regards her situation:

[Prosecutor Fernandez: (To the Witness)]

[Q] How did you come to know Isabel Rios?

A I was not able to see her when I was applying before, sir, but I came to know her thru my
companions.

Q So when you learned about Isabel Rios thru your companions, what did you do next?

A We had already filed a case before the Department of Justice (DOJ, (sic), but I never seen (sic)
her then, sir and it was only here that I saw her.

Q You said that you learned about Isabel Rios thru your companions. Under what circumstances did
you come to know Isabel Rios, thru your companions?

A She was pointed here to me by Kuya Michael when we had a hearing here, sir.

Q Madam Witness when we start at the beginning, when no case yet has been filed by you, from the
start of (sic) the beginning which brought you to their office where you filed an application form?

A We filled up an application form in their agency, sir.

Q Where was that?

A In their agency, sir.

Q Where is it located, Pasay, Manila, Quezon, Mindanao, where?

A At Buendia in Pasay City, sir.

Q Who gave you that application form?

A Ellen Mabborang handed to us the application form, sir which came from their office

Q Do you know when was that?

A Year 2007, sir.

Q 2007?

A Yes, sir.

xxxx

Q After filling up the application form, what did you do next, Madam Witness?

A The application forms were taken from us by Ellen Mabborang, sir and were given to the
employees of Isabel Rios.

Q So after that what happened next, if any?

A We were asked to return, sir.

Q Did you return?

A Yes, sir.

Q What happened when you returned in their office?

A Monies were taken from us, sir then we were given a certification for us to undergo PDOS.

Q You said you gave monies, how much did you give?

A Php60,000.00.

Q What was that Php60,000.00 for?

A As placement fee, sir.

Q Who asked you for Php60,000.00?

A Ellen Mabborang, sir.

xxxx
Q So what is the relation of Ellen Mabborang with the agency where you applied for a job?

A She was an agent in that agency, sir.

Q That's how you knew Ellen Mabborang?

A Yes, sir.

Q Do you know if Ellen Mabborang was an employee in that agency?

A She was not an employee, sir only an agent.

Q So after filling up an application form and after paying Php60,000 what happened next?

A We were informed that we would just be called up, sir and because they were still waiting for the
MOPA.

Q Who told you that?

A Ellen Mabborang, sir.

Q Were you eventually called up by Ellen Mabborang?

A She was just sending us text messages, sir whenever we are needed at the agency.

Q And so what happened to your application thru Ellen Mabborang?

A It was just in the agency, sir and was just waiting for the MOPA.

Q Until now you are still waiting for your application?

A I am no longer hoping that I would still be able to leave, sir, "Hindi na po ako umaasa".

xxxx

Q In all your dealings with that alleged recruitment agency you dealt only with Ellen Mabborang?

A Yes, sir.

Q Did you have any dealings with accused Isabel Rios?

A None, sir.41

Thus, both De Mata and Arevalo testified that they transacted with Mabborang and they were aware
that she was not an employee of Green Pastures. They also both attested that they gave their
payments directly to Mabborang and not to Green Pastures. It was also Mabborang who failed to
reimburse the money they paid. Accordingly, Rios cannot be held liable for any offense against De
Mata and Arevalo as she had no direct involvement in the transactions between them and
Mabborang. Arevalo even admitted that she only came to know Rios during the trial of the case.
With regard to complainant Agcaoili, the prosecution did not present him as a witness and did not
submit any documentary evidence to prove charges in connection to him. There was not an iota of
evidence presented as regards the offense allegedly committed against the complainant Agcaoili.
Thus, Rios cannot likewise be held liable for any alleged offense committed against him.

As to Rios' conviction in connection with the complainants Tiglao, Dacillo, Milanes, Papio and
Custodio, the Court affirms the CA Decision. Rios herself admitted that said complainants applied for
deployment with Green Pastures agency but they were not deployed. She testified as follows:

[Atty. Florante A. Miano (To the Witness)]

Q Are you aware that you are charged before this Honorable Court for the crime of Illegal
Recruitment and Estafa?

A Yes, sir.

Q And the complainants in the Illegal Recruitment cases are Liwayway Tiglao, Rico Dacillo, Eduardo
Milanes, Marlone S. Papio and Michael Custodio. Do you remember these names?

A Yes, sir.

Q And they were the complainants in both cases of Illegal Recruitment and Estafa?

xxxx

Q And you were supposed to deploy these people especially that your office had already received
payments, correct?

A Yes, sir.

Q I would like you to explain to this Court why your office was not able to deploy them?

A During that time they applied in our office sir, that was way back 2007, we secured a job order for
them from Taiwan, but then, the economic (sic) of Taiwan suffered a problem. So supposed to be
the employer who will hire them, sir, stopped hiring people because they have already sent OFW's
during that time.

Q What else happened?

A And then we advised our staff to tell the applicants to wait for the advices from the Taiwan
employer.

Q And you are referring to all the complainants in these cases?

A Some of the applicants.

xxxx

[Q] Madam Witness, your company issued a Board Resolution No. 4 series 2009, admitting that the
claims of Liwayway Tiglao in the amount of P70,000; Rico Dacillo P70,000; Eduardo Millanes
P80,000; Marlone S. Papio P55,000; and Michael Custodio P60,000 have been received by your
office and in fact your company was willing to reimburse these amounts to them. But what happened
to Victoriano Agcaoili, Jr., why is Agcaoili not included?

A The record bears that he did not pay any amount to the office.

Q Also with respect to Mylene U. Arevalo?

A Yes, sir.

Q What about Elmer Q. De Mata?

A Same with him, sir, no record of payment.

Q But they claimed that these applicants paid to your office thru some, I think thru one of the
accused. I think Ellen Maborrang?

A The only staff that I knew, sir, is Ana Espiritu.

Q In other words, Ellen Maborrang is not your staff?

A No, sir.42

Rios herself admitted in her testimony that Green Pastures agency received varying amounts from
complainants Tiglao, Dacillo, Milanes, Papio and Custodio for purposes of deployment but their
deployment did not take place. Complainants Tiglao, Dacillo, Milanes, Papio and Custodio
consistently testified that they were not reimbursed for the amounts they had paid despite their non-
deployment.

Section 6(m) of RA 8042 criminalizes the failure to reimburse documentation and processing
expenses incurred by the applicant in case of non-deployment, and not the failure to deploy, which is
covered by a different provision. The law thus makes it incumbent upon recruitment agencies, under
pain of criminal sanction, to promptly reimburse applicants when they are not deployed without their
fault, as it is the agency itself that knows of the schedule of deployment, persons to be deployed,
failure to deploy, and the reasons therefor.

In People v. Molina,43 the Court convicted the president of the recruitment agency under Section
6(m) of RA 8042. The Court held:

Moreover, Section 6, paragraph (m) of R.A. No. 8042 provides that in case of juridical persons, the
officers having control, management or direction of their business shall be liable. Accused-appellant,
as President of the recruitment agency, is therefore liable for illegal recruitment in large scale for
failure to reimburse the expenses incurred by private complainants in connection with their
documentation and processing for purposes of deployment to South Korea, which did not actually
take place without their fault under Section 6, paragraph (m) of R.A. No. 8042.44

As president and general manager of Green Pastures, Rios had control, management, and direction
of the business. She knew, or ought to have known, of the failure to deploy the applicants without
their fault and the need to reimburse their documentation and placement fees. Despite this, Rios and
Green Pastures did not reimburse the applicants, prompting the latter to file the present cases. While
partial reimbursements were made to Tigalo, Dacillo, Milanes, Papio and Custodio, the
reimbursements were made only after the case had been filed in court. There was thus no genuine
effort on the part of Green Pastures and Rios to comply with the law and immediately reimburse the
complainants for all their documentation and processing expenses after they were not deployed for
work abroad.

Thus, the Court affirms Rios' conviction for Illegal Recruitment committed under Section 6(m) of RA
8042, against complainants Tiglao, Dacillo, Milanes, Papio and Custodio. As the offense was
committed against three or more persons, the Court also affirms that the same was committed in
Large Scale.

As to the lack of receipts, the Court previously ruled in People v. Alvarez:45

In illegal recruitment, mere failure of the complainant to present written receipts for money paid for
acts constituting recruitment activities is not fatal to the prosecution, provided the payment can be
proved by clear and convincing testimonies of credible witnesses.46

Thus, the lack of official receipts is not fatal to prove the existence of Illegal Recruitment as long as
there is testimony from convincing and credible witnesses, as in this case. Notably, the duty to issue
official receipts is on the recruitment agency and the recruiter's failure to issue receipts should not be
taken against the applicants or claimants.

The Court also modifies the amount to be awarded to Custodio. As found by the CA, Custodio paid a
total of P140,000.00 for his documentation and placement fees.47 However, in the dispositive
portion of the CA Decision, he was awarded only P100,000.00.48 Thus, the Court modifies his
award to P140,000.00.

The Estafa cases

The Court acquits Rios in the Estafa cases.

Rios was charged and convicted for eight counts of Estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the RPC, which
provides for one of the modes of committing Estafa:

2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or
simultaneously with the commission of the fraud:

(a) By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications,
property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of other similar deceits.

The elements of Estafa by means of false pretenses or deceit were enumerated by the Court in Sy v.
People:49

x x x (a) that there must be a false pretense or fraudulent representation as to his power, influence,
qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions; (b) that such false
pretense or fraudulent representation was made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the
commission of the fraud; (c) that the offended party relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or
fraudulent means and was induced to part with his money or property; and (d) that, as a result
thereof, the offended party suffered damage.50

In the instant cases, the element of false pretense or fraudulent representations is lacking. Green
Pastures was a duly licensed recruitment agency registered with the POEA, as shown in its
License.51 Moreover, the Job Order Balance Report52 issued by the POEA shows that Green
Pastures had 24 approved job orders for Taiwan for the period 2007-2008. Thus, Rios and Green
Pastures possessed the qualifications and business transactions necessary to deploy workers to
Taiwan. As held by the CA, the prosecution did not present any document from DOLE during trial to
establish the reason for the failure to deploy the private complainants. Thus, it cannot be assumed
that the same was due to the fault of the agency.

As the main element of false pretense is lacking, the Court acquits Rios of the offense and the
penalty therefor is deleted. While it is settled jurisprudence that a person may be separately charged
and convicted with Illegal Recruitment under RA 8042 and Estafa under Article 315(2), for the same
acts, conviction is not automatic as the said crimes have different elements. In People v.
Cortez,53 the Court held:

In this jurisdiction, it is settled that a person who commits illegal recruitment may be charged and
convicted separately of illegal recruitment under the Labor Code and estafa under par. 2 (a) of Art.
315 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.54

In the same manner, a conviction for Illegal Recruitment does not automatically result to a conviction
for Estafa. The prosecution must still prove the elements of the offense. Moreover, in Estafa through
deceit or false pretenses, the fraud must have been executed prior to or simultaneous with the
commission of the fraud. In this case, Rios and her agency had the qualifications and capacity to
deploy workers abroad. The offense she committed was in her failure to reimburse the
documentation and processing expenses incurred by the applicants when they were not deployed
without their fault. Unfortunately for accused Rios, the acquittal for Estafa has no bearing on her
sentence as the penalty for Large Scale Illegal Recruitment under Section 7(b) is Life Imprisonment.

WHEREFORE, the Decision dated April 23, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. CR-HC No.
06023 is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION. The Court RESOLVES to:

DECLARE accused-appellant ISABEL RIOS y CATAGBUI guilty of LARGE SCALE ILLEGAL

RECRUITMENT as defined under Section 6(m) in relation to Section 7(b) of Republic Act No. 8042
for which she is sentenced to suffer LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a FINE of P500,000.00.

ORDER Isabel Rios y Catagbui to REIMBURSE the following complainants the respective amounts,
subject to legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum from finality of judgment until full payment:

Eduardo Milanes P95,000.00

Rico Dacillo P95,000.00
Liwayway Tiglao P80,000.00
Michael
P140,000.00
Custodio
Marlone Papio P145,000.00
ACQUIT Isabel Rios y Catagbui in the Estafa cases, particularly in CC No. R-PSY-0900779-CR, CC
No. R-PSY-0900780-CR, CC No. R-PSY-0900781-CR, CC No. R-PSY-0900782-CR, CC No. R-
PSY-0900783-CR, CC No. R-PSY-0900784-CR, CC No. R-PSY-0900785-CR and CC No. R-PSY-
0900786-CR. The penalties in relation to the Estafa cases are DELETED.

SO ORDERED.

Peralta, C.J. (Chairperson), Lazaro-Javier, and Lopez, JJ., concur.

Reyes, J., Jr., J., on official leave.

Footnotes

* In the records, Mabborang is also spelled Maborang.

1 Rollo, pp. 2-32. Penned by Associate Justice Maria Elisa Sempio Diy, with Associate
Justices Ramon M. Bato, Jr., and Manuel M. Barrios, concurring.

2 CA rollo, pp. 64-95. Penned by Judge Edwin B. Ramizo, Branch 114, Pasay City.

3 Sec. 6. DEFINITIONS. — For purposes of this Act, illegal recruitment shall mean any act of
canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers and
includes referring, contract services, promising or advertising for employment abroad,
whether for profit or not, when undertaken by a non-licensee 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 any such non-licensee 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 person, whether a non-licensee, non-holder, licensee or holder of
authority:

xxxx

(m) Failure to reimburse expenses incurred by the worker 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. (Emphasis supplied)

4 ART. 315. Swindling (estafa).—Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means
mentioned hereinbelow shall be punished by:

xxxx

2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior
to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud:
 (a) By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence,
qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by
means of other similar deceits. (Emphasis supplied)

5 Records, Vol. I, pp. 1-3.

6 Id. at 1-2.

7 Id. at 36-38.

8 Id. at 36-37.

9 Id. at 1-3.

10 Id. at 68-70.

11 Id. at 101-103.

12 Id. at 134-136.

13 Id. at 167-169.

14 Id. at 200-202.

15 Id. at 233-235.

16 Id. at 266-268.

17 See Certificate of Arraignment, Records, Vol. II, p. 445.

18 Id. at 432-442.

19 Id. at 530-531.

20 Id. at 543-544.

21 Rollo, pp. 11-15.

22 Records, Vol. II, pp. 872-895.

23 Id. at 900-914.

24 See CA Decision, rollo, p. 16.

25 See RTC Decision, CA rollo, pp. 92-95. De Mata - P90,000.00; Agcaoili - P50,000.00;
Milanes - P95,000.00; Dacillo - P95,000.00; Tiglao - P80,000.00; Custodio - P100,000.00;
Papio - P145,000.00; and Arevalo - P60,000.00.

26 Id. at 89-92.
27 See CA Decision, rollo, pp. 20-21.

28 Id. at 22.

29 WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is hereby PARTIALLY GRANTED with

MODIFICATIONS to read as follows:

1. In Criminal Case No. R-PSY-09-0078-CR, the Court finds the accused-appellant

ISABEL RIOS GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Recruitment
committed in large scale under Section 6 (m) of R.A. 8042 only. Accused-appellant
Isabel Rios is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay
a fine of P500,000.00:

2. In Criminal Case No. R-PSY-00779-CR, the Court finds accused-appellant Isabel

Rios GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of estafa and sentences her to
an indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional,
as minimum, to twelve (12) years, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days of
reclusion temporal, as maximum, and to indemnify Elmer De Mata the amount of
P90,000.00;

3. In Criminal Case No. R-PSY-00780-CR the Court finds accused-appellant Isabel

Rios GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of estafa and sentences her to
an indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional,
as minimum, to (8) years, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days of prision
mayor, as maximum, and to indemnify Victoriano Agcaoili, Jr. the amount of
P50,000.00;

4. In Criminal Case No. R-PSY-00781-CR, the Court finds accused-appellant Isabel

Rios GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of estafa and sentences her to
an indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional,
as minimum, to thirteen (13) years, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days of
reclusion temporal, as maximum, and to indemnify Eduardo Milanes the amount of
P95,000.00;

5. In Criminal Case No. R-PSY-00782-CR the Court finds accused-appellant Isabel

Rios GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of estafa and sentences her to
an indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional,
as minimum, to thirteen (13) years, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days of
reclusion temporal, as maximum, and to indemnify Rico Dacillo the amount of
P95,000.00;

6. In Criminal Case No. R-PSY-00783-CR the Court finds accused-appellant Isabel

Rios GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of estafa and sentences her to
an indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional,
as minimum, to eleven (11) years, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days of
prision mayor, as maximum, and to indemnify Liwayway Tiglao the amount of
P80,000.00;

7. In Criminal Case No. R-PSY-00784-CR, the Court finds accused-appellant Isabel

Rios GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of estafa and sentences her to
an indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional,
as minimum, to thirteen (13) years, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days of
 reclusion temporal, as maximum, and to indemnify Michael Custodio the amount of
P100,000.00;

8. In Criminal Case No. R-PSY-00785-CR the Court finds accused-appellant Isabel

Rios GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of estafa and sentences her to
an indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional,
as minimum, to eighteen (18) years, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days of
reclusion temporal, as maximum, and to indemnify Marlone Papio the amount of
P145,000.00:

9. In Criminal Case No. R-PSY-00786-CR, the Court finds accused-appellant Isabel

Rios GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of estafa and sentences her to
an indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional,
as minimum, to (9) years, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days of prision
mayor, as maximum, and to indemnify Mylene Arevalo the amount of P60,000.00.

SO ORDERED.; id. at 30-32.

30 CA rollo, pp. 161-163.

31 Id. at 172.

32 Rollo, pp. 61-77.

33 Id. at 97-115.

34 Department of Labor and Employment, Department Advisory No. 01, Series of 2015,
entitled "RENUMBERING OF LABOR CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, AS AMENDED" dated
July 21, 2015.

35 x x x It shall likewise include the following acts, whether committed by any person,
whether a non-licensee, non-holder, licensee or holder of authority:

(a) To charge or accept directly or indirectly any amount greater than that 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 person or entity not to employ any worker
who has not applied for employment through his agency;
 (f) To engage in the recruitment or placement of workers in jobs harmful to public
health or morality or to the 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,

remittance of foreign exchange earnings, separation 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 or 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 reason as determined by the Department of
Labor and Employment; and

(m) Failure to reimburse expenses incurred by the worker 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 an offense
involving economic sabotage.

Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if 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.

36 AN ACT AMENDING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8042, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE
MIGRANT WORKERS AND OVERSEAS FILIPINOS ACT OF 1995, As AMENDED,
FURTHER IMPROVING THE STANDARD OF PROTECTION AND PROMOTION OF THE
WELFARE OF MIGRANT WORKERS, THEIR FAMILIES AND OVERSEAS FILIPINOS IN
DISTRESS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, approved on March 8, 2010.

37 Heirs of Fe Tan Uy v. International Exchange Bank, 703 Phil. 477, 485-486 (2013).

38 Id.
39 Id. at 486.

40 TSN, February 2, 2010, pp. 13-27.

41 TSN, March 2, 2010, pp. 9-28.

42 TSN, May 24, 2011, pp. 4-11.

43 826 Phil. 928 (2018).

44 Id. at 945.

45 436 Phil. 255 (2002).

46 Id. at 257.

47 See CA Decision, rollo, pp. 14-15; see also Custodio's Testimony, TSN, April 15, 2010, p.
8.

48 Id. at 28-29.

49 632 Phil. 276 (2010).

50 Id. at 284.

51 See Folder of Exhibits, Exhibit 3, p. 17.

52 See id., Exhibits 5-a to 5-x, pp. 19-23.

53 374 Phil. 575 (1999).

54 Id. at 586.