Title

People vs. Estrada

Case Decision Date

G.R. No. 225730 Feb 28, 2018

Accused-appellant Julia Regalado Estrada is convicted of illegal recruitment in large scale and
three counts of estafa for deceiving individuals into paying fees for overseas jobs she falsely
promised, resulting in her imprisonment and fines.

826 Phil. 894

THIRD DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 225730, February 28, 2018 ]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. JULIA REGALADO ESTRADA, ACCUSED-

APPELLANT.

DECISION

MARTIRES, J.:

On appeal is the 20 August 2015 Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 06771, which
affirmed the 5 December 2013 Decision[2] of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 47, in Criminal Case
Nos. 10-278205-07 and 10-278208, finding herein accused-appellant Julia Regalado Estrada (Estrada) guilty
beyond reasonable doubt for Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8042, otherwise
known as the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, and for three (3) counts of Estafa under
Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).

THE FACTS

Estrada was indicted for the crime of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale and Estafa under four (4) separate
Informations, the inculpatory averments of which read:

Criminal Case No. 10-278205:

That on or about and during the period comprised between February 2009 and March 2009, inclusive, in the
City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud
NOEL SEVILLENA, in the following manner, to wit: the said accused by means of false manifestations and
fraudulent representations which she made to said NOEL SEVILLENA prior to and even simultaneously with
the commission of the fraud, to the effect that she had the power and capacity to recruit and deploy the latter as
Master Baker in Dubai, and could facilitate the processing of pertinent papers if given the necessary amount to
meet the requirements thereof, induced and succeeded in inducing said NOEL SEVILLANA to give and deliver
as in fact he gave and delivered to the said accused the total amount of PhP61,500.00 on the strength of said
manifestations and representations, said accused well knowing that the same were false and fraudulent and
were made solely to obtain, as in fact, she did obtain the total amount of PhP61,500.00, which amount once in
her possession, with intent to defraud, misappropriated, and misapplied and converted the same to her own
personal use and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of the said NOEL SEVILLENA in the aforesaid total
amount of PhP61 ,500.00, Philippine currency.

CONTRARY TO LAW.[3]

Criminal Case No. 10-278206:

That on or about and during the month of March 2009, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud JANICE A. ANTONIO, in the following manner, to
wit: the said accused by means of false manifestations and fraudulent representations which she made to said
JANICE A. ANTONIO prior to and even simultaneously with the commission of the fraud, to the effect that she
had the power and capacity to recruit and deploy the latter as Service Crew in Dubai, and could facilitate the
processing of pertinent papers if given the necessary amount to meet the requirements thereof, induced and
succeeded in inducing said JANICE A. ANTONIO to give and deliver as in fact she gave and delivered to the said
accused the total amount of PhP25,000.00 on the strength of said manifestations and representations, said
accused well knowing that the same were false and fraudulent and were made solely to obtain, as in fact, she
did obtain the total amount of PhP25,000.00, which amount once in her possession, with intent to defraud,
misappropriated, and misapplied and converted the same to her own personal use and benefit, to the damage
and prejudice of the said JANICE A. ANTONIO in the aforesaid total amount of PhP25,000.00, Philippine
currency.

CONTRARY TO LAW.[4]

Criminal Case No. 10-278207:

That in (sic) or about and during the period comprised between April 2009 and May 2009, inclusive, in the City
of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud
ALBERT M. CORTEZ, in the following manner, to wit: the said accused by means of false manifestations and
fraudulent representations which she made to said ALBERT M. CORTEZ prior to and even simultaneously with
the commission of the fraud, to the effect that she had the power and capacity to recruit and deploy the latter as
waiter in Dubai, and could facilitate the processing of pertinent papers if given the necessary amount to meet
the requirements thereof, induced and succeeded in inducing said ALBERT M. CORTEZ to give and deliver as
in fact he gave and delivered to the said accused the total amount of PhP37,000.00 on the strength of said
manifestations and representations, said accused well knowing that the same were false and fraudulent and
were made solely to obtain, as in fact, she did obtain the total amount of PhP37,000.00, which amount once in
her possession, with intent to defraud, misappropriated, and misapplied and converted the same to her own
personal use and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of the said ALBERT M. CORTEZ in the aforesaid total
amount of PhP37,000.00, Philippine currency.

CONTRARY TO LAW.[5]

Criminal Case No. 10-278208 (Large Scale Illegal Recruitment):

That on or about and during the period comprised between February 2009 and May 2009, inclusive, in the City
of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, representing herself to have the capacity to contract, enlist and
transport Filipino workers for employment abroad, did then and there willfully and unlawfully for a fee, recruit
and promise employment/job placement abroad to ALBERT M. CORTEZ, NOEL SEVILLENA and JANICE A.
ANTONIO as Waiter, Master Baker and Service Crew, respectively, in Dubai, without first having secured the
required license or authority from the Department of Labor and Employment, and without valid reason and
without the fault of the said ALBERT M. CORTEZ, NOEL SEVILLENA and JANICE A. ANTONIO failed to actually
deploy them and failed to reimburse expenses incurred by them in connection with their documentation and
processing for purposes of their deployment.

CONTRARY TO LAW.[6]

On 28 September 2010, Estrada, with the assistance of counsel, was arraigned and pleaded not guilty to the
charges against her.[7] Trial on the merits thereafter ensued.

Evidence for the Prosecution

The three (3) private complainants, Noel Sevillena (Sevillena), Albert Cortez (Cortez), and Janice A. Antonio
(Antonio), testified for the prosecution. Mildred Versoza, Labor and Employment Officer at the Philippine
Overseas and Employment Administration (POEA), was also offered as a witness for the prosecution, but her
testimony was dispensed with in view of the defense's admission of the genuineness and due execution of the
POEA Certification[8] stating that Estrada was not included in the list of employees submitted by ABCA
International Corporation (ABCA) for acknowledgment.[9] Their respective testimonies sought to establish that
Estrada, without the necessary license or authority from the POEA, recruited them for overseas employment
for a fee, as follows:

Private complainants separately met Estrada on various dates from February to April 2009.[10] Sevillena was
encouraged by his father to seek the help of Estrada as he knew her to be recruiting for overseas work;[11]
Cortez met Estrada through his aunt who also knew Estrada to be a recruiter for overseas work;[12] and Jacinto
came to know Estrada after she chanced upon a tarpaulin advertisement for overseas work on which Estrada's
number and address were posted.[13]

During their respective meetings, Estrada represented herself as having power and authority to deploy persons
abroad for overseas employment.[14] Cortez recalled that in their initial meeting, Estrada told him that she
works for Worldview International Corporation (Worldview), a private recruitment agency for overseas
employment. She later told him, however, that she changed agency because Worldview's license had expired.
[15]

After their respective meetings, Estrada offered private complainants various jobs in Dubai. In particular,
Sevillena was offered a job as a baker after he refused the initial job offer in Saudi Arabia;[16] Cortez was offered
a job as a waiter;[17] and Antonio was offered a job as a cashier after she refused the first job offer as a saleslady.
[18]

The private complainants transacted only with Estrada to whom they submitted all the documents necessary
for their overseas placement and to whom they paid processing, placement, and other fees.[19] Specifically,
Sevillena paid P8,000.00 as processing fee and P17,000.00 as placement fee;[20] Cortez similarly paid
P8,000.00 as processing fee and P17,000.00 as placement fee;[21] Antonio paid P10,000.00 as processing fee
and P15,000.00 as placement fee.[22] In addition to the fees they paid to Estrada, private complainants alleged
incurring other amounts relative to their overseas placement. Cortez and Antonio paid the said fees personally
to Estrada at her house in Canlubang, Laguna;[23] while Sevillena paid the said fees personally to Estrada at his
godmother's house in Calamba City.[24] Estrada did not issue a single receipt for the said fees.[25]

Estrada also required the private complainants to submit themselves to medical examination at the Holy Angel
Medical Clinic (HAMC) in Manila. Again, the private complainants paid the fees for said medical examination
personally to Estrada: Sevillena and Cortez each paid P4,000.00;[26] while Antonio paid P3,500.00.[27] As in the
processing and placement fees, no receipt was issued for the medical examination fees.[28]

Estrada further required private complainants, with the exception of Antonio, to undergo the Pre-Departure
Orientation Seminar (PDOS).[29] However, even after undergoing PDOS, payment of the fees required, and
submission of the documentary requirements, Estrada still failed to deploy them abroad. Estrada repeatedly
promised them that their plane tickets were still being processed. Estrada, however, failed to deliver on her
promised deployment of the private complainants; thus, they were prompted to file criminal cases against
Estrada.[30]

Evidence for the Defense

The defense presented Estrada herself. The defense also presented as witness Emilia G. Cosmo-an (Cosmo-an),
president of ABCA International Corporation (ABCA), another recruitment agency for deployment abroad. In
the course of Cosmo-an's testimony, however, the defense moved to declare her as a hostile witness, but the
trial court did not act on the said motion.[31] Their respective testimonies are as follows:

Estrada came to know the private complainants when they separately went to her house and asked her help for
them to work abroad.[32] Estrada insisted that she merely mentioned ABCA and Worldview to the private
complainants because she knew their respective owners.[33] She explained that prior to her meeting with the
private complainants, she worked as a secretary at a military hospital in Riyadh; that the owner of Worldview,
Madam Juico, was her friend; that she also knew the owner of ABCA because the owner's daughter was her
former co-worker at the Riyadh hospital; and that the complainants went first to Worldview where they got her
number.[34]

Estrada denied that her mobile number was posted on a tarpaulin advertisement for work abroad. She alleged
that what was posted on the tarpaulin is the number of Worldview, and that the owner of Worldview merely
gave Antonio her number.[35] She admitted that Antonio indeed went to her house but averred that the latter
merely asked if she knew the owner of Worldview, to which she answered in the affirmative as Worldview is
the agency which handles her documents every time she departs abroad for work. Antonio then left and went to
Worldview.[36] Thereafter, Antonio's husband informed her that Antonio and her friends had already submitted
their applications to ABCA.[37]

With respect to Sevillena and Cortez, Estrada averred that the two went to her house, together with their aunt,
[38] to ask if she could deploy workers abroad to which she answered in the negative. While in her house,

Sevillena and Cortez met Antonio. The three went to ABCA together.[39]
Estrada learned later from Sevillena and Cortez's aunt, as well as from the owner of ABCA, that the two had
already submitted their requirements to ABCA.[40] She also learned that despite completing all the
requirements, the two failed to depart because, according to Cortez, they did not sign the contract because of
the low salary offered.[41] Subsequently, Sevillena and Cortez went to her house to ask for the return of the
money they paid to ABCA. She insisted that she did not receive any money from the private complainants and
that she did not recruit them for overseas work.[42]

On her part, Cosmo-an testified that she did not really know Estrada having talked to her only once. She
recalled that she met Estrada at the parking lot of her office sometime in March 2010. Estrada followed her and
asked help for her relatives who were looking for work abroad, to which she responded that she may be able to
help if there was a job order.[43] Estrada returned to ABCA's office later but they were not able to talk.[44]

Cosmo-an also denied that her agency received money from the private complainants and claimed that her
agency never required applicants to pay placement and other fees.[45] She insisted that Estrada was not and has
never been connected with ABCA in any capacity.[46] In fact, after she heard unpleasant rumors about Estrada,
she placed a newspaper ad/notice on 27 April 2010 that Estrada was not and had never been connected with
ABCA.[47] Cosmo-an further denied knowing any of the private complainants.[48]

The RTC Ruling

In its decision, the RTC found Estrada guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of illegal recruitment in
large scale and three (3) counts of estafa under Article 315(2) (a) of the Revised Penal Code.

The trial court was convinced that the prosecution was able to establish Estrada's guilt by proof beyond
reasonable doubt. It noted that the certification from the POEA confirmed that Estrada had never been licensed
or authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment. This fact, coupled with her pretenses that she had
the ability or influence to recruit private complainants for work in Dubai clearly made her liable for the crime of
illegal recruitment.

The dispositive portion of the decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered against Julia Regalado Estrada, as follows:

1. In Criminal Case No. 10278208, for the offense Illegal Recruitment in a large scale, the Court finds accused
Julia Regalado Estrada GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the said offense and she is hereby sentenced to
suffer the penalties of Life Imprisonment and Fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00);

2. In Criminal Case No. 10278205, for the crime of Estafa (Under Art. 315, 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code) the
Court finds accused Julia Regalado Estrada GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa and she
is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate imprisonment of Four (4) years Two (2) months and One (1)
day of prision correccional maximum as minimum to Six (6) years Eight (8) months and Twenty Five (25)
days of prision mayor minimum as maximum.

Accused is also ordered to indemnify private complainant Noel Sevillena the amount of Twnety Nine
Thousand Pesos (P29,000.00) representing the accused's civil liability therefor;
 3. In Criminal Case No. 10278206, for the crime of Estafa (Under Art. 315, 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code) the
Court finds accused Julia Regalado Estrada GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa and she
is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate imprisonment of Four (4) years Two (2) months and One (1)
day of prision correccional maximum as minimum to Six (6) years Eight (8) months and Twenty Five (25)
days of prision mayor minimum as maximum.

Accused is also ordered to indemnify private complainant Janice A. Antonio the amount of Twenty-Five
Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) representing the accused's civil liability therefor;

4. In Criminal Case No. 10278207, for the crime of Estafa (Under Art. 315, 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code) the
Court finds accused Julia Regalado Estrada GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa and she
is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate imprisonment of Four (4) years Two (2) months and One (1)
day of prision correccional maximum as minimu to Six (6) years Eight (8) months and Twenty Five (25)
days of prision mayor minimum as maximum.

Accused is also ordered to indemnify private complainant Albert M. Cortez the amount of Twenty-Nine
Thousand Pesos (P29,000.00) representing the accused's civil liability therefor.

SO ORDERED.[49]

Aggrieved, Estrada filed a Notice of Appeal.[50]

The CA Ruling

In its appealed decision, the CA affirmed the RTC decision. The appellate court ruled that private complainants'
categorical and unequivocal avowal that Estrada promised and assured them of work in Dubai, and their
positive identification of Estrada as the person who recruited and demanded payment from them naturally
prevails over her defense of denial. As such, the trial court aptly ruled that the prosecution evidence
convincingly demonstrated the presence of the elements of illegal recruitment in large scale.

The appellate court further opined that a person who commits illegal recruitment may be charged with and
convicted separately of illegal recruitment under R.A. No. 8042, in relation to the Labor Code; and estafa under
Article 315(2)(a) of the RPC.

The fallo of the appealed CA decision provides:

WHEREFORE, the Appeal is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated 5 December 2013 of the Regional Trial Court
of Manila, Branch 47 in Criminal Case Nos. 10-278205-07 and 10-278208, is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.[51]

Hence, this appeal.

THE ISSUE

WHETHER THE TRIAL AND APPELLATE COURTS ERRED IN FINDING ESTRADA GUILTY OF ILLEGAL
RECRUITMENT IN LARGE SCALE AND THREE (3) COUNTS OF ESTAFA DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S
FAILURE TO PROVE THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF THESE CRIMES BY PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT.

THE COURT'S RULING

The appeal lacks merit.

Elements constituting illegal recruitment in large scale sufficiently established

Under Section 6 of R.A. No. 8042, illegal recruitment, when undertaken by a non-licensee or non-holder of
authority as contemplated under Article 13(f) of the Labor Code, shall mean any act of canvassing, enlisting,
contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, procuring workers, and including referring, contract services,
promising or advertising for employment abroad, whether for profit or not.

Further, to sustain a conviction for illegal recruitment under R.A. No. 8042 in relation to the Labor Code, the
prosecution must establish two (2) elements: first, the offender has no valid license or authority required by law
to enable one to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers; and second, the offender
undertakes any of the activities within the meaning of recruitment and placement defined in Article 13(b) of the
Labor Code, or any of the prohibited practices enumerated under Section 6 of R.A. No. 8042.[52] Further, in case
the illegal recruitment was committed in large scale, a third element must be established, that is, the offender
commits the illegal recruitment activities against three or more persons, individually or as a group.[53]

The Court is convinced that the prosecution was able to establish the essential elements of the crime of illegal
recruitment in large scale.

First, it is not disputed that Estrada is not licensed or authorized to recruit workers for overseas placement.
During the trial, the defense admitted the POEA Certification which stated that Estrada is not included among
the list of employees submitted by ABCA for POEA acknowledgment. Therefore, Estrada is not authorized to
recruit workers for overseas employment. This fact was not denied by Estrada in her defense anchored only on
the allegation that she did not recruit the private complainants but merely mentioned ABCA and Worldview to
them.

Second, the prosecution was able to establish that Estrada unlawfully engaged in activities which refer to
recruitment and placement under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code and Section 6 of R.A. No. 8042. Specifically,
the prosecution was able to sufficiently demonstrate that Estrada promised and recruited private complainants
for employment abroad for a fee.

This is amply supported by the testimonies of the private complainants who categorically testified that Estrada
promised them employment and placement in Dubai as baker, waiter, and cashier. More particularly, the
private complainants positively identified Estrada as the person with whom they transacted relative to their
alleged deployment to Dubai; the person who instructed them to complete the documents necessary for their
deployment and to undergo medical examination; the person to whom they submitted these documents; and
the person to whom they directly paid the processing, placement, medical examination, and other fees.

It is a settled rule that factual findings of the trial courts, including their assessment of the witnesses'
credibility, especially when the CA affirmed such findings, are entitled to great weight and respect by this Court.
[54] Further, in the absence of any evidence that the prosecution witnesses were motivated by improper
motives, the trial court's assessment with respect to their credibility shall not be interfered with by this Court.
[55] Thus, between the positive identification and categorical testimony by the private complainants and

Estrada's unsubstantiated and uncorroborated denial, the Court finds the former more credible.

Finally, it is clear that Estrada committed illegal recruitment activities against the three (3) private
complainants. Thus, the trial and appellate courts properly convicted Estrada of the crime of illegal recruitment
in large scale.

Elements constituting Estafa sufficiently established

The Court also sustains Estrada's conviction for three (3) counts of estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the RPC.

A conviction for illegal recruitment whether simple or committed in large scale would not preclude
punishment for estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the RPC.[56] This is because no double jeopardy could attach
from the prosecution and conviction of the accused for both crimes considering that they are penalized under
different laws and involved elements distinct from one another. Conviction under Article 315(2)(a) requires the
concurrence of the following elements: (1) the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means
of deceit; and (2) the offended party, or a third party, suffered damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary
estimation. These are elements completely different from those required for illegal recruitment.[57]

In this regard, the Court is convinced that the prosecution was able to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that
Estrada committed three (3) counts of estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the RPC, which states that estafa is
committed:

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.

In this case, testimonial evidence established by proof beyond reasonable doubt that Estrada falsely
represented herself as possessing power to deploy persons for overseas placement. By these pretenses, Estrada
deceived the private complainants into believing that she would provide them their desired jobs in Dubai. This
active representation of having the capacity to deploy the private complainants abroad despite not having the
authority or license to do so from the POEA constituted deceit - the first element of estafa. Moreover, because of
her assurances, the private complainants parted with their money in order to pay Estrada the various fees
which they thought were necessary for their deployment abroad resulting in damage to each of the private
complainants - the second element of estafa.

From the foregoing, it is clear that the elements of estafa as charged have been established. Thus, the Court
affirms Estrada's conviction for three (3) counts of estafa under Article 315(2)(a).

Penalties
Section 6(m) of R.A. No. 8042 considers illegal recruitment in large scale as an offense involving economic
sabotage. In this regard, Section 7 of R.A. No. 8042 provides that the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of
not less than five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) nor more than one million pesos (P1,000,000.00)
shall be imposed upon any person who shall commit illegal recruitment involving economic sabotage.

Accordingly, the Court affirms the trial court's imposition of the penalties of life imprisonment and payment of
fine in the amount of P500,000.00 upon Estrada.

The Court, however, modifies the penalties imposed by the trial court with respect to the three (3) counts of
estafa in view of the enactment of R.A. No. 10951 entitled An Act Adjusting the Amount or the Value of Property
and Damage on which a Penalty is Based and the Fines Imposed Under the Revised Penal Code Amending for
the Purpose Act No. 3815 Otherwise Known as the "Revised Penal Code" as Amended and became effective on 17
September 2017. As its title suggests, R.A. No. 10951 updated to the present monetary values some felonies listed
in the RPC which penalties are dependent on the amount or value of damage involved, thereby effectively
reducing the penalties for certain crimes, such as estafa.

Section 85 of R.A. No. 10951 modified Article 315 of the RPC in this wise, to wit:

SEC. 85. Article 315 of the same Act, as amended by Republic Act No. 4885, Presidential Decree No. 1689, and
Presidential Decree No. 818, is hereby further amended as follows:

"ART. 315. Swindling (estafa). - Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned
hereinbelow shall be punished by: "1st. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision
mayor in its minimum period, if the amount of the fraud is over Two million four hundred thousand pesos
(P2,400,000.00) but does not exceed Four million four hundred thousand pesos (P4,400,000.00), and if such
amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period,
adding one year for each additional Two million pesos (P2,000,000.00); but the total penalty which may be
imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases, and in connection with the accessory penalties which
may be imposed under the provisions of this Code, the penalty shall be termed prision mayor or reclusion
temporal, as the case may be.

"2nd. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if the amount of the fraud is
over One million two hundred thousand pesos (P1,200,000.00) but does not exceed Two million four hundred
thousand pesos (P2,400,000.00);

"3rd. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period if such
amount is over Forty thousand pesos (P40,000.00) but does not exceed One million two hundred thousand
pesos (P1,200,000.00); and

"4th. By arresto mayor in its maximum period, if such amount does not exceed Forty thousand pesos
(P40,000.00), ..."

In this case, the prosecution proved that Estrada's fraud resulted in the damage to Sevillena, Antonio, and
Cortez in the respective amounts which did not exceed P40,000.00. Thus, applying the penalties under Article
315 of the RPC, as amended by Section 85 of R.A. No. 10951, Estrada should be sentenced to suffer the penalty of
arresto mayor in its maximum period for each count of estafa.
The Court further modifies the sums awarded to Cortez and Antonio. With respect to Cortez, he testified that
Estrada paid P5,000.00 as partial reimbursement for the amounts he paid to her.[58] This amount shall thus be
deducted from his total monetary award. As regards Antonio, it would seem that the trial court failed to
consider the P3,500.00 she had paid to Estrada for her medical examination. The trial court may have
overlooked that Sevillena and Cortez had each paid for their medical examination which amounts were not
deducted from the final monetary awards. Thus, the total monetary awards to the private complainants shall be
as follows: P29,000.00 for Sevillena; P28,500.00 for Antonio; and P24,000.00 for Cortez.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED. The 20 August 2015 Decision of the
Court of Appeals in CAAG.R. CR-H.C. No. 06771, which affirmed the 5 December 2013 Decision of the Regional
Trial Court of Manila, Branch 47, in Criminal Case Nos. 10-278205-07 and 10-278208, is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION as follows:

1. In Criminal Case No. 10278208, the Court finds accused-appellant Julia Regalado Estrada GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Recruitment committed in large scale. She is hereby sentenced to suffer
the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00);

2. In Criminal Case No. 10278205, the Court finds accused-appellant Julia Regalado Estrada GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa and sentences her to suffer the penalty of six (6) months of arresto
mayor and to indemnify private complainant Noel Sevillena the amount of Twenty-Nine Thousand Pesos
(P29,000.00);

3. In Criminal Case No. 10278206, the Court finds accused-appellant Julia Regalado Estrada GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa and sentences her to suffer the penalty of six (6) months of arresto
mayor and to indemnify private complainant Janice A. Antonio the amount of Twenty-Eight Thousand Five
Hundred Pesos (P28,500.00);

4. In Criminal Case No. 10278207, the Court finds accused-appellant Julia Regalado Estrada GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa and sentences her to suffer the penalty of six (6) months of arresto
mayor and to indemnify private complainant Albert M. Cortez the amount of Twenty-Four Thousand Pesos
(P24,000.00).

SO ORDERED.

Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Bersamin, Leonen, and Gesmundo, JJ., concur.

[1]
Rollo, pp. 2-13; penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, and concurred in by Associate Justices
Franchito N. Diamante, and Carmelita Salandanan-Manahan.

[2] Records, pp. 227-245; penned by Presiding Judge Paulino Q. Gallegos.

[3] Id. at 1.
[4] Id. at 3.

[5] Id. at 5.

[6] Id. at 7.

[7] Id. at 63.

[8] Id. at 110; Exhibit "D."

[9] TSN, dated 5 May 2011, pp. 3-5.

[10] TSN, dated 8 February 2011, p. 4; TSN, dated 5 May 2011, p. 7-8; TSN, dated 26 May 2011, p. 3.

[11] Id. at 4-5.

[12] TSN, dated 5 May 2011, p. 7.

[13] TSN, dated 26 May 2011, pp. 3-4.

[14] TSN, dated 8 February 2011, p. 5; TSN, dated 5 May 2011, p. 8; TSN, dated 26 May 2011, p. 6.

[15] TSN, dated 5 May 2011, p. 26.

[16] TSN, dated 8 February 2011, pp. 5-6.

[17] TSN, dated 5 May 2011, p. 26.

[18] TSN, dated 26 May 2011. p. 6.

[19] TSN, dated 8 February 2011, p. 7; TSN, dated 5 May 2011, pp. 9-10; TSN, dated 26 May 2011, p. 8.

[20] Id. at 9-10.

[21] TSN, dated 5 May 2011, pp. 10-11.

[22] TSN, dated 26 May 2011, pp. 9-11.

[23] TSN, dated 26 May 2011, p. 10; TSN, dated 26 May 2011, p. 11.

[24] TSN, dated 8 February 2011, p. 11.

[25] Id. at 11; TSN, dated 5 May 2011, p. 11; TSN, dated 26 May 2011, p. 11.

[26] TSN, dated 8 February 2011, p. 9; TSN, dated 5 May 2011, pp. 13-14.

[27] TSN, dated 26 May 2011, p. 19.

[28] TSN, dated 8 February 2011, p. 11; TSN, dated 5 May 2011, p. 30; TSN, dated 26 May 2011, p. 19.

[29] Id. at 14; Id. at 15; Id. at 18.

[30] TSN, dated 8 February 2011, pp. 15-16; TSN, dated 5 May 2011, p. 17-18; TSN, dated 26 May 2011, p. 12.

[31] TSN, 18 September 2012, p. 9.

[32] TSN, 17 May 2012, pp. 3-4.

[33] Id. at 5.

[34] Id. at 5-6; TSN, 19 June 2012, p.5.

[35] TSN, 19 June 2012, p.3.

[36] Id. at 4.

[37] Id. at 6.

[38] Id. at 7.

[39] Id. at 8.

[40] Id. at 9-10.

[41] Id. at 10.

[42] Id. at 10-11.

[43] TSN, 18 September 2012, pp. 5-6.

[44] Id. at 7.

[45] Id. at 10-12.

[46] Id. at 11.

[47] Id. at 14-15; Exhibit"C;" Records, p. 192.

[48] Id. at 8-9.

[49] Records, pp. 243-245.

[50] Id. at 249.

[51] Rollo, p. 13.

[52] People v. Ganigan, 584 Phil. 710, 718 (2008).

[53] People v. Baytic, 446 Phil. 23, 29 (2003); People v. Salvatierra, 735 Phil. 383, 392 (2014).

[54] People v. Nogra, 585 Phil. 712, 724 (2008).

[55] People v. Lo, 597 Phil. 110, 125 (2009).

[56] People v. Ortiz-Miyake, 344 Phil. 598, 613-614 (1997); People v. Bayker, 780 Phil. 489, 505 (2016).

[57] People v. Bayker, Id. at 56.

[58] TSN, dated 05 May 2011, pp. 21-22.