Sie sind auf Seite 1von 4

JURISPRUDENCE

ESTAFA and ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT


Article 315 (2) (a)
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MARISSA BAYKER
(People v. Bayker, G.R. No. 170192, [February 10, 2016])
FACTS: Accused appellant and her co-accused was charged with the crimes of
illegal recruitment committed in large scale and estafa.
Complainant Basilio Miparanum was told by accused-appellant that she could help
him find work abroad. Convinced, he went to accuseds residence to apply as a
seaman. He delivered to her the money for his seamans book and another money
for his placement fee. The accused-appellant told him to wait for his deployment to
Hongkong within two weeks. Miparanum followed up on his application after two
weeks but was made to undergo another training and paid for his certificate.
Sensing he was being defrauded, he filed a complaint.
ISSUE: WON the CA correctly affirmed the conviction of accused appellant for
the crime of (1) estafa and (2) illegal recruitment committed in large scale
RULING:
(1)
Yes, the conviction of accused appellant for the crime of estafa under Article 315
(2) (a) of the Revised Penal Code is correct. The elements of estafa as charged are,
namely: (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.
The active representation by the accused-appellant of having the capacity to deploy
Miparanum abroad despite not having the authority or license to do so from the
POEA constituted deceit as the first element of estafa. Her representation induced
the victim to part with his money, resulting in damage that is the second element of
the estafa. Considering that the damage resulted from the deceit, the CA's
affirmance of her guilt for estafa as charged was in order.
(2)
Yes. Illegal recruitment is committed by a person who: (a) undertakes any
recruitment activity defined under Article 13 (b) or any prohibited practice

enumerated under Article 34 and Article 38 of the Labor Code; and (b) does not
have a license or authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of
workers. It is committed in large scale when it is committed against three or
more persons individually or as a group
As such, the CA properly affirmed the conviction of the accused-appellant by the
RTC for illegal recruitment committed in large scale because she had committed
acts of recruitment against at least three persons (namely: Canizares, Dahab, and
Miparanum) despite her not having been duly licensed or authorized by the
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) for that purpose
The accused-appellant's insistence on her very limited participation in the
recruitment did not advance or help her cause any because the State established
her having personally promised foreign employment either as hotel porters or
seafarers to the complainants despite her having no license or authority to recruit
from the POEA. The records made it clear enough that her participation was
anything but limited, for she herself had accompanied them to their respective
medical examinations at their own expense.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. SUZETTE ARNAIZ a.k.a. "BABY ROSAL",


(People v. Arnaiz, G.R. No. 205153 , [September 9, 2015])
FACTS: Accused appellant and her two co-accused were charged with the crimes
of illegal recruitment committed in large scale and estafa.
Prosecution witnesses Edenelda Cayetano, Napoleon Bunuan, and Herminio
Cantor Jr. testified. Cayetano gave appellant the amount for the processing of her
papers. However, she was not able to leave for Australia. She confronted appellant
who tried to refund the amount by issuing a check but the account was already
closed. Bunuan also gave appellant the amount for his deployment but he was not
able to leave also. Cantor applied and paid appellant an amount but when he
arrived in Korea he was sent back after confirming that his visa and passport were
fake.
ISSUE: WON accused appellant is guilty of (1) estafa under Article 315 (2) (a) of
the Revised Penal Code and (2) illegal recruitment in large scale
RULING:
(1)

Yes, accused is guilty of estafa under Article 315 (2) (a). The elements of estafa
are: (a) that the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of
deceit, and (b) that damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused
to the offended party or third person. These elements were proven in this case. By
means of deceit, appellant made complainants believe that she had the proper
authority to send them to work in Australia and Korea, for which reason they gave
her substantial amounts of money. Appellant clearly misled the complainants who
believed she had the power to send them to work in Australia and Korea. They
were required to submit their bio-data and passports, and were asked to give
substantial amounts of money for the processing of their visas and other documents
necessary for deployment. Efforts to recover their money after they were not
deployed for the promised work abroad failed resulting to monetary damages on
their part.
(2)
Yes, accused is guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale.
To constitute illegal recruitment in large scale, three elements must concur: (a) the
offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable him to lawfully
engage in recruitment and placement of workers; (b) the offender undertakes any
of the activities within the meaning of "recruitment and placement" under Article
13 (b) of the Labor Code,or any of the prohibited practices under Article 34 of the
said Code (now Section 6 of RA 8042); and (c) the offender committed the same
against three or more persons, individually or as a group
Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code defines recruitment and placement as "any act
of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring
workers; and includes referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for
employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not." In the simplest terms,
illegal recruitment is committed by persons who, without authority from the
government, give the impression that they have the power to send workers
abroad for employment purposes.
The elements of illegal recruitment in large scale were proven in this case. One,
appellant has no valid license or authority to engage in recruitment and placement
of workers. The Labor and Employment Officer of the POEA confirmed that based
on the records of their office, appellant and Florida Travel and Tours were not
licensed to recruit workers for deployment abroad. Two, appellant clearly engaged
in recruitment activities and promised employment abroad to the complainants as

proven by their testimonies. Three, appellant committed illegal recruitment against


three persons

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen