FIRSTDIVISION

PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,G.R.No.179934
Appellee,
Present:

PUNO,C.J.,Chairperson,
CARPIO,
versusCORONA,
LEONARDODECASTRO,and
BERSAMIN,JJ.
ERLINDAABORDOandPromulgated:
VINACABANLONG,
Appellants.May21,2009
xx

DECISION


CARPIO,J.:

TheCase

[1]
Thisisanappealfromthe21June2007Decision oftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.
CR HC No. 01701. The Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the 10 May 2001
[2]
Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Villasis, Pangasinan, Branch 50, convicting
Erlinda Abordo (Abordo) of estafa in Criminal Case No. V0654 and of illegal
recruitment in Criminal Case No. V0655, and convicting Abordo and Vina Cabanlong
(Cabanlong)ofestafainCriminalCaseNos.V0767,V0769,andV0772andofillegal
recruitmentinCriminalCaseNos.V0768,V0770,andV0771.
TheFacts

TheInformationsagainsttheaccusedreadasfollows:

CriminalCaseNo.V0654(Estafa)

That during the period from February 3, 1994 to March 3, 1994, at Poblacion Zone II,
MunicipalityofVillasis,ProvinceofPangasinan,Philippines,andwithinthejurisdiction
ofthisHonorableCourt,theabovenamedaccused(ErlindaAbordo),bymeansofdeceit,
deliberatelymisrepresentingherselftobecapableofcausingtheemploymentoflaborers
abroad,knowingfullywellthatsheisnotdulyorlegallyauthorizedtorecruitlaborersfor
employmentabroad,didthenandtherewillfully,unlawfullyandfeloniouslydemandand
receivefromJesusRayrayyBascosthesumofP14,000.00,Philippinecurrencywiththe
undertaking of working for his employment abroad and thereafter, despite repeated
demands, the said accused who failed to cause complainants employment abroad, failed
andrefusedtoreturnthesaidamountofP14,000.00,therebyappropriatingandconverting
thesameforherownuseandbenefittothedamageandprejudiceofsaidJesusRayrayy
[3]
Bascosinthesaidamount.

CriminalCaseNo.V0655(IllegalRecruitment)

That during the period from February 3, 1994 to March 3, 1994 at Barangay Poblacion
Zone II, Municipality of Villasis, Province of Pangasinan, Philippines, and within the
jurisdictionofthisHonorableCourt,theabovenamedaccused(ErlindaAbordo),didthen
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously recruit Jesus Rayray y Bascos for
employment abroad, without first securing the requisite license or authority from the
[4]
DepartmentofLaborandEmployment.

CriminalCaseNo.V0767(Estafa)

ThatduringthemonthofDecember,1994atBarangaySanBlas,MunicipalityofVillasis,
ProvinceofPangasinan,Philippines,andwithinthejurisdictionofthisHonorableCourt,
the abovenamed accused (Erlinda Abordo and Vina Cabanlong), conspiring,
confederating and mutually helping one another, by means of deceit, deliberately
misrepresenting[themselves]tobecapableofcausingtheemploymentoflaborersabroad,
knowing fully well that they are not duly or legally authorized to recruit laborers for
employmentabroad,didthenandtherewillfully,unlawfullyandfeloniouslydemandand
receivefromJaimeFernandezySimonthesumofP45,000.00,Philippinecurrency with
the undertaking of working for his employment abroad and thereafter, despite repeated
demands, the said accused who failed to cause complainants employment abroad, failed
andrefusedtoreturnthesaidamountofP45,000.00,therebyappropriatingandconverting
the same for their own use and benefit to the damage and prejudice of said Jaime
[5]
FernandezySimoninthesaidamount.

CriminalCaseNo.V0768(IllegalRecruitment)

ThatduringthemonthofDecember,1994atBarangaySanBlas,MunicipalityofVillasis,
ProvinceofPangasinan,Philippines,andwithinthejurisdictionofthisHonorableCourt,
the abovenamed accused (Erlinda Abordo and Vina Cabanlong), conspiring,
confederatingandmutuallyhelpingoneanother,didthenandtherewillfully,unlawfully
and feloniously recruit Jaime Fernandez y Simon for employment abroad, without first
securingtherequisitelicenseorauthorityfromtheDepartmentofLaborandEmployment.
[6]

CriminalCaseNo.V0769(Estafa)

ThatduringthemonthofDecember,1994atBarangaySanBlas,MunicipalityofVillasis,
ProvinceofPangasinan,Philippines,andwithinthejurisdictionofthisHonorableCourt,
the abovenamed accused (Erlinda Abordo and Vina Cabanlong), conspiring,
confederating and mutually helping one another, by means of deceit, deliberately
misrepresenting[themselves]tobecapableofcausingtheemploymentoflaborersabroad,
knowing fully well that they are not duly or legally authorized to recruit laborers for
employmentabroad,didthenandtherewillfully,unlawfullyandfeloniouslydemandand
receivefromExequielMendozayOlivarthesumofP45,000.00,Philippinecurrencywith
the undertaking of working for his employment abroad and, thereafter, despite repeated
demands, the said accused who failed to cause complainants employment abroad, failed
andrefusedtoreturnthesaidamountofP45,000.00,therebyappropriatingandconverting
the same for their own use and benefit to the damage and prejudice of said Exequiel
[7]
MendozayOlivarinthesaidamount.

CriminalCaseNo.V0770(IllegalRecruitment)

ThatduringthemonthofDecember,1994atBarangaySanBlas,MunicipalityofVillasis,
ProvinceofPangasinan,Philippines,andwithinthejurisdictionofthisHonorableCourt,
the abovenamed accused (Erlinda Abordo and Vina Cabanlong), conspiring,
confederatingandmutuallyhelpingoneanother,didthenandtherewillfully,unlawfully
andfeloniouslyrecruitExequielMendozayOlivarforemploymentabroad,withoutfirst
securingtherequisitelicenseorauthorityfromtheDepartmentofLaborandEmployment.
[8]

CriminalCaseNo.V0771(IllegalRecruitment)

ThatduringthemonthofSeptember,1994atBarangaySanBlas,MunicipalityofVillasis,
ProvinceofPangasinan,Philippines,andwithinthejurisdictionofthisHonorableCourt,
the abovenamed accused (Erlinda Abordo and Vina Cabanlong), conspiring,
confederatingandmutuallyhelpingoneanother,didthenandtherewillfully,unlawfully
and feloniously recruit Esmenia Cario y Millano for employment abroad, without first
securingtherequisitelicenseorauthorityfromtheDepartmentofLaborandEmployment.
[9]

CriminalCaseNo.V0772(Estafa)

ThatduringthemonthofSeptember,1994atBarangaySanBlas,MunicipalityofVillasis,
 ProvinceofPangasinan,Philippines,andwithinthejurisdictionofthisHonorableCourt,
the abovenamed accused (Erlinda Abordo and Vina Cabanlong), conspiring,
confederating and mutually helping one another, by means of deceit, deliberately
misrepresenting[themselves]tobecapableofcausingtheemploymentoflaborersabroad,
knowing fully well that they are not duly or legally authorized to recruit laborers for
employmentabroad,didthenandtherewillfully,unlawfullyandfeloniouslydemandand
receivefromEsmeniaCarioyMillanothesumofP15,000.00,Philippinecurrency with
theundertakingofworkingfor[her]employmentabroadand,thereafter,despiterepeated
demands, the said accused who failed to cause complainants employment abroad, failed
andrefusedtoreturnthesaidamountofP15,000.00,therebyappropriatingandconverting
thesamefortheirownuseandbenefittothedamageandprejudiceofsaidEsmeniaCario
[10]
yMillanointhesaidamount.


The prosecution established that sometime in January 1994, Abordo recruited Jesus
Rayray (Rayray) for possible employment abroad and collected a total of P14,000 as
placementfee.Abordo assured Rayray that he could soon leave for abroad. Rayray was
[11]
unabletoleaveaspromisedandonlysawAbordoagainwhenshewasalreadyinjail.

SometimeinSeptember1994,AbordoandCabanlongwenttothehouseofEsmeniaCario
(Cario) in Lipay, Villasis, Pangasinan, to persuade her to work as a domestic helper in
HongKong.CarioandCabanlongusedtobeneighborsinSanBlas,Villasis,Pangasinan.
Upon being convinced by the accused, Cario gave a total of P15,000 as placement fee.
[12]
Despitethispayment,Cariowasunabletoleaveforabroad.

Sometime in December 1994, Abordo and Cabanlong went to the house of Segundina
Fernandez(Segundina)inCaramitan,Villasis,Pangasinan.CabanlongandSegundinaare
first cousins. Cabanlong introduced Abordo as a recruiter. The accused told Segundina
thattheycouldsecureemploymentforherson,Jaime,inHongKonguponpaymentofthe
placement fee. Segundina and Jaime agreed to the proposition. Segundina gave the
accused cash and other valuables amounting to P45,000. Abordo gave a plane ticket to
[13]
Jaime,whichturnedouttobefakehence,Jaimewasunabletoleaveforabroad.

Sometime in December 1994, the accused went to the house of Exequiel Mendoza
(Mendoza)inSanBlas,Villasis,PangasinantoconvincehimtoworkinHongKongasa
security guard. Mendoza agreed to be recruited and to pay P45,000 as placement fee.
Abordoassuredhimthatassoonashecouldpaytheplacementfee,hecouldworkabroad.
MendozagaveAbordocashandpiecesofjewelryamountingtoP39,000.Despiteseveral
promisesfromAbordo,MendozawasunabletoleaveforHongKong.Thus,hedemanded
[14]
fromtheaccusedthereturnofhismoneyandpiecesofjewelry,buttonoavail.
Adonis Peralta, Dagupan District Officer of the Department of Labor and Employment,
issuedcertificationsdated29September1993and3August1993statingthattheaccused
were not included in the Philippine Overseas and Employment Agency list of those
[15]
licensedtorecruitinPangasinan.

Theaccuseddeniedthechargesagainstthem.Intheirbrief,theaccusedclaimedthatthey
couldnotbeheldliableforestafaunderArticle315,2(a)oftheRevisedPenalCodesince
theelementofdeceitwasnotestablished.Theyallegedthattheyreceivedtheplacement
fees on behalf of the travel agency. They argued that it was unclear whether the false
statements or fraudulent representations were made prior to or simultaneously with the
deliveryofthemoneybythecomplainants.

TheRulingoftheTrialCourt

After the trial, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 50, Villasis, Pangasinan rendered a
Decisiondated10May2001disposingofthecasesasfollows:

WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the Court finds the accused Erlinda
Abordo and Vina Cabanlong guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal
Recruitment in large scale in Crim. Case Nos. V0655, V0768, V0770 and V0771,
definedandpenalizedunderArt.38,par.(a)inrelationtoArt.39,par.(a)oftheLabor
CodeofthePhilippines,asamendedbyP.D.2018,andherebysentencesthemtosuffer
the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay, jointly and severally, fine of ONE
HUNDREDTHOUSANDPESOS(100,000.00).

AccusedErlindaAbordois,likewise,foundguiltybeyondreasonabledoubtofthecrime
of Estafa in Crim. Case No. V0654, as provided under Art. 315, par. 2(a), and hereby
sentenceshertosuffertheindeterminatepenaltyofSIX(6)MONTHSandONE(1)DAY
of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, as the minimum, to FOUR
(4) YEARS, TWO (2) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of prision correccional in its
maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period, as the maximum, and to
reimburseJesusRayraytheamountofFOURTEENTHOUSANDPESOS(P14,000.00).

Further,accusedErlindaAbordoandVinaCabanlongarefoundguiltybeyondreasonable
doubtofthree(3)countsofestafaandherebysentencesthemtosuffertheindeterminate
penaltyof:

1) SIX (6) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of prision correccional in it minimum
and medium periods, as the minimum to TEN (10) YEARS of prision mayor,
medium, as the maximum and to reimburse Jaime Fernandez the amount of
FORTYFIVETHOUSANDPESOS(P45,000.00)inCrim.CaseNo.V0767

2)SIX(6)MONTHSandONE(1)DAYofprisioncorreccionalinitsminimum
and medium periods, as the minimum, to NINE (9) YEARS of prision mayor,
medium, as the maximum and to reimburse Exequiel Mendoza the amount of
THIRTY NINE THOUSAND PESOS (P39,000.00) in Crim. Case No. V0769
and


3)SIX(6)MONTHSandONE(1)DAYofprisioncorreccionalinitsminimum
andmediumperiods,astheminimumtoFOUR(4)YEARS,TWO(2)MONTHS
andONE(1)DAYofprisioncorreccionalinitsmaximumperiodtoprisionmayor
in its minimum period, as the maximum, and to reimburse Esmenia Carino the
amount of FIFTEEN THOUSAND PESOS (P15,000.00) in Crim. Case No. V
0772.

[16]
SOORDERED.

TheRulingoftheCourtofAppeals

TheCourtofAppealsfoundthattheprosecutionsufficientlyestablishedtheaccusedsguilt
for illegal recruitment. The accused cooperated with each other in convincing
complainantstopayplacementfeesforemploymentabroad.Theaccusedreceivedmoney
fromthecomplainants.Theactoftheaccusedofrecruitingcomplainantsforemployment
abroad without the necessary license from the POEA constitutes the offense of illegal
recruitment.

The Court of Appeals also found that the prosecution has established accuseds guilt for
estafa. The Court of Appeals stated that the very same evidence proving the accuseds
commission of the offense of illegal recruitment also established that the accused
connived in defrauding complainants by misrepresenting that they had the power,
influence, agency and business to obtain overseas employment for complainants upon
payment of placement fees. Complainants suffered damages to the extent of the various
sumsofmoneytheydeliveredtoaccused.

TheCourtofAppealsmodifiedthepenaltiesimposedontheaccusedaseachinformation
involvedonlyonecomplainant.Theaccusedcannotbeconvictedforillegalrecruitmentin
large scale based on several informations each filed by only one complainant. The trial
court erred in considering the three complainants in the two criminal cases when it
convicted the accused of illegal recruitment in large scale. Since the accused were
prosecuted under several informations for different complainants, the penalty imposed
should be for each information. To convict the accused of illegal recruitment in large
scale, there must be one information that must include all the complainants. Otherwise,
theaccusedshouldbeheldliableonlyforsimpleillegalrecruitment.

Thedispositiveportionofthe21June2007DecisionoftheCourtofAppealsreads:

(1) In Criminal Case No. V0655, accusedappellant Erlinda Abordo is found GUILTY
beyondreasonabledoubtofthecrimeofSimpleIllegalRecruitmentandissentencedto
sufferaprisontermofSix(6)yearsandOne(1)dayasminimum,toTwelve(12)yearsas
maximum,andtopayafineofP200,000.

(2) In Criminal Case Nos. V0768, V0770 and V0771, Erlinda Abordo and Vina
Cabanlong are found Guilty of three (3) counts of Simple Illegal Recruitment, and are
sentencedtosufferaprisontermofSix(6)yearsandone(1)dayasminimum,totwelve
(12)yearsasmaximum,andtopayafineofP200,000oneachcount.

(3) Accused Erlinda Abordo is, likewise, found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crimeofEstafainCrim.CaseNo.V0654,asprovidedforunderArt.315,par.2(a),and
isherebysentencedtosuffertheindeterminatepenaltyofSIX(6)MONTHSandONE(1)
DAYofprisioncorreccionalinitsminimumandmediumperiods,asminimum,toFOUR
(4) YEARS, TWO (2) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of prision correccional in its
maximumperiodtoprisionmayorinitsminimumperiod,asmaximum,andtoreimburse
JesusRayrayintheamountofFOURTEENTHOUSANDPESOS(P14,000).

(4) Further, accused Erlinda Abordo and Vina Cabanlong are found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of three (3) counts of estafa and are hereby sentenced to suffer the
indeterminatepenaltyof:

a)SIX(6)MONTHSANDONE(1)DAYofprisioncorreccionalinitsminimumand
mediumperiods,astheminimum,toTEN(10)YEARSofprisionmayor,medium,as
the maximum and to reimburse Jaime Fernandez in the amount of FORTY FIVE
THOUSANDPESOS(P45,000)inCrim.CaseNo.V0767


 b)SIX(6)MONTHSANDONE(1)DAYofprisioncorreccionalinitsminimumand
mediumperiods,astheminimum,toNINE(9)YEARSofprisionmayor,medium,as
the maximum and to reimburse Exequiel Mendoza in the amount of THIRTY NINE
THOUSANDPESOS(P39,000)inCrim.CaseNo.V0769and

c)SIX(6)MONTHSANDONE(1)DAYofprisioncorreccionalinitsminimumand
mediumperiods,astheminimumtoFOUR(4)YEARS,TWO(2)MONTHSandONE
(1) DAY of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its
minimum period, as maximum, and to reimburse Esmenia Cario in the amount of
[17]
FIFTEENTHOUSAND(P15,000)inCrim.CaseNo.V0772.

TheIssue

Thesoleissueinthiscaseiswhethertheaccusedareguiltyofsimpleillegalrecruitment
andestafaunderArticle315,2(a)oftheRevisedPenalCode.

TheRulingofthisCourt

The Court affirms the conviction of the accused for the crimes charged. However, the
Courtmodifiesthepenaltiesimposedontheaccusedintheestafacases.

Theelementsofillegalrecruitmentare(1)theoffenderhasnovalidlicenseorauthority
requiredbylawtolawfullyengageintherecruitmentandplacementofworkersand(2)
heundertakesanyactivitywithinthemeaningofrecruitmentandplacementdefinedunder
[18]
Article13(b)oftheLaborCode. Recruitmentandplacementisanyactofcanvassing,
enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers and includes
referrals, contact services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad,
whetherforprofitornot:Provided,thatanypersonorentitywhich,inanymanner,offers
or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in
[19]
recruitmentandplacement.

The prosecution sufficiently established Abordos guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the
offenseofsimpleillegalrecruitmentinCriminalCaseNo.V0655.Withoutthenecessary
license,AbordounlawfullyrecruitedRayrayfordeploymentabroad.Inexchangeforthis
promisedoverseasjob,RayraypaidAbordoP14,000.

Conniving with Cabanlong, Abordo also illegally recruited Jaime, Mendoza, and Cario
who paid the accused P45,000, P39,000 and P15,000, respectively, as placement fees.
Despitetheirpaymentsoftheplacementfees,allthecomplainantswereunabletodepart
thecountryforworkabroad.

TheCourtofAppealsdidnoterrinholdingthattheaccusedareguiltyofsimpleillegal
recruitment only, modifying the trial courts ruling that the accused are guilty of illegal
recruitmentinlargescale.Sincetheaccusedwereprosecutedunderseveralinformations
fordifferentcomplainants,thepenaltyimposedshouldbeforeachinformationcharged.
[20]
To convict the accused for illegal recruitment in large scale, there must be one
[21]
informationthatmustincludeallthecomplainants. Otherwise,theaccusedshouldbe
[22]
convictedonlyforsimpleillegalrecruitment. Accordingly,thepenaltiesimposedby
the Court of Appeals in Criminal Case Nos. V0655, V0768, V0770, and V0771 (for
[23]
simpleillegalrecruitment)arelikewisecorrect.

TheCourtalsoaffirmstheconvictionofAbordoforestafacommittedagainstRayrayand
the conviction of Abordo and Cabanlong for estafa committed against Jaime, Mendoza,
and Cario. Conviction under the Labor Code for illegal recruitment does not preclude
[24]
punishment under the Revised Penal Code for the felony of estafa. The prosecution
provedbeyondreasonabledoubtthattheaccusedcommittedestafaunderArticle315,2(a)
oftheRevisedPenalCode,whichstates:

2.Bymeansofanyofthefollowingfalsepretensesorfraudulentactsexecutedprior
toorsimultaneouslywiththecommissionofthefraud:
(a) By using fictitious name or falsely pretending to possess power, influence,
qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by
meansofothersimilardeceits.

Theprosecutionestablishedthatinfalselypretendingtopossesspowertodeploypersons
foroverseasemployment,theaccuseddeceivedthecomplainantsintobelievingthatthey
would provide them overseas work. Their assurances made complainants pay the
placement fees required in exchange for the promised jobs. The elements of deceit and
damageforthisformofestafaareindisputablypresenthence,theconvictionforestafain
Criminal Case Nos. V0654 (against Abordo), V0767, V0769, and V0772 (against
AbordoandCabanlong)shouldbeaffirmed.

UnderArticle315oftheRevisedPenalCode,estafaispunishedbythepenaltyofprision
correccionalinitsmaximumperiod(4years,2monthsand1dayto6years)toprision
mayorinitsminimumperiod(6yearsand1dayto8years),iftheamountofthefraudis
over12,000butdoesnotexceed22,000pesos,andifsuchamountexceedsthelattersum,
the penalty x x x shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each
additional 10,000 pesos but the total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed
twentyyears.xxx.
Thepenaltyprescribedforestafaiscomposedofonlytwo,notthree,periods. In such a
case,Article65oftheRevisedPenalCoderequiresthedivisionintothreeequalportions
of time included in the penalty prescribed, and forming one period of each of the three
portions. Therefore, the maximum, medium, and minimum periods of the penalty
prescribedare:

Minimum4years,2months,1dayto5years,5months,10days
Medium5years,5months,11daysto6years,8months,20days
[25]
Maximum6years,8months,21daysto8years
If the amount defrauded does not exceed P22,000 and there is no aggravating or
mitigatingcircumstance,thepenaltyprescribedshallbeimposedinitsmediumperiod,or
5years,5monthsand11daysofprisioncorreccionalto6years,8monthsand20daysof
prisionmayor.

UndertheIndeterminateSentenceLaw,themaximumtermoftheprisonsentenceshallbe
thatwhich,inviewoftheattendingcircumstances,couldbeproperlyimposed.

Ontheotherhand,theminimumtermshallbewithintherangeofthepenaltynextlower
tothatprescribedbytheRevisedPenalCodeforthecrime.Thepenaltynextlowertothat
prescribedbyArticle315isprisioncorreccionalinitsminimumperiod(6months,1day
to2yearsand4months)toprisioncorreccionalinitsmediumperiod(2years,4months
and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months). From this, the minimum term of the indeterminate
[26]
sentenceshallbetaken.

Accordingly, in Criminal Case No. V0654 (for estafa involving P14,000), Abordo is
sentencedtoanindeterminatepenaltyof6monthsand1dayofprisioncorreccional, as
minimum,to5years,5monthsand11daysofprisioncorreccional,asmaximum.Abordo
shouldalsorefundtoRayraytheamountofP14,000withlegalinterestfromthefilingof
theinformationuntilthisamountisfullypaid.

InCriminalCaseNo.V0767(forestafainvolvingP45,000),AbordoandCabanlongare
sentencedtoanindeterminatepenaltyof6monthsand1dayofprisioncorreccional, as
minimum,to10yearsofprisionmayor,asmaximum.Theaccusedshouldalsorefundto
JaimetheamountofP45,000 with legal interest from the filing of the information until
thisamountisfullypaid.

InCriminalCaseNo.V0769(forestafainvolvingP39,000),AbordoandCabanlongare
sentencedtoanindeterminatepenaltyof6monthsand1dayofprisioncorreccional, as
minimum,to9yearsofprisionmayor,asmaximum.Theaccusedshouldalsorefundto
MendozatheamountofP39,000withlegalinterestfromthefilingoftheinformationuntil
thisamountisfullypaid.

InCriminalCaseNo.V0772(forestafainvolvingP15,000),AbordoandCabanlongare
sentencedtoanindeterminatepenaltyof6monthsand1dayofprisioncorreccional, as
minimum, to 5 years, 5 months and 11 days of prision correccional, as maximum. The
accused should also refund to Cario the amount of P15,000 with legal interest from the
filingoftheinformationuntilthisamountisfullypaid.

The penalties in this case consisting in deprivation of liberty cannot be served
 [27]
simultaneouslybyreasonofthenatureofsuchpenalties. Hence,sincetheaccusedare
sentencedtotwoormoretermsofimprisonment,thetermsshouldbeservedsuccessively.
[28]

WHEREFORE,theCourtAFFIRMSthe21June2007DecisionoftheCourtofAppeals
inCAG.R.CRHCNo.01701withthefollowingMODIFICATIONS:

1.InCriminalCaseNo.V0654(forestafainvolvingP14,000),ErlindaAbordo
is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 6 months and 1 day of prision
correccional, as minimum, to 5 years, 5 months and 11 days of prision
correccional, as maximum. Abordo should also refund to Jesus Rayray the
amountofP14,000withlegalinterestfromthefilingoftheinformationuntil
thisamountisfullypaid.

2.InCriminalCaseNo.V0767(forestafainvolvingP45,000),ErlindaAbordo
andVinaCabanlongaresentencedtoanindeterminatepenaltyof6months
and1dayofprisioncorreccional,asminimum,to10yearsofprisionmayor,
asmaximum.TheaccusedshouldalsorefundtoJaimeFernandeztheamount
of P45,000 with legal interest from the filing of the information until this
amountisfullypaid.

3.InCriminalCaseNo.V0769(forestafainvolvingP39,000),ErlindaAbordo
andVinaCabanlongaresentencedtoanindeterminatepenaltyof6months
and1dayofprisioncorreccional,asminimum,to9yearsofprisionmayor,
as maximum. The accused should also refund to Exequiel Mendoza the
amountofP39,000withlegalinterestfromthefilingoftheinformationuntil
thisamountisfullypaid.

4.InCriminalCaseNo.V0772(forestafainvolvingP15,000),ErlindaAbordo
andVinaCabanlongaresentencedtoanindeterminatepenaltyof6months
and1dayofprisioncorreccional,asminimum,to5years,5monthsand11
daysofprisioncorreccional,asmaximum.Theaccusedshouldalsorefundto
 EsmeniaCariotheamountofP15,000 with legal interest from the filing of
theinformationuntilthisamountisfullypaid.

SOORDERED.

ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:



REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice
Chairperson




RENATOC.CORONATERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice


LUCASP.BERSAMIN
AssociateJustice


 CERTIFICATION
PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitution,Icertifythattheconclusionsin
theaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothe
writeroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice

[1]
Rollo,pp.319.Penned by Associate Justice Arcangelita M. RomillaLontok with Associate Justices Mariano C. Del
CastilloandRomeoF.Barza,concurring.
[2]
CArollo,pp.5474.PennedbyJudgeRosarioC.Cruz.
[3]
Id.at32.
[4]
Id.at33.
[5]
Id.at34.
[6]
Id.at35.
[7]
Id.at36.
[8]
Id.at37.
[9]
Id.at38.
[10]
Id.at39.
[11]
Rollo,p.8.
[12]
Id.
[13]
CArollo,pp.163164.
[14]
Id.at164165.
[15]
Id.at166.
[16]
Id.at7374.
[17]
Rollo,pp.1719.
[18]
Peoplev.Hu,G.R.No.182232,6October2008.
[19]
Article13(b)oftheLaborCodeofthePhilippinesSection6ofRepublicActNo.8042ortheMigrantWorkersand
OverseasFilipinosActof1995.
[20]
Rollo,p.16.SeePeoplev.DelaPiedra,403Phil.31(2001)Peoplev.Ordoo,390Phil.649(2000).
[21]
Id.
[22]
Id.
[23]
Section7(a)ofRA8042provides:

Anypersonfoundguiltyofillegalrecruitmentshallsufferthepenaltyofimprisonmentofnotlessthansix(6)years
and one (1) day but not more than twelve (12) years and a fine of not less than Two hundred thousand pesos
(P200,000)normorethanFivehundredthousandpesos(P500,000).
[24]
Peoplev.OrtizMiyake,344Phil.598,614(1997).
[25]
Peoplev.Billaber,465Phil.726,744(2004).
[26]
Id.at745.
[27]
Article70oftheRevisedPenalCode.SeeIntheMatterofthePetitionforHabeasCorpusofLagran,415Phil.506,510
(2001)citingReyes,RevisedPenalCodeBookI,13th ed.(1993),p.748.
[28]
IntheMatterofthePetitionforHabeasCorpusofLagran,supracitingGordonV.Wolfe,6Phil.76(1906).