Labor Law Review Cases

(August 15, 2018)

PEOPLE v CHARLIE AND AIDA COMILA

FIRST DIVISION - versus - SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
CORONA,
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 171448 *AZCUNA, and

Plaintiff-Appellee, GARCIA, JJ.

Present:
PUNO, C CHARLIE COMILA and Promulgated:
.J., Chair AIDA COMILA,
person, Accused-Appellants. February 28, 2007
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
It is well established in jurisprudence that a person may be
charged and convicted for both illegal recruitment and estafa.

The reason therefor is not hard to o business or

discern: o imaginary transactions,
 illegal recruitment is malum or
prohibitum o means of similar deceits
o the criminal executed prior to or simultaneously
intent of the accused is with the commission of fraud.
not necessary for
conviction. (shufti ng ruling)
 estafa is malum in se. Here, it has been sufficiently proven
o In the second, such an that both appellants represented
intent is imperative. themselves to the complaining
witnesses to have the capacity
Estafa under Article 315, paragraph to send them to Italy for employment,
2, of the Revised Penal Code, is even as they do not have the
committed by any person who authority or license for the
defrauds another by purpose.
 using fictitious name, It is this misrepresentation that
 or falsely pretends to possess induced the complainants to part with
o power, their hard-earned money for placement
o influence, and medical fees. Such act on the
o qualifications, part of the appellants clearly
o property, constitutes estafa under Article 315,
o credit, paragraph (2), of the Revised Penal
o agency, Code.

1
Saquilabon
Lastrollo
Menor
 Labor Law Review Cases
(August 15, 2018)

The crime of illegal recruitment is committed when, among other things, a

person who, without being duly authorized according to law represents or
gives the distinct impression that he or she has the power or the
ability to provide work abroad convincing those to whom the
representation is made or to whom the impression is given to thereupon part with
their money in order to be assured of that employment.
(money? So what if walang pera na involved? What did the court say?)
In fact, even if there is no consideration involved,
appellant will still be deemed as having engaged in
recruitment activities, since it was sufficiently
demonstrated that she promised overseas
employment to private complainants.
To be engaged in the practice and placement, it is
plain that there must at least be a promise or
offer of an employment from the person posing
as a recruiter whether locally or abroad.

Précis

 On April 5, 1999, in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Baguio City, an Information for Illegal
Recruitment committed in large scale by a syndicate, as defined and penalized

under Article 13(6) in relation to Articles 38(b), 34 and 39 of Presidential Decree No. 442, otherwise known as the

New Labor Code, as amended, was filed against Charlie Comila, Aida Comila and
one Indira Ram Singh Lastra, allegedly committed as follows:

 The above-named accused, conspiring, confederating, and mutually aiding one

feloniously offer, recruit, and

another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and

promise employment as contract workers in Italy,

 The said accused feloniously offered and promised employment

without having first secured the necessary license or authority
from the Department Of Labor and Employment.

 ZALDY DUMPILES Y MALIKDAN was

That on or about the 10th day of November, 1998

defrauded by way of false pretenses, in the manner that the accused

could secure a job for him/her abroad, for and in consideration of the sum
of P25,000.00
o representing the placement and medical fees when in truth and in fact could not;

2
Saquilabon
Lastrollo
Menor
 Labor Law Review Cases
(August 15, 2018)

 Zaldy was deceived and convinced by the false pretenses employed by the
accused parted away the total sum of P25,000.00

 Of the three accused named in all the aforementioned two sets of

Informations, only accused Aida Comila and Charlie Comila were brought
under the jurisdiction of the trial court, the third, Indira Ram Singh Lastra,
being then and still is at large.

 A certain Jose Matias of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) agreed that he will merely

testify to the effect that as per POEA records, that the accused Aida Comila and Charlie
Comila were not duly licensed or authorized to recruit workers for
overseas employment.

 The trial court found both accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the
crimes of Illegal Recruitment committed in large scale by a syndicate

 (ang kakapal ng pagmumuka ng dalawang ‘to, umapila pa)Pursuant to a Notice of Appeal filed
by the two accused, the trial court forwarded the records of the cases to this
Court (to cut the long story shorter)
 (a decision was promulgated that the accused-appellants are guilty of
ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT COMMITTED IN LARGE SCALE)

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated

October 3, 2000 of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City,
Branch 60, in Criminal Cases Nos. 16427-R to 16439-R
finding accused-appellants guilty of (1) illegal
recruitment committed in large scale; and (2) seven (7)
counts of estafa is hereby AFFIRMED and UPHELD.

LEGAL DISPUTE
Whether or Not Charlie and Aida Comila are
guilty of illegal recruitment committed in large scale

AFFIRMATIVE. Spouses Comila are guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale

Through the respective testimonies of its witnesses, the prosecution has

satisfactorily established that both appellants were then engaged in unlawful
recruitment and placement activities.
3
Saquilabon
Lastrollo
Menor
 Labor Law Review Cases
(August 15, 2018)

The combined testimonies of the prosecution witnesses point to appellant

Aida Comila as the one who promised them foreign employment and
assured them of placement overseas through the help of their co-accused
Indira Ram Singh Lastra.
 It was Aida herself who informed them of the existence of job
orders from Palermo, Italy, and of the documents needed for
the processing of their applications.
 Aida, in fact, accompanied the applicants to undergo medical
examinations in Manila. And relying completely on Aida’s
representations, the applicants-complainants entrusted their
money to her only to discover later that their hopes for an
overseas employment were but vain.

(Aida: “tinulungan ko lang po sila na mag asikaso ng papers, pero I did

not make any representations that I am a licensed recruiter”)

As regards appellant Aida Comilas contention that she did not represent
herself as a licensed recruiter, and that she merely helped complainants
avail of the job opportunity on the belief that Indira Lastra and Erlinda
Ramos would really send them to Italy, the same hardly deserves merit.

The crime of illegal recruitment is committed when, among other things, a

person who, without being duly authorized according to law represents or
gives the distinct impression that he or she has the power or the ability to
provide work abroad convincing those to whom the representation is made
or to whom the impression is given to thereupon part with their money in
order to be assured of that employment.

In fact, even if there is no consideration involved, appellant will

still be deemed as having engaged in recruitment activities, since it
was sufficiently demonstrated that she promised overseas
employment to private complainants. To be engaged in the practice
and placement, it is plain that there must at least be a promise or offer
of an employment from the person posing as a recruiter whether
locally or abroad.

As regards appellant Charlie Comila, it is inconceivable for him to feign

ignorance of the illegal recruitment activities of his wife Aida, and of his lack of
participation therein. Again, we quote with approval what the trial court has said
in its decision:[17]
4
Saquilabon
Lastrollo
Menor
 Labor Law Review Cases
(August 15, 2018)

It is contrary to human experience, hence, highly

incredible for a husband not to have known the activities of his
wife who was living with him under the same roof. (actually nung buntis
si Aida at nasa ospital, si Charlie ang sumama sa mga complainants para mag pa medical exam
as per requirement daw dun sa pag hire sa kanila)

Here, it has been sufficiently proven that both appellants represented

themselves to the complaining witnesses to have the capacity to send them
to Italy for employment, even as they do not have the authority or license for the
purpose. Doubtless, it is this misrepresentation that induced the complainants to
part with their hard-earned money for placement and medical fees. Such act on
the part of the appellants clearly constitutes estafa under Article 315, paragraph
(2), of the Revised Penal Code.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the instant appeal is DISMISSED and the appealed

decision of the CA, affirmatory of that the trial court, is AFFIRMED in toto.

5
Saquilabon
Lastrollo
Menor