04 People v.

Cagalingan
G.R. No. 198664 (23 November 2016)
Bersamin, J. / tita K

Subject Matter: Employment policies, recruitment and placement or workers, and agencies
Summary:
Spouses Cagalingan were charged with illegal recruitment and three counts of estafa. They allegedly represented themselves to
the complainants to have the capacity to hire and transport Filipino workers for employment in Macau, China; that for a fee,
they recruited and promised employment/job placement to the complainants;
that the accused spouses had not secured or
obtained the required license or authority from the government agency. The RTC found them guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crimes charged. The CA and SC affirmed the conviction. Elements of both illegal recruitment and Estafa were established in
this case.

Doctrines:
 A 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 enumerated under Article 34 of the same Code (now Section 6 of
Republic Act No. 8042); and
(c) the offender committed the same against three (3) or more persons, individually or as a group.

Parties:
Petitioner People of the Philippines
Respondent Owen Marcelo Cagalingan (Owen) & Beatriz B. Cagalingan(Beatriz) - accused-appellants
Facts:
Accused-appellants Owen and Beatriz (accused spouses) were charged with Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale before the
Regional Trial Court (Cagayan de Oro City).

The complaint was initiated by private complainants:

 Reynalyn B. Cagalingan (Reynalyn), **her husband is Owen’s cousin

 Roselle Q. Cagalingan (Roselle), **her husband is Owen’s cousin
 Laarni E. Sanchez (Laarni),
 Norma R. Cagalingan (Norma); and **Owen is her husband’s nephew
 Arcele J. Bacorro (Arcele).

It was alleged that on October up to November, 2002, the accused spouses represented themselves to have the capacity to
hire and transport Filipino workers for employment in Macau, China; that for a fee, they recruited and promised
employment/job placement to the complainants;
that the accused spouses had not secured or obtained the required license
or authority from the government agency.

Hence, in Violation of Section 6, in relation to Section 7(b) of RA 8042, the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995.

Accused-appellants were also accused of 3 counts of Estafa.

Warrants of arrest against accused spouses were issued.

They were arrested on May 26, 2003 in Vigan, Ilocos Sur.

During arraignment, they pleaded “not guilty”.

Joint trial ensued thereafter.

Prosecution presented as witnesses the following:

 Private complainants: Arcele, Reynalyn, Laarni, and Roselle;

 Leonardo Rodrigo (Leonardo), Officer-in-Charge of POEA-Regional Extension Unit-10 CDO; and
 Marichu Damasing (Marichu), Branch Clerk of Court, MTCC-Branch 1 CDO. **officemate of Laarni’s dad
On different dates and occasions, private complainants were recruited by accused spouses to work in Macau for a fee.
Spouses Owen and Beatriz were from Vigan, Ilocos Sur but Owen grew up and finished his high school education in CDO. Owen
is the first cousin of the husbands of private complainants Reynalyn and Roselle and the nephew of the husband of private
complainant Norma.

Arcele’s Testimony:

Private complainant Arcele met accused spouses on October 28, 2002 at Norma’s house. Norma introduced Owen & Beatriz to
her. She was told by Owen that her wife was asked by her employer to hire office workers to work at Mandarin Oriental Hotel.

Owen explained to her the job and the requirements including an amount of P40,000.00 for roundtrip tickets and documentation
fees. Arcele paid P20,000.00 to Owen. On November 23, 2002, she paid in full and departure for Manila was scheduled on
November 29, 2002 at 3 o’clock. Unfortunately, accused spouses failed to appear on the said date. Hence, she decided to proceed
to CDO airport and look for accused spouses but the latter were not around. Instead, she met the other recruits at the airport and
they all realized that they were victims of illegal recruitment. She and the other private complainants went home aggrieved and
humiliated.

Reynalyn’s Testimony:

Reynalyn was told that she could be assigned at the laundry section with a salary rate equivalent to P18,000.00 per month. She
was likewise required to pay P40,000.00 for plane tickets and other documents.

Laarni’s Testimony:

Laarni is an AB Journalism graduate, and took up computer informatics. She was assured that she could work in Macau. offered as
office secretary for a two (2) years contract with a salary of P18,000.00 a month. She was required to pay P40,000.00 she was able
to raise only P11,500.00. Nonetheless, Accused Spouses accepted the said amount on the agreement that the balance would be
deducted from her salary. The flight to Manila was scheduled on November 29, 2002. She was told that they would just meet at
the airport. However, on the said date, she did not find accused spouses at the airport and upon inquiry from the airline counter
she was informed that their names were not on the plane manifest.

Roselle’s Testimony:

Roselle was promised a monthly salary of P22,000.00. It was her first time to meet them, yet, she trusted them because Owen was
the first cousin of his husband. Upon the request of accused spouses, a “despidida” party was held at the house of private
complainant Reynalyn, just beside the house of her mother-in-law. The accused spouses left to attend another “despidida” party
and told them that they would just meet at the airport.

The spouses failed to appear, and they waited until 5 o’clock in the afternoon.

The family checked the bag of accused spouses which was left at the house of her mother-in-law and to their surprise, the bag
contained pillows only. Hence, she reported the incident and upon verification with the POEA she learned that Accused Spouses
were not licensed recruiters.

Leonardo’s testimony:

Leonardo issued certifications upon requests of private complainants Reynalyn, Roselle, Arcele and Norma certifying that accused
spouses were neither licensed nor authorized to recruit workers and/or applicants for employment abroad.

Accused spouses denied the charges against them. They argued that they neither recruited nor promised the complainants any
work in Macau as it was very difficult to find work in Macau, unless they have relatives or siblings working. Albeit they admitted
to be in CDO sometime in August and September 2002, they denied being in CDO sometime in October and November 2002

They also argued that they did not offer any work nor required complainants to submit any documents and pay any amount for
possible work in Macau.

They likewise denied having received any money.

RTC - convicted the accused- appellants; found Owen and Beatriz GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 6 of
Republic Act 8042, otherwise known as “Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995”.

- Penalty imposed was LIFE IMPRISONMENT, and for each accused to pay a fine of One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00).
 - They were also found guilty of the three Estafa charges. They were GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violating
paragraph 2(a) of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code.

-Penalty imposed was imprisonment of Four (4) Years, Nine Months and Eleven (11) days of Prisión Correccional, as the
Minimum, to Nine (9) years of Prisión Mayor, as the maximum, including its accessory penalty.

**The Court declines to award damages in estafa cases since they were provided already in the case of Illegal Recruitment
in Large Scale.

CA affirmed the convictions of the accused-appellants.

Issue/s:

1. WON the CA gravely erred in affirming the RTC decision finding the accused-appellants guilty of the crime charged
despite the prosecution’s failure to establish beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the crimes charged. (NO)
2. WON CA properly affirmed the imposition of the penalties for illegal recruitment in large scale and the three counts of
estafa. (NO)

Argument:

Accused-appellant:

The accused-appellants insist that the complainants well knew that they were not connected to any recruitment agency, or that they
were not recruiters themselves; that they did not represent themselves to the latter as having the capability to deploy workers
overseas; that they did not commit any act of fraudulent misrepresentations essential in the estafa for which they were convicted;
and that they simply assisted in processing the papers of the latter to help them realize their desire to work abroad.

Ratio:

NO – CA did not err in affirming RTC decision finding the accused-appellants GBYD of the crimes charged.

Re: ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT conviction

 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 enumerated under Article 34 of the same Code (now Section 6 of
Republic Act No. 8042); and
(c) the offender committed the same against three (3) or more persons, individually or as a group.

o All 3 elements were established during trial.

o First, it the accused spouses were not licensed or authorized to engage in recruitment activities. This was
substantiated by POEA’s Certifications and as testified to by the Officer-in-Charge of the POEA who issued the
same.
o Second, private complainants testified and proved that indeed accused spouses undertook acts constituting
recruitment and placement as defined under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code. They testified that they were
induced, offered and promised by accused spouses employment in Macau, China for 2 years for a fee. They paid
accused spouses for documentation and processing fees, yet, they were unable to go abroad.
o Third, there are 5 complainants against whom accused spouses are alleged to have recruited.

Re: ESTAFA1

1Article 315. Swindling (estafa).—Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned herein below shall be punished by:
1st. The penalty of prisión correccional in its maximum period to prisión mayor in its minimum period, if the amount of the fraud is over 12,000 pesos but does not
exceed 22,000 pesos; 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 10,000 pesos; but the total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases, and in connection with the accessory
 SC is convinced that the prosecution proved BRD the Accused Spouses’ guilt for three (3) counts of Estafa.

 There are 3 ways of committing estafa under Article 315(a) of the Revised Penal Code:
(1) by using a fictitious name;
(2) by falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary
transactions; and
(3) by means of other similar deceits. Under this class of estafa, the element of deceit is indispensable. Likewise, it is
essential that the false statement or fraudulent representation constitutes the very cause or the only motive which induces
the complainant to part with the thing of value.
o Private complainants were led to believe by accused spouses that they possessed the power and qualifications to
provide them with work in Macau when in fact they were neither licensed nor authorized to do so.
o Accused spouses made it appear to private complainants that Beatriz was requested by her employer to hire
workers for Macau, when in fact she was not.
o Private complainants were deceived by accused spouses by pretending that the latter could arrange their
employment in Macau, China.
o With these misrepresentations, false assurances and deceit, they suffered damages and they were forced to part
with their hard-earned money,

Accused spouses’ defense was merely alibi and denial.

 Denial, like alibi, is inherently a weak defense and it is not at all persuasive.
 Denial in criminal cases with considerable caution, if not outright rejection. This dismissive judicial attitude comes from the
recognition that denial is inherently weak and unreliable by virtue of its being an excuse too easy and too convenient for
the guilty to make.
o Accused spouses did not deny being in Cagayan de Oro City,
albeit they asserted to have arrived months earlier
than the alleged date, and they likewise did not deny having met private complainants on different occasions as
some of the private complainants were even relatives of accused Owen.
 Denial, to be worthy of consideration at all, should be substantiated by clear and convincing evidence.
o Accused-appellants offered only denial. Hence, the appeal of the accused should also fail because it relied solely on
negative and self-serving negations.

No – CA did not properly affirm RTC’s imposititon of penalties.

RE: Illegal recruitment

 Under Section 7(b)15 of the Migrant Workers’ Act, the penalty for illegal recruitment in large scale is life imprisonment and
fine of not less than P500,000.00 nor more than P1,000,000.00. Although Republic Act No. 10022, approved on March 8,
2010, has since introduced an amendment to the Migrant Workers’ Act to raise the imposable fine to not less than
P2,000,000.00 nor more than P5,000,000.00, the amendment does not apply herein because the illegal recruitment subject
of this case was committed in October and November, 2002, or long before the amendment took effect.
o Accordingly, SC held that the RTC and CA correctly imposed life imprisonment and fine of P1,000,000.00.

RE: Estafa

 For the three counts of estafa , the minimum of the indeterminate sentence for each count of estafa is fixed within the
range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, which is prisión correccional
in its minimum period to prisión correccional in its medium period (i.e., 6 mos. and 1 day to 4 yrs. and 2 mos.).
o The RTC imposed the minimum of 4 years, 9 months, and 11 days of prision correccional, thereby exceeding the
legal range for the minimum of the indeterminate sentence.
o Accordingly, the minimum of the indeterminate sentence is reduced to four years of prisión correccional
considering the absence of any modifying circumstance.
 As to the maximum term for each count of Estafa under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum period of the
prescribed penalty is first determined, and the incremental penalty of one year of imprisonment for every P10,000.00 in
excess of P22,000.00 is then added, provided that the total penalty shall not exceed 20 years.

penalties which may be imposed and for the purpose of the other provisions of this Code, the penalty shall be termed prisión mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case
may be.
  Based on the computation, the maximum period for prisión correccional maximum to prisión mayor minimum is from 6
years, 8 months, and 21 days to 8 years. The incremental penalty, when proper, shall thus be added to anywhere from 6
years, 8 months, and 21 days to 8 years, at the discretion of the court.
 In computing the incremental penalty, the amount defrauded shall be subtracted by P22,000.00, and the difference shall be
divided by P10,000.00. Any fraction of a year is disregarded.
o For the maximum term of the three counts of estafa, the RTC imposed nine years.
o The SC noted that the RTC ordered the gravest imposable penalty within the range (eight years of prisión mayor
plus the one year incremental penalty).
o However, because neither the RTC nor the CA found any modifying circumstance,the SC reduced the maximum to
6 years, 8 months, and 21 days of prisión mayor and add the incremental penalty of one year, or a total of 7 years,
8 months, and 21 days.

WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on March 18, 2011 IN ALL RESPECTS subject to the following
MODIFICATIONS:

1. In Criminal Case No. 2003-173, the accused-appellants shall suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and fine of P1,000,000.00
each;

2. In each of Criminal Case No. 2003-124, Criminal Case No. 2003-125, and Criminal Case No. 2003-238, the accused-appellants shall
suffer an indeterminate penalty of four years of prisión correcional, as minimum, to seven years, eight months, and 21 days of
prisión mayor;

3. The accused-appellants shall indemnify complainants Arcele J. Bacorro, Reynalyn Cagalingan, Roselle Q. Cagalingan, and Laarni E.
Sanchez in the respective amounts of P40,000.00, P40,000.00, P40,000.00, and P11,500.00 plus interest of 6% per annum from the
finality of this decision until the amounts are fully paid; and

4. The accused-appellants shall pay the costs of suit.

Others/Notes:

 Court is not a trier of facts. Such findings, which affirmed those of the RTC as the trial court, are now even binding on us.
 This is because the RTC had the unique advantage to observe the witnesses’ demeanor while testifying, and the personal
opportunity to test the accuracy and reliability of their recollections of past events, both of which are very decisive in a
litigation like this criminal prosecution for the serious crime of illegal recruitment committed in large scale where the
parties have disagreed on the material facts. The Court may revise such findings in its rare and extraordinary role of a trier
of facts only when the appellants convincingly demonstrate that such findings were either erroneous, or biased, or
unfounded, or incomplete, or unreliable, or conflicted with the findings of fact of the CA.
o In this case, that demonstration was not made.