People v. Gallo (G.R. No. 187730. June 29, 2010)
CASE DIGEST: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. RODOLFO GALLO y GADOT, Accused-Appellant. People v. Gallo (G.R. No. 187730; June 29, 2010).
FACTS: Accused-appellant Gallo and accused Pacardo and Manta together with Mardeolyn and 9 others, were charged with syndicated illegal recruitment and 18 counts of estafa committed against eighteen complainants, including Dela Caza, Guantero and Sare. The present appeal concerns solely accused-appellants conviction for syndicated illegal recruitment in Criminal Case No. 02-206293 and for estafa in Criminal Case No. 02-206297. According to the prosecution, Dela Caza was introduced by Panuncio to accused-appellant Gallo, Pacardo, Manta, Mardeolyn, Lulu Mendanes, Yeo Sin Ung and another Korean national at the office of MPM Agency located in Malate, Manila. Accused-appellant Gallo then introduced himself as a relative of Mardeolyn and informed Dela Caza that the agency was able to send many workers abroad. Together with Pacardo and Manta, he also told Dela Caza about the placement fee of PhP150,000 with a down payment of PhP45,000 and the balance to be paid through salary deduction. With accused-appellants assurance that many workers have been sent abroad, as well as the presence of the 2 Korean nationals and upon being shown the visas procured for the deployed workers, Dela Caza was convinced to part with his money and paid the agency. After 2 weeks, the said agency moved and changed their name. After 2 more months of waiting in vain to be deployed, Dela Caza and the other applicants decided to take action. The first attempt was unsuccessful because the agency again moved to another place. However, with the help of the Office of Ambassador Seres and the Western Police District, they were able to locate the new address at Carriedo, Manila. The agency explained that it had to move in order to separate those who are applying as entertainers from those applying as factory workers. Accused-appellant Gallo, together with Pacardo and Manta, were then arrested. For his defense, accused-appellant denied having any part in the recruitment of Dela Caza. In fact, he testified that he also applied with MPM Agency for deployment to Korea as a factory worker. RTC and CA convicted the appellants.
ISSUE: Is the accused-appellant guilty of illegal recruitment committed by a syndicate?
HELD: To commit syndicated illegal recruitment, three elements must be established: (1) the offender undertakes either any activity within the meaning of recruitment and placement defined under Article 13(b), or any of the prohibited practices enumerated under Art. 34 of the Labor Code; (2) he has no valid license or authority required by law to enable one to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers; and (3) the illegal recruitment is committed by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring or confederating with one another.
When illegal recruitment is committed by a syndicate or in large scale, i.e., if it is committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group, it is considered an offense involving economic sabotage. Under Art. 13(b) of the Labor Code, recruitment and placement refers to 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.SC believes that the prosecution was able to establish the elements of the offense sufficiently. The evidence readily reveals that MPM Agency was never licensed by the POEA to recruit workers for overseas employment. In the instant case, accused-appellant committed the acts enumerated in Sec. 6 of R.A. 8042. Testimonial evidence presented by the prosecution clearly shows that, in consideration of a promise of foreign employment, accused-appellant received the amount of Php 45,000.00 from Dela Caza. When accused-appellant made misrepresentations concerning the agency's purported power and authority to recruit for overseas employment, and in the process, collected money in the guise of placement fees, the former clearly committed acts constitutive of illegal recruitment.
The elements of estafa in general are: (1) that the accused defrauded another (a) by abuse of confidence, or (b) by means of deceit; and (2) that damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party or third person. Deceit is the false representation of a matter of fact, whether by words or conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed; and which deceives or is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it, to his legal injury. All these elements are present in the instant case: the accused-appellant, together with the other accused at large, deceived the complainants into believing that the agency had the power and capability to send them abroad for employment; that there were available jobs for them in Korea as factory workers; that by reason or on the strength of such assurance, the complainants parted with their money in payment of the placement fees; that after receiving the money, accused-appellant and his co-accused went into hiding by changing their office locations without informing complainants; and that complainants were never deployed abroad. As all these representations of the accused-appellant proved false, paragraph 2(a), Article 315 of the RPC is thus applicable.
FACTS: Accused-appellant Gallo and accused Pacardo and Manta together with Mardeolyn and 9 others, were charged with syndicated illegal recruitment and 18 counts of estafa committed against eighteen complainants, including Dela Caza, Guantero and Sare. The present appeal concerns solely accused-appellants conviction for syndicated illegal recruitment in Criminal Case No. 02-206293 and for estafa in Criminal Case No. 02-206297. According to the prosecution, Dela Caza was introduced by Panuncio to accused-appellant Gallo, Pacardo, Manta, Mardeolyn, Lulu Mendanes, Yeo Sin Ung and another Korean national at the office of MPM Agency located in Malate, Manila. Accused-appellant Gallo then introduced himself as a relative of Mardeolyn and informed Dela Caza that the agency was able to send many workers abroad. Together with Pacardo and Manta, he also told Dela Caza about the placement fee of PhP150,000 with a down payment of PhP45,000 and the balance to be paid through salary deduction. With accused-appellants assurance that many workers have been sent abroad, as well as the presence of the 2 Korean nationals and upon being shown the visas procured for the deployed workers, Dela Caza was convinced to part with his money and paid the agency. After 2 weeks, the said agency moved and changed their name. After 2 more months of waiting in vain to be deployed, Dela Caza and the other applicants decided to take action. The first attempt was unsuccessful because the agency again moved to another place. However, with the help of the Office of Ambassador Seres and the Western Police District, they were able to locate the new address at Carriedo, Manila. The agency explained that it had to move in order to separate those who are applying as entertainers from those applying as factory workers. Accused-appellant Gallo, together with Pacardo and Manta, were then arrested. For his defense, accused-appellant denied having any part in the recruitment of Dela Caza. In fact, he testified that he also applied with MPM Agency for deployment to Korea as a factory worker. RTC and CA convicted the appellants.
ISSUE: Is the accused-appellant guilty of illegal recruitment committed by a syndicate?
HELD: To commit syndicated illegal recruitment, three elements must be established: (1) the offender undertakes either any activity within the meaning of recruitment and placement defined under Article 13(b), or any of the prohibited practices enumerated under Art. 34 of the Labor Code; (2) he has no valid license or authority required by law to enable one to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers; and (3) the illegal recruitment is committed by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring or confederating with one another.
When illegal recruitment is committed by a syndicate or in large scale, i.e., if it is committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group, it is considered an offense involving economic sabotage. Under Art. 13(b) of the Labor Code, recruitment and placement refers to 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.SC believes that the prosecution was able to establish the elements of the offense sufficiently. The evidence readily reveals that MPM Agency was never licensed by the POEA to recruit workers for overseas employment. In the instant case, accused-appellant committed the acts enumerated in Sec. 6 of R.A. 8042. Testimonial evidence presented by the prosecution clearly shows that, in consideration of a promise of foreign employment, accused-appellant received the amount of Php 45,000.00 from Dela Caza. When accused-appellant made misrepresentations concerning the agency's purported power and authority to recruit for overseas employment, and in the process, collected money in the guise of placement fees, the former clearly committed acts constitutive of illegal recruitment.
The elements of estafa in general are: (1) that the accused defrauded another (a) by abuse of confidence, or (b) by means of deceit; and (2) that damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party or third person. Deceit is the false representation of a matter of fact, whether by words or conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed; and which deceives or is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it, to his legal injury. All these elements are present in the instant case: the accused-appellant, together with the other accused at large, deceived the complainants into believing that the agency had the power and capability to send them abroad for employment; that there were available jobs for them in Korea as factory workers; that by reason or on the strength of such assurance, the complainants parted with their money in payment of the placement fees; that after receiving the money, accused-appellant and his co-accused went into hiding by changing their office locations without informing complainants; and that complainants were never deployed abroad. As all these representations of the accused-appellant proved false, paragraph 2(a), Article 315 of the RPC is thus applicable.
