CASE DIGEST: People v. Daud
G.R. No. 197539 : June 02, 2014
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANGELITA I. DAUD, HANELITA M. GALLEMIT AND RODERICK GALLEMIT Y TOLENTINO, Accused.
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,J.:
FACTS:
Marcelo de Guzman (De Guzman), a dentist by profession with a clinic in Bulacan, testified that he was introduced by his patient Modesta Marqueda to her cousin, accused Daud. Daud encouraged De Guzman to apply for work abroad and convinced him that she would be able to send him to Korea. To prove to him that she was capable of sending workers abroad, Daud invited him to visit her office located at Taft Avenue, Manila.
A month later, De Guzman and his cousins went to the said office. The group was shown job orders and photos of Daud with Korean employees to prove that she was indeed sending workers abroad. It was at this office that De Guzman first met appellant and Hanelita.
Meanwhile, Daud, together with Hanelita and appellant, put up their own business named Green Pastures Worldwide Tours and Consultancy Corporation in their residence at No. 4 Sta. Maria Apartment, India St., Better Living Subdivision, Barangay Don Bosco, Paraque City.
Having been convinced by the documents shown to him at the Taft Avenue office, De Guzman paid Daud the amount of P35,000.00 as initial payment for his placement fee at the latters office and residence in Paraque City on February 2, 2001. On February 5, 2001, the amount of P15,000.00 which was witnessed by Hanelita. He gave another P15,000.00 on February 22, 2001. However, he lost the original receipts.
On March 3, 6 and 7, 2001, De Guzman again gave Daud different amounts consisting of P35,000.00, P30,000.00 and P15,000.00, respectively, at her office in Paraque City. However, when he was issued receipts, the name Nimfa Nim was affixed. Daud explained to him that Nimfa Min was her contact who happened to be the wife of a Korean national. De Guzman trusted Daud and accepted her explanation. De Guzman was told by Daud and appellant that he and his group would be leaving in two weeks time.
[De Guzman] and his companions were instructed to appear before the Korean Embassy and were promised that they would be able to leave on March 11, 2001 as trainee workers in Korea.
When their departure date was getting near, Daud postponed it thrice. Eventually, Upon inquiry with the Korean Embassy, De Guzman was told that it was fake. The POEA informed them that it was not registered with the POEA and the said agency was not licensed to recruit employees for abroad (Exhibit D).
Gina Decena, for her part, she was introduced by her cousin, Maricel Rayo, to accused Daud, Hanelita and appellant, at the Makati Medical Towers where Maricel had her medical examination. They enticed Decena to apply at their agency by showing her job orders that offered $400 a month salary, 150% overtime pay, free board and lodging as well as photographs of prospective Korean employers.The three accused assured Decena that they had already sent several applicants for employment abroad. Convinced, Decena and her husband Marcelo Rayo applied at their agency. They were instructed to undergo medical examination, to attend a Korean Language seminar, and to pay P70,000.00 processing fee.
Thus, on February 15, 2001, Decena and her husband each gave accused Daud the amount of P35,000.00 as placement fees.
Thereafter, the couple were told to wait for two weeks for the processing of their visas. As two weeks have passed and nothing happened to their applications, Decena and her husband went to the POEA to verify the status of the agency. They were informed to the effect that said agency was not licensed to send workers abroad.
Francisco Poserio(Poserio) was brought along by his cousin [De Guzman] to No. 4 Sta. Maria Apt., India St., Better Living Subdivision, Barangay Don Bosco, Paraque City. While thereat, [De Guzman] introduced [Daud], Hanelita and [appellant] as the owners of Green Pastures Worldwide Tours and Consultancy and that they were sending workers to Korea. To convince [Poserio] that they can send workers to Korea, they showed him job orders from Hyundai Group and Nike requiring workers for Korea, a copy of a Korean visa of one of their job applicants, and photos of Daud in Korea with a Korean national who would be Poserios prospective employer if he applied with their agency.
Enticed, Poserio mortgaged his property to get funds for his job application. He was then told to pay P100,000.00 as processing fee for his job application. He parted with his money amounting to P70,000. A year after his payment, Poserio was still not able to leave the country. Upon verification with the POEA, he and the other job applicants discovered that the said agency was not licensed to recruit workers for overseas employment.
Roderick Gallemit(appellant) denied owning the agency, undertaking any recruitment act or receiving any amount from the complainants considering that his name did not appear in the receipts. He admitted that he is married to co-accused Hanelita and that co-accused Daud is his mother-in-law. He was aware that his mother-in-law Daud was a recruiter and owned an agency named Green Pasture Worldwide Travel and Tours which she operated in the same apartment. He claimed that Daud has only one employee, a certain Badjong, who processed documents.
He denied he was present when the complainants gave their payments to Daud. He insisted that he was not involved with Dauds business and that he was always out of the house as he would often go to Cavite to ask for financial help from his siblings.
In its Decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed appellants conviction by the RTC, but modified the indeterminate penalties imposed on appellant for the three counts of estafa.
ISSUE:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANGELITA I. DAUD, HANELITA M. GALLEMIT AND RODERICK GALLEMIT Y TOLENTINO, Accused.
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,J.:
FACTS:
Marcelo de Guzman (De Guzman), a dentist by profession with a clinic in Bulacan, testified that he was introduced by his patient Modesta Marqueda to her cousin, accused Daud. Daud encouraged De Guzman to apply for work abroad and convinced him that she would be able to send him to Korea. To prove to him that she was capable of sending workers abroad, Daud invited him to visit her office located at Taft Avenue, Manila.
A month later, De Guzman and his cousins went to the said office. The group was shown job orders and photos of Daud with Korean employees to prove that she was indeed sending workers abroad. It was at this office that De Guzman first met appellant and Hanelita.
Meanwhile, Daud, together with Hanelita and appellant, put up their own business named Green Pastures Worldwide Tours and Consultancy Corporation in their residence at No. 4 Sta. Maria Apartment, India St., Better Living Subdivision, Barangay Don Bosco, Paraque City.
Having been convinced by the documents shown to him at the Taft Avenue office, De Guzman paid Daud the amount of P35,000.00 as initial payment for his placement fee at the latters office and residence in Paraque City on February 2, 2001. On February 5, 2001, the amount of P15,000.00 which was witnessed by Hanelita. He gave another P15,000.00 on February 22, 2001. However, he lost the original receipts.
On March 3, 6 and 7, 2001, De Guzman again gave Daud different amounts consisting of P35,000.00, P30,000.00 and P15,000.00, respectively, at her office in Paraque City. However, when he was issued receipts, the name Nimfa Nim was affixed. Daud explained to him that Nimfa Min was her contact who happened to be the wife of a Korean national. De Guzman trusted Daud and accepted her explanation. De Guzman was told by Daud and appellant that he and his group would be leaving in two weeks time.
[De Guzman] and his companions were instructed to appear before the Korean Embassy and were promised that they would be able to leave on March 11, 2001 as trainee workers in Korea.
When their departure date was getting near, Daud postponed it thrice. Eventually, Upon inquiry with the Korean Embassy, De Guzman was told that it was fake. The POEA informed them that it was not registered with the POEA and the said agency was not licensed to recruit employees for abroad (Exhibit D).
Gina Decena, for her part, she was introduced by her cousin, Maricel Rayo, to accused Daud, Hanelita and appellant, at the Makati Medical Towers where Maricel had her medical examination. They enticed Decena to apply at their agency by showing her job orders that offered $400 a month salary, 150% overtime pay, free board and lodging as well as photographs of prospective Korean employers.The three accused assured Decena that they had already sent several applicants for employment abroad. Convinced, Decena and her husband Marcelo Rayo applied at their agency. They were instructed to undergo medical examination, to attend a Korean Language seminar, and to pay P70,000.00 processing fee.
Thus, on February 15, 2001, Decena and her husband each gave accused Daud the amount of P35,000.00 as placement fees.
Thereafter, the couple were told to wait for two weeks for the processing of their visas. As two weeks have passed and nothing happened to their applications, Decena and her husband went to the POEA to verify the status of the agency. They were informed to the effect that said agency was not licensed to send workers abroad.
Francisco Poserio(Poserio) was brought along by his cousin [De Guzman] to No. 4 Sta. Maria Apt., India St., Better Living Subdivision, Barangay Don Bosco, Paraque City. While thereat, [De Guzman] introduced [Daud], Hanelita and [appellant] as the owners of Green Pastures Worldwide Tours and Consultancy and that they were sending workers to Korea. To convince [Poserio] that they can send workers to Korea, they showed him job orders from Hyundai Group and Nike requiring workers for Korea, a copy of a Korean visa of one of their job applicants, and photos of Daud in Korea with a Korean national who would be Poserios prospective employer if he applied with their agency.
Enticed, Poserio mortgaged his property to get funds for his job application. He was then told to pay P100,000.00 as processing fee for his job application. He parted with his money amounting to P70,000. A year after his payment, Poserio was still not able to leave the country. Upon verification with the POEA, he and the other job applicants discovered that the said agency was not licensed to recruit workers for overseas employment.
Roderick Gallemit(appellant) denied owning the agency, undertaking any recruitment act or receiving any amount from the complainants considering that his name did not appear in the receipts. He admitted that he is married to co-accused Hanelita and that co-accused Daud is his mother-in-law. He was aware that his mother-in-law Daud was a recruiter and owned an agency named Green Pasture Worldwide Travel and Tours which she operated in the same apartment. He claimed that Daud has only one employee, a certain Badjong, who processed documents.
He denied he was present when the complainants gave their payments to Daud. He insisted that he was not involved with Dauds business and that he was always out of the house as he would often go to Cavite to ask for financial help from his siblings.
In its Decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed appellants conviction by the RTC, but modified the indeterminate penalties imposed on appellant for the three counts of estafa.
ISSUE:
Whether the accused appellant is liable for Large Scale Illegal Recruitment and Estafa
HELD: Court of Appeals decision is sustained.
LABOR LAW
The crime of illegal recruitment, according to the Supreme Court 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. This is what obtains in this case.
Given the foregoing, we uphold the conviction of appellant for illegal recruitment in a large scale, which constitutes economic sabotage. The penalty of life imprisonment and the fine of P500,000.00, imposed upon appellant for the said offense by the RTC, and affirmed by the Court of Appeals, is in accord with Section 7(b) of Republic Act No. 8042, xxx (b) The penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of not less than Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) nor more than One million pesos (P1,000,000.00) shall be imposed if illegal recruitment constitutes economic sabotage as defined herein.
CRIMINAL LAW
It is settled that a person may be charged and convicted separately of illegal recruitment under Republic Act No. 8042, in relation to the Labor Code, and estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code. As we explained in People v. Cortez and Yabut, 374 Phil. 575:
In this jurisdiction, it is settled that a person who commits illegal recruitment may be charged and convicted separately of illegal recruitment under the Labor Code and estafa under par. 2(a) of Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code. The offense of illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum where the criminal intent of the accused is not necessary for conviction, while estafa ismalum in se where the criminal intent of the accused is crucial for conviction. Conviction for offenses under the Labor Code does not bar conviction for offenses punishable by other laws. Conversely, conviction for estafa under par. 2(a) of Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code does not bar a conviction for illegal recruitment under the Labor Code. It follows that ones acquittal of the crime of estafa will not necessarily result in his acquittal of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale, and vice versa.
HELD: Court of Appeals decision is sustained.
LABOR LAW
The crime of illegal recruitment, according to the Supreme Court 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. This is what obtains in this case.
Given the foregoing, we uphold the conviction of appellant for illegal recruitment in a large scale, which constitutes economic sabotage. The penalty of life imprisonment and the fine of P500,000.00, imposed upon appellant for the said offense by the RTC, and affirmed by the Court of Appeals, is in accord with Section 7(b) of Republic Act No. 8042, xxx (b) The penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of not less than Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) nor more than One million pesos (P1,000,000.00) shall be imposed if illegal recruitment constitutes economic sabotage as defined herein.
CRIMINAL LAW
It is settled that a person may be charged and convicted separately of illegal recruitment under Republic Act No. 8042, in relation to the Labor Code, and estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code. As we explained in People v. Cortez and Yabut, 374 Phil. 575:
In this jurisdiction, it is settled that a person who commits illegal recruitment may be charged and convicted separately of illegal recruitment under the Labor Code and estafa under par. 2(a) of Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code. The offense of illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum where the criminal intent of the accused is not necessary for conviction, while estafa ismalum in se where the criminal intent of the accused is crucial for conviction. Conviction for offenses under the Labor Code does not bar conviction for offenses punishable by other laws. Conversely, conviction for estafa under par. 2(a) of Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code does not bar a conviction for illegal recruitment under the Labor Code. It follows that ones acquittal of the crime of estafa will not necessarily result in his acquittal of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale, and vice versa.
DENIED
