G.R. No. 187160. August 9, 2017.*

 
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. ERLINDA
A. SISON @ “MARGARITA S. AGUILAR,” appellant.

Criminal Law; Illegal Recruitment; Illegal recruitment is

“committed by persons who, without authority from the
government, give the impression that they have the power to send
workers abroad for employment purposes.”—Simply put, illegal
recruitment is “committed by persons who, without authority
from the government, give the impression that they have the
power to send workers abroad for employment purposes.” Illegal
recruitment may be undertaken by either non-license or license
holders. Non-license holders are liable by the simple act of
engaging in recruitment and placement activities, while license
holders may also be held liable for committing the acts prohibited
under Section 6 of RA 8042.
Same; Same; The Supreme Court (SC) has held in several
cases that an accused who represents to others that he or she could
send workers abroad for employment, even without the authority
or license to do so, commits illegal recruitment.—Under RA 8042,
a non-licensee or non-holder of authority commits illegal
recruitment for overseas employment in two ways: (1) by any act
of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing,
hiring, or procuring workers, and includes referring, contract
services, promising or advertising for employment abroad,
whether for profit or not; or (2) by undertaking any of the acts
enumerated under Section 6 of RA 8042. In this case, Sison
herself admits that she has no license or

_______________

*  SECOND DIVISION.

 
 
621
 VOL. 835, AUGUST 9, 2017 621
People vs. Sison

authority to undertake recruitment and placement activities.

The Court has held in several cases that an accused who
represents to others that he or she could send workers abroad for
employment, even without the authority or license to do so,
commits illegal recruitment. It is the absence of the necessary
license or authority to recruit and deploy workers that renders
the recruitment activity unlawful. To prove illegal recruitment, it
must be shown that “the accused gave the complainants the
distinct impression that she had the power or ability to deploy the
complainants abroad in a manner that they were convinced to
part with their money for that end.”
Same; Illegal Recruitment Committed by a Syndicate;
Elements of.—Illegal recruitment committed by a syndicate, as in
the present case, has the following elements: (a) the offender does
not have the valid license or authority required by law to engage
in recruitment and placement of workers; (b) the offender
undertakes any of the “recruitment and placement” activities
defined in Article 13(b) of the Labor Code, or engages in any of the
prohibited practices enumerated under now Section 6 of RA 8042;
and (c) the illegal recruitment is “carried out by a group of three
or more persons conspiring and/or confederating with one another
in carrying out any unlawful or illegal transaction, enterprise or
scheme.” In the third element, it “is not essential that there be
actual proof that all the conspirators took a direct part in every
act. It is sufficient that they acted in concert pursuant to the same
objective.”
Same; Since it was proven that the three (3) accused were
acting in concert and conspired with one another, their illegal
recruitment activity is considered done by a syndicate, making the
offense illegal recruitment involving economic sabotage.—Since it
was proven that the three accused were acting in concert and
conspired with one another, their illegal recruitment activity is
considered done by a syndicate, making the offense illegal
recruitment involving economic sabotage. Section 7 of RA 8042
sets out the penalty for illegal recruitment involving economic
sabotage: SEC. 7. PENALTIES.—(a) Any person found guilty of
illegal recruitment shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of not
less than six (6) years and one (1) day but not more than twelve
(12) years and a fine not less than two hundred thousand pesos
(P200,000.00) nor more than five hundred thousand pesos
(P500,000.00). (b) The penalty of life imprisonment and a
fine of not less than five hundred thousand pesos

 
 
 622

622 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Sison

(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. Provided,
however, that the maximum penalty shall be imposed if the
person illegally recruited is less than eighteen (18) years of age or
committed by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority.
Same; Denials; The courts do not look favorably at denial as a
defense since [d]enial, same as an alibi, if not substantiated by
clear and convincing evidence, is negative and self-serving
evidence undeserving of weight in law.—The RTC rejected Sison’s
claim that she was also a victim of illegal recruitment. The courts
do not look favorably at denial as a defense since “[d]enial, same
as an alibi, if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence,
is negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in
law. It is considered with suspicion and always received with
caution, not only because it is inherently weak and unreliable but
also because it is easily fabricated and concocted.” Denial “does
not prevail over an affirmative assertion of the fact.” Sison’s
defense of denial is merely an attempt to avoid liability. The
Court agrees with the RTC’s assessment that Sison’s claim that
she is also a victim of illegal recruitment has no credence.
Same; Illegal Recruitment; Estafa; It is settled that a person,
for the same acts, may be convicted separately for illegal
recruitment under Republic Act (RA) No. 8042 and estafa under
Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).—We affirm
Sison’s conviction for estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the RPC. It
is settled that a person, for the same acts, may be convicted
separately for illegal recruitment under RA 8042 and estafa under
Article 315(2)(a) of the RPC. In People v. Gallemit, 724 SCRA 359
(2014), the Court explained: 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 is malum 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 convic-

 
  
623

VOL. 835, AUGUST 9, 2017 623

People vs. Sison

tion for illegal recruitment under the Labor Code. It follows

that one’s 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.

APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
   Office of the Solicitor General for appellee.
   Public Attorney’s Office for appellant.

CARPIO, J.:
 
The Case
 
Before the Court is an appeal by Erlinda A. Sison (Sison)
from the 6 November 2008 Decision1 of the Court of
Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02833. The Court of
Appeals affirmed the 8 May 2007 Joint Decision2 of the
Regional Trial Court of Mandaluyong City, Branch 211
(RTC) finding Sison guilty beyond reasonable doubt of (1)
violation of Section 6, in relation to Section 7, of Republic
Act No. 8042 (RA 8042), or illegal recruitment involving
economic sabotage, and (2) estafa under Article 315 of the
Revised Penal Code (RPC).
 
The Facts
 
Sometime in November or December 1999, Darvy3 M.
Castuera (Castuera) was introduced to Sison by her
husband, a certain Col. Alex Sison (Col. Sison), a police
officer assigned at Camp Crame, Quezon City. Castuera’s
aunt, Edna Magalona,

_______________

1   Rollo, pp. 2-21. Penned by Associate Justice Amelita G. Tolentino,

with Associate Justices Japar B. Dimaampao and Sixto C. Marella, Jr.,
concurring.
2  CA Rollo, pp. 22-35. Penned by Judge Paulita B. Acosta-Villarante.
3  Referred to in some parts of the Records as “Darby.”

 
  

624

624 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Sison

was then teaching police officers at Camp Crame and Col.

Sison was one of her students. Col. Sison happened to
mention that his wife can facilitate papers for workers in
Australia. Castuera and Magalona then proceeded to Col.
Sison’s home in Las Piñas. There, they met Sison and she
briefed Castuera on the requirements for working as a fruit
picker in Australia.4
During that meeting, Sison introduced Castuera to
another man who related that he was able to go to
Australia with Sison’s help. She also showed Castuera
pictures of other people she had supposedly helped to get
employment in Australia. Sison further narrated that a
couple she had helped had given her their car as payment.
Because of Sison’s representations, Castuera believed in
her promise that she could send him to Australia.5
Sison asked Castuera for P180,000 for processing his
papers. After some negotiations, Sison agreed to lower the
fee to P160,000. Castuera was to pay half before he leaves
the Philippines and the other half will be taken from his
salary in Australia.6
On 16 June 2000, Castuera met Sison at McDonald’s in
SM Megamall to give the P80,000 down payment. Sison
issued a signed document as proof of payment. Castuera’s
companions, his aunt Edna Magalona and cousin Mark
Magalona, also signed the document as witnesses. Sison
promised Castuera that she would personally process his
visa application.7
Sison, however, failed to secure an Australian visa for
Castuera. She told him that it was difficult to get an
Australian visa in the Philippines so they had to go to
Malaysia to get one. She also said that Castuera’s
Australian visa was al-

_______________

4  Rollo, p. 5.
5  Id.
6  Id., at p. 6.
7  Id.

 
  
625

VOL. 835, AUGUST 9, 2017 625

People vs. Sison

ready in Malaysia and his personal appearance was

required there.8
On 28 June 2008, Sison and Castuera left Manila for
Zamboanga City by plane and from there, rode a boat to
Sandakan, Malaysia. Sison told Castuera that he only
needed to stay in Malaysia for a week then he would
proceed to Australia.9
Twice, they nearly overstayed in Malaysia. Each time,
Sison and Castuera would leave for Brunei, stay there for
three days, and then go back to Malaysia. The second time
they returned to Malaysia, they met several of Sison’s other
recruits — other Filipinos who have come in through
Thailand — as well as Sison’s co-accused, Rea Dedales
(Dedales) and Leonardo Bacomo (Bacomo). Castuera was
told that the group would be proceeding to Indonesia to
process their Australian visas there. The group then left for
Indonesia. However, the day after arriving in Indonesia,
Sison went back to the Philippines, leaving Castuera and
the other recruits with Dedales and Bacomo.10
Subsequently, Castuera’s application for an Australian
visa in Indonesia was denied.11 Dedales said it was harder
to get an Australian visa from Indonesia and told Castuera
to apply for a U.S. visa instead. Dedales asked for
US$1,000 for the processing of his U.S. visa, which he
paid.12 However, when his U.S. visa came, Castuera saw
that it was in an Indonesian passport bearing an
Indonesian name. Because of this, Castuera decided to just
return to the Philippines. He asked for his US$1,000 back
but Dedales would not return it. His Philippine passport
was also not returned immediately causing him to overstay
in Indonesia. He found out then that the

_______________

8   Id.
9   Id., at pp. 6-7.
10  Id., at p. 7; CA Rollo, pp. 24-25.
11  Id.
12  CA Rollo, p. 25.

 
  
626

626 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Sison

extension papers that Dedales and Bacomo procured for

him were fake.13
Castuera sought the help of the Philippine Embassy in
Indonesia and was able to return to the Philippines using
his own funds.14
Upon returning to the Philippines, Castuera filed a
complaint against Sison, Dedales, and Bacomo at the
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA).
The agency verified that Sison, Dedales, and Bacomo did
not have any license or permit to hire and recruit for
overseas employment.15
During the trial, Sison denied that she recruited
Castuera for employment. She maintained she was also a
victim of illegal recruitment by Dedales.16 She claimed that
it was Dedales, then working for a travel agency, who was
processing her visa and ticket to Australia. She further
claimed that she accepted the down payment money from
Castuera because Dedales was already in Malaysia at that
time. When she and Castuera arrived in Malaysia, she
gave the money to Dedales. Like Castuera, she found out
when they arrived in Malaysia that her Australian visa
application had been denied. She also said that Dedales
asked her for an additional US$1,000, which she gave.
However, upon learning that it was difficult to get an
Australian visa, Sison opted to go back to the Philippines.
When Dedales and Bacomo informed her that Castuera had
been issued a U.S. visa, Sison supposedly told them to
apply the US$1,000 she paid to Castuera’s payment.

_______________

13  Rollo, pp. 7-8.

14  Id., at p. 8.
15  Id.
16  Id., at p. 10.

 
 
627
 VOL. 835, AUGUST 9, 2017 627
People vs. Sison

The RTC’s Joint Decision

 
In its 8 May 2007 Joint Decision, the RTC found Sison
guilty of illegal recruitment constituting economic sabotage
and estafa:

WHEREFORE, the court finds the accused ERLINDA SISON

guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offenses charged and
hereby sentences her, thus:
1) In Criminal Case No. MC01-4035-H for Violation of
Section 6, in relation to Section 7 of R.A. 8042 (Illegal
Recruitment-Economic Sabotage) to suffer the penalty of
life imprisonment pursuant to Section 6(m) of R.A. 8042, in
relation to Section 7(b) thereof and to pay a fine of One
Million Pesos (Php1,000,000.00) as the illegal recruitment
constitutes economic sabotage;
2) In Criminal Case No. MC01-4036 for Estafa under Article
315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), to suffer the
penalty of four years, two (2) months of prisión correccional
as minimum to eight (8) years of prisión mayor as
maximum.
The accused is ordered to indemnify the victim, Darby
Castuera, the sum of Php160,000.00 as actual damages.
Insofar as accused Rea Dedales and Leonardo Bacomo are
concerned, who have been fugitives from justice and are not yet
arraigned, let bench warrants issue against them. Accordingly,
the cases against them are ordered archived until such time that
they shall have been arrested and arraigned.
SO ORDERED.17

_______________

17  CA Rollo, pp. 34-35.

 
 
628

628 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Sison

The RTC stated it was clear that Sison convinced

Castuera to apply for employment as fruit picker in
Australia and induced him to pay the fees needed for
overseas employment.18
The RTC also held that Castuera was indeed “a victim of
illegal recruitment committed by a syndicate”19 since it was
committed by a group of three persons acting “in
conspiracy” with one another.20 According to the RTC, the
conduct of Sison and her co-accused showed that they acted
“in concert towards the accomplishment of a common
felonious purpose which was to recruit [Castuera] for
overseas employment even though they had no license to do
so.”21
As to the estafa charge, the RTC held that Sison and her
co-accused were also guilty of the same. The RTC pointed
out that the element of deceit was evident in the “false
pretenses by which accused deluded [Castuera] into
believing that they ha[ve] the power and qualifications to
send people abroad for employment” and which induced
him to pay them P110,000 and US$1,000.22
The RTC also rejected Sison’s claim that she was also a
victim like Castuera. The RTC stated that if that were
true, then Sison should have filed a case against the illegal
recruiter, but she did not. It also held that Castuera’s
positive and categorical testimony prevailed over Sison’s
mere denials.23
 
The Decision of the Court of Appeals
 
Sison appealed the joint decision of the RTC to the Court
of Appeals.

_______________

18  Id., at pp. 30-31.

19  Id., at p. 32.
20  Id., at p. 30.
21  Id., at p. 32.
22  Id., at p. 33.
23  Id.

 
 

629

VOL. 835, AUGUST 9, 2017 629

People vs. Sison
 She maintained that she was also a victim of her co-
accused Dedales24 and that there was “no material and
concrete proof that indeed [she] offered or promised for a
fee employment abroad to two (2) or more persons.”25
According to Sison, Castuera merely sought her out to
“enable him to transact with accused Dedales”26 who would
facilitate his application for an Australian visa. She
claimed that there was no proof beyond reasonable doubt
that her transaction with Castuera was for recruitment or
deployment to Australia.27
Sison did not dispute her lack of license or authority to
conduct recruitment activities. However, she maintained
that the transaction she facilitated between Castuera and
Dedales was “only for the former to secure a visa, not a
working visa.” Further, she argued that the procurement of
a visa did not qualify as a “recruitment activity.”28
Sison also contested the ruling that she was guilty of
estafa, claiming that she “did not fraudulently or falsely
[represent] herself to possess the power, capacity or
authority to recruit and deploy [Castuera] for overseas
employment.”29
In its assailed decision, the Court of Appeals upheld the
RTC’s joint decision:

_______________

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The

decision of the court a quo dated May 8, 2007 is AFFIRMED. Costs
against the accused-appellant.
SO ORDERED.30

_______________

24  Id., at p. 60.
25  Id.
26  Id., at p. 61.
27  Id.
28  Rollo, p. 10.
29  CA Rollo, p. 64.
30  Rollo, p. 20.

 
 
630

630 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Sison
 The Court of Appeals held that all the elements of illegal
recruitment were sufficiently proven in the case.
First, Sison herself did not dispute that she is not
licensed or authorized to engage in recruitment or
placement activities. This fact was unknown to Castuera at
the time of their transaction.31
Second, the Court of Appeals held that even if Sison did
not directly recruit Castuera, her actions led him to believe
that she was engaged in the recruitment business.32
Castuera was able to prove that it was Sison who promised
him a job as fruit picker in Australia and even
accompanied him to Malaysia, Brunei, and Indonesia in the
guise of processing his visa application. However, the Court
of Appeals noted that this process was actually part of
“defrauding [Castuera] and inveigling him with false or
fraudulent promises of employment in a foreign land.”33
Further, the Court of Appeals found that Sison made
representations about her purported power and authority
to recruit for employment in Australia and, in the process,
collected various amounts of money from Castuera as
placement and processing fees.34 The Court of Appeals
stated that it was “enough that these recruiters give the
impression that they have the ability to enlist workers for
job placement abroad in order to induce the latter to tender
payment of fees.”35
The Court of Appeals further held that the illegal
recruitment activities of Sison and her co-accused
constituted economic sabotage. It underscored that “active
participation of each [accused] in the various phases of the
recruitment scam formed part of a series of machinations”
which lured Castuera to part with his hard earned money
in exchange for guaranteed

_______________

31  Id., at p. 12.
32  Id., at p. 14.
33  Id.
34  Id.
35  Id., at p. 15.

 
 
631

VOL. 835, AUGUST 9, 2017 631

People vs. Sison
employment in Australia.36 The Court of Appeals noted
that Castuera would not have gone along with traveling to
Malaysia, Brunei, and Indonesia and complying with
Sison’s further demands without the repeated assurances
of the latter.37
The Court of Appeals also affirmed Sison’s conviction for
estafa. It held that the two elements of estafa were proven
in the case. The Court of Appeals found that Sison’s
misrepresentations facilitated the commission of the crime.
Sison deliberately misrepresented that she had the power,
capacity, or means to send Castuera to Australia. The
Court of Appeals concluded that Sison defrauded Castuera
through deceit.38
Sison appealed the Court of Appeals’ decision to this
Court via a Notice of Appeal dated 25 November 2008.39
 
The Issue
 
The lone issue in this case is whether the guilt of Sison
was established beyond reasonable doubt.
 
The Court’s Ruling
 
The appeal has no merit. The assailed decision of the
Court of Appeals is affirmed, with modification as to the
penalty imposed in the estafa case.
 
Illegal Recruitment by a
Syndicate-Economic Sabotage
 
Under Article 13(b) of Presidential Decree No. 442, as
amended, also known as the Labor Code of the Philippines,
recruitment and placement refers to “any act of
canvass-

_______________

36  Id.
37  Id., at p. 17.
38  Id., at p. 18.
39  CA Rollo, p. 131.

 
 
632

632 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Sison
ing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or
procuring workers, and includes referrals, contact services,
promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad,
whether for profit or not: Provided, That any person or
entity which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee
employment to two or more persons shall be deemed
engaged in recruitment and placement.”
Illegal recruitment, on the other hand, is defined in
Article 38:

Article 38. ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT.—(a) Any

recruitment activities, including the prohibited practices
enumerated under Article 34 of this Code, to be undertaken by
non-licensees or non-holders of authority shall be deemed illegal
and punishable under Article 39 of this Code. The Department of
Labor and Employment or any law enforcement officer may
initiate complaints under this Article.
x x x x

 
RA 8042 or the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos
Act of 1995, approved on 7 June 1995, further strengthened
the protection extended to those seeking overseas
employment. Section 6, in particular, extended the
activities covered under the term illegal recruitment:

II. ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT

Sec. 6. DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this Act, illegal
recruitment shall mean any act of canvassing, enlisting,
contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, procuring
workers and includes referring, contact services, promising
or advertising for employment abroad, whether for profit or
not, when undertaken by a non-license or non-holder of
authority contemplated under Article 13(f) of Presidential
Decree No. 442, as amended, otherwise known as the Labor
Code of the Philippines. Provided, that such non-license
or non-holder, who, in any

 
 
633

VOL. 835, AUGUST 9, 2017 633

People vs. Sison

manner, offers or promises for a fee employment abroad to

two or more persons shall be deemed so engaged. It shall
likewise include the following acts, whether committed by any
persons, whether a non-licensee, non-holder, licensee or holder of
authority.
(a) To charge or accept directly or indirectly any amount greater
than the specified in the schedule of allowable fees prescribed by
the Secretary of Labor and Employment, or to make a worker pay
any amount greater than that actually received by him as a loan
or advance;
(b) To furnish or publish any false notice or information or
document in relation to recruitment or employment;
(c) To give any false notice, testimony, information or document
or commit any act of misrepresentation for the purpose of
securing a license or authority under the Labor Code;
(d) To induce or attempt to induce a worker already employed to
quit his employment in order to offer him another unless the
transfer is designed to liberate a worker from oppressive terms
and conditions of employment;
(e) To influence or attempt to influence any persons or entity not
to employ any worker who has not applied for employment
through his agency;
(f) To engage in the recruitment of placement of workers in jobs
harmful to public health or morality or to dignity of the Republic
of the Philippines;
(g) To obstruct or attempt to obstruct inspection by the
Secretary of Labor and Employment or by his duly authorized
representative;
(h) To fail to submit reports on the status of employment,
placement vacancies, remittances of foreign exchange earnings,
separations from jobs, departures and such other matters or
information as may be required by the Secretary of Labor and
Employment;

 
 

634

634 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Sison

(i) To substitute or alter to the prejudice of the worker,

employment contracts approved and verified by the Department
of Labor and Employment from the time of actual signing thereof
by the parties up to and including the period of the expiration of
the same without the approval of the Department of Labor and
Employment;
(j) For an officer or agent of a recruitment or placement agency
to become an officer or member of the Board of any corporation
engaged in travel agency or to be engaged directly or indirectly in
the management of a travel agency;
(k) To withhold or deny travel documents from applicant
workers before departure for monetary or financial considerations
other than those authorized under the Labor Code and its
implementing rules and regulations;
(l) Failure to actually deploy without valid reasons as
determined by the Department of Labor and Employment; and
(m) Failure to reimburse expenses incurred by the workers in
connection with his documentation and processing for purposes of
deployment, in cases where the deployment does not actually take
place without the worker’s fault. Illegal recruitment when
committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall be
considered as offense involving economic sabotage.
Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate
carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons
conspiring or confederating with one another. It is deemed
committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more
persons individually or as a group.
The persons criminally liable for the above offenses are the
principals, accomplices and accessories. In case of juridical
persons, the officers having control, management or direction of
their business shall be liable. (Emphasis supplied)

 
 

635

VOL. 835, AUGUST 9, 2017 635

People vs. Sison

Simply put, illegal recruitment is “committed by

persons who, without authority from the government, give
the impression that they have the power to send workers
abroad for employment purposes.”40
Illegal recruitment may be undertaken by either non-
license or license holders. Non-license holders are liable by
the simple act of engaging in recruitment and placement
activities, while license holders may also be held liable for
committing the acts prohibited under Section 6 of RA 8042.
Under RA 8042, a non-licensee or non-holder of
authority commits illegal recruitment for overseas
employment in two ways: (1) by any act of canvassing,
enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or
procuring workers, and includes referring, contract
services, promising or advertising for employment abroad,
whether for profit or not; or (2) by undertaking any of the
acts enumerated under Section 6 of RA 8042.41
 In this case, Sison herself admits that she has no license
or authority to undertake recruitment and placement
activities. The Court has held in several cases that an
accused who represents to others that he or she could send
workers abroad for employment, even without the
authority or license to do so, commits illegal recruitment.42
It is the absence of the necessary license or authority to
recruit and deploy workers that renders the recruitment
activity unlawful. To prove illegal recruitment, it must be
shown that “the accused gave the complainants the distinct
impression that she had the power or ability to deploy the
complain-

_______________

40   People v. Arnaiz, G.R. No. 205153, September 9, 2015, 770 SCRA

319.
41  People v. Tolentino, G.R. No. 208686, July 1, 2015, 761 SCRA 332.
42  Id., citing People v. Inovero, 131 Phil. 116, 126; 727 SCRA 257, 267-
268 (2014); People v. Lalli, 675 Phil. 126, 142; 659 SCRA 105, 121 (2011);
People v. Abat, 661 Phil. 127, 132-133; 645 SCRA 490, 495-496 (2011).

 
 

636

636 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Sison

ants abroad in a manner that they were convinced to part

with their money for that end.”43
On the other hand, illegal recruitment committed by a
syndicate, as in the present case, has the following
elements: (a) the offender does not have the valid license or
authority required by law to engage in recruitment and
placement of workers; (b) the offender undertakes any of
the “recruitment and placement” activities defined in
Article 13(b) of the Labor Code, or engages in any of the
prohibited practices enumerated under now Section 6 of RA
8042; and (c) the illegal recruitment is “carried out by a
group of three or more persons conspiring and/or
confederating with one another in carrying out any
unlawful or illegal transaction, enterprise or scheme.”44 In
the third element, it “is not essential that there be actual
proof that all the conspirators took a direct part in every
act. It is sufficient that they acted in concert pursuant to
the same objective.”45
 The acts of Sison, Dedales, and Bacomo show a common
purpose and each undertook a part to reach their objective.
Their concerted action is evident in that either Sison or
Dedales was receiving payments from the recruits; that
Dedales signed the acknowledgment receipt from Sison;
and that the three accompanied their recruits together in
seeking out their visas in Malaysia and Indonesia. Further,
the impression given to Castuera and other recruits was
that the three were indeed working together.
Since it was proven that the three accused were acting
in concert and conspired with one another, their illegal
recruitment activity is considered done by a syndicate,
making the offense illegal recruitment involving economic
sabotage.

_______________

43  People v. Abat, id., at p. 132; p. 495.

44  People v. Fernandez, 735 Phil. 340, 345; 725 SCRA 152, 156 (2014).
45  People v. Gallemit, 734 Phil. 698, 717-718; 724 SCRA 359, 379-380
(2014).

 
 
637

VOL. 835, AUGUST 9, 2017 637

People vs. Sison

Section 7 of RA 8042 sets out the penalty for illegal

recruitment involving economic sabotage:

SEC. 7. PENALTIES.—
(a) Any person found guilty of illegal recruitment shall suffer the
penalty of imprisonment of not less than six (6) years and one (1)
day but not more than twelve (12) years and a fine not less than
two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00) nor more than five
hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00).
(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.
Provided, however, that the maximum penalty shall be imposed if
the person illegally recruited is less than eighteen (18) years of
age or committed by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority.
(Emphasis supplied)
  
The RTC rejected Sison’s claim that she was also a
victim of illegal recruitment. The courts do not look
favorably at denial as a defense since “[d]enial, same as an
alibi, if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence,
is negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of weight
in law. It is considered with suspicion and always received
with caution, not only because it is inherently weak and
unreliable but also because it is easily fabricated and
concocted.”46 Denial “does not prevail over an affirmative
assertion of the fact.”47
Sison’s defense of denial is merely an attempt to avoid
liability. The Court agrees with the RTC’s assessment that

_______________

46  Id., citing People v. Ocden, 665 Phil. 268, 289; 650 SCRA 124, 145
(2011).
47  People v. Inovero, supra note 42 at p. 127; pp. 268-269.

 
 

638

638 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Sison

Sison’s claim that she is also a victim of illegal recruitment

has no credence.
It is hard to believe that Castuera would deal with Sison
in the manner that he had if he believed that she was also
a mere recruit like himself. For one thing, there is no proof
of Sison’s transactions with Dedales, except for a
handwritten acknowledgment receipt,48 which is only
backed up by her own testimony. Also, if she were a victim,
she would have taken action against Dedales and Bacomo
herself. Her husband was a member of the Philippine
National Police. It would have been easy to seek help in
apprehending the illegal recruiters. Sison also failed to
explain why she took no action to recover the P100,000 she
allegedly paid for her Australian visa, as well as the money
to travel and stay in Malaysia, Brunei, and Indonesia.
Lastly, why would she have allowed, as she claims, the
US$1,000 she allegedly paid to be applied to the U.S. visa
application of Castuera, someone she says she hardly
knows, instead of trying to recover the same, considering
that Dedales failed to procure the visa for which she paid?
All these cast doubt on her claim of being only a victim of
Dedales.
At the very least, Sison gave the impression that she
had some sort of authority, whether or not Dedales is
indeed the principal, which is enough to amount to illegal
recruitment. In any case, the acknowledgment receipts49
only serve to strengthen the case of conspiracy among
Sison and her co-accused.
 
Estafa
 
We affirm Sison’s conviction for estafa under Article
315(2)(a) of the RPC. It is settled that a person, for the
same acts, may be convicted separately for illegal
recruitment un-

_______________

48  Records, p. 252.
49  Id., at pp. 252-253.

 
 

639

VOL. 835, AUGUST 9, 2017 639

People vs. Sison

der RA 8042 and estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the RPC.

In People v. Gallemit, the Court explained:

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 is malum 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 one’s 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.50 (Citations
omitted)

 
 The elements of estafa by means of deceit under Article
315(2)(a) of the RPC are:

(a) that there must be a false pretense or fraudulent

representation as to his power, influence, qualifications, property,
credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions; (b) that such
false pretense or fraudulent representation was made or executed
prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; (c)
that the offended party relied on the false pretense, fraudulent
act, or fraudulent means and was induced to part with his money
or property; and (d) that, as a result thereof, the offended party
suffered damage.51

_______________

50   Supra note 45 at p. 720; p. 382, citing People v. Yabut, 374 Phil.

575, 586; 316 SCRA 237, 246-247 (1999).
51   Suliman v. People, 747 Phil. 719, 731; 741 SCRA 477, 490-491
(2014). Citations omitted.

 
 
640

640 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Sison

All these elements are present in this case.

First, Sison misrepresented her qualifications and
authority to send Castuera to work in Australia. She
actively made Castuera believe that she had the ability to
do so — she showed pictures of her “recruits,” had one of
them give a testimonial, and told him stories to convince
him of such ability. It did not matter that “they had no
agreement”52 that their transaction was for recruitment or
deployment. All her acts were calculated to convince
Castuera that Sison was qualified to send him abroad for
employment. It is enough that she “gave the impression
that [she] had the power to send workers abroad for
employment purposes.”53
Second, Sison’s false representation was made prior to
or simultaneous to the commission of the fraud. Sison used
these false representations to convince Castuera that he
would be able to go to Australia and be a fruit picker, just
like her other recruits. These representations were clearly
mere devices to convince Castuera, whom she only met at
that time, that she was a legitimate recruiter.
 Third, Castuera relied on Sison’s representations. He
believed that she could send him to Australia because of
the pictures and testimonials she showed him. He also
relied on the fact that his aunt knew Sison’s husband, a
police officer, adding to her trustworthiness. Sison banked
on that trust to convince Castuera to part with his money
and be “recruited” into overseas employment. Castuera
believed that Sison had the same ability to send him to
Australia. He did not even ask for her authority or check
for himself with the POEA, relying instead on her word.
This tells us that he was fully convinced based on Sison’s
representations.
Fourth, Sison’s misrepresentation resulted in damage to
Castuera. He paid the P80,000 down payment that Sison
required of him as processing fee, but the purpose for which
it

_______________

52  Rollo, p. 10.
53  Supra note 40.

 
 

641

VOL. 835, AUGUST 9, 2017 641

People vs. Sison

was paid never materialized. Likewise, said amount was

never reimbursed to Castuera despite his demands for its
return.
 
Penalty
 
The penalty for illegal recruitment is correct based on
Section 7 of RA 8042. Since the illegal recruitment was
committed by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority, the
RTC may rightfully mete out the maximum penalty. Thus,
the penalty imposed by the RTC stands.
The penalty for estafa, however, needs to be modified.
Article 315 of the RPC provides:

Art. 315. Swindling (estafa).—Any person who shall defraud

another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow 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 penalties which may be imposed
under the provisions of this Code, the penalty shall be termed
prisión mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be.

 
The Indeterminate Sentence Law should be applied in
determining the penalty for estafa. Under this law, the
maximum term is “that which, in view of the attending
circumstances, could be properly imposed under [the RPC]”
and the
 
 
642

642 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Sison

minimum shall be “within the range of the penalty next

lower to that prescribed by the [RPC] for the offense.”54
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, “the
minimum term is taken from the penalty next lower or
anywhere within prisión correccional minimum and
medium (i.e., from 6 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2
months). On the other hand, the maximum term is taken
from the prescribed penalty of prisión correccional
maximum to prisión mayor minimum in its maximum
period, adding 1 year of imprisonment for every P10,000.00
in excess of P22,000.00, provided, that the total penalty
shall not exceed 20 years.”55
In People v. Tolentino, the Court further explained:

The range of penalty under Article 315 is composed of only two

periods. To compute the maximum period of the indeterminate
sentence, the total number of years included in the two periods
should be divided into three equal portions, with each portion
forming a period. Following this computation, the minimum,
medium, and maximum periods of the prescribed penalty are:
1. Minimum Period – 4 years, 2 months and 1 day to 5
years, 5 months and 10 days;
2. Medium Period – 5 years, 5 months and 11 days to 6
years, 8 months and 20 days;
3. Maximum Period – 6 years, 8 months and 21 days to 8
years.
Any incremental penalty, i.e., one year for every P10,000 in excess
of P22,000, shall be added to anywhere from 6 years, 8 months
and 21 days to 8 years, at the court’s discretion, provided, the
total penalty does not exceed 20 years.56

_______________

54  Section 1, Act No. 4103, as amended (Indeterminate Sentence Law).

55  Supra note 44 at p. 347; p. 158.
56  Supra note 41.

 
 

643

VOL. 835, AUGUST 9, 2017 643

People vs. Sison

To arrive at the correct penalty, the Court must

determine the actual amount defrauded from the victim.
Actual damages must be proven, not presumed.57 It
should be “actually proven with a reasonable degree of
certainty, premised upon competent proof or the best
evidence obtainable.”58
Based on the evidence and testimony of Castuera, he
only paid P80,000 as down payment because, under their
agreement, the balance of the placement fee was to be
deducted from his salary when he starts working in
Australia. Thus, there is no basis for the P160,000 awarded
by the RTC.
Based on the foregoing, the minimum penalty should be
anywhere from 6 months and 1 day of prisión correccional
in its minimum period to 4 years and 2 months of prisión
correccional in its medium period. Thus, the RTC was
correct in imposing the minimum penalty of 4 years and 2
months of prisión correccional.
However, the maximum period should be computed as
the maximum period that could be properly imposed under
the RPC, plus the incremental penalty resulting from
each additional P10,000 in excess of P22,000 that was
defrauded from the victim.
In this case, the amount is P80,000, which means that
there must be five more years of imprisonment added to
the maximum period imposed by the RPC. Thus, the
maximum period should be 13 years of reclusion
temporal.
Lastly, Sison is ordered to pay legal interest of 6% per
annum on the amount adjudicated, to be reckoned from the
finality of this Decision until full payment.

_______________

57  Republic v. Tuvera, 545 Phil. 21, 57; 516 SCRA 113, 149 (2007).
58   Quisumbing v. Manila Electric Company, 429 Phil. 727, 747; 380
SCRA 195, 210 (2002). Citations omitted.

 
 
644

644 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Sison

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The

Decision of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CR-H.C. No.
02833 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. In
Criminal Case No. MC01-4036 for Estafa under Article
315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code, appellant Erlinda A.
Sison is sentenced to suffer the penalty of four (4) years
and two (2) months of prisión correccional as minimum to
thirteen (13) years of reclusion temporal as maximum.
Sison is also ORDERED to pay Darvy M. Castuera the
amount of P80,000 as actual damages, with legal interest
at the rate of 6% per annum from the finality of this
Decision until the amount is fully paid.
SO ORDERED.

Peralta, Mendoza, Leonen and Martires, JJ., concur.

Appeal dismissed, judgment affirmed with modification.

Notes.—Well-settled is the rule that a person convicted

for illegal recruitment under the law may, for the same
acts, be separately convicted for estafa under Article 315,
par. 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). (People vs.
Mateo, 757 SCRA 198 [2015])
Section 7 of Republic Act (RA) No. 8042 provides that
the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of not less than
P500,000 nor more than P1,000,000 shall be imposed if
illegal recruitment constitutes economic sabotage. (People
vs. Tolentino, 761 SCRA 332 [2015])
 
——o0o——
© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.