G.R. No. 76728 - People vs. Cruz

The case involves Larry "Lauro" Domingo, accused of illegal recruitment (large scale) and estafa.
The offenses span several criminal cases: Criminal Case No. 1224-M-2001 (illegal recruitment) and Criminal Case Nos. 1243-M-2001 and 1246-M-2001 (estafa), with additional criminal cases (Nos. 1225-M-2001 to 1242-M-2001, 1244-M-2001, 1245-M-2001, and 1247-M-2001) resulting in acquittals for other estafa counts.

The Information in Criminal Case No. 1224-M-2001 alleges that from November 1999 to January 20, 2000, Domingo, being an unlicensed recruiter, engaged in recruitment activities without authorization from the Department of Labor and Employment.
The offense was charged as committed in “large scale” due to the number of recruited individuals involved, with detailed naming of numerous complainants.
The elements required to prove illegal recruitment in large scale were that the recruitment activity was undertaken without a license, involved illegal practices under Articles 13(b) and 34 of the Labor Code, and affected at least three individuals.

The estafa allegations, comprising 23 counts, are based on the premise that Domingo defrauded private complainants by falsely promising employment abroad.
Specific transactions included promises to facilitate placement for jobs in Saipan whereby complainants, including Wilson A. Manzo, Florentino M. Ondra, Dionisio Aguilar, Ma. Leah Vivas, and Simeon Cabigao, remitted varying sums of money.
The fraudulent misrepresentation involved assuring employment and medical clearance services in return for fees, which were later misappropriated when the employment did not materialize.

Four complaining witnesses (Cambay, Ondra, Aguilar, and Ma. Leah Vivas) provided consistent accounts of being recruited and paying fees for job placement that never materialized.
One of the original witnesses, Simeon Cabigao, initially testified against Domingo but later recanted his testimony through an affidavit, asserting that another individual, Danilo Gimeno, was the actual recruiter.
The prosecution’s evidence was primarily testimonial with no receipts or documentation showing that Domingo had received money specifically for the placement fees.

Domingo denied all allegations, asserting that he was merely a driver employed by Danilo Gimeno, the actual recruiter.
The defense argued that the absence of receipts and the subsequent recantation by Cabigao should call into question Domingo’s culpability.
Additional defense witnesses, including private complainants Enrico Espiritu and Roberto Castillo, supported the claim that Gimeno was the true recruiter.

Found Domingo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal recruitment under Article 38(b) of the Labor Code and of two counts of estafa under Article 315 paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code.
Imposed a life imprisonment sentence and fine for illegal recruitment and a range of prison terms for the estafa convictions, including specific compensatory orders to the complainants.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s verdict, stating that the testimonies of the four uncompromised complainants sufficed to establish guilt.
It ruled that the absence of receipts did not affect the finding of guilt and that Cabigao's recantation did not vitiate his initial testimony as its credibility was to be evaluated in the context of all evidence presented.

The case prominently involves interpretation of key provisions of the Labor Code of the Philippines, namely Articles 13(b), 34, and 38, as amended by relevant presidential decrees.
On the issue of estafa, the case underscores the relevance of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code and the distinction between crimes of a “malum prohibitum” nature (illegal recruitment) and those of a “malum in se” nature (estafa).

Whether the trial and appellate courts erred in convicting Domingo despite the absence of documentary evidence (receipts) showing he had received payment for the promised employment.
Whether the testimonial evidence provided by the complaining witnesses, which was largely based on personal declarations and recollections, was sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Whether Cabigao’s retraction of his testimony, submitted via affidavit and later testimony on behalf of the defense, should have been given significant weight in discounting his initial, adverse declarations.
Whether the recantation, executed several years after the filing of the complaint, should call into question the reliability and credibility of his original testimony.

Whether the prosecution adequately proved that Domingo engaged in recruitment activities without the required license, as mandated by the provisions of the Labor Code.
Whether the necessary elements for estafa—namely, fraudulent misrepresentation and resultant pecuniary damage to the complainants—were sufficiently established by the evidence on record.

Whether it is proper to sustain convictions for both illegal recruitment and estafa against the same defendant despite the factual overlap in the conduct charged.