G.R. No. 197539 - People vs. Gallemit y Tolentino

The case involves appellant Roderick Gallemit y Tolentino, charged with two distinct offenses: illegal recruitment in large scale and estafa.
The charges arise from a series of criminal cases consolidated by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Parañaque City, involving various private complainants who paid placement fees for employment abroad.
The illegal recruitment charge is anchored on the operation of an unlicensed recruitment agency, Green Pasture Worldwide Tours and Consultancy Corporation, allegedly owned and operated jointly by the appellant and his co-accused.

The Information, dated January 3, 2003, accused Daud, Hanelita, and the appellant of illegal recruitment committed from February 5, 2001 to August 2001 in Parañaque City.
The accused were charged with recruiting Filipino workers for overseas employment without securing the required license or authority from the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE).
The offense was classified as “illegal recruitment in large scale” due to the number of complainants (at least three) and its connection to economic sabotage.

A POEA Certification dated September 19, 2002, which confirmed that the agency was not licensed to recruit workers for overseas employment.
Testimonies of private complainants (including Marcelo De Guzman, Gina Decena, and Francisco Poserio) who detailed their interactions with the accused.
Documentary evidence such as receipts, job orders, and other documents purporting to show that payments were made to facilitate placement abroad.

Private complainants testified that they were enticed by promises of jobs abroad (including specific offers of US$400 monthly salary, overtime pay, free board and lodging, and additional benefits).
The presence of the appellant during the collection of placement fees (even if not the one who directly offered employment guarantees) was highlighted as establishing his participation in a conspiracy with his co-accused.
The conduct of the accused indicated a coordinated effort to convince job seekers to part with their money without providing the requisite licenses or actual opportunities.

Separate Informations, corresponding to Criminal Case Nos. 03-0123 to 03-0130, charged the accused with estafa for defrauding private complainants by means of deceit.
The allegations centered on inducements made by the accused to pay processing fees for job placement, along with the subsequent failure to deliver proper documentation and employment opportunities.

Testimonies revealed that complainants such as Marcelo De Guzman, Gina Decena, and Francisco Poserio paid various sums (ranging from P25,000.00 to P100,000.00) for placement services.
Evidence showed that the accused, in collaboration with their co-accused, misappropriated the funds received, despite issuing receipts in some instances.
The absence of direct documentary evidence (i.e., receipts in some cases) was countered by credible witness testimonies confirming that payments had indeed been made.

Nine criminal cases against the appellant were consolidated and subjected to a joint trial.
Only the appellant was apprehended; the co-accused Daud and Hanelita remained at large or evaded arrest, with their cases being archived but not affecting the trial of the appellant.
At arraignment, the appellant pleaded not guilty to all charges, and his testimony formed the sole part of his defense.

The RTC rendered a decision on January 15, 2007, convicting the appellant on one count of illegal recruitment in large scale and on three counts of estafa, while dismissing other cases for failure to prosecute.
The Court of Appeals, in its Decision dated March 18, 2011, affirmed the RTC’s findings but modified the indeterminate penalties for the estafa counts.
On appeal before the Supreme Court, the appellant raised issues challenging the conviction on grounds of insufficient evidence regarding his personal role and the element of deceit in the estafa charge.

Whether the prosecution failed to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that appellant actively participated in illegal recruitment activities by giving the impression that he possessed the authority to recruit workers abroad.
Whether the mere presence of the appellant during the collection of fees, without direct evidence of promising employment, is sufficient to sustain the conviction for illegal recruitment in large scale.

Whether the required element of deceit was lacking, given that appellant contended he did not make any fraudulent representations or false assurances to the complainants.
Whether the absence of receipts explicitly bearing his signature should preclude his conviction for estafa.

Whether the established evidence of conspiracy among appellant and his co-accused is enough to impute the acts of misrepresentation and misappropriation to the appellant.
Whether the principle that “when there is conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all” justifies convicting the appellant even if his individual role was limited to mere presence.

Whether the credibility and consistency of the private complainants’ testimonies, despite some gaps in documentary evidence, are sufficient to overcome the appellant’s denials.
Whether the lower courts erred in giving less weight to negative testimony (denials by the appellant) compared to the affirmative testimonies of the complainants.