A.C. No. 9094 - Santos Ventura Hocorma Foundation, Inc. vs. Funk

The case involves multiple accused, notably RODOLFO GALLO y GADOT (accused-appellant) along with FIDES PACARDO y JUNGCO and PILAR MANTA y DUNGO, charged with syndicated illegal recruitment and estafa.
Initially, charges were filed for syndicated illegal recruitment and eighteen counts of estafa against a group that included five named individuals and nine others. However, only select cases proceeded to trial due to the absence or provisional dismissal of some accused.

In Criminal Case No. 02-206293, the information charged the accused, including Gallo, Pacardo, and Manta, with syndicated illegal recruitment under Republic Act 8042.

The charge involved engaging in the recruitment and placement of Filipino workers for overseas employment without the proper licensing, and charging fees in excess of those allowed by the POEA Board Resolution No. 02, Series of 1998.
The recruitment was done by a syndicate (a group of three or more persons) and in large scale, qualifying the offense as economic sabotage.

In Criminal Case No. 02-206297, the accused were charged with estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code, for defrauding the complainant, EDGARDO V. DELA CAZA, of Php45,000.00 by means of false pretenses and representations relating to guaranteed employment abroad.

Arraignment took place on January 19, 2004, where accused-appellant Gallo pleaded not guilty. The trial commenced after the pre-trial was terminated on March 3, 2004.
The prosecution presented key witnesses including:

EDGARDO V. DELA CAZA, who testified on the misrepresentations made by the accused regarding job opportunities abroad.
Other witnesses such as POEA representative Armando Albines Roa and additional complainants, who corroborated the sequence of events.

Documentary evidence, such as official receipts (e.g., Receipt No. 401) and POEA certifications, substantiated the alleged acts by showing:

On May 22, 2001, EDGARDO V. DELA CAZA was introduced to the recruitment agency where he was informed by Mardeolyn Martir and other agents, including Gallo, that the agency could successfully deploy workers abroad as factory workers in Korea.
Gallo asserted his affiliation with the agency by introducing himself as a relative of the agency’s president, thereby boosting the agency’s credibility.
Dela Caza was convinced to pay a downpayment of Php45,000.00, evidenced by his presentation of a receipt signed by Gallo.
Subsequent office relocations and changes in the agency’s name contributed to the victim's realization that the promises were fraudulent.

Accused-appellant Gallo denied engaging in any recruitment or recruitment-related activity against Dela Caza.
He claimed that he too was an applicant for employment and that his role entailed basic auxiliary tasks such as processing documents and running errands, with no authority to recruit.
The defense argued that mere employment in the agency, without a demonstrable conspiracy or active recruitment role, should not result in his conviction.

The RTC (Regional Trial Court), Branch 30, in Manila rendered a decision on March 15, 2007:

Accused Pacardo and Manta were acquitted for insufficiency of evidence.
Accused Gallo was convicted for illegal recruitment (in Criminal Case No. 02-206293), sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Php1,000,000.00, and ordered to indemnify Dela Caza of Php45,000.00.
In Criminal Case No. 02-206297, Gallo was similarly convicted for estafa, receiving an indeterminate prison sentence ranging from four (4) years of prision correccional to nine (9) years of prision mayor.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) in its Decision dated December 24, 2008, affirmed the RTC’s ruling with a modification in the penalty for the estafa conviction, adjusting the maximum imprisonment term to ten (10) years.

The evidence showed that the recruitment agency was not licensed by the POEA.
Testimonies, especially from Dela Caza, depicted a clear conspiracy among the persons involved, including Gallo, where the actions of one were considered the actions of all, thus establishing a united front in committing both illegal recruitment and estafa.
The organized operation, marked by coordinated misrepresentations and the handling of money (as seen in the issuance and signing of receipts), underscored the syndicate nature of the crime.

Whether the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant Gallo of illegal recruitment committed by a syndicate given the claimed insufficiency of evidence presented by the prosecution.
Whether the trial court was mistaken in finding Gallo guilty of estafa despite the defense’s contention that the evidence was not beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the evidence of conspiracy and coordinated action among the agency’s members was sufficient to impute the actions of one to all and support the dual convictions for illegal recruitment and estafa.