Case Digest (G.R. No. L-2904)
Facts:
The case at bar is an appeal involving Benzon Ong y Sate, alias "Benz Ong," who was found guilty by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Baguio City for illegal recruitment on a large scale and seven counts of estafa. This decision was rendered on November 23, 1994, sentencing Ong to life imprisonment, a fine of P100,000.00, and various prison terms for the estafa charges, along with a total indemnification of P277,500.00 to the eight private complainants. The acts of illegal recruitment occurred between November 1993 and January 1994 in Baguio City, where Ong falsely represented himself as a licensed recruiter for overseas employment.
He allegedly assured several complainants, including Noel Bacasnot, Ruth Eliw, and others, about securing jobs in Taiwan with attractive salaries. The accused collected various placement fees without any legitimate authority to do so, amounting to substantial sums from each complainant. After a series of deceptive interactions, including
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-2904)
Facts:
- Parties and Nature of the Case
- The People of the Philippines, as plaintiff-appellee, versus Benzon Ong y Sate, also known as “Benz Ong”, as the accused-appellant.
- The accused was charged with two offenses:
- Illegal recruitment committed in large scale.
- Seven counts of estafa involving various private complainants.
- Charges and Allegations
- Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale
- Accused-appellant allegedly recruited and promised job placements abroad for Filipino workers without securing the proper license or authority from the governmental agency.
- The recruitment acts were committed for a fee against at least nine individuals, hence meeting the threshold for “large scale”.
- The offense is punishable under Article 38 of the Labor Code, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 2018, and further under Article 39.
- Estafa Offenses
- Seven separate counts where complainants were defrauded by means of misrepresentations and false promises regarding overseas employment.
- The alleged fraudulent acts involved the collection of placement fees and other amounts from complainants, with an indication of damage or prejudice in monetary terms.
- Chronology and Specific Acts
- Initial Contact and Recruitment
- In September 1993, complainant Noel Bacasnot met the accused at Zaldy Galos’ insurance office in the Laperal Building, Baguio City.
- The accused represented himself as having contacts in Taiwan and claimed that his mother, based in Taiwan, could facilitate a high-paying job for Bacasnot.
- He proposed that Bacasnot start as a factory worker for six months before possibly transferring to a better post as an optometrist.
- Collection of Placement Fees
- Bacasnot was charged a placement fee of P30,000.00, paid partly as an initial downpayment.
- Other complainants (Ruth A. Eliw, Sally Kamura, Solidad Malinias, Samuel Bagni, Teofilo S. Gallao, Jr., Paul Esteban, and David Joaquin) were similarly induced to pay varied amounts ranging from P7,500.00 to P40,000.00.
- Payments were taken at different venues such as the Gallaoas Optical Clinic and the premises of the accused.
- A handwritten agreement, prepared by Almi G. Bacasnot, acknowledged the receipt of additional funds amounting to P45,000.00 and included a commitment by the accused to effect employment arrangements within a prescribed period.
- Conduct of Recruitment and Deception
- The accused accompanied several complainants to Manila, claiming to have connections with the Steadfast Recruitment Agency.
- Instead of taking them to a legitimate recruitment center, the accused diverted them to an office on United Nations Avenue where interviews and medical examinations were conducted.
- Despite these engagements, the accused later disappeared and could no longer be located, leading to the realization by complainants that the promised employment abroad could not be fulfilled.
- Entrapment and Arrest
- On June 27, 1994, following a tip by complainant Eliw, a team from the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) conducted an entrapment operation.
- During the operation, Eliw handed over a marked payment to the accused, after which he was arrested by the NBI team.
- Additional evidence, such as a certification from the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration-Regional Extension Unit (POEA-REU), confirmed that the accused did not have the necessary license to recruit Filipino workers for overseas employment.
- Evidence Presented and Defense
- Documentary and Testimonial Evidence
- Receipts and handwritten agreements evidenced the collection of placement fees.
- Testimonies from the complainants were consistent and corroborative, establishing that the accused made representations regarding overseas employment opportunities.
- A certification by the POEA-REU reinforced that the accused was not legally authorized to conduct recruitment activities.
- Accused-Appellant’s Defense
- The accused contended that he merely suggested opportunities to the complainants, rather than actively recruiting them.
- He denied collecting placement fees and maintained that his signature on the receipts was forged.
- He claimed that his role was limited to providing referrals to a legitimate recruitment agency and that he did not knowingly mislead the complainants.
Issues:
- Credibility and Sufficiency of the Prosecution’s Evidence
- Whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimonies of the complaining witnesses.
- Whether the evidence presented, including the documentary submissions and cumulative witness testimonies, was sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
- Nature of the Offense in Relation to Recruitment Activities
- Whether the accused’s conduct constituted illegal recruitment in large scale as defined under the Labor Code.
- Whether the accused’s actions, which could be characterized as mere referral, still fell within the ambit of “recruitment and placement” requiring proper authority and licensure.
- Concurrence of Charges: Illegal Recruitment and Estafa
- Whether the elements of estafa were met, given that complainants were aware that the accused was not a licensed recruiter.
- Whether illegal recruitment as a malum prohibitum offense can concurrently give rise to a conviction for estafa, a malum in se offense requiring criminal intent, without the risk of double jeopardy.
- Evidence on the Authenticity of Signatures and Financial Transactions
- Whether the accused’s contention that the signatures in the receipts were forged was sufficient to undermine the prosecution’s evidentiary basis.
- The impact of the absence or disputed nature of receipts in the overall establishment of the accused’s criminal liability.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)