G.R. No. 208686 - People vs. Tolentino

The appellant, Alelie Tolentino (also known as Alelie Tolentino y Hernandez), was charged with illegal recruitment in large scale and with five counts of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code.
The criminal cases filed include:

The trial court found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt based on the evidence and witness testimonies, findings which were later affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

The Information alleged that during various periods in 2001, the appellant, in conjunction with Narcisa Santos, wilfully and unlawfully advertised, enlisted, and contracted persons for employment abroad without securing the required license or permit from the government agency.
The recruitment activities were directed primarily at convincing job seekers that she had the power to secure them work in Korea, despite her lack of a valid license as confirmed by a POEA certification.
The large-scale nature of the offense was established by the fact that the recruitment was committed against three or more persons, either individually or as a group, constituting economic sabotage.

Lederle Panesa was induced with the promise of employment in Korea and paid an initial fee of P15,000, which was later mishandled by the appellant.
Orlando Layoso, Donna Magboo, and Jimmy Lejos, in a meeting with the appellant, were promised assistance for overseas employment for a fee of P80,000, with each paying a partial fee eventually amounting to P35,000 in their respective cases.
Marcelino Lejos, similarly, paid a partial fee amounting to P20,000 under the same false pretense.

The transactions involved multiple meetings in the appellant’s office in Muntinlupa where she not only explained the overseas employment process but also issued receipts and petty cash vouchers, further evidencing the collection of payments.
On a subsequent meeting, when the complainants discovered discrepancies such as the incorrect names on employment contracts, they confronted the appellant, which led to further revelations about her unauthorized recruitment practices.

Private complainants testified about meetings held in the appellant’s office at the Arevalo Building, Alabang, Muntinlupa City, where she explained the overseas employment procedure and promised job placements in Korea.
Documentary evidence included:

Petty cash vouchers and receipts with the appellant’s signature acknowledging the collection of fees.
Trainee Agreements purportedly signed as contracts with Korean employers.
A POEA certification confirming that the appellant was not authorized or licensed to recruit workers for overseas employment.

The collective evidence established that the appellant directly handled the funds and interacted with the complainants, thus reinforcing the fraudulent nature of her acts.

The appellant testified that she merely explained the process for overseas employment and contended that she was not actively recruiting workers but was herself seeking employment as a factory worker.
She claimed that her actions were carried out under the instructions of Narcisa Santos, to whom she allegedly turned over the money collected—a contention that was not substantiated by concrete evidence.
Despite her defenses, the direct dealings with the complainants (including issuing receipts and executing trainee agreements) undermined her explanation and pointed to active participation in illegal practices.

The trial court rendered a decision convicting the appellant for illegal recruitment (deemed as economic sabotage) and for each count of estafa, imposing varying penalties and orders for monetary indemnification of the complainants.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, basing its ruling on the credibility of the witnesses and consistency of the documentary evidence.
The Court of Appeals rejected the appellant’s contention that she did not personally recruit or defraud the complainants, emphasizing her direct role in the fraudulent transactions.

The incident falls under the definitions provided by Article 38 of the Labor Code for illegal recruitment and by RA 8042 regarding illegal recruitment for overseas employment, which together delineate the offenses of unauthorized and large-scale recruitment.
The prosecution effectively demonstrated that the appellant lacked the necessary authority or license, and that her actions met all three required elements for illegal recruitment in large scale: engaging in recruitment activity, absence of a valid license, and committing the act against three or more persons.
Additionally, the elements of estafa were met, given that the appellant used deceit and fraudulent representations to induce the complainants to part with their money, resulting in pecuniary damage.

Whether the appellant, by promising overseas employment without holding the required license, committed the offense of illegal recruitment in large scale as defined under the Labor Code and RA 8042.
Whether the actions of the appellant in inducing the complainants to pay fees based on false representations constitute estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code.
Whether the evidentiary basis, including the testimonies and documentary evidence, sufficiently established the elements of both illegal recruitment and estafa beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the separate conviction for illegal recruitment and the separate convictions for multiple counts of estafa were legally sustainable given that both offenses arose from the same fraudulent conduct.
Whether the penalty imposed by the trial court on illegal recruitment, particularly the fine and imprisonment terms, required modification in accordance with the guiding statutes and the aggravation for economic sabotage.