Case Summary (G.R. No. 115150-55)
Procedural Background
Calonzo was charged with illegal recruitment in large scale and five counts of estafa. The Regional Trial Court found him guilty, resulting in several penalties, including various indeterminate prison terms for estafa and life imprisonment for illegal recruitment, along with fines and costs.
Defense Arguments
On appeal, Calonzo argued that the trial court erred in disregarding the testimony of Nenita Mercado from the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA), who claimed there were no records indicating that Calonzo processed the complainants' applications for abroad employment. He contended that his inability to process these applications indicated he did not engage in recruitment. In the estafa cases, he asserted that discrepancies existed between the amounts he collected and the amounts reflected in the receipts provided by the complainants.
Factual Background
The events began in February 1992, when danilo de los Reyes and Belarmino Torregrosa met Calonzo, who offered them jobs abroad for a fee. They eventually paid Calonzo a total of Php 120,000 as a processing fee and were misled to believe they would be sent to Italy. However, their destination turned out to be Bangkok, where they remained stranded and incurred additional expenses. After failing to send them to Italy as promised, Calonzo vanished, prompting the complainants to seek assistance from the POEA.
Evidence and Testimonies
Testimonies from the complainants revealed a pattern of Calonzo's deceitful activities. Each complainant detailed the amounts paid, which amounted to Php 120,000 for four of them, and claimed that Calonzo solicited further payments while they were in Bangkok. Notably, the POEA confirmed that neither Calonzo nor his agency had the necessary license for recruitment.
Legal Definitions
Article 13(b) of the Labor Code defines recruitment and placement, asserting that any promise of employment in exchange for a fee, especially involving multiple persons, constitutes recruitment. Illegal recruitment is specified in Article 38, particularly when conducted by unauthorized individuals, as was Calonzo's case.
Court's Reasoning and Verdict
The court found substantial evidence supporting the conclusion that Calonzo engaged in illegal recruitment in large scale due to his intention to deceive multiple complainants regarding employment in Italy, as well as for collecting fees without legitimate authority. More critical
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 115150-55)
Case Background
- The accused, Reydante Calonzo Ya Ambrosio, was charged with Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale and five counts of Estafa by complainants Bernardo Miranda, Danilo de los Reyes, Elmer Clamor, Belarmino Torregrosa, and Hazel de Paula.
- On April 5, 1994, the Regional Trial Court of Pasig found him guilty and sentenced him accordingly across multiple criminal cases.
Sentences Imposed
Criminal Case No. 98850 (Estafa against Bernardo Miranda):
- Indeterminate prison term of 11 years, 11 months, and 11 days of prision mayor to 15 years, 8 months, and 21 days of reclusion temporal.
- Ordered to reimburse P120,000.00 to Miranda.
Criminal Case No. 98851 (Estafa against Danilo de los Reyes):
- Same sentencing as above, with reimbursement of P120,000.00.
Criminal Case No. 98852 (Estafa against Elmer Clamor):
- Same sentencing as above, with reimbursement of P120,000.00.
Criminal Case No. 98853 (Estafa against Belarmino Torregrosa):
- Indeterminate prison term of 9 years, 11 months, and 11 days of prision mayor to 13 years, 8 months, and 21 days of reclusion temporal.
- Ordered to reimburse P100,000.00.
Criminal Case No. 98854 (Estafa against Hazel de Paula):
- Same sentencing as above, with reimbursement of P120,000.00.
Criminal Case No. 98855 (Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale):
- Life imprisonment and a fine of P100,000.00.
Accused’s Appeal
- The accused-appellant contested his conviction, claiming the trial court erred by disregarding the testimony of Nenita Mercado from the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA), who stated that Calonzo did not process the complainants' applications.
- He argued that the prosecution's eviden