G.R. No. 127842 - People vs. Dulay

Case Summary (G.R. No. 127842)

Illegal Recruitment Charge (Criminal Case No. T-1676): Allegations and Applicable Elements

Criminal Case No. T-1676 alleged that during August to November 1994, in Barangay San Roque and Barangay Legaspi, San Nicolas and Tayug, Pangasinan, the accused recruited four persons—Ricardo C. Ilasin, Eduardo M. Drapeza, Odon V. Orosa, and Richard L. Castulo—for employment abroad without first securing the requisite license or authority from the Department of Labor and Employment. In resolving the appeal on this charge, the Court reiterated that the elements of illegal recruitment in large scale are: (one) the offender undertakes recruitment activity defined in Article 13(b) or prohibited practice under Article 34 of the Labor Code; (two) the offender does not have a license or authority to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers; and (three) the offense is committed against three or more persons, individually or as a group.

Evidence for the Prosecution in Illegal Recruitment

The prosecution presented the complainants as witnesses in a consolidated hearing. Their collective testimony established the recruitment activity element and the presence of at least three victims. However, the Court focused on the second element: the lack of license or authority, which the Court treated as a negative averment inhering in the offense itself. In line with People v. Quebral (1939), when such negative averment is an essential ingredient, the prosecution bears the burden of proof.

Failure to Prove the Negative Averment of No License

After a careful examination of the records, the Court held that the prosecution failed to present any certification from the POEA to prove the negative averment that the accused was not licensed to recruit workers. The Court ruled that the testimonies of the complainants did not amount to proof beyond reasonable doubt of the accused’s lack of authority. Drapeza admitted that he did not ask the accused about her authority to recruit. Orosa and Ilasin similarly did not inquire about the accused’s license, because they were told that the recruitment would proceed through direct hiring. The Court therefore declared that this evidentiary gap was fatal to the prosecution’s case on illegal recruitment in large scale.

Disposition on Illegal Recruitment

Because the prosecution failed to prove the second essential element beyond reasonable doubt, the Court held that the accused could not be convicted of illegal recruitment in large scale. Accordingly, it reversed the trial court’s judgment in Criminal Case No. T-1676 and acquitted Leonora Dulay from the charge. The Court made no pronouncement as to costs.

Estafa Cases: Allegations, Consolidated Testimony, and the Promised Taiwan Employment

In the four estafa cases, the informations alleged that the accused, by means of false representation and fraudulent acts, received money from each complainant under an express promise to employ them abroad in Taiwan, but did so with intent to defraud and with abuse of confidence, and thereafter failed to comply or to return the amounts despite demands.

Eduardo M. Drapeza testified that the accused introduced the prospect of employment in Taiwan as a thread factory worker. He described sequential payments for expenses and processing, including amounts for medical examination in Manila and for the accused’s services in processing his application, followed by a substantial amount allegedly for plane fare. He stated that he accompanied the accused to a travel agency in Makati to buy the ticket, but no ticket was ultimately purchased. He further testified that he never saw the accused again and learned she had been jailed for illegal recruitment.

Odon V. Orosa, a driver, testified that the accused assured him of employment in Taiwan if he paid placement fees in two stages, and that his wife delivered money for the accused’s services. Orosa described additional payments for medical examination and for alleged plane ticket processing, and he recounted that although January came, he did not leave for Taiwan, because the accused was already in jail.

Ricardo C. Ilasin testified that the accused recruited him to work in Taiwan as a caretaker of a piggery, promised a monthly salary, and told him he could pay through salary deduction. He narrated a process involving payments for medical examination and for alleged plane ticket purchase. He also testified that no application forms or pictures were required and that he did not verify whether the accused had authority to recruit through POEA accreditation.

Richard L. Castulo testified that the accused recruited him for piggery caretaking in Taiwan through direct hiring. He described payments made for processing and for a plane ticket, as well as medical examination fees, and he stated that, like the other complainants, he was not able to leave for Taiwan on the promised date.

A common witness, Glory Orosa, corroborated the receipt of different sums for her husband’s placement fees, plane ticket payment, and medical expenses, and she testified that when the accused could not be reached, they later learned the accused was in jail for illegal recruitment.

Appellant’s Arguments on Estafa: Receipt Requirements and Proof of Prejudice

On appeal, the accused assailed the proof beyond reasonable doubt for the estafa convictions. She argued that, except for Castulo, the other complainants did not present receipts, and that without receipts it could not be ruled that Drapeza, Orosa, and Ilasin suffered prejudice. She further contended that absent proof of damage, the trial court erred in awarding actual damages.

The Court’s Treatment of Receipts and Actual Damages

The Court rejected the accused’s premise that payments were not evidenced. It held that the records showed receipts for the material payments, including receipts for various sums paid by Drapeza, Glory Orosa, Ilasin, and Castulo, and it listed the evidentiary exhibits corresponding to those receipts. Nonetheless, the Court identified a different defect: the trial court awarded additional amounts of actual damages based on allegations in the informations but without aligning those awards with competent proof presented during trial. The Court invoked the principle that actual damages require competent proof of the amount of loss, and that credence should be given only to claims duly supported by receipts or other credible evidence.

The Court thus disallowed unproved claims. Castulo’s additional claim for transportation expenses and passport processing was not supported by receipts. Drapeza’s claimed medical expense in Manila was likewise not proved by receipt. Orosa’s alleged medical examination payment was likewise unproved by receipt. In Ilasin’s case, while the trial court awarded a total amount exceeding the received receipts, the Court limited the award to the amounts substantiated in evidence.

Revised Actual Damages and Penalties

Based on the evidence supported by receipts and the disallowance of unsupported claims, the Court ordered the reduction of actual damages as follows: Castulo was entitled to P17,000.00; Drapeza to P20,000.00; Orosa to P20,000.00; and Ilasin to P20,000.00. The Court also stated that it found no reason to modify the penalties fixed by the trial court in the estafa cases, because the modified amounts of damages still fell within the same range of penalty under the first paragraph of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code.

Moral Damages: Lack of Prayer and Lack of Evidence

The Court further reversed the award of moral damages to Orosa, Ilasin, and Castulo, citing lack of factual basis. It emphasized that the complainants did not pray for moral damages and presented no evidence to establish that they suffered the kind of physical suffering or mental anguish that is required as a proximate result of the accused’s wrongful acts. The Court held that a trial court may not order the accused to pay moral damages in the absence of testimonial or other supporting evidence, referencing Article 2217, Civil Code, and the controlling ruling in People v. Ballabare.

Exemplary Damages:

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 127842)

Parties and Procedural Posture

People of the Philippines prosecuted Leonora Dulay before the Regional Trial Court of Tayug, Pangasinan, Branch 52 under separate informations for illegal recruitment in large scale and estafa.
The trial court tried the matters in a consolidated manner through a common set of complainants as witnesses.
The accused pleaded not guilty assisted by counsel de oficio at later stages due to counsel de parte withdrawal.
The accused failed to present evidence for the defense after repeated non-cooperation, and the trial court declared the cases submitted for decision.
The trial court convicted the accused for illegal recruitment in large scale in Criminal Case No. T-1676 and convicted her for estafa in Criminal Case Nos. T-1672 to T-1675.
The accused appealed, challenging both guilt and the awards of damages.
The Supreme Court reversed the illegal recruitment in large scale conviction and affirmed the estafa convictions subject to modifications on damages.

Charges and Informations

The accused was charged with estafa in four informations for violations of paragraph 2(a), Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, each based on false representation and fraudulent acts and an express promise to employ abroad (Taiwan).
Criminal Case No. T-1672 alleged receipt of P18,000.00 from Richard L. Castulo under a promise of employment abroad.
Criminal Case No. T-1673 alleged receipt of P23,000.00 from Eduardo M. Drapeza under a promise of employment abroad.
Criminal Case No. T-1674 alleged receipt of P23,000.00 from Odon V. Orosa under a promise of employment abroad.
Criminal Case No. T-1675 alleged receipt of P23,000.00 from Ricardo C. Ilasin under a promise of employment abroad.
The accused was also charged in Criminal Case No. T-1676 with illegal recruitment in large scale for recruiting four named persons for employment abroad without first securing the requisite license or authority from the Department of Labor and Employment.

Consolidated Prosecution Evidence

The prosecution presented the alleged victims as witnesses in a consolidated hearing of the indictments.
The complainants uniformly described recruitment efforts by the accused for jobs abroad in Taiwan, with monetary demands for processing, medical examinations, and plane tickets.
Each complainant testified that the accused promised employment abroad and that the promised departure never materialized.

Testimony of Eduardo Drapeza

Eduardo M. Drapeza testified that he first met the accused in August 1994 in Barangay San Roque, San Nicolas, Pangasinan and that the accused offered him a job in Taiwan in a thread factory.
Drapeza stated that the accused explained the amount needed and asked him to consult his parents, which he did a week later.
Drapeza testified that he advanced P3,000.00 for expenses for a medical examination in Manila and that no receipt was given for that advance.
Drapeza testified that after the physical examination, the examining physician’s secretary issued him a receipt for P850.00.
Drapeza further testified that the accused took the physician-issued receipt when they met again and then demanded P5,000.00 as payment for services in processing his application, for which a receipt was issued.
Drapeza testified that on September 1, 1994, he paid P15,000.00 for plane fare with a receipt.
Drapeza testified that they went to a travel agency in Makati to buy a ticket, but they were unable to buy it due to lack of availability, and the accused later returned without the ticket.
Drapeza testified that he never saw the accused again and learned she had been jailed for illegal recruitment.
Drapeza admitted he did not demand proof of the accused’s authority to recruit because he was assured of direct hiring, and he did not seek the accused’s license or authority.

Testimony of Odon V. Orosa

Odon V. Orosa, a driver, testified that he knew the accused and that the accused asked if he wanted to work in Taiwan as a company driver.
Orosa testified that the accused assured him that he could easily get employed if he paid half of the placement fees and the remainder after starting work in Taiwan.
Orosa testified that his wife Glory delivered P5,000.00 for the placement fee and that a receipt was issued by the accused.
Orosa testified that in October, the accused returned and requested money for his plane ticket, after which he handed P9,000.00 and received a receipt.
Orosa testified that he also gave P3,000.00 for his medical examination without a receipt.
Orosa testified that a month later he paid an additional P6,000.00 for the plane ticket, and the payment was receipted.
Orosa testified that the accused promised he could leave in January 1995, but he did not go to Taiwan and discovered the accused was in jail for illegal recruitment.
Orosa admitted he did not ask for the accused’s license to recruit upon assurance of direct hiring.

Testimony of Ricardo Ilasin

Ricardo Ilasin, a security guard, testified that in June or July 1994 the accused offered him a recruitment arrangement for Taiwan as caretakers of a piggery with compensation of P15,000.00 a month.
Ilasin testified that the accused offered salary deduction as a mode of paying the services.
Ilasin testified that he contracted a loan and mortgaged his father’s land to meet required expenses for the work abroad.
Ilasin testified that he paid P3,000.00 to the accused for his medical examination without a receipt.
Ilasin testified that he gave P5,000.00 for the accused’s services with a receipt.
Ilasin testified that in September 1994 the accused asked for P15,000.00 for his plane ticket, and they attempted to buy the ticket at a Makati travel agency.
Ilasin testified that the accused returned without the ticket, claiming none was available.
Ilasin testified that the plane ticket money was covered by a receipt.
Ilasin testified that he did not ask whether the accused was authorized by the POEA to recruit because he was assured of direct hiring, and he did not fill up application forms or submit pictures.

Testimony of Richard Castulo

Richard L. Castulo, also a security guard, testified that he met the accused at Ilasin’s house during recruitment.
Castulo testified that the accused promised him a direct hiring arrangement for caretakers of a piggery in Taiwan for a monthly compensation of P15,000.00 over a two-year employment period.
Castulo testified that to process his application, he was asked to pay P5,000.00, and a receipt was issued the same day.
Castulo testified that the accused later required P10,000.00 for his plane ticket, paid at Ilasin’s house, with a receipt dated September 12, 1994.
Castulo testified that he paid P2,000.00 for medical examination, and the payment was receipted.
Castulo testified that he also gave P1,000.00 for processing his passport and transportation expenses, but the payment was not covered by a receipt.
Castulo testified that he did not leave for Taiwan on the promised date and that the money came from loans.

Testimony of Glory Orosa as Common Witness

As a common witness, Glory Orosa, wife of Odon Orosa, testified regarding the accused’s recruitment of Orosa.
Glory testified that she personally delivered money demanded by the accused for her husband’s services and received receipts for portions of the payments.
Glory testified that she gave P5,000.00 as placement fee with a receipt and P9,000.00 with another receipt.
Glory testified that she gave P6,000.00 in full payment of the plane ticket, with a receipt, and that she gave P3,000.00 for medical fees without a receipt.
Glory testified that the accused promised Orosa could leave in January 1995, but when no departure materialized, they sought information and learned the accused was already in jail for illegal recruitment.
Glory testified that the accused, even while in jail, assured her that Orosa could still go to Taiwan in due time.

Defense Conduct and Trial Developments

The prosecution rested its case on November 28, 1994, and the trial court ordered the defense to present evidence beginning January 10, 1995.
Numerous postponements occurred, and the accused eventually showed a disinclination to defend.
Counsel de parte withdrew after alleging failure b