Case Summary (G.R. No. 247589)
Key Dates and Procedural Posture
Initial criminal proceedings and trials occurred in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 34, Manila, culminating in a judgment dated 10 April 2003. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court on automatic review after modification and affirmation by the Court of Appeals on 31 January 2008; the Supreme Court rendered its decision on appeal in 2010.
Charges and Statutory Basis
Respondent was charged with illegal recruitment in large scale under Republic Act No. 8042 (Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995) and with multiple counts of estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code. Penalties and related sentencing considerations included the Indeterminate Sentence Law and credit for preventive imprisonment under Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code.
Material Facts Established at Trial
Three private complainants testified that they were solicited and promised overseas employment in Korea in exchange for placement/processing fees. Ian Fernandez and Reynaldo Panlilio each paid P45,000.00; Zenaida Filomeno paid P20,000.00 (P15,000.00 initially and later an additional P5,000.00). Receipts and later promissory notes were introduced in evidence. The victims were not deployed as promised; the agency allegedly closed or relocated, victims effected a citizen’s arrest of the accused, and formal complaints were filed with the NBI.
Documentary and Official Evidence
The prosecution presented receipts and promissory notes issued by the agency and a certification from the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA) dated 23 August 2002 indicating that the entity (New Filipino Manpower Development and Services, Inc., successor name to MPM) had an expired license and a re-issuance application had been denied. The prosecution also relied on the testimony of the three remaining complainants.
Defense of the Accused
Respondent asserted that he was not an employee or recruiter but was himself an applicant for overseas work who occasionally helped at the agency. He claimed to have paid P20,000.00 for visa processing (recorded only in the agency logbook) and posited that another person used his plane fare. The accused denied receiving payments from the complainants or issuing receipts. He admitted signing a Kontra Salaysay and a Rejoinder Affidavit stating he was a utility worker but explained those documents were prepared by an NBI lawyer and signed without reading.
Trial Court Findings
The RTC found the accused guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale and convicted him of three counts of estafa (one count per remaining complainant). Co-accused Manta and Pacardo were acquitted for insufficiency of evidence. Sentences imposed included life imprisonment and substantial fines for illegal recruitment, and indeterminate prison terms for estafa counts, together with orders to indemnify the complainants.
Court of Appeals Disposition
On intermediate review, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s conviction for illegal recruitment in large scale and affirmed or modified the estafa sentences. The CA ordered payment of actual damages and legal interest on awarded sums, adjusted one estafa penalty downward to an indeterminate term within prision correccional, and credited the accused with preventive detention. Costs were charged against the accused.
Issues on Appeal Presented by Accused
The accused raised three primary assignments of error: (1) improper reliance on prosecution witness testimony; (2) absence of criminal intent required for estafa; and (3) failure of the prosecution to prove all elements of illegal recruitment.
Standard of Review and Credibility Determinations
The appellate courts applied the settled rule that credibility and demeanor findings are primarily for the trial court, which observed witnesses firsthand. Absent exceptional circumstances or a clear overlooking of material facts, appellate courts defer to trial court credibility assessments. The record contained no showing of ill motive or bias on the part of prosecution witnesses.
Application of Estafa Law (Article 315[2][a])
Article 315(2)(a) criminalizes obtaining property by falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, agency, business, or by similar deceits where such deceit is the proximate cause inducing the complainant to part with property. The court found that respondent, together with Martir, represented they had the ability to place complainants in jobs in Korea, collected placement fees, and failed to deliver employment — satisfying the elements of deceit and consequential damage. The accused’s explanation that he was a fellow applicant and helper was found implausible and unsupported by conduct (no attempt to recover purported payments), thereby supporting the estafa convictions.
Application of Illegal Recruitment Law (RA No. 8042, Sec. 6 and Labor Code Art. 13[b])
Illegal recruitment in large scale requires: (a) lack of a valid license or authority; (b) undertaking acts amounting to recruitment and placement as defined in Article 13(b) of the Labor Code (canvassing, enlisting, contracting, referring, promising or advertising for employment abroad); and (c) commission of such acts against three or more persons. The POEA certification and witness evidence established lack of a valid license, the undertaking of recruitment activities (promises of employment and collection of fees), and commission against multiple complainants, thereby satisfying the statutory elements. The court also relied on statutory definitions and precedent regarding the nature of illegal recruitment.
Sentencing, Damages and Other Relief
The RTC’s sen
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 247589)
Procedural History
- Criminal informations for illegal recruitment in large scale and thirty-four (34) counts of estafa were filed against Rodolfo Gallo, Pilar Manta and Fides Pacardo before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 34.
- Upon arraignment, all three accused pleaded not guilty.
- During trial, several private complainants withdrew their complaints or failed to appear; the public prosecutor moved for provisional dismissal of those cases until only three private complainants remained: Reynaldo Panlilio, Ian Fernandez and Zenaida Filomeno.
- Trial court (Judge Romulo A. Lopez) convicted Rodolfo Gallo of illegal recruitment in large scale and three counts of estafa by decision dated 10 April 2003; Manta and Pacardo were acquitted for insufficiency of evidence.
- Because of the penalty imposed, the case went on automatic review; in line with People v. Mateo, the Supreme Court resolved to transfer the cases to the Court of Appeals (CA) for intermediate review.
- The Court of Appeals rendered a Decision on 31 January 2008 affirming the RTC’s judgment with modifications as to penalties and damages.
- The matter returned to the Supreme Court via petition for review; the Court required supplemental briefs (21 January 2009); appellant manifested (18 March 2009) he would not file a supplemental brief and adopted his appellant’s brief; the Office of the Solicitor General likewise manifested it would not file a supplemental brief.
- The Supreme Court issued the present Decision (Perez, J.), affirming the CA decision dated 31 January 2008 in its dispositive and upholding conviction and modified penalties where applicable.
Relevant Parties and Roles
- Plaintiff-Appellee: People of the Philippines.
- Accused-Appellant: Rodolfo Gallo (hereinafter “appellant” or “Gallo”).
- Co-accused originally charged: Pilar Manta and Fides Pacardo (both later acquitted).
- Private complainants who testified and whose complaints proceeded: Ian Fernandez, Reynaldo Panlilio and Zenaida Filomeno.
- Mardeolyn Martir (Martir): owner of MPM International Recruitment Agency (MPM), alleged co-participant according to witnesses.
- Agencies/institutions involved: MPM International Recruitment Agency (also referred to as New Filipino Manpower Development and Services, Inc.), Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA), Sta. Cruz Police Station, National Bureau of Investigation (NBI).
Facts – Overview
- The complainants applied at MPM for employment overseas purportedly as factory workers in Korea.
- The private complainants paid sums to the agency and/or appellant for processing/placement with promises of departure to Korea within certain timeframes: P45,000.00 was paid by Fernandez and Panlilio; Filomeno paid P15,000.00 and later another P5,000.00 (total P20,000.00).
- Receipts were allegedly issued for payments; some receipts were later replaced with promissory notes.
- Despite promises and passage of time, the complainants were unable to leave for Korea; attempts to follow up were unsuccessful and they later discovered arrest of accused or agency closure.
- About 30 to 40 victims reportedly effected a citizen’s arrest of the three accused at the agency’s offices in the Prudential Bank Building in Sta. Cruz, Manila; the accused were delivered to the Sta. Cruz Police Station and thereafter to the NBI where formal complaints were filed.
- Documentary evidence presented included promissory notes, official receipts and a POEA certification regarding licensing status.
Testimony of Ian Fernandez
- On or about 9:00 a.m., 5 June 2001, Fernandez and friend Reynaldo Panlilio went to MPM to apply for work overseas.
- Fernandez spoke first with accused Gallo, then with Mardeolyn Martir.
- Gallo allegedly informed him that payment of P45,000.00 would enable Fernandez to leave for Korea in two to three months.
- Fernandez returned the next day with P45,000.00 and gave the amount to Martir.
- Gallo issued a receipt for the amount which was later replaced by a promissory note.
- Fernandez testified during the prosecution’s presentation (TSN, 10 July 2002, pp. 20-24).
Testimony of Reynaldo Panlilio
- On 5 June 2001 Panlilio went to MPM offices in Ermita, Manila to apply as a factory worker in Korea and talked with Martir who told him to return the next day with P45,000.00 for processing.
- On 6 June 2001 Panlilio returned and was met by Gallo; on Martir’s instruction Panlilio gave the money to Gallo.
- Several months passed without deployment; Panlilio demanded a refund.
- The agency requested one month to refund; a receipt for the P45,000.00 was replaced with a promissory note.
- While in the province Panlilio learned the agency had closed; upon return he found it relocated to the Prudential Bank Building in Sta. Cruz where he and about 30–40 other victims effected a citizen’s arrest of the three accused.
- The accused were brought to the police and later to the NBI where a formal complaint was filed (TSN references provided in records).
Testimony of Zenaida Filomeno
- Filomeno learned from a friend that MPM was accepting applicants for work in Korea; she visited the agency sometime in May 2001.
- Initially met by accused Manta who instructed her to speak with Martir; inside Martir’s office Filomeno saw both Gallo and Martir accepting applicants.
- She paid P15,000.00 as a processing fee to Gallo and Martir who counted the money in front of her, and later paid an additional P5,000.00; both amounts were covered by a receipt.
- She was told she would leave in September 2001 for Korea as a factory worker with a monthly salary of US$500.00 plus overtime.
- After failure to leave as promised, she called the agency on at least four occasions but could not speak to Gallo or Martir; finding the accused had been arrested she filed a complaint with the NBI.
- Filomeno testified at the TSN (7 October 2002).
Documentary Evidence Presented by Prosecution
- Promissory notes and official receipts issued by the agency to the private complainants (Exhibits "A" to "D-1," Folder of Exhibits).
- Certification dated 23 August 2002 issued by the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA) stating that New Filipino Manpower Development and Services, Inc. had an expired license and that its application for re-issuance of a new license was denied (Exhibit "E," Folder of Exhibits).
- The record shows that MPM had earlier applied for a license but its application was not granted, resulting in a change of the agency’s name to New Filipino Manpower Development and Services, Inc. (Karagdagang Salaysay, Paragraph 6, Fides Pacardo, Records, Vol. I, p. 153).
Accused’s Defense (Rodolfo Gallo)
- Gallo claimed he was not an employee of MPM but was himself an applicant for overseas work, having applied around November 2000 after hearing about recruitment by MPM.
- He testified he paid P20,000.00 for visa processing (no receipt; payment recorded only in the agency’s logbook).
- When a visa was issued, the agency asked for an additional P40,000.00 for plane fare which he could not pay, resulting in another person being sent abroad in his place.
- Martir allegedly advised him to wait because his visa would be replaced by a trainee visa; he was often seen at Martir’s office to follow up on his application.
- Gallo denied receiving money from the private complainants or issuing receipts to them.
- He admitted to having executed a Kontra Salaysay and a Rejoinder Affidavit stating he was a utility worker of New Filipino Manpower Development and Services, Inc., perform