Title
People vs. Lapis
Case
G.R. No. 145734-35
Decision Date
Oct 15, 2002
Vicenta Lapis and Angel Mateo convicted for illegal recruitment and estafa after deceiving complainants with false promises of overseas employment, collecting fees without deployment.
illegal recruitment
estafa
syndicated illegal recruitment

Case Summary (G.R. No. 145734-35)

Factual Background

The complainants were spouses Melchor F. Degsi and Perpetua L. Degsi, residents of Baguio City. They earned their living from a rented stall, selling fish and vegetables, until March 24, 1998, when they closed their shop because of the demands and expectations created by the promise of employment in Japan.

The records showed that they were approached by Jane Am-amlao (Jane), a co-vendor in the Baguio City market, who assured them that she knew a legal recruiter, described as an ex-POEA employee, capable of sending them abroad for work. Jane accompanied the complainants to meet Aida de Leon in the latter’s apartment at No. 7280 J. Victor St., Pio del Pilar, Makati, on March 24, 1998.

At that meeting, Aida de Leon introduced Angel Mateo as the contact person for the Japan-bound employment. Mateo represented that he had the capacity to send them abroad and allegedly showed documents intended to convince them of the legitimacy of his recruitment activities. Believing Mateo’s representations, the complainants paid Mateo on the same day the first amount of P15,000.00 as processing fees. This payment was presented as the beginning of a series of disbursements extracted from them for the alleged expenses required for deployment.

The complainants testified that they met Mateo repeatedly and that he collected additional sums from March 24, 1998 to June 23, 1998, bringing the total amount paid to P158,600.00. They also identified Mateo as the person associated with a further sum of P40,000.00 that they gave to him, which he deposited to Sampaguita Travel Agency under his own name.

The complainants further testified that they were introduced to Vicenta Medina Lapis (Lapis) by Mateo on April 29, 1998 at Maxs Restaurant in Makati when Lapis required the payment of P49,240.00 for plane tickets and travel taxes. Lapis was described as Mateo’s live-in partner. She told the complainants that she was helping speed up the processing of their papers for Japan-bound employment.

On May 2, 1998, the complainants again met Lapis with Mateo at a Makati restaurant annex. Lapis allegedly assured them that Mateo could send them abroad and even wrote appellants’ address on a piece of paper. On May 17, 1998, they met again with Lapis, now with Mateo, de Leon, and de Leon’s husband in Baguio City at the house of Priscilla Marreo’s daughter. They testified that the group updated them on the status of their papers and collected additional money, including P20,000.00 without receipts.

On May 19, 1998, at Sampaguita Travel Agency, Mateo extracted P45,000.00 and again deposited it under his name. A related witness, Priscilla Marreo, was presented as corroborating the recruitment pattern: she was identified as the sister of Melchor Degsi, who had loaned the complainants part of the P158,000.00 that they were able to raise, and she allegedly witnessed assurances and money demands made by the accused in connection with the promised departure to Japan.

The defense denied that it engaged in recruitment or that it promised foreign employment. Lapis claimed she was merely Mateo’s live-in partner and accompanied him without knowledge of the money transactions. Mateo denied involvement in recruitment, asserting instead that he was engaged in importation of heavy equipment and containers, and he presented documents intended to show such business. He denied signing documentary exhibits attributed to him and denied asking for and receiving certain amounts, including P50,000.00, and denied signing the receipt showing total payment of P158,600.00.

Trial Court Proceedings

The RTC held that the prosecution evidence established the guilt of appellants beyond reasonable doubt for both crimes charged. For Criminal Case No. 99-1112, the RTC found that both complainants were enticed by Mateo to believe he could deploy them to Japan and that they paid placement and processing fees. The RTC concluded that Mateo violated Section 6 of RA 8042 when he demanded fees but failed to deploy the complainants after several months.

For Criminal Case No. 99-1113, the RTC also found estafa under Article 315(2)(a). It held that Mateo knew beforehand that he had no capacity to deploy the complainants abroad, and that the representations used to induce payment were a scheme intended to exact money.

As to Lapis, the RTC relied on a conspiracy theory. It noted that the prosecution’s evidence showed her presence during at least three occasions when Mateo asked for and received money connected to the recruitment scheme. It found that Lapis had knowledge of the plan to ask for money and that she actively participated in recruitment and deception. It therefore concluded that conspiracy was established beyond reasonable doubt and that her denial could not prevail over the prosecution’s positive evidence.

The RTC’s dispositive portion imposed life imprisonment for illegal recruitment under Section 6 of RA 8042, along with fines of P1,000,000.00 each for non-licensers or non-holders of authority under the last paragraph of Section 7 of RA 8042. It also ordered joint and solidary indemnification of P118,000.00 (the net amount after deducting recovery of P40,000.00) and other amounts as reimbursement for traveling expenses, rental for boarding house, and unrealized income. For estafa in Criminal Case No. 99-1113, it sentenced appellants to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal.

The Parties' Contentions

On appeal, appellants assigned errors challenging (1) the RTC’s finding of syndicated illegal recruitment, (2) Lapis’s conviction for both illegal recruitment and estafa, and (3) the conviction for estafa, including the manner by which the trial court applied the elements of deceit. The appellants argued that the RTC wrongly presumed conspiracy and that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they acted in conspiracy and confederation. They further contended that for estafa under Article 315(2)(a), the element of deceit must be made prior to or at least simultaneous with the delivery of the money, and they asserted that the RTC failed to identify with certainty whether the false pretenses preceded or coincided with the payment.

Regarding the liability of Lapis as a co-conspirator, appellants claimed she merely accompanied Mateo during meetings and had no knowledge of the intentions of the co-accused. They emphasized that mere knowledge, acquiescence, or agreement to cooperate would not suffice for conspiracy.

The Court’s Ruling

The Court found the appeal without merit as to criminal liability but modified the penalties and certain monetary consequences.

On the first issue, the Court affirmed the conviction for illegal recruitment as committed by a syndicate. It held that illegal recruitment is established when the accused had no valid license or authority and undertook an activity constituting recruitment and placement as defined in Article 13(b) of the Labor Code and/or committed prohibited acts under Article 34 of the Labor Code. The Court reasoned that appellants promised Japan-bound employment and collected amounts totaling P158,600.00 as placement and processing fees. It emphasized that misrepresentations about one’s power and authority to recruit abroad, coupled with money collected in the guise of placement fees, constitute illegal recruitment. It further reiterated that illegal recruiters need not expressly claim the capacity to send workers abroad; it is enough that they give the impression of such ability to induce the victims to pay fees.

The Court then analyzed whether the offense qualified as syndicated illegal recruitment. It cited Section 6 of RA 8042, which provides that illegal recruitment becomes an offense involving economic sabotage when committed by a syndicate or by a group of three or more persons conspiring and confederating with one another. It held that the evidence showed a network of deception and active involvement of four accused—Jane Am-amlao, Aida de Leon, Angel Mateo, and Lapis—through various phases of a recruitment scam. The Court stressed that complainants were prodded to Manila to meet de Leon and Mateo, were introduced to Mateo who claimed capacity and documents, paid repeated processing fees, and later dealt with Lapis who assured them of expedited processing and showed participation in the recruitment process. It concluded that these coordinated acts evidenced unity of purpose and a common criminal undertaking, making conspiracy and syndication sufficiently established. It relied on the principle that direct proof of prior agreement is not essential in conspiracy; it may be inferred from the mode and manner of execution and from acts demonstrating joint purpose and design. Once conspiracy is established, the act of one is the act of all.

On the claim that victims are entitled to legal interest on indemnity, the Court granted the OSG’s request. It held that victims of illegal recruitment are entitled to legal interest on the amount to be recovered as indemnity from the time of the filing of the information until fully paid. Accordingly, it modified the RTC judgment to include such legal interest on P118,000.00 in Criminal Case No. 99-1112.

On the second issue regarding estafa, the Court affirmed the conviction. It rejected appellants’ argument that the element of deceit was not established with the required timing relative to the delivery of the money. The Court held that in Article 315(2)(a), estafa is committed by falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business, or by imaginary transactions or similar forms of deceit executed prior to or simultaneous with the fraud. It reasoned that the complainants paid money during meetings that were repeatedly preceded by promises and assurances of employment in Japan and allegedly supported by documents shown to induce payment. It specifically found that the initial P15,000.00 paid at the first meeting was immediately prece

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms