Title
People vs. Manungas, Jr. y Go
Case
G.R. No. 91552-55
Decision Date
Mar 10, 1994
Accused-appellant recruited complainants for overseas jobs, collected fees, but failed to deploy them. Found guilty of Estafa and Illegal Recruitment on a Large Scale, affirmed by the Supreme Court.
estafa
illegal recruitment
imprisonment
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 91552-55)

Factual Background: Recruitment and Payments for Employment Abroad

The evidence presented at trial showed that sometime in April 1987, accused-appellant went to Barangay Legaspi, Tayug, Pangasinan, where he stayed in the house of Arturo and Lilia de Vera to recruit workers for employment abroad. While there, he convinced complainants Wilfrey Mabalot, Danilo Ramirez, Leonardo Estanoco, and Crisanto Collado to apply as janitors in Saudi Arabia. He required them to bring the necessary documents for the processing of their applications to his office in Manila.

On April 29, 1987, complainants went to accused-appellant’s office at Room 611, L & S Bldg., Roxas Blvd., Ermita, Manila, and each paid P250.00 for a medical examination. Thereafter, accused-appellant required them to pay, on various occasions, placement fees and other expenses connected with processing their papers, and he issued receipts for these payments. The total amounts paid were: Wilfrey Mabalot – P16,800.00, Danilo Ramirez – P17,550.00, Leonardo Estanoco – P18,600.00, and Crisanto Collado – P13,300.00.

When complainants failed to leave for Saudi Arabia, they asked Luis “Jing” Ramirez, brother of complainant Danilo Ramirez, to verify with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) whether accused-appellant was licensed to recruit workers abroad. They subsequently learned from a Certification issued by the POEA that accused-appellant was not licensed.

Complaints and Informations Filed

After the verification, complainants filed complaints against accused-appellant for estafa, defined under par. 2(a), Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, and for illegal recruitment on a large scale. Informations were then filed before the RTC of Lingayen, Pangasinan, charging three counts of estafa (Criminal Cases Nos. L-3993, L-3994, and L-3996) and illegal recruitment on a large scale (Criminal Case No. L-4000).

Trial Court Judgment

By the RTC decision dated October 31, 1989, accused-appellant was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of all charges. For each estafa count, the RTC ordered restitution corresponding to the amount received from each complainant, and imposed an indeterminate prison term, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law in his favor. The RTC likewise directed reimbursement without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.

In Criminal Case No. L-4000, the RTC found accused-appellant guilty of illegal recruitment on a large scale and held him criminally liable under the provisions it identified as those defined and penalized by Article 39, par. (a) of Presidential Decree No. 2018, amending Articles 38 and 39 of P.D. No. 442 (the Labor Code). The RTC sentenced him to Life Imprisonment and imposed a fine of P100,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and ordered that the penalties be served successively or one after the other according to their severity.

Accused-Appellant’s Defense

On appeal, accused-appellant maintained that he was only an employee and operations manager of the ZG Recruitment and Placement Agency, which he claimed was a duly licensed recruitment agency. He asserted that he recruited the complainants in April 1987 to work in Saudi Arabia as janitors. He explained that the janitorial job order had been awarded to Express Placement Agency instead of ZG Recruitment and Placement agency. According to him, he then transferred the complainants’ overseas employment applications to Nora Cunanan of Express Placement Agency. He further claimed that he turned over the placement fees paid by the complainants to Nora Cunanan, as shown by receipts issued by the latter.

Accused-appellant also offered the narrative that after Nora Cunanan absconded with the money, he filed an estafa case against her after securing a Special Power of Attorney from the complainants to prosecute and collect the amounts due. He admitted, however, that he did not attend the hearing because he had been arrested in connection with the cases.

He further denied fraudulent intent and stated that he did not make false representations because he allegedly told complainants that he was an employee of a licensed recruitment agency in Manila. He insisted that he was not motivated by deceitful intentions, and that he had not caused damage since the sums were allegedly spent for the complainants’ medical tests and other documents required for overseas employment.

The Court’s Treatment of Recruitment Activities and Illegal Recruitment

The RTC, as adopted by its reasoning in the decision text, treated accused-appellant’s acts as falling squarely within the statutory meaning of recruitment and placement. Under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code, recruitment and placement included canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, including referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for employment locally or abroad, whether for profit or not. The provision also deemed a person engaged in recruitment and placement if he offered or promised for a fee employment to two or more persons.

In the case, accused-appellant had required complainants to submit pictures, birth certificates, NBI clearances, and other documents for processing their employment. He then collected from each complainant payments for passport, training fee, placement fee, medical tests, and other expenses. The Court treated these acts as recruitment within the meaning of the Labor Code. It also held that illegal recruitment existed when the accused gave the impression of ability to send a worker abroad, and it found evidence that accused-appellant had represented that he could send complainants as janitors in Saudi Arabia. The Court also treated the subsequent POEA verification, showing that accused-appellant was not licensed, as confirmation that complainants’ request to verify accused-appellant’s status centered on his own representation, rather than on the status of any agency he claimed to work for.

Separate Liability for Estafa and Illegal Recruitment

The Court recognized that the accused was charged and convicted of both offenses. It explained that a person who violated the Labor Code provisions on illegal recruitment could be charged and convicted separately for illegal recruitment and for estafa under Revised Penal Code, Article 315, 2(a). The Court characterized illegal recruitment as malum prohibitum, meaning criminal intent was not necessary for conviction, while estafa was malum in se, requiring proof of criminal intent for conviction.

Rejection of Accused-Appellant’s Theory that the Money Was Turned Over to Another

The RTC rejected accused-appellant’s claim that he did not misappropriate the money because he allegedly turned over the complainants’ placement fees to Nora Cunanan, who subsequently absconded. The trial court found the defense to be unbelievable and characterized it as a “cock and bull story” that was difficult and hard to accept, noting its inconsistency with basic prudence and logic. It observed that if a genuine transfer of large sums had occurred, accused-appellant and Mrs. Lydia Zamora, described as appearing to have been intelligent, should have taken ordinary care by putting the transfer agreement in writing.

The RTC further noted that while accused-appellant asserted that he filed an estafa case against Nora Cunanan, the evidentiary record did not show the necessary particulars, such as the letter-complaint or charge sheet, nor even the fiscal who investigated the case. It also found it notable that counsel purportedly did not know what happened to the alleged case after filing. The RTC also relied on Mrs. Lydia Zamora’s testimony that the case against Nora Cunanan was before the Regional Trial Court rather than in the City Fiscal’s Office, thereby undermining accused-appellant’s narrative.

As to the complainants’ execution of a special power of attorney and their letters, the RTC examined their explanations for signing and sending documents to accused-appellant. It treated their accounts as showing that they signed without fully understanding the contents because accused-appellant was in a hurry and because they were not capable of understanding the imports of the document (including reasons such as limited English comprehension). The RTC thus treated the documentary steps cited by the defen

...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