G.R. No. 6845 - Yap Tua vs. Yap Ca Kuan

Case Summary (G.R. No. 6845)

Factual Background

The prosecution presented four of the eight private complainants: Rene Alcaraz, Imelda Aguirre, Julius Navarro, and Maria Teresa Magdaraog. Each testified that Peralta represented himself as capable of enlisting them for overseas work in Taiwan, and that he required them to pay money for processing or placement, while promising or assuring deployment.

Alcaraz testified that around April 1992, he learned from a co-worker, Librada Librianes, that Peralta was recruiting for Taiwan. The following month, Alcaraz, together with co-employee Julius Navarro, went to Peralta’s house in Alabang, Muntinlupa, where they were given application forms. Peralta allegedly told them that those who could provide an initial amount of P10,000 would be included in the first batch to depart for Taiwan in September. On June 10, 1992, Alcaraz gave P10,000 to Peralta, and a receipt was issued, signed by Marie Peralta, Peralta’s wife. When September came, Peralta and his wife allegedly only promised that Alcaraz’s deployment would be in December, and when Alcaraz asked for a refund due to continued non-deployment, Peralta allegedly instructed him to return in February 1993, but failed to keep that promise.

Aguirre testified that in the first week of April 1992, she was introduced by a co-worker, Regina Teodisio, to Donnie Peralta as a “brother in faith.” After discussing religious matters, Peralta allegedly asked whether they wanted to work in Taiwan, informed them they would need about P35,000 in all, and suggested that they could initially pay P10,000 as a processing fee. Aguirre testified that she proceeded after being assured she could withdraw her money, minus actual expenses, if she later backed out. Peralta allegedly gave Aguirre a referral slip for medical examination at S.M. Lazo Medical Center. On June 15, 1992, Aguirre allegedly paid P9,000 to Peralta, evidenced by a receipt signed by Maila Mercado, Peralta’s stepdaughter, and Aguirre was told her papers would be processed for a September departure. She asserted that nothing happened in September, that Peralta then promised a December departure, and later postponed her departure to January 1993. Eventually, she opted to withdraw her money, but Peralta directed her to meet his lawyer for the refund; she was allegedly unable to meet the lawyer despite several visits, prompting her to file a criminal complaint.

Navarro testified that in February 1992, he was introduced by Levy Rubianos to Peralta, who purportedly could send workers to Taiwan. Navarro stated that after applying, he was given a referral for medical examination and told to pay P10,000 if he passed. Peralta allegedly also promised a factory-worker job in Taiwan with an estimated salary of P15,000 to P20,000 per month. On May 1, 1992, Navarro paid P10,000 to Peralta, evidenced by a receipt signed by Maila Mercado. Peralta allegedly promised deployment within three months, later changing the timeline to December, then February 1993, but deployment did not materialize, leading Navarro to file a complaint with the Criminal Investigation Service in Camp Crame, Quezon City.

Maria Teresa Magdaraog testified that she came to know Peralta through Aguirre, who accompanied her to Peralta’s house in Alabang sometime in September 1992. Through Peralta, Magdaraog applied for work in Taiwan because the salary was allegedly high. She underwent medical examination at Peralta’s behest and then paid P10,000 to Peralta, evidenced by a receipt signed by Peralta’s stepdaughter. Peralta allegedly assured her she could leave the same month, but when he reneged, he continued to promise that she would soon depart. Unable to recover her money after demanding a refund, she filed a complaint.

Trial Court Proceedings

The Regional Trial Court gave full faith and credence to the complainants’ testimonies. It found that the witnesses positively declared that they were recruited and promised employment by Peralta at his house in Alabang. The RTC also treated the request forms for medical examination, issued and signed by Peralta, and the receipts evidencing processing fee payments signed by Peralta’s wife or stepdaughter, as documentary proof of recruitment. It also relied on Peralta’s admission that he lacked the required POEA license or authority.

The RTC noted that the material events narrated by the complainants occurred before October 1992, which was the time Peralta claimed he began working for Sons and Daughters Travel Consultancy. It observed that the request forms Peralta himself signed were dated prior to that alleged employment. From this timing, the RTC concluded that Peralta acted on his own when he signed those forms and engaged in recruitment activities, rather than as an employee of the travel agency. It therefore found him guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale as defined and penalized under Articles 38 and 39 of the Labor Code, as amended, for recruiting for a fee without license or authority the complainants for employment in Taiwan.

The Parties’ Contentions

On appeal, Peralta assigned multiple errors that, in essence, challenged the factual finding that he recruited on his own. He claimed the complainants were recruited in behalf of the travel consultancy, arguing that he was only an employee or messenger. He also argued that the trial court gave undue weight to the prosecution witnesses and that the evidence did not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Peralta’s defense was that he was merely an employee of Travel Consultancy, managed by his second wife, Marie Peralta, and that he performed limited tasks such as signing request forms for medical examinations and obtaining medical certificates. He maintained that he did not recruit the complainants and did not receive their money because the payments were supposedly received by Marie and their stepdaughter, Maila Mercado. He further argued that his participation in signing request forms was required by an arrangement with S.M. Lazo Medical Center, asserting that the medical referrals would not be honored if not signed by him. He also asserted that before marrying Marie in February 1992, he was himself an applicant.

The prosecution position, as sustained by the trial court, was that Peralta personally represented himself as able to enlist the complainants for work abroad, issued and signed medical referral documents, demanded and received processing fees for deployment, and failed to show that his recruitment acts were undertaken lawfully or through proper authorization.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction, with a modification concerning monetary reimbursement to the complainants. The Court held that Peralta himself was the recruiter and that the prosecution evidence sufficiently proved illegal recruitment in large scale.

On the first issue, the Court explained that illegal recruitment under Article 38 covers any recruitment activities undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of authority. The Court emphasized that recruitment includes acts of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers, and includes referrals and promising for employment, whether locally or abroad, for profit or not. It further noted that offering or promising employment for a fee to two or more persons constitutes recruitment and placement.

Applying these principles, the Court found that the complainants’ testimonies demonstrated that Peralta represented himself as having the ability to enlist workers for Taiwan. The Court relied on the issuance of referral slips signed by Peralta, the promises of factory-worker jobs and salary ranges, and Peralta’s inducement that those who paid could be included in early batches for deployment. The Court reiterated that an illegal recruiter need not claim to be duly licensed. What matters is whether the accused gives an impression of capability to enlist and thereby induces victims to pay fees.

The Court rejected Peralta’s claim that he was merely an employee of Travel Consultancy. It found that Peralta personally convinced complainants to apply, gave instructions on what they needed to do, and issued referral slips as early as April 1992. The Court pointed out that Peralta required payment of P10,000 as placement fee from each complainant and that he received such amounts on various dates in May, June, and September 1992, promising deployment by September. The Court contrasted this with Peralta’s own testimony that he became connected with Travel Consultancy only in October 1992, and it held that he failed to give a satisfactory explanation for his recruitment acts before that alleged connection. It also observed that Peralta’s signature on referral documents dated before October 1992 undermined his claim that the agency, not he, recruited the complainants.

The Court also found Peralta’s explanations for the timing discrepancies unconvincing. It reasoned that if Peralta was only an applicant or not yet connected with the agency at the time those documents were issued, he had no plausible basis to endorse referrals to S.M. Lazo Medical Center for other applicants or to transact for them in the manner testified to. The Court concluded that Peralta’s defense amounted to a convenient attempt to shift blame to his wife and stepdaughter, whose alleged role in receiving money did not negate that Peralta personally engaged in recruitment activities.

On the second issue, the Supreme Court restated the elements of illegal recruitment: first, the offender is a non-licensee or non-holder of authority; second, the offender undertakes any recruitment activity defined under Art. 13(b) of the Labor Code, as amended, or any prohibited activity under Art. 34; and, when the offense is committed in large scale, a third element requires commission against three (3) or more persons, individually or as a group.

The Court found no dispute on the first element because Peralta ad

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 6845)

The People of the Philippines prosecuted Donnie Peralta y Picana for illegal recruitment.
The charge alleged a violation of Section 1, Presidential Decree (PD) No. 2018, amending Article 38 of PD 442, as amended, otherwise known as the Labor Code of the Philippines.
The Regional Trial Court of Makati (now a city), Branch 132, convicted Peralta of illegal recruitment in large scale and sentenced him to life imprisonment plus a fine of P100,000.00.
The Supreme Court resolved the appeal and ultimately denied it, affirming the conviction with a modification on reimbursement of money paid by complainants.

Parties and Procedural Posture

The case arose from an Information dated April 28, 1993 docketed as Criminal Case No. 93-3651.
Peralta pleaded not guilty upon arraignment on July 12, 1993 with assistance of counsel.
At pre-trial, Peralta admitted that he was not licensed or authorized by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) to recruit workers for employment abroad.
The trial court promulgated its Decision on January 10, 1994, finding Peralta guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal recruitment in large scale.
On appeal, the Supreme Court considered the case submitted for resolution upon receipt in January 16, 1996 of confirmation of appellant’s confinement at New Bilibid Prison.

Key Factual Allegations

The Information alleged recruitment during May 1992 to September 1992 in Paranaque, Metro Manila, within the court’s jurisdiction.
It charged that Peralta falsely represented he had the power and capacity to contract, enlist and recruit workers for employment abroad.
It further alleged that Peralta, for a fee, recruited and promised employment/job placement in Taiwan to complainants RENE ALCARAZ, JULIUS NAVARRO, MARIETA A. RAMOS (not treated as a witness in the narration), MA. THERESA E. MANDARAOG, IMELDA G. AGUIRRE, EMELINA C. VILELA (not treated as a witness in the narration), MAXIMA CABRAL (not treated as a witness in the narration), and AUGUSTO CESAR TEODOSIO (not treated as a witness in the narration).
The Information specified that Peralta did so without first obtaining the required license and/or authority from the Department of Labor and Employment.

Prosecution’s Evidence and Testimony

The prosecution presented four private complainants as witnesses: Rene Alcaraz, Imelda Aguirre, Julius Navarro, and Maria Teresa Magdaraog.
Rene Alcaraz testified that in April 1992 he learned from a co-worker that Peralta was enlisting workers for Taiwan.
Alcaraz stated that in the following month, he and Julius Navarro went to Peralta’s house in Alabang, Muntinlupa, were given application forms, and were told that those who could give initial P10,000 would be included in the first batch leaving in September 1992.
Alcaraz testified that on June 10, 1992, he gave P10,000 and received a receipt signed by Marie Peralta, Peralta’s wife.
Alcaraz narrated that by September Peralta only promised deployment in December, and later failed to refund after further demands, leading him to initiate a criminal complaint.
Imelda Aguirre testified that in the first week of April 1992, she was introduced by co-worker Regina Teodisio to Peralta.
Aguirre stated that Peralta proposed work in Taiwan, required about P35,000 in all with P10,000 initially as a processing fee, and assured her she could withdraw with a refund of money minus actual expenses.
Aguirre testified that Peralta gave her a referral slip for medical examination at S.M. Lazo Medical Center, and on June 15, 1992 issued a receipt signed by Maila Mercado for P9,000.
Aguirre stated that Peralta repeatedly postponed deployment from September 1992 to December 1992 and then January 1993, and that despite visits to Peralta’s house and office he failed to connect her with the lawyer handling the refund.
Julius Navarro testified that in February 1992 he was introduced by a co-worker to Peralta, who purportedly could send workers to Taiwan.
Navarro narrated that after applying, he was given a referral for medical examination and was told to give P10,000 as processing fee if he passed, with promised employment as factory worker for about P15,000 to P20,000 per month.
Navarro testified that on May 1, 1992, he gave P10,000 and received a receipt signed by Peralta’s stepdaughter Maila Mercado.
Navarro testified that Peralta promised departure in three months, later changed it to December and then February 1993, and after the failure to deploy he filed a complaint with the Criminal Investigation Service in Camp Crame, Quezon City.
Maria Teresa Magdaraog testified that she learned about Peralta through Aguirre and went to Peralta’s house in Alabang in September 1992 to apply for Taiwan employment because the salary was large.
Magdaraog testified that Peralta made her undergo medical examination and paid P10,000 for which she received a receipt signed by Maila Mercado.
Magdaraog stated that Peralta assured her she would leave that same month, reneged, kept promising, and eventually failed to return her money, prompting her to file a complaint at Camp Crame.
The prosecution’s testimony consistently depicted Peralta’s direct involvement in persuading applicants, issuing medical referrals, receiving processing fees, and promising deployment abroad.

Defense Evidence and Theory

Peralta claimed he was merely an employee of Sons and Daughters Travel Consultancy, managed by his wife Marie Peralta.
He testified that he acted as a messenger tasked with signing and issuing request forms for medical examination and obtaining medical certificates.
Peralta denied recruiting the complainants and denied receiving any P10,000 processing fee personally, asserting that Marie and Maila Mercado were authorized to receive money.
Peralta admitted that he signed medical request forms for the applicants, and claimed he did so because S.M. Lazo Clinic would not honor the transaction if his signature did not appear.
The defense presented Celedonio Munar, who testified that he applied at the Travel Consultancy and that Peralta gave him referral and application forms, he paid P10,000 to Marie Peralta, and he later sought refund which was returned by Marie.
Munar added that he saw four other persons also pursuing their applications.
The defense sought to shift criminal liability from Peralta to the Travel Consultancy as the supposed actual recruiter.

Trial Court’s Findings

The trial court gave full faith and credence to the testimonies of the complainant witnesses.
It held that the request forms for medical examination issued and signed by Peralta and the receipts for processing fees signed by Peralta’s wife or stepdaughter showed recruitment.
The trial court relied on Peralta’s admitted lack of POEA license or authority to recruit for overseas employment.
It found that the events narrat