Title
People vs. Temporada
Case
G.R. No. 173473
Decision Date
Dec 17, 2008
Beth Temporada, unlicensed, recruited complainants for overseas jobs, collected fees, failed to deploy, convicted of illegal recruitment and estafa, penalties adjusted.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 9957)

Petitioner

People of the Philippines

Respondent

Beth Temporada

Key Dates

• September 2001–January 2002: recruitment period and fee collection.
• November 29, 2002: filing of six Informations (one for illegal recruitment, five for estafa).
• May 14, 2004: RTC, Branch 33, Manila convicts Temporada.
• February 24, 2006: Court of Appeals affirms with modification.
• December 17, 2008: Supreme Court decision.

Applicable Law

• 1987 Constitution (post-1990 decisions)
• Labor Code, Article 38(a) (large-scale illegal recruitment)
• Revised Penal Code, Article 315(2)(a) (estafa by false pretenses)
• RA 8042, Section 7(b) (penalty for large-scale recruitment)
• Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISL) – maximum term reflects attending circumstances under RPC, minimum term drawn from penalty next lower than prescribed.

Facts

  1. Temporada and co-accused, ATTC officers initially on Dela Rosa Street, Makati City, later moved to Ermita, Manila, promised overseas jobs for a fee without a POEA license.
  2. Complainants submitted passports, NBI clearances, medical certificates and paid placement fees: Legaspi Jr. – ₱57,600; Dimaano – ₱66,520; Estacio – ₱88,520; Atle – ₱69,520; Minkay – ₱69,520.
  3. No deployment occurred; complainants filed separate criminal complaints.
  4. Assistant City Prosecutor Mangalindan filed one Information for large-scale illegal recruitment and five for estafa.
  5. Only Temporada was apprehended; she pleaded not guilty; the RTC convicted her of all charges. The CA modified some penalties for estafa but affirmed liability.

Issues

  1. Whether evidence established beyond reasonable doubt Temporada’s guilt for large-scale illegal recruitment under Labor Code Article 38(a).
  2. Whether evidence established beyond reasonable doubt Temporada’s guilt for five counts of estafa under RPC Article 315(2)(a).
  3. Proper computation of indeterminate penalties for the five counts of estafa under the ISL.

Ruling

  1. Guilt affirmed: Temporada is liable as principal for both large-scale illegal recruitment and five counts of estafa.
  2. Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED except as to the indeterminate penalties for estafa, which are MODIFIED.

Rationale

Illegal Recruitment
• Elements (People v. Gamboa): (a) no valid license; (b) undertaking recruitment activities under Art. 13(b) Labor Code; (c) victimizing three or more persons. All are present.
• Conspiracy and active participation: Temporada introduced herself as ATTC’s General Manager, interviewed complainants, collected fees, issued receipts. Witness testimonies, POEA certification, and documentary evidence confirm absence of license and active involvement.
• Illegal recruitment under RA 8042 is malum prohibitum; absence of criminal intent does not bar conviction.

Estafa
• Elements (RPC Art. 315(2)(a)): (1) deceit by false representations; (2) resulting prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation. Proven by complainants’ testimony and unreturned fees.
• Separate conviction for estafa permissible alongside illegal-recruitment conviction.

Penalties
Illegal Recruitment
• Life imprisonment and ₱500,000 fine under Section 7(b), RA 8042 – proper and confirmed.

Estafa Indeterminate Sentences
• RPC prescribes for fraud over ₱22,000: penalty “imposed in its maximum period, adding 1 year for each additional ₱10,000, but not exceeding 20 years,” to be “termed prision mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be.”
• Under ISL:
– Maximum term = that which, given attending circumstances (including the incremental penalty rule), could properly be imposed under the RPC.
– Minimum term = within range of the penalty next lower than that prescribed by the RPC (prision correccional minimum to medium; 6 months + 1 day to 4 years + 2 months).
• Amount of fraud in excess of ₱22,000 deemed analogous to a special aggravating circumstance affecting only the maximum term, per People v. Gabres.
• Application of Article 65, RPC, required to divide prescribed penalty ra

    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.