3. Melissa Chua

7/29/2019 3. Melissa Chua

1/4

People of the Philippines,----appelleeVsMelissa Chua,----appellant

G.R. No. 184058March 10, 2010

D E C I S I O N

CARPIO MORALES,J.:Melissa Chua (appellant) was indicted for

Illegal Recruitment (Large Scale) and was convictedthereof by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) ofManila. She was also indicted for five counts ofEstafa but was convicted only for three. The Courtof Appeals, by Decision[1]dated February 27, 2008,affirmed appellants conviction.

The Information[2]charging appellant,together with one Josie Campos (Josie), with IllegalRecruitment (Large Scale), docketed as CriminalCase No. 04-222596, reads:

The undersigned accuses JOSIE

CAMPOS and MELISSA CHUA of violation ofArticle 38 (a) PD 1413, amending certainprovisions of Book I, PD 442, otherwiseknown as the New Labor Code of thePhilippines, in relation to Art. 13 (b) and (c )of said Code, as further amended by PD Nos.1693, 1920 and 2019 and as furtheramended by Sec. 6 (a), (1) and (m) of RA

8042 committed in a [sic] large scale asfollows:

That sometime during the month

of September, 2002, in the City of Manila,Philippines, the said accused, conspiring andconfederating together and mutually helpingeach other, representing themselves to havethe capacity to contract, enlist and transportFilipino workers for employment abroad, didthen and there willfully, unlawfully andknowingly for a fee, recruit and promiseemployment/job placement abroad to ERIKDE GUIA TAN, MARILYN O. MACARANAS,NAPOLEON H. YU, JR., HARRY JAMES P. KINGand ROBERTO C. ANGELES for overseasemployment abroad without first havingsecured the required license from theDepartment of Labor and Employment asrequired by law, and charge or acceptdirectly from:

ERIK DE GUIA

TAN - P73,000.00

MARILYN D.MACARANAS - 83,000.00

NAPOLEON H. YU,JR. - 23,000.00

HARRY JAMES P.KING - 23,000.00ROBERTO C.ANGELES - 23,000.00

For purposes of their deployment, whichamounts are in excess of or greater thanthat specified in the schedule of allowablefees as prescribed by the POEA, and withoutvalid reasons and without the fault of saidcomplainants, failed to actually deploy themand failed to reimburse expenses incurred inconnection with their documentation andprocessing for purposes of theirdeployment.

x x x x

The five Informations[3] charging appellanand Josie with Estafa, docketed as Criminal CaseNos. 04-222597-601, were similarly worded andvaried only with respect to the names of the fivecomplainants and the amount that each purportedlygave to the accused. Thus each of the Informationreads:

x x x xThat on or about . . . in the City of

Manila, Philippines, the said accused,conspiring and confederating together and

mutually helping each other, did then andthere willfully, unlawfully and feloniouslydefraud xxx in the following manner, towit: the said accused by means of falsemanifestations which they made to the said .. . to the effect that they had the power andcapacity to recruit the latter as factoryworker to work in Taiwan and could facilitatethe processing of the pertinent papers ifgiven the necessary amount to meet therequirements thereof, and by means of othersimilar deceits, induced and succeeded ininducing said xxx to give and deliver, as infact he gave and delivered to the saidaccused the amount of . . . on the strengthof said manifestations and representations,said accused well knowing that the samewere false and fraudulent and were madesolely to obtain, as in fact they did obtainthe amount of . . . which amount once intheir possession, with intent to defraud, theywillfully, unlawfully and feloniouslymisappropriated, misapplied and convertedto their own personal use and benefit, to the

1 | P a g e
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/184058.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/184058.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/184058.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/184058.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/184058.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/184058.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/184058.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/184058.htm#_ftn1


2/4

damage of said . . . in the aforesaid amountof . . ., Philippine Currency.

x x x x

Appellant pleaded not guilty onarraignment. Her co-accused Josie remained atlarge. The cases were consolidated, hence, trialproceeded only with respect to appellant.

Of the five complainants, only threetestified, namely, Marilyn D. Macaranas (Marilyn),Erik de Guia Tan (Tan) and Harry James King(King). The substance of their respectivetestimonies follows:

Marilyns testimony :

After she was introduced in June 2002 byJosie to appellant as capacitated to deploy factoryworkers to Taiwan, she paid appellant P80,000 asplacement fee andP3,750 as medical expenses fee,a receipt[4] for the first amount of which was issuedby appellant.

Appellant had told her that she could leavefor Taiwan in the last week of September 2002 butshe did not, and despite appellants assurance thatshe would leave in the first or second week ofOctober, just the same she did not.

She thus asked for the refund of the amount

she paid but appellant claimed that she was not inpossession thereof but promised anyway to raisethe amount to pay her, but she never did.

She later learned in June 2003 that appellant

was not a licensed recruiter, prompting her to file

the complaint against appellant and Josie.

Tans testimony :

After he was introduced by Josie to appellantat the Golden Gate, Inc., (Golden Gate) an agencysituated in Paragon Tower Hotel in Ermita, Manila,he underwent medical examination upon appellantsassurance that he could work in Taiwan as a factoryworker with a guaranteed monthly salary of 15,800in Taiwan currency.

He thus paid appellant, on September 6,2002, P70,000[5] representing placement fees forwhich she issued a receipt. Appellant welched onher promise to deploy him to Taiwan, however,hence, he demanded the refund of his money butappellant failed to. He later learned that GoldenGate was not licensed to deploy workers to Taiwan,hence, he filed the complaint against appellant andJosie.

Kings testimony :

His friend and a fellow complainanNapoleon Yu introduced him to Josie who in turnintroduced appellant as one who could deploy himto Taiwan.

On September 24, 2002,[6] he paidappellant P20,000 representing partial payment foplacement fees amounting to P80,000, but when helater inquired when he would be deployed, GoldenGates office was already closed. He later learnedthat Golden Gates license had already expired

prompting him to file the complaint.

Appellant denied the charges. Claiminghaving worked as a temporary cashier from Januaryto October, 2002 at the office of Golden Gateowned by one Marilyn Calueng,[7] she maintainedthat Golden Gate was a licensed recruitment agencyand that Josie, who is her godmother, was an agent.

Admitting having received P80,000 eachfrom Marilyn and Tan, receipt of which she issuedbut denying receiving any amount from King, sheclaimed that she turned over the money to thedocumentation officer, one Arlene Vega, who in turn

remitted the money to Marilyn Calueng whosepresent whereabouts she did not know.

By Decision of April 5, 2006, Branch 36 of the

Manila RTC convicted appellant of IllegaRecruitment (Large Scale) and three counts oEstafa, disposing as follows:

WHEREFORE, the prosecution havingestablished the guilt of accused MelissaChua beyond reasonable doubt, judgment ishereby rendered convicting the accused asprincipal of a large scale illegal recruitmentand estafa three (3) counts and she is

sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay afine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos(P500,000.00) for illegal recruitment.

The accused is likewise convicted ofestafa committed against Harry James P.King and she is sentenced to suffer theindeterminate penalty of Four (4) years andTwo (2) months of prision correctional asminimum, to Six (6) years and One (1) dayof prision mayor as maximum; in CriminalCase No. 04-22598; in Criminal Case No. 04-222600 committed against MarilynMacaranas, accused is sentence [sic] tosuffer the indeterminate penalty of Four (4)years and Two (2) months of prisioncorrectional as minimum, to Twelve (12)years and one (1) day of reclusion temporalas maximum; and in Criminal Case No. 04-222601 committed against Erik de Guia Tan,she is likewise sentence [sic] to sufferan indeterminate penalty of Four (4) yearsand Two (2) months of prision correctional

2 | P a g e
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/184058.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/184058.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/184058.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/184058.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/184058.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/184058.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/184058.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/184058.htm#_ftn7


3/4

as minimum, to Eleven (11) years and One(1) day of prision mayor as maximum.

Accused Melissa Chua is also orderedto return the amounts of P20,000.00 toHarry James P. King, P83,750.00 to MarilynD. Macaranas, and P70,000.00 to Erik deGuia Tan.

As regards Criminal Cases Nos. 04-

222597 and 04-222599, both are dismissedfor lack of interest of complainants RobertoAngeles and Napoleon Yu, Jr.

In the service of her sentence, the accusedis credited with the full period of preventiveimprisonment if she agrees in writing toabide by the disciplinary rules imposed,otherwise only 4/5 shall be credited.

SO ORDERED.

The Court of Appeals, as stated early on,

affirmed the trial courts decision by the challengedDecision of February 27, 2008, it holding thatappellants defense that, as temporary cashier ofGolden Gate, she received the money which wasultimately remitted to Marilyn Calueng isimmaterial, she having failed to prove the existenceof an employment relationship between her andMarilyn, as well as the legitimacy of the operationsof Golden Gate and the extent of her involvementtherein.

Citing People v. Sagayaga,[8] the appellatecourt ruled that an employee of a company engagedin illegal recruitment may be held liable as principal

together with his employer if it is shown that he, asin the case of appellant, actively and consciouslyparticipated therein.

Respecting the cases for Estafa, the appellate

court, noting that a person convicted of illegalrecruitment may, in addition, be convicted ofEstafa as penalized under Article 315, paragraph2(a) of the Revised Penal Code, held that theelements thereof were sufficientlyestablished, viz: that appellant deceived thecomplainants by assuring them of employment inTaiwan provided they pay the required placementfee; that relying on such representation, thecomplainants paid appellant the amountdemanded; that her representation turned out to befalse because she failed to deploy them aspromised; and that the complainants suffereddamages when they failed to be reimbursed theamounts they paid.

Hence, the present appeal, appellantreiterating the same arguments she raised in theappellate court.

The appeal is bereft of merit.

The term recruitment and placement is

defined under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code of thePhilippines as follows:

(b) Recruitment and

placement refers to any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting,

transporting, utilizing, hiring, orprocuring workers, and includesreferrals, contract services, promisingor advertising for employment, locallyor abroad, whether for profit ornot. Provided, That any person or entitywhich, in any manner, offers or promises fora fee employment to two or more personsshall be deemed engaged in recruitment andplacement. (emphasis supplied)

On the other hand, Article 38, paragraph (aof the Labor Code, as amended, under which

appellant was charged, provides:

Art. 38. IllegalRecruitment. (a) Any recruitmentactivities, including the prohibitedpractices enumerated under Article 34of this Code, to be undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of authorityshall be deemed illegal and punishableunder Article 39 of this Code. TheMinistry of Labor and Employment or anylaw enforcement officer may initiatecomplaints under this Article.

(b) Illegal recruitment whencommitted by a syndicate or in large scaleshall be considered an offense involvingeconomic sabotage and shall be penalized inaccordance with Article 39 hereof.

Illegal recruitment is deemedcommitted by a syndicate if carried out by agroup of three (3) or more personsconspiring and/or confederating with oneanother in carrying out any unlawful orillegal transaction, enterprise or schemedefined under the first paragraphhereof. Illegal recruitment is deemedcommitted in large scale if committedagainst three (3) or more personsindividually or as a group. (emphasissupplied)

From the foregoing provisions, it is clear thaany recruitment activities to be undertaken by nonlicensee or non-holder of contracts, or as in the

3 | P a g e
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/184058.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/184058.htm#_ftn8


4/4

present case, an agency withan expired license, shall be deemed illegal andpunishable under Article 39 of the Labor Code of thePhilippines. And illegal recruitment is deemedcommitted in large scale if committed against threeor more persons individually or as a group.

Thus for illegal recruitment in large scale toprosper, the prosecution has to prove threeessential elements, to wit: (1) the accused

undertook a recruitment activity under Article 13(b)or any prohibited practice under Article 34 of theLabor Code; (2) the accused did not have thelicense or the authority to lawfully engage intherecruitment and placement of workers; and (3)the accused committed such illegal activity againstthree or more persons individually or as a group.[9]

In the present case, Golden Gate, of whichappellant admitted being a cashier from January toOctober 2002, was initially authorized to recruitworkers for deployment abroad. Per thecertification from the POEA, Golden Gates licenseonly expired on February 23, 2002 and it was

delisted from the roster of licensed agencieson April 2, 2002.

Appellant was positively pointed to as one of

the persons who enticed the complainants to partwith their money upon the fraudulent representationthat they would be able to secure for thememployment abroad. In the absence of anyevidence that the complainants were motivated byimproper motives, the trial courts assessment oftheir credibility shall not be interfered with by theCourt.[10]

Even if appellant were a mere temporarycashier of Golden Gate, that did not make her anyless an employee to be held liable for illegalrecruitment as principal by direct participation,together with the employer, as it was shown thatshe actively and consciously participated in therecruitment process.[11]

Assuming arguendo that appellant wasunaware of the illegal nature of the recruitmentbusiness of Golden Gate, that does not free her of

liability either. Illegal Recruitment in LargeScale penalized under Republic Act No. 8042, orThe Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of1995, is a special law, a violation of whichis malum prohibitum, not malum in se. Intent is thusimmaterial. And that explains why appellant was,aside from Estafa, convicted of such offense.

[I]llegal recruitment is malum

prohibitum, while estafa is malum inse. In the first, the criminal intent of

the accused is not necessary forconviction. In the second, such anintent is imperative. Estafa underArticle 315, paragraph 2, of the RevisedPenal Code, is committed by any personwho defrauds another by usingfictitious name, or falsely pretends topossess power, influence,qualifications, property, credit, agency,business or imaginary transactions,

or by means of similar deceitsexecuted prior to or simultaneouslywith the commission of fraud.[12] (emphasis supplied)

WHEREFORE, the appeal ishereby DENIED.

4 | P a g e
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/184058.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/184058.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/184058.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/184058.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/184058.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/184058.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/184058.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/184058.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/184058.htm#_ftn12

Documents

3. Melissa Chua