PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. FUJITA ZENCHIRO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Fujita Zenchiro

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Fujita Zenchiro, a Japanese national charged with illegal recruitment in large scale and with estafa, for promising three Filipino workers jobs in a hanger factory in Japan that never existed, and collecting placement fees for those phantom jobs. The case matters because it shows how our courts treat the twin crimes of illegal recruitment and estafa arising from the same recruitment racket: the absence of a license from the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, the number of victims, and the taking of money for work that was never delivered. It is a working illustration of economic sabotage under the Labor Code and of estafa by false pretenses under the Revised Penal Code.

Procedural History

Four criminal informations were filed before the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan: one for illegal recruitment in large scale and three for estafa. The accused moved to quash on the ground of double jeopardy, because similar cases had already been filed against him before the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, where he had already been arraigned. The trial court denied the motion, holding that the facts constituting the graver offense of illegal recruitment in large scale became known only later, when all three complainants came forward. The accused pleaded not guilty, the four cases were consolidated and jointly tried, and in July 2005 the trial court rendered a joint decision convicting him of illegal recruitment in large scale and of two counts of estafa, dismissing one estafa case and archiving the cases against his co-accused Eva Regino, who remained at large. The accused appealed directly to the Supreme Court.

Facts

Sometime in January 1999, Freddie Ocampo and Alberto Anatalio met the accused through Eva Regino at her house in Meycauayan, Bulacan. They were promised employment in a hanger factory supposedly owned by Regino's sister in Japan, and each was told to pay 250,000 pesos for the processing of papers, travel expenses, and placement fee. In February 1999, each gave 50,000 pesos to Regino in the presence of the accused. In June 1999, the financier of the two, Florinda Cardona, paid the balance of 200,000 pesos each directly to the accused in Parañaque, and the total of 400,000 pesos was covered by two receipts signed by him.

Ocampo and Anatalio flew to Japan with the accused in June 1999 and stayed in Tokyo, idle, for two months. They tried to find work but failed, and the accused only kept promising. Their visas were good for three months, so they returned to the Philippines in September 1999. They waited a year for the promised second deployment, and when nothing came, they went to the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, which certified that the accused were neither licensed nor authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment.

Alicia Diaz was introduced to the accused and Regino in February 1999 and was offered the same job for a placement fee of 250,000 pesos. She paid in installments: 10,000 pesos and 40,000 pesos in March 1999, and 200,000 pesos in December 1999 after her visa was issued, the last amount received by the accused himself. She flew to Japan in January 2000 with the accused, was met by Regino, but was never employed. She returned to the Philippines in March 2000 and demanded her money back. The accused asked for forgiveness and promised to send her abroad again, but never returned the money, although he later made a partial payment of 50,000 pesos.

Issues

• Whether or not the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal recruitment in large scale.
• Whether or not the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of estafa under the Revised Penal Code for the amounts he collected from the complainants.
• Whether or not the motion to quash on the ground of double jeopardy was properly denied.

Applicable Provisions

Article 38 of the Labor Code, as amended, defines illegal recruitment and treats large scale recruitment as economic sabotage:

Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring or confederating with one another. It is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group.

This is the provision that raises the offense to economic sabotage because three complainants were victimized.

Article 315, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code defines estafa by false pretenses:

By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of other similar deceits.

This is the mode of swindling the accused employed when he pretended to have the power to send the complainants to work in Japan.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court affirmed the conviction for illegal recruitment in large scale. The prosecution proved that the accused, with Regino, promised employment in Japan, demanded and received placement fees, escorted the complainants abroad, and yet no employment ever materialized. The Philippine Overseas Employment Administration certification established that he had no license or authority to recruit. Since the offense was committed against three persons, it qualified as large scale and constituted economic sabotage.

On the second issue, the Court likewise affirmed the convictions for estafa. The same false representation that the accused had the power and qualification to secure employment for the complainants, followed by their parting with their money, constitutes estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code. The Court held that a person may be prosecuted and convicted for both illegal recruitment and estafa arising from the same acts, because the two offenses are distinct and are punished under different laws.

On the third issue, the Court upheld the denial of the motion to quash. The earlier cases before the Caloocan courts did not bar the present prosecution, because the facts constituting the graver offense of illegal recruitment in large scale became known only after all three complainants filed their complaints. The conviction in the earlier cases would not be a bar to a later prosecution for an offense that necessarily includes the one charged, when the facts constituting the graver charge were discovered only afterwards.

Doctrine

Illegal recruitment is committed in large scale when it is committed against three or more persons, individually or as a group, and in that case it is an offense involving economic sabotage. The absence of a license or authority from the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration is an essential element, and the certification of that office is the standard proof. A person who recruits workers for overseas employment without a license, and collects placement fees for jobs that do not exist, may be held liable both for illegal recruitment and for estafa, because the two offenses are distinct and are penalized under different laws. The subsequent discovery of facts constituting a graver offense removes the bar of double jeopardy, so that a prior prosecution for a lesser offense does not preclude a later one for the offense that necessarily includes it.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Fujita Zenchiro for illegal recruitment in large scale and for estafa, with the penalties and awards of damages fixed by the trial court.

Remember This

Memorize this line: recruitment without a license, against three or more persons, for jobs that do not exist, is illegal recruitment in large scale and also estafa, and one may be convicted of both. Examiners use this case to test the elements of large scale illegal recruitment, the use of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration certification, and the rule that double jeopardy does not attach when the graver offense is discovered only later.