PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. MARIO ALZONA, APPELLANT.

People versus Alzona

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Mario Alzona, a criminal appeal in which the accused was charged with illegal recruitment in large scale and with several counts of estafa. The case matters because it is a clean teaching vehicle on two things a bar candidate must master: the elements of illegal recruitment in large scale as economic sabotage under the Labor Code, and the rule that a conviction for illegal recruitment does not bar a separate conviction for estafa arising from the same acts, because the two offenses are distinct and the same evidence may prove both.

Procedural History

An Information for large scale illegal recruitment and seven Informations for estafa were filed before Branch 1 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila. All eight cases were consolidated and jointly tried. Three of the estafa cases were dismissed as against Alzona for lack of evidence, leaving one illegal recruitment case and four estafa cases. The trial court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal recruitment in large scale and of four separate crimes of estafa, sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of 100,000 pesos on the recruitment charge, imposed indeterminate penalties on each estafa count, and ordered him to indemnify the private complainants. Alzona appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty in one estafa case. Because the penalty of life imprisonment was involved, the Court of Appeals certified the case and elevated the records to the Supreme Court for review, and it is on that automatic review that the Supreme Court decided the case.

Facts

Between August 1991 and March 1992, several persons from Mulanay, Quezon went to the house of Mario Alzona and his wife Miranda at Hizon Street in Santa Cruz, Manila, after hearing that the spouses were accepting applicants for work abroad. The spouses promised employment as factory workers in Korea at a monthly salary of at least 450 dollars, for a placement fee of 38,000 pesos inclusive of passport charges. Mario Regino Decena paid 1,000 pesos for his passport and later 33,000 pesos, which Alzona himself received. Leonardo Mercurio paid 20,000 pesos to Alzona. Fernando Dela Cruz corroborated Mercurio. James Mazon paid 15,000 pesos to Alzona. In every instance Alzona refused to issue a receipt, and none of the complainants was ever deployed.

A Licensure Officer of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration testified that Alzona was neither licensed nor authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment. For his defense, Alzona denied meeting the complainants or receiving money from them, and offered alibi: as a jeepney driver he was out of the house from early morning until evening. He admitted, however, that he had learned in 1989 that his wife was engaged in recruiting workers abroad, and that he stopped driving in July 1992 because so many people were coming to their house. His daughter admitted seeing the complainants at their house beginning August 1991. His wife Miranda was not tried and remained at large.

Issues

• Whether or not the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of illegal recruitment in large scale against Alzona.
• Whether or not Alzona conspired with his wife in defrauding the private complainants, so as to sustain his conviction for four separate counts of estafa.
• Whether or not the penalties imposed by the trial court, as modified by the Court of Appeals, are correct.

Applicable Provisions

Article 13, paragraph (b) of the Labor Code defines recruitment and placement:

“Recruitment and placement” refers to any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not: Provided, that any person or entity which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement.

This is the actus reus of the offense: the promise of employment for a fee.

Article 38 of the Labor Code defines illegal recruitment:

Any recruitment activities, including the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of this Code, to be undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of authority shall be deemed illegal and punishable under Article 39 of this Code.

Illegal Recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three or more persons individually or as a group.

This supplies the qualifying circumstance that raises the offense to economic sabotage.

Article 39 of the Labor Code fixes the penalty:

The penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) shall be imposed if illegal recruitment constitutes economic sabotage as defined herein.

This is the penalty the trial court and the Court of Appeals imposed.

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

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

This is the mode of swindling charged against Alzona for misrepresenting that he had the power and capacity to obtain overseas employment for the complainants.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that all three elements of illegal recruitment in large scale were proven: that the person undertook a recruitment activity under Article 13 or a prohibited practice under Article 34; that the person had no license or authority; and that the act was committed against three or more persons. The Court gave weight to the trial court's assessment of credibility, since the trial court heard the witnesses and observed their conduct, and found the complainants' testimonies clear, logical and straightforward. The Court rejected the argument that only Miranda transacted with the complainants, holding that the segmented portions of the testimonies were taken out of context, and that most damning was the fact that all the complainants categorically stated that it was Alzona who received their money and refused to issue a receipt.

On the second issue, the Court held that the very same evidence proving illegal recruitment also established that Alzona and Miranda acted with unity of purpose in defrauding the complainants by misrepresenting that they had the power, influence, agency and business to obtain overseas employment upon payment of a placement fee. The complainants suffered damages in the amounts they delivered: 34,000 pesos from Decena, 21,000 pesos each from Mercurio and Dela Cruz, and 15,000 pesos from Mazon. The Court thus affirmed the four counts of estafa.

On the third issue, the Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that the trial court imposed the wrong penalty in the estafa case involving 34,000 pesos. Under Article 315, where the amount defrauded exceeds 22,000 pesos, the penalty is imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional 10,000 pesos, subject to a total not exceeding twenty years. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum comes from that maximum period and the minimum from the penalty next lower in degree. The Court also corrected a typographical error in the penalties for the other three estafa cases, and reiterated that an appeal in a criminal case opens the entire case for review.

Doctrine

Illegal recruitment in large scale is economic sabotage. Its elements are: first, the person undertakes any recruitment activity under Article 13, paragraph (b), or any prohibited practice under Article 34 of the Labor Code; second, the person has no license or authority to engage in recruitment and placement; and third, the act is committed against three or more persons, individually or as a group. A conviction for illegal recruitment does not preclude a separate conviction for estafa arising from the same acts, because the same evidence may establish both offenses, and conspiracy may be inferred from the unity of purpose of the accused and his co-conspirator. On credibility, the findings of the trial court are generally not disturbed, since it had the advantage of hearing the witnesses and observing their conduct.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, with modification only as to the three estafa cases, in each of which Alzona was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of one year and eight months of prision correccional as minimum to five years and eleven days of prision correccional as maximum.

Remember This

Memorize the three elements of illegal recruitment in large scale and the rule that illegal recruitment and estafa may both be convicted on the same set of facts. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between the two offenses and the correct application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law in estafa.