PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. SAMINA ANGELES Y CALMA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Angeles

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Samina Angeles y Calma for four counts of estafa and one count of illegal recruitment, arising from money she received from persons who believed she would process their travel documents for work abroad. The case matters for two reasons a reviewee should hold onto: it shows exactly what the prosecution must prove to sustain a conviction for illegal recruitment, namely an actual promise or offer of employment, and it shows that a conviction for estafa can stand even where the promise of a job was never made by the accused, because the deceit lay elsewhere.

Procedural History

Five informations were filed against Samina Angeles in the Regional Trial Court of Manila, four for estafa and one for illegal recruitment. The five cases were consolidated and tried jointly by Branch 50 of that court. After trial on the merits, the trial court rendered judgment finding her guilty of illegal recruitment and of all four counts of estafa, imposing life imprisonment and a fine for illegal recruitment, and prison terms with orders of reimbursement on each estafa count. Samina Angeles then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court on appeal, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court resolved the appeal and modified the judgment of the trial court.

Facts

Maria Tolosa Sardeña was working in Saudi Arabia when her sister Priscilla Agoncillo, who was in Paris, France, called and told her to return to the Philippines and await the arrival of her friend, Samina Angeles, who would assist in processing her travel and employment documents to Paris. Maria returned at once. Her brother Marceliano Tolosa, then in the Philippines, received the same instructions from Priscilla. Maria and Marceliano met Samina Angeles in September 1994 at the Expert Travel Agency on Mabini Street in Manila, where she asked whether they had the money needed for the processing of their documents. Maria gave her 107,000 pesos, and later another 46,000 pesos and 1,500 dollars. Marceliano initially gave 100,000 pesos, and later an additional 46,000 pesos and 1,500 dollars.

Separately, Analyn Olpindo met Samina Angeles in Belgium and called her sister Precila Olpindo in the Philippines, telling her to meet Samina Angeles because she could help process her documents for employment in Canada. Precila met her at the Expert Travel Agency and was asked for 4,500 dollars, but was able to give only 2,500 dollars. Samina Angeles told Precila and Vilma Brina that it would be easier to complete the processing of their papers if they started from Jakarta, Indonesia, so the three flew to Jakarta. Samina Angeles returned to the Philippines after two days and never came back; Precila and Vilma waited in Jakarta and eventually came home in November 1994. When Precila tried to reach Samina Angeles at the travel agency, she could not. Maria and Marceliano likewise looked for her after she disappeared with their money. An officer of the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency certified that Samina Angeles was not licensed to recruit workers here or abroad.

In her defense, Samina Angeles claimed she never represented that she could provide work abroad. She said she was a marketing consultant and international trade fair organizer who met Priscilla in Paris and Analyn in Belgium, and that she agreed only to help process travel documents, the money she received being for tickets, hotel accommodations and other travel requirements. Vilma Brina never testified, so no evidence was adduced on her complaint.

Issues

• Whether or not the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Samina Angeles committed illegal recruitment.
• Whether or not the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Samina Angeles committed estafa on each of the four counts.
• Whether or not the penalties and the amounts of civil liability imposed by the trial court were correctly fixed.

Applicable Provisions

Article 13, paragraph b of the Labor Code defines recruitment and placement, and it is the provision the Court uses to test whether the crime of illegal recruitment was committed:

(b) "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.

Because the definition turns on a promise or offer of employment, the absence of any such promise from the accused defeats the charge.

Article 315, paragraph 2, subparagraph a of the Revised Penal Code is the estafa provision applied to the four counts:

Under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code, the elements of estafa are: (1) the accused has defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit and (2) damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party or third person.

These two elements, deceit or abuse of confidence and pecuniary damage, are what the Court examines on each count.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court acquitted Samina Angeles of illegal recruitment. It held that to prove illegal recruitment it must be shown that the accused gave the complainants the distinct impression that she had the power or ability to send them abroad for work, such that they were convinced to part with their money in order to be employed. There must at least be a promise or offer of employment from the person posing as a recruiter. Reviewing the records, the Court found that not one of the complainants testified that Samina Angeles lured them with promises of jobs abroad. On the contrary, they were consistent that their relatives abroad were the ones who contacted them and urged them to meet her so that she could assist in processing their travel documents. The Court quoted the cross-examination of Maria, who admitted she had already decided to go to Paris on her sister's advice, and of Precila, who admitted she had already been told by her sister how much would be paid for the facilitation of her travel. Plainly, there was no testimony that Samina Angeles offered the complainants jobs abroad, so she could not be lawfully convicted of illegal recruitment.

On the second issue, the Court affirmed the estafa convictions on three counts but acquitted her on the fourth. It held that although Samina Angeles did not deceive the complainants into believing she could find them employment abroad, she did make them believe she was processing their travel documents for France and Canada. They parted with their money believing she would use it for plane tickets, hotel accommodations and other travel requirements. Upon receiving the amounts, she used them for other purposes and then disappeared. She abused their confidence when she led them to believe she could process their travel documents, and when they demanded the documents she failed to produce them and failed to return the money. She therefore defrauded them by falsely pretending to possess the power and capacity to process their travel documents. On the count concerning Vilma Brina, however, the damage was not proved because Vilma never appeared in court to testify.

On the third issue, the Court corrected the penalties and the amounts of liability. It applied the Indeterminate Sentence Law, under which the maximum term is that which could be properly imposed under the Revised Penal Code and the minimum is within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed for the offense, with modifying circumstances considered only in fixing the maximum. It also limited the civil liability to the amounts actually alleged in each information, since the accused could be held accountable only for what was charged. Thus Maria was awarded 107,000 pesos, Marceliano 190,000 pesos, and Precila 61,200 pesos, the peso equivalent alleged in the information.

Doctrine

Illegal recruitment requires two elements: that the offender has no valid license or authority to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement, and that the offender undertakes any activity within the meaning of recruitment and placement under Article 13, paragraph b of the Labor Code, or any prohibited practice under Article 34. The heart of the first element is a promise or offer of employment, whether locally or abroad; without proof that the accused gave the complainants the distinct impression of a power to send them abroad for work, the charge fails even if money changed hands and no license existed.

Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2, subparagraph a requires deceit or abuse of confidence and damage capable of pecuniary estimation. The deceit need not relate to employment; a false pretense of capacity to process travel documents, coupled with receipt of money for that purpose, failure to deliver the documents, failure to return the money, and disappearance, is sufficient. The accused is liable only for the amount alleged in the information, and an unproven complainant yields an acquittal on that count.

Disposition

The appealed decision was modified: Samina Angeles was acquitted of illegal recruitment and of estafa on the count involving Vilma Brina, but was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of estafa on the three other counts, sentenced to the prison terms fixed in the modified judgment, and ordered to indemnify Maria Sardeña, Marceliano Tolosa and Precila Olpindo in the amounts stated.

Remember This

Memorize this line: no promise or offer of employment, no illegal recruitment, but a false pretense of processing travel documents can still be estafa. Examiners use this case to test the elements of illegal recruitment under Article 13, paragraph b of the Labor Code and to distinguish the deceit in estafa from a promise of a job abroad.