CARMEN RITUALO Y RAMOS, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

Ritualo versus People of the Philippines

The Case

This is the case of Carmen Ritualo against the People of the Philippines. The petitioner was charged with, and convicted of, two crimes arising from a single recruitment transaction: simple illegal recruitment under the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipino Act of 1995, and estafa under the Revised Penal Code. The case matters to the Bar candidate because it is a compact illustration of how the Supreme Court tests the elements of illegal recruitment, and of how the statutory definition of recruitment and placement reaches even a person who claims she earned nothing from the transaction.

Procedural History

Two Informations dated 2 January 2001 were filed against Carmen Ritualo before the Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas City, one for illegal recruitment and one for estafa. Upon arraignment, assisted by counsel de oficio, she pleaded not guilty. During the joint trial, she manifested that earnest efforts were being undertaken to settle the civil aspect, and with her conformity and her express waiver of double jeopardy, the trial court ordered the provisional dismissal of both cases. When she reneged on her undertaking, the trial court revived the cases upon motion of the prosecution.

After trial, the Regional Trial Court convicted her of both crimes. She moved for reconsideration, which was denied, and she appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalties in both cases. She then filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court.

Facts

In 1993, Felix Biacora worked in Saudi Arabia through a recruiter named Cynthia Libutan. Years later, in 2000, he met Libutan again and told her he wished to seek overseas employment once more. Libutan gave him the name, address, and contact number of her friend, Carmen Ritualo, who had supposedly helped Libutan's sister find work in Australia. Biacora called Ritualo and set up a meeting.

On 1 May 2000, Biacora and his wife went to Ritualo's house and asked whether she could help him secure work in Australia. Ritualo said yes, and to convince him she brought out travel documents of several people she claimed to have helped. She assured him he could leave for Australia within a month if he paid a total of 160,000 pesos, with a salary of 700 dollars a month as a farm worker. On that same date, Biacora paid 40,000 pesos as downpayment, and Ritualo issued him a cash voucher. On 4 May 2000, he paid another 20,000 pesos, again receipted by Ritualo. Later, Ritualo told him all he needed was his passport and an endorsement from the Representative of his district. She accompanied him to the Batasan Pambansa to secure the endorsement, and then to the Australian Embassy to apply for a working visa. On 1 June 2000, when he followed up his departure date, Ritualo asked for another 20,000 pesos and told him to be patient, issuing another receipt.

Several departure dates were set, but none pushed through, and his Australian visa application was denied. On 9 September 2000, Biacora demanded the return of his 80,000 pesos. Ritualo promised to pay on the thirteenth of September, but no payment came. Biacora then filed the criminal complaints. The Philippine Overseas Employment Administration certified that Ritualo, in her personal capacity, was not licensed to recruit workers for overseas employment, and that any recruitment activity undertaken by her was deemed illegal. For her part, Ritualo claimed that it was Libutan and Biacora who asked her to introduce them to Anita Seraspe, that she had no agreement with Biacora, and that she merely entrusted the payments to Seraspe. The trial court found the prosecution evidence more credible and convicted her.

Issues

• Whether or not the evidence on record supports a conviction for simple illegal recruitment and estafa beyond reasonable doubt.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in modifying the term of sentence imposed in the illegal recruitment case.

Applicable Provisions

Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042 defines illegal recruitment:

SEC. 6. Definition. - For purposes of this Act, illegal recruitment shall mean any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers and includes referring, contract services, promising or advertising for employment abroad, whether for profit or not, when undertaken by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority contemplated under Article 13(f) of Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, otherwise known as the Labor Code of the Philippines: Provided, That any such non-licensee or non-holder who, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment abroad to two or more persons shall be deemed so engaged.

This definition supplies the second element of the offense, because promising employment abroad, whether for profit or not, is itself recruitment when done by a non-licensee.

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

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.

The Court uses this definition to measure whether the accused's acts fell within the meaning of recruitment and placement.

Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code enumerates a mode of committing estafa:

2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud: (a) 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 provision under which the false representation of authority to send Biacora abroad was punished as estafa.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court found no merit in the petition and affirmed the conviction. Illegal recruitment is committed when two essential elements concur: first, that the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to engage in recruitment and placement; and second, that the offender undertakes any activity within the meaning of recruitment and placement, or any prohibited practice under the Labor Code. The first element was established by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration certifications that Ritualo was not licensed. On the second element, the Court held that it must be shown that the accused gave the private complainant the distinct impression that she had the power or ability to send him abroad for work, such that he was convinced to part with his money. Ritualo professed that she could send Biacora to Australia as a farm worker at 700 dollars a month, showed him travel documents of others, and personally assisted him in securing an endorsement and in going to the Australian Embassy. Her claim that Anita Seraspe was the real recruiter was rejected, because Ritualo received the payments and issued personal receipts, personally assisted Biacora, and failed to present corroborating evidence. The Court stressed that even without consideration for her services, she still engaged in recruitment activities.

On the second issue, the Court upheld the modification of the penalties by the Court of Appeals, which had corrected the indeterminate sentences to conform to Section 7 of Republic Act No. 8042 and Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code.

Doctrine

Illegal recruitment requires two elements: the offender has no valid license or authority to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement, and the offender undertakes any act of recruitment and placement as defined by law. The second element is satisfied when the accused gives the complainant the distinct impression of having the power or ability to send him abroad for work, such that he is convinced to part with his money. A promise or offer of employment abroad by a non-licensee is itself recruitment, whether or not the recruiter profits, because the statutory definition expressly covers promising or advertising for employment abroad, whether for profit or not.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals with its modifications, sustaining the conviction of Carmen Ritualo for simple illegal recruitment and estafa.

Remember This

Memorize this line: illegal recruitment is complete when a non-licensee gives the complainant the distinct impression of power to send him abroad, even without profit. Examiners use this case to test the two elements of illegal recruitment and the rule that a promise of overseas employment for a fee is itself recruitment.