ARLENE N. LAPASARAN, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

Lapasaran versus People of the Philippines

The Case

This is the story of Arlene Lapasaran, who promised a man named Menardo Villarin a job in South Korea and took his money for it, and of the People of the Philippines, who prosecuted her for doing so. She was charged in two separate criminal cases, one for illegal recruitment and one for estafa, and she was convicted in both. The case matters because it gathers in one decision the whole architecture of the illegal recruitment offense: how the crime is committed, why a recruiter's denial of authority does not save her, why a single set of acts can support conviction for both illegal recruitment and estafa, and how the estafa penalty is computed when the amount of the fraud exceeds twenty-two thousand pesos. For the bar candidate, it is a compact review of Republic Act Number 8042, Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, and the Indeterminate Sentence Law, all applied to one set of facts.

Procedural History

Two separate informations were filed against Lapasaran before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 34: one for illegal recruitment and one for estafa. When arraigned, she pleaded not guilty to both charges. After trial, the Regional Trial Court rendered its decision on the fifteenth of February, 2005, finding her guilty beyond reasonable doubt of both illegal recruitment and estafa. She appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court, modifying only the penalty imposed in the estafa case. Lapasaran then came to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, raising the sole issue of whether the laws on illegal recruitment and estafa were applicable to her cases.

Facts

In September 2001, Menardo Villarin and his sister Vilma met Arlene Lapasaran, who was then working at a travel agency in Makati. For a fee of eighty-five thousand pesos, Lapasaran undertook to process the papers needed for Menardo's deployment to South Korea under a tourist visa, and for his employment there. She told him he would be employed as a factory worker, a description later changed to bakery worker. Menardo paid the fee in installments: ten thousand pesos in September 2001, received by a certain Pastor Paulino Cajucom; thirty-five thousand pesos; and forty thousand pesos, the last two installments delivered directly to Lapasaran.

After two postponements of his flight, Menardo finally left for South Korea on the twenty-fifth of November, 2001. He was immediately incarcerated by South Korean immigration authorities and deported back to the Philippines, because the travel documents Lapasaran had given him were fake. He contacted her at once. She promised to send him back to South Korea, but never did. When Menardo and Vilma demanded the return of their money, Lapasaran refused, and even told them, in effect, that they should just go to court. It later turned out that she was no longer connected with the travel agency.

In her defense, Lapasaran testified that she owned a travel agency engaged in visa assistance and ticketing. She claimed it was Vilma who sought her help in securing a tourist visa for Menardo, that she committed only to securing a tourist visa and a two-way airplane ticket for seventy thousand pesos, and that she never recruited Menardo nor promised him employment in South Korea.

Issues

• Whether or not the law on illegal recruitment is applicable to Lapasaran, given her claim that she merely helped secure a tourist visa and did not represent herself as a licensed recruiter.
• Whether or not the law on estafa is applicable to Lapasaran for the same acts.
• Whether or not Lapasaran may be convicted of both illegal recruitment and estafa for the same set of acts.
• Whether or not the penalty imposed for estafa was correctly computed.

Applicable Provisions

Section 7 of Republic Act Number 8042, the Migrant Workers Act of 1995, provides:

Any person found guilty of illegal recruitment shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of not less than six (6) years and one (1) day but not more than twelve (12) years and a fine of not less than Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00) nor more than Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00).

This is the provision under which the penalty for illegal recruitment was fixed in the first case.

Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, paragraph 2, subparagraph (a), provides:

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 mode of estafa charged against Lapasaran, committed by falsely pretending to possess the power or qualification to send Menardo abroad for work.

Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, on the penalty for estafa, provides:

1st. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period, if the amount of the fraud is over 12,000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000 pesos; and if such amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional 10,000 pesos; but the total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases, and in connection with the accessory penalties which may be imposed and for the purpose of the other provisions of this Code, the penalty shall be termed prision mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be.

This is the rule the Court applied in computing the maximum term of the estafa penalty.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the law on illegal recruitment applies. Illegal recruitment is committed when the accused gives the complainant the distinct impression that she has the power or ability to send him abroad for work, such that he is convinced to part with his money in order to be employed. To be engaged in recruitment and placement, there must at least be a promise or an offer of employment from the person posing as a recruiter. Lapasaran's misrepresentations of her purported power to recruit for overseas employment, and her collection of various amounts from Menardo, were acts constitutive of illegal recruitment. Her claim that she did not represent herself as a licensed recruiter, but merely tried to help secure a tourist visa, did not make her less guilty, because it was enough that she gave the impression of having the authority to recruit workers for deployment abroad.

On the second issue, the Court held that estafa also applies. The elements are that the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit, and that damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation was caused to the offended party. Lapasaran represented herself as capable of sending Menardo to South Korea for employment even though she had no authority or license to do so, and it was this misrepresentation that induced him to part with his hard-earned money.

On the third issue, the Court held that a person may be convicted of both illegal recruitment and estafa. The reason is that illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum, wrong merely because it is prohibited, while estafa is malum in se, wrong in itself. In the first, criminal intent is not necessary for conviction; in the second, such intent is imperative.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the Court of Appeals correctly modified the estafa penalty. Since the amount involved, seventy-five thousand pesos, exceeds twenty-two thousand pesos, the penalty must be imposed in its maximum period, which is six years, eight months and twenty-one days to eight years, adding one year for every additional ten thousand pesos, provided the total does not exceed twenty years. Because the amount exceeds twenty-two thousand pesos by fifty-three thousand pesos, five years were added. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum term is that which could be properly imposed under the Revised Penal Code, while the minimum term is within the penalty next lower in degree, which is prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, ranging from six months and one day to four years and two months. The Court also affirmed the penalty of six years and one day to eight years, and a fine of two hundred thousand pesos, for illegal recruitment.

Doctrine

Illegal recruitment is committed when the accused gives the complainant the distinct impression of having the power or ability to send him abroad for work, inducing him to part with his money; a promise or offer of employment from the person posing as a recruiter is enough, and the absence of a license or a denial of authority does not exonerate the accused. Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2, subparagraph (a), is committed by falsely pretending to possess the power or qualification to send another abroad for a fee, where the pretense induces the victim to part with money and causes damage capable of pecuniary estimation. A person may be convicted of both illegal recruitment and estafa for the same acts, because illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum while estafa is malum in se. Finally, where the amount of the fraud exceeds twenty-two thousand pesos, the estafa penalty is imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional ten thousand pesos, subject to the twenty-year ceiling, and the Indeterminate Sentence Law is then applied.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition for lack of merit and affirmed the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals, so Lapasaran stands convicted of both illegal recruitment and estafa, with the penalties as modified.

Remember This

Memorize the line that a person may be convicted of both illegal recruitment and estafa because illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum while estafa is malum in se. Examiners like to use this case on the sufficiency of a mere impression of authority to recruit, and on the step-by-step computation of the estafa penalty when the amount of the fraud exceeds twenty-two thousand pesos.