Title: People v Temporada Citation: GR No. 173473, Dec. 17, 2008 Topic: ndeterminate !entence "a# Facts: The case is about the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA), arming with modication the Ma !", #$$" %ecision# of the &egional Trial Court (&TC) of Manila, accused'appellant eth Temporada conicting her of the crime of large scale illegal recruitment, or iolation of Article *+ of the abor Code, as amended, and e (-) counts of estafa under Article *!-, par. (#)(a) of the &eised /enal Code (&/C). Accused &osemarie 0ab0 &obles, ernadette Miranda, 1enita Catacotan and 2o3o &esco and appellant eth Temporada, all emploees of the Alternatie Trael and Tours Tours Corporation (ATT (ATTC), C), recruited and promised oerseas oerseas emploment, for a fee, to complainants &ogelio egaspi, 2r. as technician in 4ingapore, and 4oledad Atle, u5 Min6a, 7eln 7stacio and %ennis %imaano as factor wor6ers in 8ong6ong. After complaina complainants nts had submitted submitted all the re9uir re9uiremen ements ts the accused accused and appellan appellant, t, on dierent dates, collected and receied from them placement fees. ;nl appellant was apprehended apprehended and brought to trial, the other accused remained at large.
>T of accuse accused d eth eth Temporada Temporada 7@;1% 7@;1% &7A4;1A7 %;<T, 3udgment 3udgment is hereb rendered rendered C;1?CT?1> the said accused, as principal of the oenses charged and she is sentenced to suer the penal penalt t of ?F7 ?F7 ?M/&? ?M/&?4;1 4;1M71 M71T T and and a ne of Fie 8undr 8undred ed Thousa Thousand nd /esos esos (/-$$,$$$.$$) for illegal recruitmentB and the indeterminate indeterminate penalt of four (") ears and two (#) months of prision correctional as minimum, to nine () ears and one (!) da of prision maor, as maDimum for the estafa committed against complainant &ogelio A. egaspi, 2r.B the indeterminate penalt of four (") ears and two (#) months of prision correctional as minimum to ten (!$) ears and one da of prision maor as maDimum each for the estafas committed against complainants, %ennis %imaano, 4oledad . Atte and u5 T. Min6aB and the indeterminate penalt of four (") ears and two (#) months of prision correctional as minimum, to eleen (!!) ears and one (!) da da of prisi prision on maor maor as maDim maDimum um for the estafa estafa commit committed ted again against st 7eln 7eln 7stacio. ?n accordance with the CourtEs ruling in /eople . Mateo,- this case was referred to the the CA for for inte interm rmed edia iate te reie eiew w. ;n Febru ebruar ar #", #", #$$ #$$,, the the CA arm armed ed with with modication the %ecision of the &TC: =87&7F;&7, =87&7F;&7, with M;%?F?CAT?;1 M;%?F?CAT?;1 to the eect that in Criminal Cases 1os. $##$+*G*, $# #$+*G*, $##$+*G-, H $# #$+*G, appellant is sentenced to suer the indeterminate penalt of siD () ears of prision correccional maDimum, as minimum, to ten (!$) ears and one (!) da of prision maor maDimum, as maDimumB and in Criminal Case 1o. $#' #$+*G", she is sentenced to suer the indeterminate penalt of eight (+) ears and one (!) da of prision maor medium, as minimum, to twele (!#) ears and one (!) da of reclusion temporal minimum, as maDimum, the appealed decision is AFF?&M7% in all other respects. ?ssue:
!. =hether or not the accused is guilt of illegal recruitment in large scale. #. =hether or not the &TC and the CA properl meted the penalt. &uling: !. To constitute illegal recruitment in large scale, three (*) elements must concur: (a) the oender has no alid license or authorit re9uired b law to enable him to lawfull engage in recruitment and placement of wor6ersB (b) the oender underta6es an of the actiities within the meaning of 0recruitment and placement0 under Article !*(b) of the abor Code, or an of the prohibited practices enumerated under Article *" of the said Code (now 4ection of &.A. 1o. +$"#)B and, (c) the oender committed the same against three (*) or more persons, indiiduall or as a group.G ?n the case at bar, the foregoing elements are present. Appellant, in conspirac with her coaccused, misrepresented to hae the power, inIuence, authorit and business to obtain oerseas emploment upon pament of a placement fee which was dul collected from complainants &ogelio egaspi, %ennis %imaano, 7eln 7stacio, 4oledad Atle and u5 Min6a. Further, the certication+ issued b the /hilippine ;erseas 7mploment Administration (/;7A) and the testimon of Ann Abastra Abas, a representatie of said goernment agenc, established that appellant and her co' accused did not possess an authorit or license to recruit wor6ers for oerseas emploment. And, since there were e (-) ictims, the trial court correctl found appellant liable for illegal recruitment in large scale. Appellant insists that she was merel an emploee of ATTC and was 3ust 0echoing the re9uirement of her emploer.0 4he further argues that the prosecution failed to proe that she was aware of the latterEs illegal actiities and that she actiel participated therein. ?n essence, she controerts the factual ndings of the lower courts. The contention is untenable. An emploee of a compan or corporation engaged in illegal recruitment ma be held liable as principal, together with his emploer, if it is shown that he actiel and consciousl participated in illegal recruitment. Appellant actiel too6 part in the illegal recruitment of priate complainants. The totalit of the eidence, thus, established that appellant acted as an indispensable participant and eectie collaborator of her coaccused in the illegal recruitment of complainants. As aptl found b the CA: =ithout doubt, all the acts of appellant, consisting of introducing herself to complainants as general manager of ATTC, interiewing and entertaining them, brieng them on the re9uirements for deploment and assuring them that the could leae immediatel if the paid the re9uired amounts, unerringl show unit of purpose with those of her coaccused in their scheme to defraud priate complainants through false promises of 3obs abroad. There being conspirac, appellant shall be e9uall liable for the acts of her coaccused een if she herself did not personall reap the fruits of their eDecution. Conse9uentl, the defense of appellant that she was not aware of the illegal nature of the actiities of her co accused cannot be sustained. esides, een assuming arguendo that appellant was indeed unaware of the illegal nature of said actiities, the same is hardl a defense in the prosecution for illegal recruitment.
Migrant =or6ers and ;erseas Filipinos Act of !-, a special law, the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale is malum prohibitum and not malum in se. Thus, the criminal intent of the accused is not necessar and the fact alone that the accused iolated the law warrants her coniction. #. 4ection G(b) of &.A. 1o. +$"# prescribes the penalt of life imprisonment and a ne of not less than /-$$,$$$.$$ nor more than /!,$$$,$$$.$$ for the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale or b a sndicate. The trial court, therefore, properl meted the penalt of life imprisonment and a ne of /-$$,$$$.$$ on the appellant. Anent the coniction of appellant for e (-) counts of estafa, we, li6ewise, arm the same. =ellsettled is the rule that a person conicted for illegal recruitment under the abor Code ma, for the same acts, be separatel conicted for estafa under Article *!-, par. #(a) of the &/C. The elements of estafa are: (!) the accused defrauded another b abuse of condence or b means of deceitB and (#) the oended part or a third part suered damage or pre3udice capable of pecuniar estimation.!- The same eidence proing appellantEs criminal liabilit for illegal recruitment also established her liabilit for estafa. As preiousl discussed, appellant together with her coaccused defrauded complainants into belieing that the had the authorit and capabilit to send complainants for oerseas emploment. ecause of these assurances, complainants parted with their hardearned mone in eDchange for the promise of future wor6 abroad. 8oweer, the promised oerseas emploment neer materiali5ed and neither were the complainants able to recoer their mone. =hile we arm the coniction for the e (-) counts of estafa, we nd, howeer, that the CA erroneousl computed the indeterminate penalties therefor. The CA deiated from the doctrine laid down in /eople . >abresB hence its decision should be reersed with respect to the indeterminate penalties it imposed. The reersal of the appellate courtEs %ecision on this point does not, howeer, wholl reinstate the indeterminate penalties imposed b the trial court because the maDimum terms, as determined b the latter, were erroneousl computed and must necessaril be rectied. The prescribed penalt for estafa under Article *!-, par. #(d) of the &/C, when the amount defrauded eDceeds /##,$$$.$$, is prisiJn correccional maDimum to prisiJn maor minimum. The minimum term is ta6en from the penalt neDt lower or anwhere within prisiJn correccional minimum and medium (i.e., from months and ! da to " ears and # months). Conse9uentl, the &TC correctl Ded the minimum term for the e estafa cases at " ears and # months of prisiJn correccional since this is within the range of prisiJn correccional minimum and medium. ;n the other hand, the maDimum term is ta6en from the prescribed penalt of prisiJn correccional maDimum to prisiJn maor minimum in its maDimum period, adding ! ear of imprisonment for eer /!$,$$$.$$ in eDcess of /##,$$$.$$, proided that the total penalt shall not eDceed #$ ears. 8oweer, the maDimum period of the prescribed penalt of prisiJn correccional maDimum to prisiJn maor minimum is not prisiJn maor minimum as apparentl assumed b the &TC. To compute the maDimum period of the prescribed penalt, prisiJn correccional maDimum to prisiJn maor minimum should be diided into three e9ual portions of time each of which portion shall be deemed to form one period in accordance with Article -!G of the &/C. Following this procedure, the maDimum period of prisiJn correccional maDimum to prisiJn maor minimum is from ears, + months and #! das to + ears. The incremental penalt, when proper, shall thus be added to anwhere from ears, + months and #! das to + ears, at the discretion of the court.
?n computing the incremental penalt, the amount defrauded shall be subtracted b /##,$$$.$$, and the dierence shall be diided b /!$,$$$.$$. ?n Criminal Case 1o. $##$+*G#, where the amount defrauded was /-G,$$.$$, the &TC sentenced the accused to an indeterminate penalt of " ears and # months of prisiJn correccional as minimum, to ears and ! da of prisiJn maor as maDimum. 4ince the amount defrauded eDceeds /##,$$$.$$ b /*-,$$.$$, * ears shall be added to the maDimum period of the prescribed penalt (or added to anwhere from ears, + months and #! das to + ears, at the discretion of the court). The lowest maDimum term, therefore, that can be alidl imposed is ears, + months and #! das of prisiJn maor, and not ears and ! da of prisiJn maor. ?n Criminal Case 1os. $##$+*G*, $##$+*G-, and $##$+*G, where the amounts defrauded were /,-#$.$$, /,-#$.$$, and /,-#$.$$, respectiel, the accused was sentenced to an indeterminate penalt of " ears and # months of prisiJn correccional as minimum, to !$ ears and ! da of prisiJn maor as maDimum for each of the aforesaid three estafa cases. 4ince the amounts defrauded eDceed /##,$$$.$$ b /"",-#$.$$, /"G,-#$.$$, and /"G,-#$.$$, respectiel, " ears shall be added to the maDimum period of the prescribed penalt (or added to anwhere from ears, + months and #! das to + ears, at the discretion of the court). The lowest maDimum term, therefore, that can be alidl imposed is !$ ears, + months and #! das of prisiJn maor, and not !$ ears and ! da of prisiJn maor. Finall, in Criminal Case 1o. $##$+*G", where the amount defrauded was /++,-#$.$$, the accused was sentenced to an indeterminate penalt of " ears and # months of prisiJn correccional as minimum, to !! ears and ! da of prisiJn maor as maDimum. 4ince the amount defrauded eDceeds /##,$$$.$$ b /,-#$.$$, ears shall be added to the maDimum period of the prescribed penalt (or added to anwhere from ears, + months and #! das to + ears, at the discretion of the court). The lowest maDimum term, therefore, that can be alidl imposed is !# ears, + months and #! das of reclusiJn temporal, and not !! ears and ! da of prisiJn maor.