Republic of the
Supreme Court
THIRD DIVISION
|
ARLENE N. LAPASARAN, Petitioner,
- versus - PEOPLE OF THE Respondent.
|
|
G.R. No. 179907 Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., Chairperson, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CHICO-NAZARIO, NACHURA, and PERALTA, JJ. Promulgated: February 12, 2009 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
RESOLUTION
NACHURA, J.:
This petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court, filed by petitioner Arlene N. Lapasaran, assails the Court of Appeals
Decision[1]
dated June 28, 2007 and its Resolution[2] dated
September 12, 2007, in CA-G.R. CR No. 29898.
The facts of the case follow:
In
September 2001, private complainant Menardo Villarin (Menardo) and his sister
Vilma Villarin (Vilma) met petitioner Arlene N. Lapasaran, who worked at Silver
Jet Travel Tours Agency (Silver Jet) at P85,000.00, petitioner undertook the processing of
the papers necessary for the deployment (under a tourist visa) and employment
of Menardo in P10,000.00,
which was received by a certain Pastor Paulino Cajucom;[4]
the second installment was P35,000.00; while the third and last payment
was P40,000.00; the last two installments were delivered to the petitioner.[5]
After
two postponements in his flight schedule, Menardo finally left for
Hence,
the separate charges for illegal recruitment and estafa against petitioner
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
In
her defense, petitioner testified that she owned a travel agency named A&B
Travel and Tours General Services, engaged in the business of visa assistance
and ticketing. She averred that it was Vilma
who solicited her assistance to secure a tourist visa for Menardo. She admitted transacting with the Villarins, but
committed only to securing a tourist visa and a two-way airplane ticket for
Menardo, for which she received P70,000.00 as payment. She denied having recruited Menardo Villarin;
she likewise denied having promised him employment in
On
February 15, 2005, the RTC rendered a Decision finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
illegal recruitment and estafa.[10]
On
appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC Decision with a modification
in the penalty imposed in Criminal Case No. 03-215332 for estafa.[11]
Petitioner
now comes before this Court on the sole issue of:
WHETHER OR NOT THE LAWS ON ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT AND ESTAFA ARE APPLICABLE IN THESE CASES.[12]
We
deny the petition.
Both the trial and appellate courts found the testimonies of
the prosecution witnesses credible and convincing. We are, therefore, inclined to respect such finding. The best arbiter of the issue of the
credibility of the witnesses and their testimonies is the trial court. When the inquiry is on that issue, appellate
courts will not generally disturb the findings of the trial court, considering
that the latter was in a better position to decide the question, having heard
the witnesses themselves and having observed their deportment and manner of
testifying during the trial. Its finding
thereon will not be disturbed, unless it plainly overlooked certain facts of
substance and value which, if considered, may affect the result of the
case. We find no cogent reason to
disturb the trial court’s conclusion, as affirmed by the CA.[13]
In
the first case, petitioner was charged with illegal recruitment, defined and
penalized by the Labor Code as amended by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8042.[14] Illegal recruitment is committed when it is
shown that petitioner gave the complainant the distinct impression that she had
the power or ability to send the complainant abroad for work, such that the
latter was convinced to part with his money in order to be employed.[15] To be engaged in the practice of recruitment and
placement, it is plain that there must, at least, be a promise or an offer of employment
from the person posing as a recruiter whether locally or abroad.[16] Petitioner’s misrepresentations concerning
her purported power and authority to recruit for overseas employment, and the collection
from Menardo of various amounts, clearly indicate acts constitutive of illegal
recruitment.
Petitioner’s claim that she did not
represent herself as a licensed recruiter, but that she merely tried to help
the complainants secure a tourist visa could not make her less guilty of
illegal recruitment, it being enough that she gave the impression of having had
the authority to recruit workers for deployment abroad.[17]
As provided in Section 7(a)[18]
of R.A. No. 8042, the CA correctly affirmed the imposition of the indeterminate
penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day to eight (8) years, and the payment of
a fine of P200,000.00, in Criminal Case No. 03-215331.
In
the second case, petitioner was charged with violation of Article 315(2)(a) of
the Revised Penal Code (RPC) which punishes estafa committed as follows:
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.
The elements of the crime are: (a)
the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit; and
(b) damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the
offended party.[19]
Here,
it has been sufficiently proven that petitioner represented herself to Menardo as
capable of sending him to
It is well established in
jurisprudence that a person may be convicted of both illegal recruitment and
estafa. The reason, therefore, is not
hard to discern: illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum, while estafa is malum in se. In the first, the criminal intent of the
accused is not necessary for conviction.
In the second, such an intent is imperative.[21]
Lastly, the CA correctly modified the
penalty imposed by the RTC for the crime
of estafa in Criminal Case No. 03-215332.
Article 315 of the RPC fixes the
penalty for Estafa, viz.:
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.
As
the amount involved is P75,000.00 which exceeds P22,000.00, the
penalty should be imposed in its maximum period which is six (6) years, eight
(8) months and twenty-one (21) days to eight (8) years adding one year for
every additional P10,000.00, provided the total penalty does not exceed
20 years. Hence, since the amount of the
fraud exceeds P22,000.00 by P53,000.00, then a total of five (5)
years should be added to the above-stated maximum period.
Applying
the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum term of the indeterminate penalty
shall be that which could be properly imposed under the RPC as discussed
above. On the other hand, the minimum
term of the indeterminate sentence should be within the range of the penalty
next lower in degree than that prescribed by the Code, which is prision correccional in its minimum and
medium periods ranging from six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years
and two (2) months.
Accordingly,
in Criminal Case No. 03-215332, the CA correctly imposed the indeterminate
penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months
of prision correccional, as
minimum, to eleven (11) years, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days of prision mayor, as maximum.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
petition is DENIED for lack of
merit. The Decision of the Court of
Appeals dated
SO
ORDERED.
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
|
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice |
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above
Resolution were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Resolution.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section
13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation,
I certify that the conclusions in the above Resolution were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Rodrigo V. Cosico, with Associate Justices Hakim S. Abdulwahid and Arturo G. Tayag, concurring; rollo, pp. 11-29.
[2] Rollo, pp. 8-9.
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13] People v. Alvarez, 436 Phil. 255, 271 (2002).
[14] Otherwise known as the “Migrant Workers Act of 1995.”
[15] People
v. Gasacao, G.R. No. 168445,
[16] People v. Gallardo, 436 Phil. 698, 711 (2002).
[17] People v. Ordoño, 390 Phil. 649, 666 (2000).
[18] Sec. 7. Penalties.
(a) 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).
[19] People v. Ordoño, supra note 17, at 669.
[20] People v. Comila, G.R. No. 171448, February 28, 2007, 517 SCRA 153, 167-168; People v. Ballesteros, 435 Phil. 205, 228 (2002).
[21] People v. Comila, supra note 20, at 167.