5 People v. Gallo y Gadot
5 People v. Gallo y Gadot
5 People v. Gallo y Gadot
DECISION
VELASCO, JR. , J : p
The Case
This is an appeal from the Decision 1 dated December 24, 2008 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02764 entitled People of the Philippines v. Rodolfo
Gallo y Gadot (accused-appellant), Fides Pacardo y Jungco and Pilar Manta y Dungo
(accused), which a rmed the Decision 2 dated March 15, 2007 of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC), Branch 30 in Manila which convicted the accused-appellant Rodolfo Gallo y
Gadot ("accused-appellant") of syndicated illegal recruitment in Criminal Case No. 02-
206293 and estafa in Criminal Case No. 02-206297.
The Facts
Originally, accused-appellant Gallo and accused Fides Pacardo ("Pacardo") and
Pilar Manta ("Manta"), together with Mardeolyn Martir ("Mardeolyn") and nine (9) others,
were charged with syndicated illegal recruitment and eighteen (18) counts of estafa
committed against eighteen complainants, including Edgardo V. Dela Caza ("Dela
Caza"), Sandy Guantero ("Guantero") and Danilo Sare ("Sare"). The cases were
respectively docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 02-2062936 to 02-206311. However,
records reveal that only Criminal Case No. 02-206293, which was filed against accused-
appellant Gallo, Pacardo and Manta for syndicated illegal recruitment, and Criminal
Case Nos. 02-206297, 02-206300 and 02-206308, which were led against accused-
appellant Gallo, Pacardo and Manta for estafa, proceeded to trial due to the fact that
the rest of the accused remained at large. Further, the other cases, Criminal Case Nos.
02-206294 to 02-206296, 02-206298 to 02-206299, 02-206301 to 02-206307 and 02-
206309 to 02-206311 were likewise provisionally dismissed upon motion of Pacardo,
Manta and accused-appellant for failure of the respective complainants in said cases to
appear and testify during trial.
It should also be noted that after trial, Pacardo and Manta were acquitted in
Criminal Case Nos. 02-206293, 02-206297, 02-206300 and 02-206308 for
insu ciency of evidence. Likewise, accused-appellant Gallo was similarly acquitted in
Criminal Case Nos. 02-206300, the case led by Guantero, and 02-206308, the case
led by Sare. However, accused-appellant was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt in
Criminal Case Nos. 02-206293 and 02-206297, both led by Dela Caza, for syndicated
illegal recruitment and estafa, respectively. aSTAcH
That in or about and during the period comprised between November 2000
and December, 2001, inclusive, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused
conspiring and confederating together and helping with one another, representing
themselves to have the capacity to contract, enlist and transport Filipino workers
for employment abroad, did then and there willfully and unlawfully, for a fee,
recruit and promise employment/job placement abroad to FERDINAND ASISTIN,
ENTICE BRENDO, REYMOND G. CENA, EDGARDO V. DELA CAZA, RAYMUND
EDAYA, SANDY O. GUANTENO, RENATO V. HUFALAR, ELENA JUBICO, LUPO A.
MANALO, ALMA V. MENOR, ROGELIO S. MORON, FEDILA G. NAIPA, OSCAR
RAMIREZ, MARISOL L. SABALDAN, DANILO SARE, MARY BETH SARDON,
JOHNNY SOLATORIO and JOEL TINIO in Korea as factory workers and charge or
accept directly or indirectly from said FERDINAND ASISTIN the amount of
P45,000.00; ENTICE BRENDO — P35,000.00; REYMOND G. CENA — P30,000.00;
EDGARDO V. DELA CAZA — P45,000.00; RAYMUND EDAYA — P100,000.00;
SANDY O. GUANTENO — P35,000.00; RENATO V. HUFALAR — P70,000.00; ELENA
JUBICO — P30,000.00; LUPO A. MANALO — P75,000.00; ALMA V. MENOR —
P45,000.00; ROGELIO S. MORON — P70,000.00; FEDILA G. NAIPA — P45,000.00;
OSCAR RAMIREZ — P45,000.00; MARISOL L. SABALDAN — P75,000.00; DANILO
SARE — P100,000.00; MARY BETH SARDON — P25,000.00; JOHNNY SOLATORIO
— P35,000.00; and JOEL TINIO — P120,000.00 as placement fees in connection
with their overseas employment, which amounts are in excess of or greater than
those speci ed in the schedule of allowable fees prescribed by the POEA Board
Resolution No. 02, Series 1998, and without valid reasons and without the fault of
the said complainants failed to actually deploy them and failed to reimburse the
expenses incurred by the said complainants in connection with their
documentation and processing for purposes of their deployment. 3 (Emphasis
supplied)
CONTRARY TO LAW. 4
2. Certi cation issued by Felicitas Q. Bay of the POEA to the effect that MPM
International Recruitment and Promotion is not licensed by the POEA to
recruit workers for overseas employment;
3. Certi ed copy of POEA Memorandum Circular No. 14, Series of 1999
regarding placement fee ceiling for landbased workers.
4. Certified copy of POEA Memorandum Circular No. 09, Series of 1998 on the
placement fee ceiling for Taiwan and Korean markets, and
5. Certified copy of POEA Governing Board Resolution No. 02, series of 1998.
Let alias warrants for the arrest of the other accused be issued anew in all
the criminal cases. Pending their arrest, the cases are sent to the archives.
The immediate release of accused Fides Pacardo and Pilar Manta is
hereby ordered unless detained for other lawful cause or charge.
SO ORDERED. 5
The CA held the totality of the prosecution's evidence showed that the accused-
appellant, together with others, engaged in the recruitment of Dela Caza. His actions
and representations to Dela Caza can hardly be construed as the actions of a mere
errand boy.
As determined by the appellate court, the offense is considered economic
sabotage having been committed by more than three (3) persons, namely, accused-
appellant Gallo, Mardeolyn, Eleonor Panuncio and Yeo Sin Ung. More importantly, a
personal found guilty of illegal recruitment may also be convicted of estafa. 7 The same
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
evidence proving accused-appellant's commission of the crime of illegal recruitment in
large scale also establishes his liability for estafa under paragragh 2 (a) of Article 315
of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
On January 15, 2009, the accused-appellant filed a timely appeal before this Court.
The Issues
Accused-appellant interposes in the present appeal the following assignment of
errors:
I
The court a quo gravely erred in nding the accused-appellant guilty of
illegal recruitment committed by a syndicate despite the failure of the prosecution
to prove the same beyond reasonable doubt. TCaEAD
II
The court a quo gravely erred in nding the accused-appellant guilty of
estafa despite the failure of the prosecution to prove the same beyond reasonable
doubt.
Our Ruling
The appeal has no merit.
Evidence supports conviction of
the crime of Syndicated Illegal
Recruitment
Accused-appellant avers that he cannot be held criminally liable for illegal
recruitment because he was neither an o cer nor an employee of the recruitment
agency. He alleges that the trial court erred in adopting the asseveration of the private
complainant that he was indeed an employee because such was not duly supported by
competent evidence. According to him, even assuming that he was an employee, such
cannot warrant his outright conviction sans evidence that he acted in conspiracy with
the officers of the agency.
We disagree.
To commit syndicated illegal recruitment, three elements must be established:
(1) the offender undertakes either any activity within the meaning of "recruitment and
placement" de ned under Article 13 (b), or any of the prohibited practices enumerated
under Art. 34 of the Labor Code; (2) he has no valid license or authority required by law
to enable one to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers; 8 and (3) the
illegal recruitment is committed by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring or
confederating with one another. 9 When illegal recruitment is committed by a syndicate
or in large scale, i.e., if it is committed against three (3) or more persons individually or
as a group, it is considered an offense involving economic sabotage. 1 0
Under Art. 13 (b) of the Labor Code, "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".
After a thorough review of the records, we believe that the prosecution was able
to establish the elements of the offense su ciently. The evidence readily reveals that
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
MPM Agency was never licensed by the POEA to recruit workers for overseas
employment.
Even with a license, however, illegal recruitment could still be committed under
Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042 ("R.A. 8042"), otherwise known as the Migrants and
Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, viz.:
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 pro t 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. It shall, likewise, include the following act, whether
committed by any person, whether a non-licensee, non-holder, licensee or holder
of authority: EHcaDT
A: Because of the presence of the two Korean nationals and they keep on
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
telling me that they have sent abroad several workers and they even
showed visas of the records that they have already deployed abroad.
Q: Aside from that, was there any other representations which have been
made upon you or make you believe that they can deploy you? EAcIST
A: At rst I was adamant but they told me "If you do not want to believe us,
then we could do nothing." But once they showed me the [visas] of the
people whom they have deployed abroad, that was the time I believe them.
Q: So after believing on the representations, what did you do next Mr.
Witness?
A: That was the time that I decided to give the money.
A: Yes, ma'am.
PROS. MAGABLIN
Q: And after that, what did this Gallo do after he received your money? cISDHE
The elements of estafa in general are: (1) that the accused defrauded another (a)
by abuse of con dence, or (b) by means of deceit; and (2) that damage or prejudice
capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party or third person. 1 5
Deceit is the false representation of a matter of fact, whether by words or conduct, by
false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been
disclosed; and which deceives or is intended to deceive another so that he shall act
upon it, to his legal injury.
All these elements are present in the instant case: the accused-appellant,
together with the other accused at large, deceived the complainants into believing that
the agency had the power and capability to send them abroad for employment; that
there were available jobs for them in Korea as factory workers; that by reason or on the
strength of such assurance, the complainants parted with their money in payment of
the placement fees; that after receiving the money, accused-appellant and his co-
accused went into hiding by changing their o ce locations without informing
complainants; and that complainants were never deployed abroad. As all these
representations of the accused-appellant proved false, paragraph 2 (a), Article 315 of
the Revised Penal Code is thus applicable. TAaCED
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-19. Penned by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario and concurred in by
Associate Justices Rebecca De Guia-Salvador and Vicente S.E. Veloso.
2.Id. at 15-35. Penned by Judge Lucia Peña Purugganan.
9.See Sec. 6, R.A. 8042; See also People v. Buli-e, et al., G.R. No. 123146, June 17, 2003.
10.Sec. 6 (m), R.A. 8042.
17.People v. Carizo, G.R. No. 96510, July 6, 1994, 233 SCRA 687; People v. Miranda, 235 SCRA
202; People v. Bello, G.R. No. 92597, October 4, 1994, 237 SCRA 347.