TL;DR

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Mildred Coching Liwanag for Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale and Estafa. Liwanag, an unlicensed recruiter, deceived four individuals by promising them jobs in Japan, collecting fees, and failing to deliver on her promises. The Court underscored that offering overseas employment without proper authorization and defrauding job seekers are serious offenses under Philippine law. This ruling emphasizes the protection of Filipinos aspiring to work abroad from exploitation by unscrupulous individuals. Testimonies of victims are considered strong evidence in illegal recruitment cases, even without official receipts. The Supreme Court increased the fine for illegal recruitment to P1,000,000.00, reinforcing the gravity of the crime and the judiciary’s commitment to safeguarding migrant worker rights and aspirations.

Broken Promises Abroad: Upholding Justice for Victims of Illegal Recruitment

In the case of People of the Philippines v. Mildred Coching Liwanag, the Supreme Court tackled the pervasive issue of illegal recruitment, a menace that preys on the hopes of Filipinos seeking better opportunities overseas. Mildred Coching Liwanag was accused of luring four individuals with promises of factory jobs in Japan, a dream for many Filipinos seeking economic advancement. The complainants, Carol Pagulayan Sepina, Jennifer Claudel y Reynante, Allan Sepina y Porciuncula, and Christopher Claudel y Reynante, were led to believe by Liwanag that she had the connections to secure them employment through her sister in Japan. This representation, however, was a fabrication designed to extract money from the victims. Liwanag collected substantial amounts from each complainant, totaling P40,500.00 per person, purportedly for application and processing fees, visa, and airfare. She even set a departure date, further solidifying her deceit.

The prosecution presented compelling testimonies from the complainants and a witness, Dolores Pagulayan, detailing how Liwanag misrepresented her ability to deploy them, received payments, and ultimately failed to provide the promised jobs or return their money. Crucially, the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) certified that Liwanag was not licensed to recruit workers for overseas employment, a critical piece of evidence confirming the illegality of her actions. In her defense, Liwanag denied the charges, claiming she never promised overseas work or received money. She alleged that the complainants merely inquired about her past experience working in Saudi Arabia. However, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and subsequently the Court of Appeals (CA) found her guilty, a decision affirmed by the Supreme Court. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the prosecution successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt Liwanag’s guilt for Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale and Estafa.

The Supreme Court meticulously examined the elements of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale under Republic Act No. 8042, the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995. The law defines illegal recruitment broadly, encompassing any act of promising or advertising for employment abroad by a non-licensee. It is considered large scale when committed against three or more persons. The Court highlighted the essential elements: (1) recruitment activity, (2) lack of license or authority, and (3) commission against three or more persons. The evidence clearly demonstrated that Liwanag engaged in recruitment by promising jobs and collecting fees. The POEA certification confirmed her lack of license. And the scheme affected four complainants, satisfying the large scale element. The Court cited Section 6 of RA 8042:

SECTION 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… Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group.

Accused-appellant argued the lack of receipts and inconsistencies in testimonies weakened the prosecution’s case. However, the Supreme Court firmly rejected this argument, reiterating that testimonies of credible witnesses are sufficient to prove illegal recruitment, even without receipts. The Court emphasized the barangay blotter, where Liwanag admitted receiving amounts and promised repayment, further bolstering the prosecution’s case. The absence of Jennifer Claudel’s testimony was also deemed inconsequential as the other witnesses sufficiently testified about her recruitment. The Court gave weight to the trial court’s factual findings and credibility assessment of witnesses, noting the trial court’s advantageous position in observing witness demeanor. The Supreme Court underscored the principle that affirmative testimony outweighs bare denials, especially when the former is credible.

Furthermore, the Court affirmed Liwanag’s conviction for Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code. The Court reiterated the established principle that a person can be convicted of both Illegal Recruitment and Estafa for the same set of actions. The elements of Estafa are (1) deceit and (2) damage or prejudice. Liwanag’s false representations about securing jobs in Japan constituted deceit, and the complainants suffered financial damage by losing the money they paid. The Court again dismissed the argument about the lack of receipts, emphasizing that testimonies and Liwanag’s admission in the barangay blotter sufficiently proved the financial loss. The Court stated:

Art. 315. Swindling (estafa). — Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow shall be punished by:

x x x x

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.

Regarding penalties, the Supreme Court modified the fine for Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale to P1,000,000.00, consistent with RA 8042 for offenses constituting economic sabotage by non-licensees. The Court also adjusted the penalties for Estafa in light of Republic Act No. 10951, which amended Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, adjusting penalties based on the defrauded amount. The indeterminate sentence for each count of Estafa was modified to three months of arresto mayor as minimum to one year and eight months of prision correccional as maximum, reflecting the updated penalties for the amount defrauded (P40,500.00 per complainant). The Court also imposed legal interest on the damages awarded to the complainants.

This case serves as a stark reminder of the severe consequences for those who engage in illegal recruitment and prey on the aspirations of Filipinos seeking overseas employment. It reinforces the importance of verifying the legitimacy of recruiters with POEA and highlights the legal recourse available to victims of such scams. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores its commitment to protecting migrant workers and punishing those who exploit them.

FAQs

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact Atty. Gabriel Ablola through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: People v. Liwanag, G.R. No. 232245, March 02, 2022