"x x x.
Our Ruling
We deny the appeal, but modify the penalties imposed.
The three elements of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale, to wit: a) the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable him to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers; b) the offender undertakes any of the activities within the meaning of "recruitment and placement" under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code, or any of the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of the said Code (now Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042); and c) the offender committed the same against three or more persons, individually or as a group, are present in this case.
The prosecution adduced proof beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant enlisted the four complainants for overseas employment without any license to do so. The four complainants adequately testified on the demand for placement fees made by the appellant, and the payments they made. No motive affecting their credibility was ever imputed against them. We, therefore, rule that the lower courts correctly found the appellant guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale.
Section 7(b) of Republic Act No. 8042 prescribes a penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of not less than P500,000.00 nor more thanP1,000,000.00 if the illegal recruitment constitutes economic sabotage, i.e., illegal recruitment in large scale and illegal recruitment committed by a syndicate. The RTC, as affirmed by the CA, imposed upon the appellant the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of only P100,000.00. Since the fine ofP100,000.00 is below the minimum set by law, we increase the same toP500,000.00.
We likewise affirm the appellant’s conviction for the crime of estafa. The two elements of estafa – (a) that the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit, and (b) that damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party or third person – are also present in this case. The prosecution evidence duly proved that due to the appellant’s false representations of overseas jobs, the complainants paid placement fees to the appellant who failed to secure the promised overseas jobs.
Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code prescribes the penalty for estafa, when the amount of fraud is over P22,000.00, of prision correccionalmaximum to prision mayor minimum, adding one year to the maximum period for each additional P10,000.00, provided that the total penalty shall not exceed 20 years. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISL), we take the minimum term from the penalty next lower than the minimum prescribed by law, or anywhere within prision correccional minimum and medium (i.e., from 6 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months). Thus, the lower courts correctly imposed the minimum term in the 4 counts of estafa at 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional, since this is within the range ofprision correccional minimum and medium.
For the maximum term under the ISL, we take the maximum period of the prescribed penalty, adding one year of imprisonment for everyP10,000.00 in excess of P22,000.00, provided that the total penalty shall not exceed 20 years. To compute the maximum period of the prescribed penalty, the time included in prision correccional maximum to prision mayorminimum shall be divided into three equal portions, with each portion forming a period. Following this computation, the maximum period forprision correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum is from 6 years, 8 months, and 21 days to 8 years. The incremental penalty, when proper, shall thus be added to anywhere from 6 years, 8 months, and 21 days to 8 years, at the discretion of the court. In computing the incremental penalty, the amount defrauded shall be subtracted by P22,000.00, the difference shall be divided by P10,000.00, and any fraction of a year is discarded.[7]