The Supreme Court has affirmed the conviction of a man for illegal recruitment and estafa, ordering his imprisonment and the payment of a PhP1,000,000 fine for duping another into giving him money and vehicle as payment for the processing of a non-existent work in Australia.
In an 18-page Decision penned by Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, the Court’s Second Division affirmed with modifications the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision and Resolution which had sustained in toto the ruling of the La Trinidad, Benguet Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 8 that convicted Lee Saking y Anniban alias Lee Saking Sanniban.
The Court found Saking guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal recruitment defined and penalized under Sections 6 and 7 of Republic Act No. 8042 (RA 8042), or the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, as amended by RA 10022, and of estafa defined and penalized under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by RA No. 10951.
Complainant Jan Denver Palasi claimed that he met Saking in 2013 at a car repair shop where he was having his Mitsubishi Delica van repaired. Saking presented himself as someone looking for people interested to work in Australia as grape and apple pickers with a required placement fee of PhP300,000. Interested but short of funds, Palasi, who offered his van as payment and agreed to pay an additional PhP100,000 in cash, was made to fill out forms which he gave to Saking, together with his passport. Palasi paid Saking PhP100,000 in three installments but was never given any official receipt by Saking.
When Saking could not be contacted anymore after receiving the money, Palasi went to the agency where Saking claimed to work. Palasi inquired on the status of his application but was told that he had no pending application with the agency. The Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA) also later confirmed that Saking had no license to recruit workers for overseas employment, prompting the filing of criminal charges against Saking.
In affirming Saking’s conviction, the Court held that the prosecution was able to prove the elements of illegal recruitment against Saking.
As laid down in jurisprudence, the elements of illegal recruitment are: (1) the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable one to engage in the recruitment and placement of workers; and (2) the offender undertakes any of the activities within the meaning of recruitment and placement defined in Article 13(b) of the Labor Code, or any of the prohibited practices enumerated under Section 6 of RA 8042.
In the case of Saking, the Court held that certification from the POEA Licensing and Regulation Branch and the testimony of the coordinator of POEA Regional Extension Unit-Cordillera Administrative Region show that Saking did not possess a license or authority to engage in any recruitment and placement activities. This fact was not disputed by Saking.
As to the second element, referring to Article 13(b) of the Labor Code which states there must be a promise or offer of employment from the person posing as a recruiter, it was established that Saking had represented that he could process a working visa for Palasi supposedly due to connections the former had with the Australian embassy.
The Court stressed that the evidence clearly show that Palasi parted with his money and his vehicle because of the promise made by Saking.
The Court thus concluded that the prosecution has proven the elements to sustain a conviction for illegal recruitment: first, Saking has no valid license or authority required by law to enable him to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers; and second, that he advertised employment abroad, for profit through a placement fee.
On the charge of estafa, the Court agreed with the CA’s analysis that all the elements of estafa are present in the case.
Jurisprudence has stated the following as the elements of estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the RPC: (1) there must be a false pretense, fraudulent acts or fraudulent means; (2) such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; (3) the offended party must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means and was thus induced to part with his money or property; and (4) as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.
In Saking’s case, the Court found that he committed false pretense as shown by his act of representing himself as someone who could help Palasi work in a farm in Australia, when in truth and in fact, Saking possessed no such power to make it happen. Likewise, Palasi agreed to part with his van and money as payment for the placement fee believing in good faith on Saking’s misrepresentation, resulting in the loss of Palasi’s vehicle as well as the amount of PhP100,000.
The Court thus affirmed the conviction of Saking but modified the prison term and increased the fine imposed on him pursuant to the amendments brought about by R.A. No. 10022.
For the crime of illegal recruitment, the Court sentenced Saking to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of 12 years and one day, as minimum, to 14 years as maximum, and to pay a fine of PhP1,000,000. For estafa, the Court sentenced Saking to two months and one day of arresto mayor, as minimum, to one year and one of prison correccional, as maximum.
Saking was also ordered to pay Palasi PhP85,000 with legal interest at the rate of six percent per annum from the filing of the Information until finality of this Decision. (Courtesy of the Supreme Court Public Information Office)
Full text of the decision in G.R. No. 257805 (Saking v. People, April 12, 2023): https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/257805-lee-saking-y-anniban-lee-saking-sanniban-vs-people-of-the-philippines/