G.R. No. 91552 -55 March 10, 1994
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FERNANDO MANUNGAS, JR. y GO @ “PERCY”, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Fernando Manungas, Jr. went to Barangay Legaspi, Tayug, Pangasinan in April 1987 and convinced complainants Wilfrey Mabalot, Danilo Ramirez, Leonardo Estanoco, and Crisanto Collado to apply as janitors in Saudi Arabia. He instructed them to bring necessary documents to his office in Manila. On April 29, 1987, the complainants went to his office at Room 611, L and S Bldg., Ermita, Manila, paid P250.00 each for medical examination, and subsequently paid various placement fees and other expenses, with total amounts paid as follows: Wilfrey Mabalot — P16,800.00; Danilo Ramirez — P17,550.00; Leonardo Estanoco — P18,600.00; and Crisanto Collado — P13,300.00. When the complainants failed to leave for Saudi Arabia, they verified with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) and learned accused-appellant was not a licensed recruiter. Consequently, three counts of Estafa and one count of Illegal Recruitment on a Large Scale were filed against him. Accused-appellant claimed he was the operations manager of the licensed ZG Recruitment and Placement Agency, that he transferred the complainants’ applications to Nora Cunanan of Express Placement Agency, turned over the fees to her, and filed an estafa case against Cunanan after she absconded with the money.

ISSUE

Whether accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of Estafa and Illegal Recruitment on a Large Scale.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court finding accused-appellant guilty. The acts of accused-appellant—canvassing, enlisting, requiring documents, and collecting various fees from the complainants for overseas employment—constitute recruitment and placement as defined under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code. His representation of his ability to send workers abroad, despite lacking a license, constitutes illegal recruitment. The crime is qualified as large scale as it was committed against three or more persons. His defense that he merely acted for a licensed agency and transferred the applications was rejected by the trial court as a fabrication, noting the lack of written agreement for the transfer and the complainants’ explanations that they signed a Special Power of Attorney under hurried circumstances without fully understanding its contents. A person can be convicted separately for illegal recruitment (a malum prohibitum) and estafa (a malum in se). The penalties imposed by the trial court were upheld.