Labour Law Case Digest - Case Number 7 THE

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plain2-appellee, vs. ERNESTO A. BORROMEO, accused-appellant [G.R. No. 117154. March 25, 1999] THIRD DIVISION Purisima, J.:

Facts:
Appellant has been charged with ten cases of Estafa and one case of Illegal recruitment on November 9, 1993 and was subsequently convicted on all counts. On January 17, 1994, with the accused entering nega2ve pleas to all above accusa2ons, upon arraignment with the assistance of counsel, trial ensued with the prosecu2on and the appellant was the lone witness for the defense. Version of the Prosecu2on: Appellant was introduced to the vic2ms, by his brother-in-law, William Ramos, a.k.a Willy. Willy told the vic2ms that appellant and his wife, Elizabeth Ramos-Borromeo needed factory workers in Taiwan. The supposed job opening was veried by the appellant and told further told the vic2ms to pay an amount that they would specify. Moreover, the vic2ms was told that they could depart upon payment of said amount. The vic2ms would accept the condi2on, then made a payment for medical expenses and a downpayment for the amount that they specied. Appellants wife gave two receipts for the said amounts and an assurance that the vic2ms will be deployed to Taiwan. Version of the Defense: Appellant averred that Elizabeth is his common-law-wife and he wasnt privy to the transac2ons that Elizabeth made with the complainants and that he wasnt at the house of Wille which is at Sta. Cruz, Manila when the complainants were introduced to Elizabeth. Furthermore, he contends that the name indicated on the receipts which were prepared by Elizabeth is ER Borromeo which is dierent from his real name which is Ernesto Abeso Borromeo. Moreover, he only got to know about the complainants when they and Willy went to the formers house at Sikatuna Village, Diliman, Quezon City while appellant was taking care of his two children and gh2ng cocks. When queried on how he was arrested, he answered that he was only invited by the NBI because of the problem of his wife. Several warrants of arrest were issued against his wife but when she could not be located because she was already in hiding, he was detained instead. Appellant declared that he cannot refund the money and the money was not given to him. Abermath: The RTC convicted the appellant and sentenced to pay a ne amoun2ng to 100,000.00 for Illegal Recruitment, an indeterminate term of 2 years and 4 months of prision correc2onal and 8 years of prision mayor as the maximum for the 7 cases of Estafa and to pay each complainant the amount of 15,000.00, and, as for the other 2 cases of Estafa an indeterminate term of 10 years, 1 day of prision mayor as minimum and 17 years 4 months, 1 day of reclusion perpetual as the maximum, and to pay each of the complainants the amounts of 22,600.00. The accused is acquiged in one case of Estafa for lack of evidence.

Issue:
The Appellant assigns 2 errors which are the following: 1. The RTC gravely erred in giving full weight and credence to the tes2monies of the prosecu2on witnesses and disregarding the theory of the defense. There is no sucient evidence to convict the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

2.

Labour Law Case Digest - Case Number 7

Page 1 of 2

Labour Law Case Digest - Case Number 7

Held:
The following elements of Estafa have been established: 1) 2) the accused defrauded another by abuse of condence or by means of deceit; and the oended party or third party suered damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary es2ma2on. (Tan v. Court of Appeals, 283 SCRA 30, ci2ng People v. Bau2sta, 241 SCRA 216, People v. Reyes, 282 SCRA 105)

In People v. Recio, 282 SCRA 274, it was held that: illegal recruitment is commiged when two requisites concur, to wit: 1) that the oender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable one to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers; and that the oender undertakes either any ac2vity within the meaning of recruitment and placement under Ar2cle 13(b) or any prohibited prac2ces enumerated under Ar2cle 34 of the Labour Code as amended.

2)

The Court Held that without any iota of doubt that it is well established that Willy would recruit applicants as factory workers for Taiwan and introduced them to the appellant and Elizabeth who in turn, would in turn make an assurance that the applicants can be deployed upon payment of the amount for medical and processing fees. Cajoled, the vic2ms would make the payments but later nd out that the malefactors were not licensed to recruit for overseas employment--fact the the POEA had cer2ed. Furthermore, the complainants tes2ed (both on direct and cross examina2on) that they gave money to the appellant who in turn gave it to Elizabeth. Estafa was consummated when the appellant together with Elizabeth and brother-in-law Willy falsely pretended to be capable of sending workers abroad, and as convinced by the appellant and his co-conspirators, the said applicants delivered their placement fee to appellant and his wife. With respect to the charge of illegal recruitment, no less than the POEA conrmed that the spouses Borromeo, and Willy Ramos did not have any authority or license to recruit overseas workers. Neither was there a recruitment agency such as EER Employment Agency. With respect to the appellants defense of denial the Court held, courts have generally viewed with disfavor the defense of denial on account of its aridity and the facility with which an accused could concoct the same to suit his defense. All things considered, viewed in proper perspec2ve, the mind of the court can rest easy on nding of guilt of appellant. WHEREFORE, the judgment of convic2on appealed from is AFFIRMED.

Labour Law Case Digest - Case Number 7

Page 2 of 2