1. people v. gonzales-flores

7/25/2019 1. People v. Gonzales-Flores

1/9

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,plaintif-appellee, vs. LUZ

GONZALES-FLORES, accused-appellant.

D E C I S I O N

MENDOZA,J.:

This is an appeal from the decision[1]

of the Regional TrialCourt, Branch 77, Quezon City, nding accusedappellant !uz

"onzalez#lores guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale and

of three counts of estafa against #eli$%erto !eongson, &r',

Ronald #rederizo,[(]and !arry Ti%or and sentencing her to

su)er four prison terms and to pay indemnity and damages to

complainants'

*n Criminal Case +o' Q-.-7/, the information for

estafa against accusedappellant alleged0

That on or a%out the month of ugust, 1-, in Quezon City,

2hilippines, the said accused, conspiring together,

confederating 3ith se4eral persons 3hose true names and true

identities ha4e not as yet %een ascertained, and helping one

another, did then and there 3ilfully, unla3fully and feloniously

defraud #5!*6B5RT !5+"8+, &R' y C8T59 in the

follo3ing manner, to 3it0 the said accused, %y means of false

manifestations and fraudulent representation 3hich she made

to said complainant to the e)ect that they had the po3er andcapacity to recruit and employ complainant a%road as [a]

seaman and could facilitate the processing of the re:uirements

thereof, and %y means of other similar deceits, induced and

succeeded in inducing said complainant to gi4e and deli4er, as

in fact he ga4e and deli4ered to said accused the amount

of 2-.,///'// on the strength of said manifestations and

representations, said accused 3ell ;no3ing that the same

3ere false and fraudulent and 3ere made solely to o%tain, as

in fact they did o%tain the amount of 2-.,///'//, 3hich

amount once in possession, 3ith intent to defraud #5!*6B5RT

!5+"8+, &R' 3ilfully, unla3fully and feloniously

misappropriated, misapplied and con4erted to their o3n

personal use and %enet, to the damage and pre'[?]

*n Criminal Case +o' Q-.-71, also for estafa, the

information charged0


2hilippines, the said accused conspiring together,

confederating 3ith se4eral persons 3hose true names and true

identities ha4e not as yet %een ascertained and helping one

another did then and there 3ilfully, unla3fully and feloniously

defraud R+!9 #[R]595R*[@] = A85+* in the follo3ing

manner, to 3it0 the said accused, %y means of false

manifestations and fraudulent representations 3hich they

made to said complainant to the e)ect that they had the

po3er and capacity to recruit and employ complainant a%road

as [a] seaman and could facilitate the processing of the

pertinent papers if gi4en the necessary amount to meet the

re:uirements thereof, and %y means of other similar deceits,

induced and succeeded in inducing said R+!9

#[R]595R*[@] = A85+* to gi4e and deli4er, as in fact ga4e

and deli4ered to said accused the amount of 2-.,///'// on

the strength of said manifestations and representations, said

accused 3ell ;no3ing that the same 3ere false and fraudulentand 3ere made solely to o%tain, as in fact they did o%tain the

amount of 2-.,///'// 3hich amount once in possession, 3ith

intent to defraud complainant 3ilfully, unla3fully and

feloniously misappropriated, misapplied and con4erted to their

o3n personal use and %enet, to the damage and pre'[-]

*n Criminal Case +o' Q-.-7(, another case for estafa,

the information a4erred0
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/apr2001/138535_38.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/apr2001/138535_38.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/apr2001/138535_38.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/apr2001/138535_38.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/apr2001/138535_38.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/apr2001/138535_38.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/apr2001/138535_38.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/apr2001/138535_38.htm#_edn1


2/9



confederating 3ith se4eral persons 3hose true names and

3herea%outs ha4e not as yet %een ascertained and helping

one another, did then and there 3ilfully, unla3fully and

feloniously defraud !RR= T*BR = B*!+"+ in the

follo3ing manner, to 3it0 the said accused, %y means of false

manifestations and fraudulent representations 3hich they

made to said complainant to the e)ect that they had thepo3er and capacity to recruit and employ complainant a%road

as [a] seaman and could facilitate the processing of the

pertinent papers if gi4en the necessary amount to meet the

re:uirements thereof, and %y means of other similar deceits,

induced and succeeded in inducing said complainant to gi4e

and deli4er, as in fact ga4e and deli4ered to said accused the

amount of 2?D,///'// on the strength of said manifestations

and representations, said accused 3ell ;no3ing that the same

3ere false and fraudulent and 3ere made solely to o%tain, as

in fact they did o%tain the amount of 2?D,///'// 3hich

amount once in possession, 3ith intent to defraud !RR=

T*BR = B*!+"+ 3ilfully, unla3fully and feloniously mis

appropriated, misapplied and con4erted to their o3n personal

use and %enet, to the damage and pre'[.]

n the other hand, in Criminal Case +o' Q-.-7?, theinformation for illegal recruitment in large scale charged0



confederating 3ith se4eral persons 3hose true names and

3herea%outs ha4e not as yet %een ascertained and helping

one another, did then and there, 3ilfully, unla3fully and

feloniously can4ass, enlist, contract and promise employment

to the follo3ing persons, to 3it0

1' R+!9 #[R]595R*[@] = A85+*

(' !RR= T*BR = B*!+"+

?' #5!*6B5RT !5+"8+, &R' = C8T59

after re:uiring them to su%mit certain documentary

re:uirements and e$acting from them the total amount

of 21(D,///'//, 2hilippine Currency, as recruitment fees, such

recruitment acti4ities %eing done 3ithout the re:uired license

or authority from the 9epartment of !a%or'

That the crime descri%ed a%o4e is committed in large scale as

the same 3as perpetrated against three E?F or more persons

indi4idually or as group as penalized under rticles ?D and ?,

as amended %y 2'9' (/1D, of the !a%or Code' [G]

>hen arraigned, accusedappellant pleaded not guilty to

the criminal charges, 3hereupon the cases 3ere


3/9

ccusedappellant came %ac; 3ith &oseph endoza, 3hose

%rotherinla3, 5ngr' !eonardo 9omingo, according to accused

appellant, 3as recruiting seamen' Thereafter, accused

appellant and endoza too; complainant, Cloyd, and &o


4/9

seaman for employment a%road' Ronald said that 3hen he

arri4ed home, he 3as told %y accusedappellant that he had to

pay 21/,///'// as initial payment for the processing of his

application' Ronald 3ithdre3 the amount from 5lsas

account' Then, Ronald 3ent 3ith accusedappellant to a house

on 8econd 8treet near Camp Crame in Quezon City' n the

3ay to that place, accusedappellant assured him that he

3ould recei4e a salary of 8I1,///'//' t an apartment on

8econd 8treet, Ronald sa3 his neigh%ors, complainant#eli$%erto, &o


5/9

3hile Ronald and !arry ga4e their respecti4e statements[1-]on

+o4em%er 1(, 1-'

n +o4em%er 1-, 1-, complainants 3ent to the

2hilippine 4erseas 5mployment dministration E25F and

disco4ered that accusedappellant and her companions did not

ha4e any license or authority to engage in any recruitment

acti4ity'

#eli$%erto and Ronald as;ed the court to order accused

appellant to pay them %ac; the placement fees of 2-.,///'//

3hich each of them had paid and moral damages

of 2(//,///'// for each of them for the shame, an$iety, and

loss of


6/9

E1F To su)er the penalty of life imprisonment and pay a ne of

21//,/// in Criminal Case +o' Q-.-7?J

E(F To su)er the penalty of imprisonment ranging from #R

E-F =5R8 +9 TAR55 E?F +TA8 of prision correccion!,

as minimum, and up to T5+ E1/F =5R8 ofprision "#or, as

ma$imum, and to pay the costs in Criminal Case +o' Q-

.-7/J

E?F To su)er the penalty of imprisonment ranging from #R

E-F =5R8 +9 TAR55 E?F +TA8 of prision correccion!,

as minimum, and up to T5+ E1/F =5R8 of prision "#or, as


.-71J and

E-F To su)er the penalty of imprisonment ranging #R E-F

=5R8 +9 TAR55 E?F +TA8 of prision correccion!, as

minimum, and up to +*+5 EF =5R8 of prision "#or, as


.-7('

The accused is also directed to pay0 EaF Ronald #ederi[z]o, the

amount of 2-.,///'// as and %y 3ay of actual damagesJ E%F

#eli$%erto !eongson, &r' 2-.,///'// as and %y 3ay of actual

damagesJ and EcF !arry Ti%or, 2?D,///'// as and %y 3ay of

actual damages'

The accused is further directed to pay to the said pri4atecomplainants moral damages in the sum of T>5+T=

TA8+9 2588 E2(/,///'//F each'

8 R95R59'[(/]

Aence, this appeal' ccusedappellant contends that

*' TA5 !>5R CRT 5RR59 *+ R5!=*+" 2+ TA5

&R*82R95+C5 +9 TAR*T*58 C*T59, *'5',

252!5 K8' C*, 252!5 K8' +@C, 252!5K8' A+R9, 252!5 K8' T+ T*+" 5+",

252!5 K8' K*!!8 +9 252!5 K8' 85+9+

B5C85, >*TA 95 R5825CT, TA5 #CT8 +9

C*RC8T+C58 K*!*+" *+ 8*9 C858 R5

9*##5R5+T 8 *+ TA5 2R585+T C85J +9

**' [TA5 !>5R CRT] 5RR59 *+ A!9*+" TA5

CC859 "*!T= B5=+9 R58+B!5 9BT +

TA5 B8*8 # TA5 5K*95+C5 99C59 B= TA5

2R85CT*+ TL5+ *+ TA5 !*"AT # TA5

+R5BTT59 5K*95+C5 # TA5 CC859 + K5R=T5R*! 2*+T8'[(1]

The contentions are 3ithout merit'

*n Criminal Case +o' Q-.-7?, accusedappellant 3as

charged 3ith illegal recruitment in large scale, the essential

elements of 3hich are0 E1F that the accused engages in acts of

recruitment and placement of 3or;ers dened under rt' 1?

E%F or in any of the prohi%ited acti4ities under rt' ?- of the

!a%or CodeJ E(F that the accused has not complied 3ith the

guidelines issued %y the 8ecretary of !a%or and 5mployment,

particularly 3ith respect to the securing of a license or an

authority to recruit and deploy 3or;ers, either locally or

o4erseasJ and E?F that the accused commits the unla3ful acts

against three or more persons, indi4idually or as a group'[((]

*n these cases, according to the certication of the 25,

accusedappellant had no license or authority to engage in any

recruitment acti4ities'[(?]

*n fact, this 3as stipulated at the trial'[(-]ccusedappellant claims, ho3e4er, that she herself 3as a

4ictim of illegal recruitment and that she simply told

complainants a%out


7/9

for a fee employment to t3o or more persons shall %e deemed

engaged in recruitment and placement'[(.]

The e4idence for the prosecution sho3s that accused

appellant sought out complainants and promised them

o4erseas employment' 9espite their initial reluctance %ecause

they lac;ed the technical s;ills re:uired of seamen,

complainants 3ere led to %elie4e %y accusedappellant that

she could do something so that their applications 3ould %eappro4ed' Thus, %ecause of accusedappellants

misrepresentations, complainants ga4e her their

moneys' ccusedappellants companions, 9omingo, Baloran,

and endoza, made her ploy e4en more plausi%le'

ccusedappellant contends that all she did 3as to refer

complainants to 9omingo, Baloran, and endoza' Ao3e4er,

under rt' 1? E%F of the !a%or Code, recruitment includes

referral, 3hich is dened as the act of passing along or

for3arding an applicant for employment after initial inter4ie3

of a selected applicant for employment to a selected

employer, placement oHcer, or %ureau'[(G]*n these cases,

accusedappellant did more than


8/9

made these payments' #or someone 3ho 3as


9/9

The issues that misappropriation on the part of accused

appellant of the money paid %y complainants and their

demand for the same 3ere not suHciently esta%lished are

immaterial and irrele4ant, con4ersion and demand not %eing

elements of estafa under rt' ?1. E(F EaF of the Re4ised 2enal

Code'

*n Criminal Case +os' Q-.-7/ and Q-.-71, the

amounts in4ol4ed are %oth 2-.,///'//, as testied to %ycomplainants #eli$%erto !eongson, &r' and Ronald

#rederizo' 2ursuant to rt' ?1., par' 1 of the Re4ised 2enal

Code, the *ndeterminate 8entence !a3, and the ruling

in People v. Gabres,[?]the trial court correctly meted accused

appellant the ma$imum penalty of ten E1/F years of prision

mayor in each case' This is so considering that the ma$imum

penalty prescri%ed %y la3 for the felony is si$ EGF years, eight

EDF months, and (1 days to eight EDF years ofprision

mayor' The amounts in4ol4ed in these cases

e$ceed 2((,///'// %y at least 2(/,///'//, necessitating an

increase of one E1F year for e4ery 21/,///'//' pplying the

*ndeterminate 8entence !a3, the minimum of the sentence is

thus from si$ EGF months and one E1F day to four E-F years and

t3o E(F months ofprision correccional' The trial court can

e$ercise its discretion only 3ithin this period' Thus, the

minimum penalty imposed %y the trial court should %e reduced

to four E-F years and t3o E(F months ofprision correccional'

*n Criminal Case +o' Q-.-7(, 3here the amountin4ol4ed is 2?D,///'//, the indeterminate sentence 3hich

should %e imposed on accusedappellant should range from

four E-F years and t3o E(F months ofprision correccional, as

minimum, to nine EF years ofprision mayor, as ma$imum'

*n accordance 3ith the ruling in People v. Mercado,[-/]the

fact that no receipts 3ere presented to pro4e the amounts

paid %y complainants to accusedappellant does not pre4ent

an a3ard of actual damages in 4ie3 of the fact that

complainants 3ere a%le to pro4e %y their respecti4e

testimonies and aHda4its that accusedappellant 3as in4ol4ed

in the recruitment process and succeeded in in4eigling them to

gi4e their money to her' The a3ard of moral damages should

li;e3ise %e upheld as it 3as sho3n to ha4e factual %asis'

$HEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court,

Branch 77, Quezon City, nding accusedappellant guilty of

illegal recruitment in large scale and estafa against

complainants #eli$%erto !eongson, &r', Ronald #rederizo, and

!arry Ti%or is ##*R59, 3ith the 9*#*CT*+8 that, in the

cases for estafa, accusedappellant is sentenced0

E1F *n Criminal Case +o' Q-.-7/, to su)er a prison

term ranging from four E-F years and t3o E(F months ofprision

correccional, as minimum, to ten E1/F years ofprision mayor,

as ma$imumJ

E(F *n Criminal Case +o' Q-.-71, to su)er a prison

term ranging from four E-F years and t3o E(F months ofprision

correccional, as minimum, to 1/ years of prision mayor, as

ma$imumJ and

E?F *n Criminal Case +o' Q-.-7(, to su)er a prisonterm ranging from four E-F years and t3o E(F months ofprision

correccional, as minimum, to nine EF years ofprision mayor,

as ma$imum'

SO ORDERED.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/apr2001/138535_38.htm#_edn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/apr2001/138535_38.htm#_edn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/apr2001/138535_38.htm#_edn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/apr2001/138535_38.htm#_edn40

1. people v. gonzales-flores

Documents