PLOPLL OI 1HL PHILIPPINLS v.

CHARLIL COMILA and AIDA COMILA

G.R. No. J7J448, 27 Iebruary 2007, GARCIA, J. (J
S1
DIVISION)



1be C reiteratea tbat it i. rett e.tabti.bea iv ;vri.rvaevce tbat a er.ov va, be cbargea ava covrictea for botb
ittegat recrvitvevt ava e.tafa. 1be rea.ov tberefor i. vot bara to ai.cerv: ittegat recrvitvevt i. vatvv robibitvv, rbite
e.tafa i. vatvv iv .e. v tbe fir.t, tbe crivivat ivtevt of tbe accv.ea i. vot vece..ar, for covrictiov. v tbe .ecova,
.vcb av ivtevt i. iveratire. .tafa vvaer .rt. 1:, ar. 2, of tbe RPC, i. covvittea b, av, er.ov rbo aefrava.
avotber b, v.ivg fictitiov. vave, or fat.et, reteva. to o..e.. orer, ivftvevce, qvatificatiov., roert,, creait, agevc,,
bv.ive.. or ivagivar, trav.actiov., or b, veav. of .ivitar aeceit. eecvtea rior to or .ivvttaveov.t, ritb tbe covvi..iov
of frava.


In April 1999, in the Regional 1rial Court ,R1C, o Baguio City, an Inormation or Illegal
Recruitment committed in large scale by a syndicate, as deined and penalized under Article 13,6, in
relation to Articles 38,b,, 34 and 39 o Presidential Decree No. 442, otherwise known as the New Labor
Code was iled against Charlie Comila, Aida Comila and one Indira Ram Singh Lastra. In the same court,
twele separate Inormations or Lstaa were iled against the same accused. O the three accused named
in all the aorementioned two sets o Inormations, only accused Aida Comila and Charlie Comila were
brought under the jurisdiction o the trial court, the third, Indira Ram Singh Lastra, being then and still is
at large.

Arraigned with assistance o counsel, accused Aida Comila and Charlie Comila entered a plea o
NO1 GUIL1\` to the Inormation or Illegal Recruitment and to the twele Inormations or
Lstaa. A joint trial o the cases ensued. In a consolidated decision, the trial court ound both accused
GUIL1\ beyond reasonable doubt o the crimes o Illegal Recruitment committed in large scale by a
syndicate, and o estaa.

Pursuant to a Notice o Appeal iled by both Comilas, the trial court orwarded the records o
the cases to the Supreme Court in iew o the penalty o lie imprisonment meted in the case o Illegal
Recruitment in large scale. Consistent with its pronouncement in People . Mateo, the Court, ia its
resolution transerred the cases to the Court o Appeals ,CA, or appropriate action and disposition.`
In a decision, the appellate court airmed that o the trial court.

1he cases are again with the SC in iew o the Notice o Appeal interposed by both Comilas
rom the airmatory CA decision.

It is not disputed that accused-appellants Charlie Comila and Aida Comila are husband-and-wie.
Neither is it disputed that husband and wie knew and are well-acquainted with their co-accused,
Indira Lastra, and Lrlinda Ramos. It is their posture, howeer, that rom the ery beginning, appellant
Aida Comila neer proessed that she had the authority to recruit and made it clear to the applicants or
oerseas employment that it was Ramos who had such authority and who issued the job orders rom
Italy. Upon this premise, Aida Comila contends that the subsequent transactions she had with the
applicants negate the presence o deceit, an essential element o estaa under paragraph 2,a, o art. 315 o
the Reised Penal Code ,RPC,. On the charge o illegal recruitment, this appellant argues that she was
merely trying to help the applicants to process their papers, belieing that Lastra and Ramos would really
send the applicants to Italy.` \ith respect to co-appellant Charlie Comila, the deense submits that the
prosecution miserably ailed to proe his participation in the illegal recruitment and estaa.`



ISSUL:
\hether or not the two courts below erred in inding the Comilas guilty beyond reasonable
doubt o the crimes o illegal recruitment and estaa and totally disregarding the deense o denial
honestly adanced` by them

HLLD:
1he instant appeal is DISMISSLD and the appealed decision o the CA, airmatory o that the
trial court, is AllIRMLD.

1he Supreme Court was ully coninced that both the trial and appellate courts committed no
error in inding both appellants guilty beyond moral certainty o doubt o the crimes charged against
them. 1hrough the respectie testimonies o its witnesses, the prosecution has satisactorily established
that both appellants were then engaged in unlawul recruitment and placement actiities. 1he combined
testimonies o the prosecution witnesses point to Aida Comila as the one who promised them oreign
employment and assured them o placement oerseas through the help o their co-accused Lastra. lor
sure, it was Aida hersel who inormed them o the existence o job orders rom Palermo, Italy, and o
the documents needed or the processing o their applications. Aida, accompanied the applicants to
undergo medical examinations in Manila. And relying completely on Aida`s representations, the
applicants-complainants entrusted their money to her only to discoer later that their hopes or an
oerseas employment were but ain.

1he SC cited the CA in its appealed decision saying that as regards Aida Comila`s contention that
she did not represent hersel as a licensed recruiter, and that she merely helped complainants aail o the
job opportunity on the belie that Indira Lastra and Ramos would really send them to Italy, hardly
deseres merit. 1he crime o illegal recruitment is committed when, among other things, a person who,
without being duly authorized according to law represents or gies the distinct impression that he or she
has the power or the ability to proide work abroad conincing those to whom the representation is
made or to whom the impression is gien to thereupon part with their money in order to be assured o
that employment.

Len i there is no consideration inoled, Aida Comila will still be deemed as haing engaged in
recruitment actiities, since it was suiciently demonstrated that she promised oerseas employment to
priate complainants. 1o be engaged in the practice and placement, it is plain that there must at least be a
promise or oer o an employment rom the person posing as a recruiter whether locally or abroad.

As regards Charlie Comila, it is inconceiable or him to eign ignorance o the illegal
recruitment actiities o his wie Aida, and o his lack o participation therein. Again, we quote with
approal what the trial court has said in its decision:

Charlie Comila could not, likewise, eign ignorance o the illegal transactions. It is contrary to
human experience, hence, highly incredible or a husband not to hae known the actiities o his wie
who was liing with him under the same roo. In act, he admitted that when Aida gae birth, he had to
accompany the complainants to Manila or their medical examination and again, on another trip, to bring
them to the oice o Ramos to ollow-up their isas. 1he act that he knew the ins and outs o Manila
was a desperate excuse or reason why he accompanied the complainants to Manila considering that, as
he and his wie claimed, they hae nothing to do with the recruitment actiities. lurthermore, i he and
his wie had nothing to do with the recruitment o the complainants, why did he hae to sign the letter
and accommodate the request o one o the complainants whom they hae not really known. But
damning was his statement that he signed the letter because Aida was not there to sign it. Such a
statement would only show that they were indeed parties to these illegal transactions. Charlie Comila
would een claim that he was just an elementary graduate and so he did not understand what he was
asked to sign. But his booking sheet showed that he was a high school graduate. le was a conductor o a
bus company who should know and understand how to read and write.

1he SC reiterated that it is well established in jurisprudence that a person may be charged and
convicted for both illegal recruitment and estafa. 1he reason therefor is not hard to discern:
illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum, while estafa is malum in se. In the first, the
criminal intent of the accused is not necessary for conviction. In the second, such an intent is
imperative. Lstafa under Art. 3JS, par. 2, of the RPC, is committed by any person who defrauds
another by using fictitious name, or falsely pretends to possess power, influence, qualifications,
property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of similar deceits
executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of fraud. lere, it has been suiciently
proen that both appellants represented themseles to the complaining witnesses to hae the capacity to
send them to Italy or employment, een as they do not hae the authority or license or the purpose.
Doubtless, it is this misrepresentation that induced the complainants to part with their hard-earned
money or placement and medical ees. Such act on the part of the appellants clearly constitutes
estafa under Article 3JS, paragraph (2), of the Revised Penal Code.

On the alleged total disregard by the two courts below their deense o denial which, had it
been duly considered and appreciated, could hae merited their acquittal, the Court disagrees. 1he two
courts below did consider their deense o denial. loweer, gien the positie and categorical
testimonies o the complainants who were one in pointing to appellants, in cahoots with their co-accused
Indira Ram Singh Lastra, as haing recruited and promised them with oerseas employment, appellants`
deense o denial must ineitably collapse.