Court of Appeals: Republic of The Philippines Manila

Republic of the Philippines
Court of Appeals
MANILA
SIXTH DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CA-G.R. CR HC No. 06883

Plaintiff-Appellee,
Members:
LIBREA-LEAGOGO, J., CHAIRPERSON,

GAERLAN, &
- versus - SINGH, JJ
Promulgated:
JESSICA BONIFACIO Y SIAO @ November 21, 2018
JESSICA,
Accused-Appellant.
DECISION
SINGH, J.:
This is an appeal from the Joint Decision1 dated November 8, 2013

of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 264, Pasig City (assigned at San Juan,
Metro Manila), finding accused-appellant Jessica Bonifacio y Siao guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of Estafa, Simple Illegal
Recruitment and Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale.
The Facts
Accused-Appellant Jessica Bonifacio y Siao @ Jessica (accused-

appellant) was charged under three (3) Informations,2 which read:
Criminal Case No. 139906-SJ
“The undersigned Assistant City Prosecutor accused (sic)

JESSICA BONIFACIO Y SIAO @ Jessica of the crime of
ESTAFA under Article 315 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code,
committed as follows:
1
Rollo, pp. 115-143; Record, pp. 238-266.
2
Record, pp. 1-2, 35-36, 37-38.
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06883 Page 2 of 34
DECISION
x-----------------------------------x
That, in or about the period from April 2008 up to

March 2009, in the City of San Juan, Philippines and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused, in conspiracy with one female companion
whose identity and present whereabouts is still unknown,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
defraud from (sic) Ma. Lourdes C. Matias, Catherine De
Leon y Bancaco, and Roselle Jarata y Lopez in the
following manner, to wit: that is, the accused, by means of
false manifestations and fraudulent representations which
she made to said complainants to the effect that she had the
power and capacity to recruit and work for the employment
of complainants, Ma. Lourdes Matias y Cobarrubias,
Catherine De Leon y Bancaco, and Roselle Jarata y Lopez,
in UK, (sic) and could facilitate the processing of the
necessary documents to meet the requirements thereof
including placement, and by means of other deceit of
similar import, induced and succeeded in inducing
complainants to give and deliver, as in fact the latter gave
and delivered to said accused the total amount of
Php500,000.00 for Ma. Lourdes C. Matias, P50,000 for
Catherine de Leon and P20,000 for Roselle Jarata y Lopez,
on the strength of said manifestation and representations,
the accused knowing fully well that the same are false and
fraudulent and were only made to obtain, as in fact she
obtained the amount of Php500,000.00 from Ma. Lourdes
Matias y Cabarrubias, P50,000 from Catherine De Leon y
Bancacao (sic) and P20,000 from Roselle Jarata y Lopez
and which amount the accused applied and used for her
own personal use and benefit, to the damage and prejudice
of the complainant (sic) in the aforesaid amount.
CONTRARY TO LAW.”3 (emphasis not ours)
“The undersigned Assistant City Prosecutor accused

(sic) JESSICA BONIFACIO Y SIAO @ Jessica of the
crime of ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT (Violation of Sec.
6 (m) of R.A. 8042, otherwise known as Migrant Workers
& Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995), committed as follows:

3
Record, p. 1.
DECISION
x-----------------------------------x

whose identity and whereabouts is still unknown, despite
demands from Maria Lourdes Matias y Cobarrubias,
Catherine De Leon y Bancaco and Roselle Jarata y
Lopez did, then and there knowingly, unlawfully and
criminally fail to reimburse said Maria Lourdes Matias y
Cobarrubias the total amount of P500,000.00, Catherine
de Leon y Bancaco the total amount of P50,000 and
Roselle Jarata y Lopez the total amount of P20,000
which the latter paid to the accused who were recruited and
were promised overseas deployment in UK (sic), which
amount (sic) were intended to cover expenses for
processing and placement fees for purposes of their
deployment, which, however, did not actually take place
without the fault of the private complainants, to the latter's
damage and prejudice in the aforementioned amount.
“The undersigned Assistant City Prosecutor accuses

JESSICA BONIFACIO Y SIAO @ Jessica of the crime
of LARGE SCALE ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT
(Violation of Section 6 (m) in relation to Section 7 (b) of
R.A. 8042 otherwise known as Migrant Workers and
Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995), committed as follows:

whose identity and present whereabouts are still unknown,
representing herself to have the capacity to contract, enlist
and transport Filipino workers for overseas employment in
UK (sic), did then and there knowingly, unlawfully and
criminally for a fee, recruit and promise overseas
employment/job placement abroad to the following person
(sic) to wit:
1. Ma. Lourdes C. Matias

2. Catherine De Leon Y Bancaco
3. Roselle Jarata Y Lopez
4
Record, p. 35.
DECISION
x-----------------------------------x
without first securing the required license and authority

from the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE),
in violation of the law against Illegal Recruitment, the
crime having been committed in large scale constituting
economic sabotage.
Accused-Appellant pleaded “not guilty” to the three charges

during her arraignment on May 4, 2009.6 Thereafter, trial ensued.
The prosecution's evidence
The prosecution presented nine (9) witnesses, namely: (1)

private complainant Ma. Lourdes C. Matias (Ma. Lourdes);7 (2)
Ma. Fe Isabel C. Matias (Ma. Fe);8 (3) Ma. Lourdes' mother, Felisa
C. Matias (Felisa);9 (4) private complainant Roselle Jarata
(Roselle);10 (5) PO2 Pio Gerardo Matias (PO2 Matias) of the
Intelligence Section of the San Juan Police Station, who was part of
the arresting team;11 (6) P/Chief Inspector Medardo H. Palapo (PCI
Palapo), an Investigator assigned to the cases;12 (7) SPO2 Leonito
R. Iringan, Jr. (SPO3 Iringan), an Investigator assigned to the
cases;13 (8) Aldine Rafael de Jesus (De Jesus) of the POEA;14 (9)
SPO3 Jimmy Bautista (SPO3 Bautista);15 and PO3 Elsa Sison
(PO3 Sison), of the Intelligence Section of the San Juan Police
Station who was also part of the arresting team.16
The siblings Ma. Lourdes, a registered nurse, and Ma. Fe, a

nursing graduate, sought the help of the accused-appellant for their
deployment abroad. It was their mother, Felisa, who came to know
the accused-appellant Jessica Bonifacio through one Rosie Obejera
(Rosie), a townmate in Paniqui, Tarlac and her co-member in
5
Record, p. 37.
6
Record, Order dated May 4, 2009, p. 42; Minutes dated May 4, 2009, p. 41. In an obvious
inadvertence, the Order referred to one “Erlinda Lacerna” twice, instead of “Jessica Bonifacio.”
7
TSN, W: Ma. Lourdes Matias, June 22 and 29, 2009.
8
TSN, W: Ma. Fe Isabel Matias, June 29, 2009.
9
TSN, W: Felisa Matias, August 10 and 17, 2009.
10
TSN, W: Roselle Jarata, March 23, 2010, June 8, 2010, July 13, 2010.
11
TSN, W: PO2 Gerardo Matias, September 14, 2010.
12
TSN, W: P/Chief Insp. Medardo H. Palapo, June 13, 2011.
13
TSN, W: SPO2 Leonito R. Iringan, Jr. , June 27, 2011.
14
TSN, W: Aldine De Jesus, February 6, 2012.
15
TSN, W: SPO3 Jimmy D. Bautista, February 6, 2012.
16
TSN, W: PO3 Elsa Sison, February 6, 2012.
DECISION
x-----------------------------------x
Couples for Christ. They learned from Rosie that the accused-
appellant is capable of sending people for employment abroad.17
Ma. Lourdes, Ma. Fe and Felisa first met the accused-

appellant sometime in November 2008 at her office in
Mandaluyong City. Accused-Appellant discussed with them the
details of the process for getting employed in the United Kingdom
(UK). She represented that she and Pacific Sterling Travel and
Tours (Pacific) have the connections at the UK Embassy to
facilitate the processing of visa applications. She likewise told
them that they will apply as students and once they are granted
student visas, she could help them land jobs through her
connections in the UK.18
Accused-Appellant charges a fee of P350,000.00 for every

applicant, which will reportedly cover the processing fee, tuition
fee, accomodation expense, bank statement and her service fee.
They were told that they need to pay a downpayment of
P250,000.00 each to start the process and accused-appellant
assured them that they can leave the country by February 2009.19
On November 19, 2008, Felisa deposited the amount of

P100,000.00 to the BDO account of the accused-appellant with
Account No. 02-902-110-26, as the initial downpayment for the
applications of Ma. Lourdes and Ma. Fe.20
On November 28, 2008, Felisa again deposited the amount

of P200,000.00 to the same BDO account of the accused-appellant,
as part of their downpayment. On the same day, November 28,
2008, they also gave the accused-appellant the amount of
P100,000.00 in the form of PNB Check No. 0700125.21 The
accused-appellant acknowledged receipt of the same.22
17
Record, Volume I, Judicial Affidavit of Felisa Matias and Ma. Fe Isabel Matias, Exhibit R,
p.65; Exhibits Folder, Judicial Affidavit of Ma. Lourdes Matias, Exhibit A, p. 288;
18
Id., Judicial Affidavit of Felisa Matias and Ma. Fe Isabel Matias, Exhibit R, p. 66; Exhibits
Folder, Judicial Affidavit of Ma. Lourdes Matias, Exhibit A, p. 289; TSN dated June 29, 2009,
W: Ma. Lourdes Matias, p. 3.
19
Id., Judicial Affidavit of Ma. Lourdes Matias, Exhibit A, p. 289; Judicial Affidavit of Felisa
Matias and Ma. Fe Isabel Matias, Exhibit R, p.66-67.
20
Id., Exhibits Folder, Judicial Affidavit of Ma. Lourdes Matias, Exhibit A, p. 290; Exhibits B
and C, p. 298.
21
Id., p. 291; Exhibits D and F, pp. 299-300.
22
Id., p. 291; Exhibits E and G, pp. 299- 300.
DECISION
x-----------------------------------x
On December 2, 2008, the mother and daughters deposited

the further amount of P100,000.00 to complete the required
500,000.00 downpayment for both Ma. Lourdes and Ma. Fe.23
On December 30, 2008, they sent the amount of P20,000.00

via LBC upon the instruction of the accused-appellant.24 On
January 5, 2009, they again deposited the amount of P17,800.00 to
the BDO account of accused-appellant ostensibly for visa fee. On
January 12, 2009, they again deposited the amount of P30,000.00
to the same BDO account of accused-appellant, this time as
processing fee.25
Ma. Fe received a confirmation of appointment through the

accused-appellant, which states that her appointment at the UK
Visa Application Centre is set on January 22, 2009.26 However, on
January 22, 2009 at around 10:00 in the morning, the accused-
appellant informed them through their mother that their
appointment was put on hold because their foreign sponsors in the
UK had to update their license. They were told to wait for updates
coming from one Beth Bernejo, who allegedly works as an
evaluator in the UK Embassy and who happens to be the evaluator
of Ma. Fe's documents.27 Also sometime in January 2009, the
accused-appellant borrowed the amount of P5,000.00 from Felisa,
allegedly for her surgery.28
On January 25, 2009, they went to the office of the accused-

appellant at Pacific but since she was not around, they were able to
talk to Allan, the secretary of accused-appellant, who assured them
that there is nothing to worry about because there were job orders
for Ma. Lourdes and Ma. Fe in the UK.29 For a while they felt
relieved, thinking that their application was in progress.
However, by March 2009, almost a month had passed but

they received no updates from the accused-appellant. Whenever
23
Id., Exhibits Folder, Judicial Affidavit of Ma. Lourdes Matias, Exhibit A, pp. 290-291;
Exhibits G and H, p. 301.
24
Id., p. 292; Exhibit I, p. 302.
25
Id.; Exhibits J and K, pp. 302 and 304.
26
Id., p. 293; Exhibit L, p. 303.
27
d., Judicial Affidavit of Ma. Lourdes Matias, Exhibit A, p. 293.
28
Id., Exhibit M, p. 305; Judicial Affidavit of Ma. Lourdes Matias, Exhibit A, p. 293.
29
Id., p. 294; Exhibits N and N-1, pp. 306-307.
DECISION
x-----------------------------------x
they would talk to her, she would always tell them not to worry as
everything was alright. The appointment and the phone interview
with the UK Embassy never happened.30
On March 19, 2009, they received a handwritten letter from

the accused-appellant with several loan forms attached, for them to
accomplish, on the pretext that the other bank had been blacklisted
by the UK Embassy.31
As they were already in doubt, they decided to go to the

residence of the accused-appellant at 175 F. Manalo Street, San
Juan City on March 24, 2009 to confront the accused-appellant,
but she was no longer residing there. They found out from a
neighbor that accused-appellant had already transferred to No. 3-B,
Mejino Street, Brgy. Onse, San Juan City.32
They proceeded to the new place of the accused-appellant

and sought the help of the police. P/Sr. Insp. Reynaldo Tibo (PSI
Tibo) coordinated with the authorities of Brgy. Onse. At the
barangay, they found out that there were several complaints filed
against the accused-appellant which are similar to theirs.33
At the very same time, the accused-appellant happened to

call Felisa to remind her of the loan forms and the payment of their
balance. PSI Tibo thus sought the assistance of PO2 Matias of the
Intelligence Section of the San Juan Police.34
On March 27, 2009, Ma. Lourdes, Ma. Fe and Felisa

coordinated with PO2 Matias and the latter initiated the entrapment
operation against the accused-appellant. The team, composed of
PO2 Matias, SPO3 Bautista, PO3 Enrique Albay and PO2 Ernie
Mariscotes, together with private complainants Ma. Lourdes, Ma.
Fe and their mother Felisa proceeded to Puregold Supermarket at
Agora Complex, San Juan City, at around 12:30 in the afternoon.
The accused-appellant arrived at around 2:30 in the afternoon.
Felisa approached the accused-appellant and handed over a white
30
Id., Judicial Affidavit of Ma. Lourdes Matias, Exhibit A, p. 294.
31
Id., Judicial Affidavit of Ma. Lourdes Matias, Ehibit A, p. 294; Exhibit O Series, pp. 308-
321.
32
Id., Judicial Affidavit of Ma. Lourdes Matias, p. 295.
33
Id.
34
Id., pp. 295-296.
DECISION
x-----------------------------------x
envelope containing five (5) pieces of P100-peso bills dusted with

ultra violet powder, together with the boodle money. Once the
accused-appellant received the money, PO2 Mariscotes and PO3
Elsa Ramos approached the accused-appellant and arrested her.35
Accused-Appellant was subjected to an investigation at San

Juan Police Headquarters.36
It was found out that Pacific is not a licensed nor an

authorized recruitment and placement agency in the Philippines.37
For her part, private complainant Roselle was introduced to

the accused-appellant by one Gina Valerio (Gina), who claimed
that she was deployed to the UK with the help of the accused-
appellant.38 Gina is Roselle's distant relative, being the wife of
Darwin Valerio, a second cousin of Roselle's mother.39
Through the initiative of Gina, Roselle and the accused-

appellant met on April 23, 2008 in Greenhills, San Juan. During
their conversation, Roselle was told that accused-appellant is
connected with the UK Embassy and that she could process a UK
visa. Roselle also learned that an applicant for a visa should have a
sponsor from UK and should have a Certificate of Bank Deposit.40
Accused-Appellant further told Roselle that she will be

booked under a student visa and she will be allowed to work for a
limited period under the same visa.41 Roselle, according to accused-
appellant, needs to pay the following for the processing of her visa
(1) P50,000.00 for her sponsor in the UK; (2) P60,000.00 for a
bank certificate of deposit; and, (3) P80,000.00 for her service fee,
or the total amount of P190,000.00. Roselle was advised by
accused-appellant that she needed to pay half of P190,000.00 to
35
Id., Volume I, Joint Affidavit of Arrest, Exhibits GG and GG-1, pp. 24-25; TSN dated
September 14, 2010, W: PO2 Gerardo Matias, pp. 7-13.
36
Id., Judicial Affidavit of Ma. Lourdes Matias, Exhibit A, p. 296; Exhibits Folder, Exhibit P
Series, pp. 322-368.
37
Id., Exhibits Folder, Exhibit PP, p. 393.
38
Id., Judicial Affidavit of Roselle Jarata, Exhibit S, p. 371; TSN dated June 8, 2010, W:
Roselle Jarata, p. 3.
39
TSN dated July 13, 2010, W: Roselle Jarata, pp. 3-4.
40
Record, Exhibits Folder, Judicial Affidavit of Roselle Jarata, Exhibit S, p. 372; TSN dated
July 13, 2010, W: Roselle Jarata, pp. 5-9.
41
Id., Judicial Affidavit of Roselle Jarata, Exhibit S, p. 372.
DECISION
x-----------------------------------x
start the process and to submit the necessary documents. She will
pay the remaining balance after the visa is issued.42
Due to the assurances made by the accused-appellant, on the

same day, April 23, 2008, Roselle paid the amount of P20,000.00
for the processing of her visa, but the accused-appellant did not
issue any receipt therefor.43 On April 29, 2008, Roselle again paid
the accused-appellant the amount of P80,000.00 by depositing it to
BDO Account No. 0300661517 of accused-appellant.44 Five (5)
days after, Roselle deposited the amount of P40,000.00 to the same
bank account of accused-appellant upon the accused-appellant's
demand of half of her service fee.45
Roselle was likewise convinced by the accused-appellant to

include her husband in applying for a UK visa with additional
discounted fee of P60,000.00.46 She paid the amount of P6,500.00
to the accused-appellant for the processing of her husband's visa
application and the amount of P30,000.00, on May 5, 2008,
through deposit to the same BDO account of accused-appellant.47
On May 16, 2008, she and her husband personally appeared

at the UK Embassy where their pictures and fingerprints were
taken.48 Roselle gave the amount of P30,000.00 to the accused-
appellant to complete the payment for her husband.49
After about a month, Roselle learned that she and her

husband were denied their visa applications.50 Accused-Appellant
promised to rectify the denial of their applications and told her to
lodge another visa application. Accused-Appellant tried to collect
the fees from Roselle but she refused and demanded that accused-
appellant reimburse everything they have paid. Accused-Appellant
told her that she will pay for the visa application fee.51
42
Id., p. 373.
43
Id.
44
Id., Exhibits Folder, Exhibit U, p. 381; TSN dated March 23, 2010, W: Roselle Jarata, p. 9;
45
Id., Judicial Affidavit of Roselle Jarata, Exhibit S, pp.373-374; Exhibit V, p. 382.
46
Id., Judicial Affidavit of Roselle Jarata, Exhibit S, p. 374.
47
Id., Judicial Affidavit of Roselle Jarata, Exhibit S, p. 375; TSN dated March 23, 2010, W:
Roselle Jarata, p. 13.
48
Id., Judicial Affidavit of Roselle Jarata, Exhibit S, p. 375; Exhibit W, p. 383.
49
Id.; Exhibit W, p. 375.
50
Id.; Judicial Affidavit of Roselle Jarata, Exhibit S, p. 376; Exhibit Y, pp. 385-386.
51
Id., pp. 376-377.
DECISION
x-----------------------------------x
Accused-Appellant allegedly filed another application for

Roselle. Sometime in December 2008 Roselle went to Manila to
meet accused-appellant who gave her a confirmation of
appointment at the UK Embassy for December 12, 2008. 52 On that
date, however, Roselle received a text message from accused-
appellant that they had to re-schedule.53
Thereafter, accused-appellant again asked Roselle to go to

Manila for ther appointment at the UK Embassy on January 27,
2009.54 However, the accused-appellant informed her that their
appointment was again cancelled because the bank certificate of
deposit was not yet available, and her child was sick.55
On February 16, 2009, Roselle came to Manila and

informed the accused-appellant that she is backing out from their
arrangement and instead asked for the return of her money.56
Accused-Appellant agreed to reimburse her, but she demanded that
all the expenses already spent in relation to their visa application be
deducted. They made a computation of all the expenses and agreed
that the accused-appellant would reimburse the amount of
P135,000.00 to Roselle. Accused-Appellant issued a PSBank
postdated check in the amount of P135,000.00 which was to be
made payable on March 5, 2009.57
Roselle deposited the check but retrieved it immediately

upon the request of accused-appellant who told her it has no
sufficient funds. Accused-Appellant promised to pay an additional
surcharge of P10,000.00 and the full value of the check on March
8, 2009 instead. However, accused-appellant never complied with
her promise.58
52
Id.
53
Id.
54
Id., p. 377; Exhibits Folder, Exhibit BB, p. 388.
55
Record, Volume 2, Judicial Affidavit of Roselle Jarata, Exhibit T, p. 377.
56
Id.
57
Id., Volume 2, Judicial Affidavit of Roselle Jarata, Exhibit T, p. 377; Exhibits Folder,
Exhibit CC, p. 389.
58
Id., p. 378; Exhibits Folder, Exhibit DD, p. 398.
DECISION
x-----------------------------------x
Roselle then sent a demand letter to the accused-appellant. 59

Accused-Appellant asked for Roselle's reconsideration, but since
she continuously failed to settle her money obligation, Roselle
eventually deposited the check. The check was dishonored and
payment was refused due to the reason that the account has been
closed.60
Roselle and the accused-appellant had no contact since then,

until Roselle learned that the accused-appellant was subjected to an
entrapment operation.61
Roselle filed this case because of the failure of the accused-

appellant to reimburse her money. Likewise, upon her verification
with the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA), she
found out that Pacific Sterling Travel and Tours is not a licensed
nor an authorized agency to engage in recruitment.62
The Defense Evidence
The accused-appellant maintained that she never engaged in

any recruitment activities for employment abroad. Neither did she
make any false representations that she has the power, capacity,
license and authority to recruit workers and deploy them for
employment in the UK.
For one, her business operation is in the nature of a travel

agency under the business name “Pacific Sterling Travel and
Tours” which caters to all persons who wish to travel abroad as
tourists and also gives visa application assistance for students who
want to study in the UK.63 Her travel agency was granted a permit
to operate under the Certificate of Business Name Registration
issued by the Department of Trade and Industry, Barangay
Clearance and Mayor's Permit for 2008 and 2009.64
59
Id.
60
Id.; p. 377-378.
61
Id., p. 378.
62
Id., Judicial Affidavit of Roselle Jarata, Exhibit S, p. 379; Exhibit PP, p. 393.
63
Record, Volume 1, Judicial Affidavit of Jessica Bonifacio, Exhibit 11, p. 186.
64
Id.
DECISION
x-----------------------------------x
Accused-Appellant explains to clients that although she can

guide them with the application and interview process, she cannot
control the outcome of each visa application because it is always
subject to the sole discretion of the UK Embassy. She would
always make herself clear to clients that Pacific is a mere travel
agency and not a recruitment agency.65 By rendering this kind of
assistance, there were, more or less, 26 successful applicants whom
she assisted.
Ma. Lourdes, Catherine and Roselle were all her clients in

the travel agency which she owns.66 They came to know her
through mere referrals by her former clients who were successfully
granted student visas.67
Roselle was introduced to her by Gina Valerio, who sought

her assistance in obtaining a student visa for the UK. According to
Roselle, she finished Physical Therapy and Nursing. Roselle told
her that Gina will enroll her at Thames International College in
London and will be responsible for other documents. Despite their
familiarity with the process, they still asked for her assistance in
the processing of Roselle's papers to the UK.68
Accused-Appellant started to gather all the needed

documents for Roselle's application such as bank certification and
business documents of her family. However, Roselle failed to
submit her transcript of school records and diploma and, despite
her advice and warnings that her visa application might be denied,
Roselle still failed to submit the pertinent documents and told her
to proceed despite the lacking documents.69
She submitted the documents of Roselle to the UK Embassy

and she gave Roselle some instructions to go through the process.
Afterwards, she learned that Roselle has some relatives who were
staying illegally in London. She then went to Gapan, Nueva Ecija
to check on the alleged business of Roselle, but, to her surprise,
she found none.70
65
Id., p. 187.
66
Id.
67
Id., p. 188.
68
Id.
69
Id.
70
Id., p. 190.
DECISION
x-----------------------------------x
True enough, the visa application of Roselle was denied.

Roselle did not pursue her re-application and backed out. Accused-
Appellant then told Roselle that she will reimburse her payment but
all the expenses must be deducted, and asked her to wait for 30-60
days to get the money back. Roselle agreed but after few days, she
went back to accused-appellant's, with one Jhun-Jhun, whom she
introduced as allegedly from the NBI. Roselle and Jhun-Jhun
forced her to give back the money. She insisted on their agreement
but Roselle and her companion told her “Hindi kami aalis dito na
hindi dala ang pera kung ayaw mong magkagulo dito.” She was
thus forced to issue a check good for 30 days before encashment.71
Since then, Roselle did not coordinate with her anymore until
she learned of the cases filed against her by Roselle, together with
Felisa Matias and Catherine De Leon.72
As for complainants Ma. Lourdes and Ma. Fe, she came to

know them when she was referred to them by Rosita Ovejera from
Tarlac and her co-member in Couples for Christ. She was first
contacted by Ma. Lourdes' mother, Felisa, who asked her to help
her two children to obtain visas to be able to study in the UK.73
During their first meeting at her office at Pacific in Shaw

Boulevard, Mandaluyong City, they discussed their concerns and
the services her company offers. She explained to them the
documents that they need to apply for a student visa.74
Since they have no relatives in the UK who could sponsor

them and they failed to provide other documents to establish their
financial capacity to support their studies in London, she told them
that they may have a hard time and this might cause the denial of
their applications.75
Felisa then asked her if she knows someone who could

provide them with show money and, if none, if she could provide
71
Id., pp. 191-192.
72
Id., p. 192.
73
Id., p. 193.
74
Id., p. 194.
75
Id.
DECISION
x-----------------------------------x
them with a Certificate of Bank Deposit. She explained to them the

policies that they have to observe, such as to pay the interest while
the visa is being evaluated. They agreed and told her that they are
willing to pay the monthly interest. They also agreed that accused-
appellant will provide them with sponsors from the UK.76
She made it clear that they will spend approximately

Php300,000.00 for each applicant, which will cover the whole
process, such as tuition fee, documentation process expenses, visa
fee, transportation fare, one month accomodation in the UK and her
service fee.77
Since they agreed, she started the process. She coordinated

with the City London College through her uncle in London to enrol
Ma. Lourdes for the issuance of a Letter of Acceptance. After
paying all the necessary expenses, she provided Ma. Lourdes with
the visa processing needs and guided her on how to fill up the visa
application form. After submitting all the documents to the UK
Embassy and after payment of the visa fee, they were scheduled for
interview on January 22, 2009 before the British Consulate.78
The appointment of Ma. Lourdes at the UK Embassy was,

however, put on hold on January 22, 2009 because there were still
lacking documents such as the Certificate of Employment of her
mother and the business documents for their alleged existing
business. They were re-scheduled for interview on March 30,
2009.79
On March 27, 2009, she received a text message from Felisa

telling her that they wanted to meet her at McDonald's Puregold, in
San Juan City for some instructions regarding their forthcoming
interview at the UK Embassy. She went to the said place to meet
Felisa.80
While inside McDonald's, Felisa showed her an envelope

placed on top of a table and said “Ito, para sa iyo yan, buksan mo
76
Id., p. 195.
77
Id., p. 196.
78
Id., pp. 196-197.
79
Id., pp. 197-198.
80
Id., p. 198.
DECISION
x-----------------------------------x
na” and to which she replied: “Bakit po, ano po to? para saan po
to?” Then Felisa allegedly told her “kunin mo na, para sa iyo yan,
buksan mo na.”81
She did not take the envelope because she knew what it was
for and considering that she is not yet due to be paid. As they were
talking, a man suddenly approached them followed by a woman
and they told accused-appellant to go with them. She asked them
why and they answered: “Basta, doon na sa police station
ipapaliwanag.”82
She was not allowed to call her lawyer, and was handcuffed
and forced to go inside a van. Thereafter, SPO3 Bautista tried to
give her the envelope and suddenly opened it and told her to hold
the money. She refused to touch and hold the money, but SPO3
Bautista forced her to hold it.83
Upon reaching the San Juan Police Station, she saw Roselle
Jarata, Catherine de Leon, as well as the Matias siblings.84
Finally, as regards private complainant Catherine de Leon,

accused-appellant narrated that she was referred to her by Ginalyn
Campo, a successful client who was granted a visa sometime in
2008 through her assistance.85
Catherine wanted to study in London and asked for her

assistance on how to go through the visa process. She explained the
process and told her that what she can do is to assist Catherine in
obtaining a student visa only, not for employment, and that the
grant of a student visa would all depend on the discretion of the
consul.86
81
Id., p. 199.
82
Id.
83
Id., p. 200.
84
Id.
85
Id.
86
Id., p. 201.
DECISION
x-----------------------------------x
Catherine's visa was denied because the Annual Tax Return

of her father, which was submitted to the embassy, was not a
genuine one.87
She claimed that she never represented herself to have

authority to give the private complainants employment in London
and they were the ones who approached her and sought her
assistance as they wanted to go to London to study. They were all
referred by her former clients who were successfully granted
student visas.88
The RTC Joint Decision
The RTC rendered the assailed Joint Decision, 89 the

dispositive portion of which reads:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is

hereby rendered as follows:
1. In Criminal Case No. 139906 accused JESSICA

BONIFACIO Y SIAO @ JESSICA is guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa under Article 315 2
(a) of the Revised Penal Code and [is] hereby sentenced to
suffer an indeterminate prison term of four (4) years and
two (2) months of prision correccional as minimum to
eleven (11) years, eight (8) months and twenty one (21)
days of prision mayor as maximum for estafa.
2. In Criminal Case No. 139907, accused JESSICA

reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Recruitment
(Violation of Sec. 6 (m) of R.A. 8042 otherwise known as
Migrant Workers & Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995) and
[is] hereby sentenced to suffer indeterminate prison term of
eight (8) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years.
She is likewise ordered to pay private complainants

as follows:
(a) Ma. Lourdes C. Matias, in the amount of

87
Id., p. 202.
88
Id., p. 203.
89
Supra. at Note 1.
DECISION
x-----------------------------------x
Php500,000.00.
(b) Catherine De Leon y Bancacao (sic), in the amount of

Php50,000.00.
(c) Roselle Jarata y Lopez, in the amount of Php20,000.00.
3. In Criminal Case No. 139908, accused JESSICA

reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Recruitment in
large scale and sentenced her (sic) to life imprisonment and
to pay a fine of One Hundred Thousand Pesos
(Php100,000.00).
Accordingly, the accused shall serve the sentence one

after the other.
SO ORDERED.”90 (emphasis not ours)
Hence, this appeal.91
The Issues
Accused-Appellant assigns the following errors:
“I.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN

FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELANT GUILTY OF
THE CRIMES CHARGED DESPITE THE FAILURE
OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE ALL THEIR
ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS.
II.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN

CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT FOR
SIMPLE ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT AND ILLEGAL
RECRUITMENT IN LARGE SCALE DESPITE THE
FACT THAT THE FORMER CRIME IS
90
Rollo, p. 143; Record, p. 266.
91
Rollo, Notice of Appeal, pp. 18-19; Record, Notice of Appeal, pp. 271-272.
DECISION
x-----------------------------------x
NECESSARILY INCLUDED IN THE LATTER

CRIME.”92
The Court's Ruling
Criminal Case No. 139906-SJ for Estafa
The crime of estafa under Article 315 (2) (a) of the Revised
Penal Code was duly established by the prosecution.
In all criminal prosecutions, the burden of proof is on the

prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt. It has the duty to prove each and every element of the crime
charged in the information to warrant a finding of guilt for the said
crime or for any other crime necessarily included therein.93
In general, the elements of estafa are: (1) that the accused

defrauded another (a) by abuse of confidence or (b) by means of
deceit; and (2) that damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary
estimation is caused the offended party or third person. Deceit is
not an essential requisite of estafa with abuse of confidence, since
the breach of confidence takes the place of the fraud or deceit,
which is a usual element in the other estafas.94
In the case of Rosita Sy v. People95, the Supreme Court held:
“Swindling or estafa is punishable under Article 315

of the Revised Penal Code. There are three ways of
committing estafa, viz.: (1) with unfaithfulness or abuse of
confidence; (2) by means of false pretenses or fraudulent
acts; or (3) through fraudulent means. The three ways of
committing estafa may be reduced to two, i.e., (1) by
means of abuse of confidence; or (2) by means of deceit.
The elements of estafa in general are: (a) that an
92
Rollo, Brief for the Accused-Appellant, p. 91.
93
Andaya v. People, G.R. No. 168486, June 27, 2006.
94
Chua-Burce v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 109595, April 27, 2000; Cheng v. People, G.R.
No. 174113, January 13, 2016.
95
G.R. No. 183879, April 14, 2010.
DECISION
x-----------------------------------x
accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence, or by

means of deceit; and (b) that damage and prejudice capable
of pecuniary estimation is caused the offended party or
third person.”
Both elements are present in this case.
First, the accused-appellant defrauded the private

complainants by deceit when she represented herself as possessing
the power to obtain visas for them, giving them the assurance that
they will be granted said student visas for the UK by means of her
abilities and connections, which would then pave the way for their
employment thereat. It was because of these assurances made by
the accused-appellant that the private complainants parted with
their money.
As stated by Ma. Lourdes in her Judicial Affidavit:
“Q: In particular, what were the details discussed during

your meeting with the accused?
A: Accused informed us that she was connected with
Pacific Sterling Travel and Tours, a travel agency and that
she and her office had connections in the UK embassy
where our applications for visa are to be submitted.
Accused also informed us that we will enter UK under
student visas and once there, her connections therein would
help them secure employment.
Q: What else did accused assure you about the prospect of

sending you abroad to work, if any?
A: She also assured us that there would be no problem as
she has done this process in the past and was able to send
people abroad under a student visa and able (sic) to get
work abroad.
Q: Aside from that, what else was discussed, if any madam

witness?
A: Accused said she would undertake to process our
documentations to ensure our deployment abroad. She
even assured us that we could leave the country around
February 2009 under a student visa.
Q: What else did accused discuss to (sic) you, if any?

DECISION
x-----------------------------------x
A: Accused added that the fee for me and my sister would

be in the total amount of P700,000.00, which means
P350,000.00 for me and P350,000.00 for my sister.
Q: What was the fee for?

A: Accused said that the amount will cover processing fee,
tuition fee, accommodation expense, bank statement and
service fee of the accused.
Q: What is the mode or terms of payment of such amount?

A: We have to pay a down payment of P250,000 each so
that the accused could start up the processing of our
documents.
Q: You mean the total down payment for you and your
sister would be P500,000.00.
A: Yes sir.
Q: Did you agree with the arrangement?

A: Yes sir.
Q: Why so?
A: We thought that she would really be of help for (sic) us.
We thought she really could get us UK visa and
employment abroad. She appeared to us as legitimate
recruiter especially so she was good in what she was telling
us all the details plus the fact that she had a good office to
back up her representations.”96 (underscoring supplied)
The private complainant Roselle, in turn, stated in her

Judicial Affidavit:
Q: When did you meet Jessica Bonifacio?

A: Around April 23, 2008 through Gina Valerio.
Q: What did Jessica Bonifacio say to you upon the

introduction of Gina Valerio if any?
A: She said she was indeed connected with the UK
embassy and she then asked me whether I knew someone
in UK to sponsor me.
Q: What did you say to her?

A: I told the accused that I don't know anyone who can
96
Record, Exhibits Folder, Judicial Affidavit of Ma. Lourdes Matias, Exhibit A, pp. 289-290.
DECISION
x-----------------------------------x
sponsor me in UK.
Q: What did she tell you when you told her that?
A: She said she will find me a sponsor in UK but I have to
pay for it. In addition she also said I needed a bank
certificate of deposit.
Q: What does the bank certificate of deposit have to do

with what you were talking about?
A: The certificate of bank deposit will show that I have
substantial amount of money in the bank. In short, it will
serve as show money.
Q: How much was required as show money?

A: At least one million pesos.
Q: Who will provide the bank certificate for the show

money?
A: The accused will take care of it, your honor. She said
she would secure bank certificate under my name. It is part
of the services she would provide.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: What happened in your meeting with the accused?

A: Accused told me about the process I would go through
for me to be deployed to the UK with her help.
Q: What is the process?

A: First I need to have a sponsor in UK; Second, I needed
show money, in the amount of at least One (1) Million
pesos, which shall be reflected in a Bank Certificate of
deposit; and Third, I will be booked under a Student Visa.
Q: Why student visa and not working visa?

A: According to the accused student visa would be easier
to secure.
Q: But you said you would be secured an employment in

UK?
A: Yes under a student visa. According to the accused, a
student visa holder is also allowed to work but only for a
limited period of time. It's not going to be a full time
employment. The idea is that after school one could work.
So there really there is (sic) no problem even the visa (sic)
is a student visa.
DECISION
x-----------------------------------x
Q: What happened next?

A: Because of the representations of the accused, that very
day I paid the accused P20,000.00.
Q: For what?
A: According to the accused it was for visa and reservation
fees, sir.”97 (underscoring supplied)
Catherine, in her Affidavit, stated:
“7.T: Para sa ikakaliwanag ng lahat maari mo bang

isalaysay ang buong pangyayari?
S: Mga bandang Agosto 2008 ng nirefer ako ng aking
kaibigan na si Guialyn Campo na magtungo kay Jessica
Bonifacio sa may Pacific Sterling Travel and Tours upang
magprocess ng aking student application patungo sa
United Kingdom. Noong Setyembre 1, 2008 ng una
kaming magkita ni Jessica sa may SM Mega Mall para
magsumbit ng aking mga dokumento para sa aking
application upang kanyang icheck at iprocess. Pagkatapos
ay schedule niya ako ng interview sa embassy. Pagkaraan
ng ilang araw ay ibinigay ko sa kanya ang yung dalawang
magkasunod na Php50,000.00. Pagkaraan ng isang linggo
pina-uwi niya ako sa amin sa Mindanao dahil wala pa raw
akong schedule sa UK embassy. Noong Setyembre 10,
2008, nagtext sa kin si Jessica at sinabi niya na kailangan
kong magbayad pa uli ng Php30,000.00 para mabuo yung
Php130,000.00 na down payment ng aking application.
Nang, araw ding iyon ay nagtransfer ako ng Ph 30,000.00
sa account niya sa Allied Bank. Nagtext uli si Jessica na
pinaluluwas ako niya sa Manila para aking lodging sa UK
embassy at pagdating ko ng Manila hindi naman ako
nainterview. Pinangakuan ako ni Jessica maiinterview na
ako pero ilang beses na napostpon yung interview. Noong
Oktubre 6, 2008 ay nainterview ako sa UK embassy at
pagkatapos ay hintayin ko na lang daw yung resulta ng
aking interview. Pagkatapos ay umuwi uli ako sa amin sa
Mindanao at habang nasa amin ako ay parati siyang
nagtetext sa akin na kailangan ko daw uli magbayad para
sa kakulangan ng aking bayad. Noong Nobyembre 10,
2008 sinabihan ako ni Jessica na REFUSE ako sa akin
(sic) student visa. Noong Nobyembre 2008 ay nagbigay uli
97
Id., Judicial Affidavit of Roselle Jarata, Exhibit S, pp. 371-373.
DECISION
x-----------------------------------x
ako ng Php10,000.00 na deniposit ko sa account niya sa

Banco de Oro at Php10,000.00 uli na cash pagbalik ko uli
sa Manila noong Nobyembre 2008 din. Noong Nobyembre
17, 2008 lumuwas uli ako sa Manila para isubmit yung
kulang kong dokumento at noong Nobyembre 20, 2008 ay
nainterview uli ako sa UK embassy pero REFUSE uli ang
aking application noong Enero 28, 2009. Pagluwas ko uli
sa Manila schedule niya raw ako uli ng interview pero lagi
naming postpone. Dahil doon ay nasabi ako (sic) sa kanya
na mag back-out nalang (sic) ako noong Pebrero 17, 2009
at sinabihan ko siya na kunin ko ang aking mga papeles at
irefund ang aking pera. Pagkatapos ay binalik niya ang
aking mga dokumento at binigyan niya ako ng cheke para
sa aking refund worth Php90,000.00 dated March 10,
2009. Noong March 10, 2009 ng iverify ko sa bank ay
closed account naman ang cheke na binigay sa akin ni
Jessica. Pagkatapos ay sinabi ko kay Jessica na closed
account yung cheke at pinangakuan ako ni Jessica na cash
na lang ang ibabayad niya sa akin pero hangang ngayon
ay wala pa rin na binibigay sa akin na cash si Jessica kaya
nagpasya ako na magsampa ng kaukulang kaso.”98
(underscoring supplied)
The representations made by accused-appellant to the private

complainants Ma. Lourdes, Roselle and Catherine that she had the
power and the capacity to deploy them abroad were made prior to,
and were the active inducement for, the payments made by Ma.
Lourdes in the total amount of P572, 800.00, 99 Roselle in the total
amount of P150,000.00100 and Catherine in the total amount of
P150,000.00.101
The second element is also present in this case. The private

complainants suffered damages as the promised deployment abroad
did not materialize and the money they paid were never recovered.
The fact that the private complainants consented to the

processing of the illegal travel documents will not exculpate
accused-appellant from liability. The accused-appellant took
98
Id., Volume I, Sinumpaang Salaysay of Catherine De Leon, Exhibit JJ, p. 10.
99
Id., Exhibits Folder, Judicial Affidavit of Ma. Lourdes C. Matias, Exhibit A, pp. 290-293;
Exhibits “B” to “K” and “M”; pp. 298-305.
100
Id., Exhibits Folder, Judicial Affidavit of Roselle Lopez-Jarata, Exhibit S, pp. 373-375;
Exhibits “U”, V and W, pp. 381-383.
101
Id., Sinumpaang Salaysay of Catherine De Leon y Bancaco, Exhibit JJ, p. 10.
DECISION
x-----------------------------------x
advantage of the condition and vulnerability of the private

complainants after learning that they could not produce the
necessary documents to successfully secure UK visas and their
eagerness to work in the UK even under the guise of student visas
only.
The assurances made by the accused-appellant and her false

representations were the primary consideration that induced the
private complainants to part with their money.
The prosecution thus established beyond reasonable doubt all

the elements of the crime of estafa.
In the case of People v. Lo,102 it was held that deceit consists

of accused-appellant's false statements or fraudulent representations
which were made prior to, or at least simultaneously with, the
delivery of the money by the complainants. To convict for this type
of crime, it is essential that the false statement or fraudulent
representation constitutes the very cause or the only motive which
induces the complainant to part with the thing of value. Accused-
Appellants in Lo led the private complainants to believe that they
possessed the power, means and legal qualification to provide the
latter with work in Italy, when in fact they did not. Private
complainants parted with their hard-earned money and suffered
damage by reason of the deceitful and illegal acts of the accused-
appellants.
In the more recent case of People v. Michelle Dela Cruz,103

the accused-appellant was found liable for estafa under par. 2 (a),
Article 315 because it was sufficiently established that she
defrauded private complainants by misrepresenting and leading
them to believe that she has the capacity to send them to South
Korea for work as domestic helpers. Such misrepresentation came
before private complainants delivered various amounts purportedly
for travel expenses and visa assistance, and without which,
complainants would not have parted with their money were it not
for such enticement by the accused.
102
G.R. No. 175229, January 29, 2009.
103
G.R. No. 214500, June 28, 2017.
DECISION
x-----------------------------------x
Lo and Michelle dela Cruz apply foursquare in this case as

the private complainants parted with their money solely due to the
misrepresentations of accused-appellant that she has the power and
the necessary connections to facilitate the processing of, and
successfully secure, visas from the UK Embassy.
Penalty for Estafa.
In this case, it was established that the accused-appellant

defrauded the private complainants, as follows: P572,800.00 from
Ma. Lourdes; P150,000.00 from Roselle; and, P150,000.00 from
Catherine.
The penalty prescribed by the RPC for the crime of estafa is

prision correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum.
However, considering the enactment of Republic Act (R.A.)

No. 10951 (An Act Adjusting the Amount or the Value of Property
and Damage on which a Penalty is Based and the Fines Imposed
Under the Revised Penal Code, amending for the purpose Act No.
3815, otherwise known as “The Revised Penal Code,” as amended),
the penalty imposable for estafa in this case is:
“Art. 315. Swindling (estafa).- Any person who shall

defraud another by any of the means mentioned
hereinbelow shall be punished by:
“1st. xxx
2nd. xxx
3rd. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to
prision correccional in its minimum period, if such amount
is over Forty thousand pesos (P40,000.00) but does not
exceed One million two hundred thousand pesos
(P1,200,000).”
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty next

lower to that prescribed is arresto mayor in its minimum period to
arresto mayor medium.
DECISION
x-----------------------------------x
The RTC imposed the higher penalty because R.A. No.

10951 had not yet been passed in 2013 when the cases were
decided.
Pursuant to the express provision of R.A. No. 10951,

regarding retroactivity,104 the Court must apply the lesser penalty
which is favorable to the accused-appellant.
The proper penalty, therefore, to be imposed on accused-

appellant for the crime of estafa, applying the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, is 4 months of arresto mayor medium as minimum,
up to 2 years and 4 months of prision correccional, as maximum.
Civil indemnity
The Court orders the accused-appellant to pay Ma. Lourdes

and Ma. Fe the total amount of P572,800.00, Roselle the amount of
P150,000.00 and Catherine the amount of P150,000.00, the actual
amount given by them to accused-appellant based on evidence
presented.
Following Nacar v. Gallery Frames,105 applying Resolution

No. 799 of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas – Monetary Board, the
obligation of accused-appellant in the total amount of P872,800.00
should earn interest of 12% per annum from April 13, 2009, (the
date the Information was filed), until June 30, 2013, and interest of
6% per annum from July 1, 2013 until its full satisfaction.106
Criminal Case No. 139907-SJ for Illegal Recruitment
and
Criminal Case No. 139908-SJ for Large Scale Illegal Recruitment
104
RA 10951, Section 100. Retroactive effect.-This Act shall have retroactive effect to the
extent that it is favorable to the accused or person serving sentence by final judgment.
105
G.R. No. 189871, August 13, 2013.
106
People v. Villanueva, G.R. No. 163662, February 25, 2015.
DECISION
x-----------------------------------x
The crime of illegal recruitment is defined and penalized

under Sections 6 and 7 of R.A. No. 8042, or the Migrant Workers
and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, as follows:
“Sec. 6. Definition.- For purposes of this Act, illegal

recruitment shall mean any act of canvassing, enlisting,
contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring
workers and includes referring, contract services,
promising or advertising for employment abroad, whether
for profit or not, when undertaken by a non-licensee or
non-holder of authority contemplated under Article 13 (f)
of Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, otherwise
known as the Labor Code of the Philippines: Provided, that
any such non-licensee or non-holder who, in any manner,
offers or promises for a fee employment abroad to two or
more persons shall be deemed so engaged.
xxx xxx xxx
Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if

carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons
conspiring or confederating with one another. It is deemed
committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or
more persons individually or as a group. xxx”
(underscoring supplied)
To hold a person liable for illegal recruitment, the following

elements must concur: (1) the offender undertakes any of the
activities within the meaning of “recruitment and placement” under
Article I 3(b) of the Labor Code, or any of the prohibited practices
enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code (now Section 6 of
Republic Act No. 8042) and (2) the offender has no valid license or
authority required by law to enable him to lawfully engage in
recruitment and placement of workers.107 In the case of illegal
recruitment in large scale, as in this case, a third element is
required: that the offender commits any of the acts of recruitment
and placement against three or more persons, individually or as a
group.108
107
People v. Chua, G.R. No. 187052, September 13, 2012 citing People v. Espenilla, G.R. No.
193667, February 29, 2012.
108
People v. dela Cruz, G.R. No. 214500, June 28, 2017 and People v. Delos Reyes, G.R. No.
198795, June 7, 2017.
DECISION
x-----------------------------------x
The testimonies of the private complainants clearly

established the fact that the accused-appellant's conduct falls within
the term “recruitment” as defined by law. As testified by Ma.
Lourdes, the accused-appellant convinced her to give money for
the processing of her papers to be deployed abroad:
“Q: In particular, what were the details discussed during

your meeting with the accused?
A: Accused informed us that she was connected with
Pacific Sterling Travel and Tours, a travel agency and that
she and her office had connections in the UK embassy
where our applications for visa are to be submitted.
Accused also informed us that we will enter UK under
student visas and once there, her connections therein would
help them secure employment.
Q: What else did accused assure you about the prospect of

sending you abroad to work, if any?
A: She also assured us that there would be no problem as
she has done this process in the past and was able to send
people abroad under a student visa and able (sic) to get
work abroad.
Q: Aside from that, what else was discussed, if any madam

witness?
A: Accused said she would undertake to process our
documentations to ensure our deployment abroad. She
even assured us that we could leave the country around
February 2009 under a student visa.
Q: What else did accused discuss to (sic) you, if any?

A: Accused added that the fee for me and my sister would
be in the total amount of P700,000.00, which means
P350,000.00 for me and P350,000.00 for my sister.
Q: What was the fee for?

A: Accused said that the amount will cover processing fee,
tuition fee, accommodation expense, bank statement and
service fee of the accused.
Q: What is the mode or terms of payment of such amount?

A: We have to pay a down payment of P250,000 each so
that the accused could start up the processing of our
documents.
DECISION
x-----------------------------------x
Q: You mean the total down payment for you and your
sister would be P500,000.00?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Did you agree with the arrangement?

A: Yes sir.
Q: Why so?
A: We thought that she would really be of help for (sic) us.
We thought she really could get us UK visa and
employment abroad. She appeared to us as legitimate
recruiter especially so she was good in what she was telling
us all the details plus the fact that she had a good office to
back up her representations.”109 (underscoring supplied)
For her part, Roselle stated in her Judicial Affidavit:
“Q: What happened in your meeting with the accused?

A: Accused told me about the process I would go through
for me to be deployed to the UK with her help.
Q: What is the process?

A: First I need to have a sponsor in UK; Second, I needed
show money, in the amount of at least One (1) Million
pesos, which shall be reflected in a Bank Certificate of
deposit; and Third, I will be booked under a Student Visa.
Q: Why student visa and not working visa?

A: According to the accused student visa would be easier
to secure.
Q: But you said you would be secured an employment in

UK?
A: Yes under a student visa. According to the accused, a
student visa holder is also allowed to work but only for a
limited period of time. It's not going to be a full time
employment. The idea is that after school one could work.
So there really there is (sic) no problem even the visa (sic)
is a student visa.”110 (underscoring supplied)
Illegal recruitment is committed when it is shown that

petitioner gave the complainant the distinct impression that she had
109
Record, Exhibits Folder, Judicial Affidavit of Ma. Lourdes Matias, Exhibit A, pp. 289-290.
110
Id., Judicial Affidavit of Roselle Jarata, Exhibit S, pp. 371-373.
DECISION
x-----------------------------------x
the power or ability to send the complainant abroad for work, such
that the latter was convinced to part with his money in order to be
employed. To be engaged in the practice of recruitment and
placement, it is plain that there must, at least, be a promise or an
offer of employment from the person posing as a recruiter whether
locally or abroad.111
From the above testimonies, it is apparent that the accused-

appellant was able to convince the private complainants to apply
for work in the UK under the guise of student visas after parting
with their money in exchange for the services that the accused-
appellant would render. Accused-Appellant's act falls within the
meaning of recruitment and placement as defined in Section 6 of
R.A. No. 8042.
Acused-Appellant cannot escape liability by claiming that

she assisted the private complainants in the processing of their
travel documents and that she represents a travel agency.
First, the testimonies of Ma. Lourdes and Roselle and the

narration of Catherine in her Salaysay are clear that they were
assured of work once they arrive in the UK. The substance of their
testimonies corroborate each other on material points such as the
amount of the fees to be paid, the country of destination and the
nature of the visas to be obtained.
Second, Ma. Lourdes, Roselle and Catherine were made to

believe that the accused-appellant represents a recruitment agency
but after checking with the POEA, it turned out that accused-
appellant and Pacific were not issued any license to validly engage
in the recruitment and placement of workers.
Lastly, accused-appellant obtained huge amounts of money

from the private complainants. Certainly, P350,000.00 per person is
too exorbitant for just a student visa. This is a clear indication that
what was being processed was actual work placement abroad, not
just an ordinary student visa.
111
Lapasaran v. People, G.R. No. 179907, February 12, 2009 citing People v. Ordoo, G.R. No.
129593 and 143533-35, July 10, 2000.
DECISION
x-----------------------------------x
Nevertheless, the Court agrees with the accused-appellant

that the charge of Simple Illegal Recruitment under Criminal Case
No. 139907-SJ is subsumed in the charge of Illegal Recruitment in
Large Scale under Criminal Case No. 139908-SJ.
Rule 120 of the Rules of Court provides:
“Sec. 5. When an offense includes or is included in

another. - An offense charged necessarily includes the
offense proved, when some of the essential elements or
ingredients of the former, constitute the latter. And an
offense charged is necessarily included in the offense
proved, when the essential ingredients of the former
constitute or form a part of those constituting the latter.”
An offense charged necessarily includes that which is proved

when some of the essential elements or ingredients of the former, as
alleged in the complaint or information, constitute the latter; and an
offense charged is necessarily included in the offense proved when
the essential ingredients of the former constitute or form a part of
those constituting the latter.112
Further, in the case of Daan v. The Hon. Sandiganbayan,113

the Supreme Court held:
“An offense may be said to necessarily include

another when some of the essential elements or ingredients
of the former as alleged in the complaint or information
constitute the latter. And vice versa, an offense may be said
to be necessarily included in another when the essential
ingredients of the former constitute or form part of those
constituting the latter.”
The charges of Illegal Recruitment and Illegal Recruitment in

Large Scale against the accused-appellant are crimes of the same
nature and are embraced under the same title in R.A. No. 8042.
Thus, the crime of Illegal Recruitment, which is a lesser offense, is
necessarily included in Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale.
112
Merencillo v. People, G.R. No. 142369-70, April 13, 2007.
113
G.R. Nos. 163972-77, March 28, 2008 citing Pecho v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 111399,
November 14, 1994, Tehankee, Jr. v. Madayag, G.R. No. 103102, March 6, 1992.
DECISION
x-----------------------------------x
As all the essential elements of Illegal Recruitment and the

last element was proven, to qualify the acts of accused-appellant as
Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale, the accused-appellant is liable
only for Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale.
Under Section 6, R.A. No. 8042, Illegal Recruitment when

committed in large scale shall be considered as an offense involving
economic sabotage. Accordingly, it shall be punishable by life
imprisonment and a fine of not less than P500,000.00 nor more than
P1,000,000.00. The law provides further that the maximum penalty
shall be imposed if Illegal Recruitment is committed by a non-
licensee or non-holder of authority.114
In People v. Chua,115 the Supreme Court imposed upon the

accused the maximum penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of
P1,000,000.00 considering that the accused was a non-licensee or
non-holder of authority.
The Court thus deems it proper also to impose the maximum

penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P1,000,000.00 upon the
accused-appellant considering that she is not a licensee or holder of
authority to engage in the placement or recruitment of workers in
the Philippines or abroad.
Disposition.
WHEREFORE, the appeal of Jessica Bonifacio y Siao @

Jessica is PARTLY GRANTED.
The appeal from the Joint Decision of Branch 264, RTC,

Pasig City dated November 8, 2013 in Criminal Case No. 139907-
SJ for Illegal Recruitment is GRANTED. Criminal Case No.
139907-SJ is DISMISSED.
The appeal from the Joint Decision of Branch 264, RTC,

Pasig City dated November 8, 2013, in Criminal Case Nos. 139906-
SJ for Estafa and 139908-SJ for Illegal Recrutiment in Large Scale
is AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS:
114
People vs. Chua, G.R. No. 187052, September 13, 2012.
115
Id.
DECISION
x-----------------------------------x
In Criminal Case No. 139906-SJ for Estafa:
(1) The accused-appellant Jessica Bonifacio y Siao @

Jessica is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of
imprisonment of four (4) months of arresto mayor
medium as minimum, up to two (2) years and four (4)
months of prision correccional, as maximum.
(2) The accused-appellant Jessica Bonifacio y Siao @

Jessica is ordered to pay Ma. Lourdes Matias the
amount of P572,800.00, Roselle Jarata y Lopez the
amount of P150,000.00, and Catherine De Leon y
Bancaco the amount of P150,000.00, with interest of
12% per annum, from the filing of the Information on
April 13, 2009 until June 30, 2013, and 6% per annum
from July 1, 2013, until full satisfaction.
In Criminal Case No. 139908-SJ for Illegal

Recruitment in Large Scale.
The accused-appellant Jessica Bonifacio y Siao

@ Jessica is sentenced to suffer the penalty of life
imprisonment and a fine of P1,000,000.00.
SO ORDERED.
ORIGINAL SIGNED
MARIA FILOMENA D. SINGH
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ORIGINAL SIGNED ORIGINAL SIGNED

CELIA C. LIBREA-LEAGOGO SAMUEL H. GAERLAN
Associate Justice Associate Justice
DECISION
x-----------------------------------x
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is

hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision were
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court.
ORIGINAL SIGNED
CELIA C. LIBREA-LEAGOGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Sixth Division

Court of Appeals: Republic of The Philippines Manila

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Court of Appeals: Republic of The Philippines Manila

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Republic of the Philippines

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CA-G.R. CR HC No. 06883

LIBREA-LEAGOGO, J., CHAIRPERSON,

This is an appeal from the Joint Decision1 dated November 8, 2013

Accused-Appellant Jessica Bonifacio y Siao @ Jessica (accused-

Criminal Case No. 139906-SJ

“The undersigned Assistant City Prosecutor accused (sic)

That, in or about the period from April 2008 up to

CONTRARY TO LAW.”3 (emphasis not ours)

Criminal Case No. 139907-SJ

“The undersigned Assistant City Prosecutor accused

That, in or about the period from April 2008 up to

within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-

CONTRARY TO LAW.”4 (emphasis not ours)

Criminal Case No. 139908-SJ

“The undersigned Assistant City Prosecutor accuses

That, in or about the period from April 2008 up to

1. Ma. Lourdes C. Matias

without first securing the required license and authority

CONTRARY TO LAW.”5 (emphasis not ours)

Accused-Appellant pleaded “not guilty” to the three charges

The prosecution's evidence

The prosecution presented nine (9) witnesses, namely: (1)

The siblings Ma. Lourdes, a registered nurse, and Ma. Fe, a

Ma. Lourdes, Ma. Fe and Felisa first met the accused-

Accused-Appellant charges a fee of P350,000.00 for every

On November 19, 2008, Felisa deposited the amount of

On November 28, 2008, Felisa again deposited the amount

On December 2, 2008, the mother and daughters deposited

On December 30, 2008, they sent the amount of P20,000.00

Ma. Fe received a confirmation of appointment through the

On January 25, 2009, they went to the office of the accused-

However, by March 2009, almost a month had passed but

On March 19, 2009, they received a handwritten letter from

As they were already in doubt, they decided to go to the

They proceeded to the new place of the accused-appellant

At the very same time, the accused-appellant happened to

On March 27, 2009, Ma. Lourdes, Ma. Fe and Felisa

envelope containing five (5) pieces of P100-peso bills dusted with

Accused-Appellant was subjected to an investigation at San

It was found out that Pacific is not a licensed nor an

For her part, private complainant Roselle was introduced to

Through the initiative of Gina, Roselle and the accused-

Accused-Appellant further told Roselle that she will be

Due to the assurances made by the accused-appellant, on the

Roselle was likewise convinced by the accused-appellant to

On May 16, 2008, she and her husband personally appeared

After about a month, Roselle learned that she and her

Accused-Appellant allegedly filed another application for

Thereafter, accused-appellant again asked Roselle to go to

On February 16, 2009, Roselle came to Manila and

Roselle deposited the check but retrieved it immediately

Roselle then sent a demand letter to the accused-appellant. 59

Roselle and the accused-appellant had no contact since then,

Roselle filed this case because of the failure of the accused-

The Defense Evidence

The accused-appellant maintained that she never engaged in

For one, her business operation is in the nature of a travel

Accused-Appellant explains to clients that although she can

Ma. Lourdes, Catherine and Roselle were all her clients in

Roselle was introduced to her by Gina Valerio, who sought

Accused-Appellant started to gather all the needed

She submitted the documents of Roselle to the UK Embassy