Dear PAO,

My neighbor convinced me to work abroad. She assured me of a good salary and yearly benefits, and said that she would handle the processing of all necessary documents for my deployment. I paid her a total amount of P120,000. But during my flight to Taiwan, the Taiwanese authorities did not accept my documents.

Hence, I filed a case for illegal recruitment and estafa against my neighbor. However, the case for illegal recruitment was dismissed by the regional trial court. My neighbor argued that the estafa case should also be dismissed because it was based on the same set of facts. I want to know whether or not estafa and illegal recruitment can proceed separately.

Charm

Dear Charm,

According to Article 315 (2) (a) of the Revised Penal Code, there are three ways of committing estafa: (1) with unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence; (2) by means of false pretenses or fraudulent acts; or (3) through fraudulent means. To make it concise, the three ways of committing estafa may be reduced to two: by means of abuse of confidence; or by means of deceit.

The following are the elements of estafa: (1) the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit; and (2) that damage and prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party or third person.

The question now is if the cases of illegal recruitment and estafa may be filed independently. The answer is in the affirmative. In the case of Rosita Sy vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 183879, 14 April 2010, the Supreme Court, through Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, ruled that illegal recruitment and estafa cases may be filed simultaneously or separately. The filing of charges for illegal recruitment does not bar the filing of estafa, and vice versa, to wit:

“Illegal recruitment and estafa cases may be filed simultaneously or separately. The filing of charges for illegal recruitment does not bar the filing of estafa, and vice versa. Sy’s acquittal in the illegal recruitment case does not prove that she is not guilty of estafa. Illegal recruitment and estafa are entirely different offenses and neither one necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the other. A person who is convicted of illegal recruitment may, in addition, be convicted of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the RPC. In the same manner, a person acquitted of illegal recruitment may be held liable for estafa. Double jeopardy will not set in because illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum, in which there is no necessity to prove criminal intent, whereas estafa is malum in se, in the prosecution of which, proof of criminal intent is necessary.”

It is clear from the above-quoted decision of the Supreme Court that a person who was acquitted on an illegal recruitment case does not automatically mean that the case for estafa against him/her premised on the same circumstances should also be dismissed.

In your case, although the illegal recruitment case against your neighbor was dismissed, this does not automatically mean that the case of estafa against him/her will also be dismissed. She/he may still be held liable for estafa, provided that the elements of the crime are proven in court.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice was based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.

We appreciate your trust and support.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to [email protected]