People vs Pabalan : 115350 : September 30, 1996 : J Regalado : Secon... 5 of 10 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/sept1996/115350.htm The accused is ordered to pay the offended party the sum of P66,000.00 CRIMINAL CASE NO. 3092-V-93 Guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Estafa defined and punished under Article 315 (2) (a) of the Revised Penal Code, he is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate imprisonment from EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE (10) DAY of Prision Mayor, as minimum, to FIFTEEN (15) YEARS of Reclusion Temporal, as maximum, with the accessory penalties prescribed by law and to pay the costs. The accused is ordered to pay the offended party the sum of P94,400.00. SO ORDERED. [14] Hence, this appeal, on the ground that the trial court erred in convicting appellant of the crimes of illegal recruitment in large scale and estafa despite the absence of evidence showing [15] his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Upon motion of appellant, the First Division of this Court ordered the consolidation of G.R. Nos. 117819-21 (the appeal in Criminal Case Nos. 3090-V-93, 3091-V-93 and 3092-V-93) with G.R. No. 115350 (the appeal in Criminal Case No. 3089-V[16] 93). His brief filed thereafter presents a slew of arguments seeking to overturn his conviction in the aforementioned cases. Firstly, appellant posits that he cannot be convicted of illegal recruitment because of the absence of receipts indicating that complainants did pay him fees in consideration of his [17] services. Although not all of the amounts testified to by complainants were covered by receipts, the fact that there were no receipts for some of the amounts delivered to him does not mean that appellant did not accept or receive such payments. This Court has ruled in several cases that the absence of receipts in a criminal case for illegal recruitment does not warrant the acquittal of [18] the accused and is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. As long as the witnesses had positively shown through their respective testimonies that the accused is the one involved in the prohibited recruitment, he may be convicted of the offense despite the want of receipts. The Statute of Frauds and the rules of evidence do not require the presentation of receipts in order to prove the existence of a recruitment agreement and the procurement of fees in illegal recruitment cases. The amounts may consequently be proved by the testimony of witnesses. The finding of illegal recruitment in large scale is justified whenever the following elements are present: (1) that the offender engages in the recruitment and placement of workers as defined in Article 13(b) of the Labor Code or in any prohibited activities under Article 34 of the same code; (2) that the offender does not have a license or authority to recruit and deploy workers, either locally or overseas; and (3) that the offender commits the same against three (3) [19] Article 13(b) characterizes recruitment and or more persons, individually or as a group. placement as any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not. It will readily be noted, as earlier explained, that the exhibition of receipts is not necessary for the successful prosecution of the offense of illegal recruitment in large scale. Since all of the above elements were satisfactorily proven by the prosecution before the court a quo through the testimonies of its witnesses and by competent documents, then the non-presentation of receipts should not in any way hinder the conviction of appellant. 1/20/2016 1:00 PM