THIRD
DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE G.R. No. 169076
Appellee, Present:
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.,
Chairperson,
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
- versus
- CALLEJO, SR., and
CHICO-NAZARIO, JJ.
Promulgated:
JOSEPH JAMILOSA,
Appellant.
x - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
This
is an appeal from the Decision[1] of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of P500,000.00 fine.
The Information charging appellant
with large scale illegal recruitment was filed by the Senior State Prosecutor
on
That sometime in the months of January to February, 1996, or thereabout in the City of Quezon, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, representing to have the capacity, authority or license to contract, enlist and deploy or transport workers for overseas employment, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and criminally recruit, contract and promise to deploy, for a fee the herein complainants, namely, Haide R. Ruallo, Imelda D. Bamba, Geraldine M. Lagman and Alma E. Singh, for work or employment in Los Angeles, California, U.S.A. in Nursing Home and Care Center without first obtaining the required license and/or authority from the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA).
Contrary to law.[2]
On
arraignment, the appellant, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty to the
charge.
The case for the prosecution, as synthesized
by the Court of Appeals (CA), is as follows:
The prosecution presented three (3) witnesses, namely: private complainants Imelda D. Bamba, Geraldine M. Lagman and Alma E. Singh.
Witness Imelda D. Bamba testified
that on
On
The appellant promised to see her
and some of his other recruits before their scheduled departure to hand to them
their visas and passports; however, the appellant who was supposed to be with
them in the flight failed to show up.
Instead, the appellant called and informed her that he failed to give
the passport and US visa because he had to go to the province because his wife
died. She and her companions were not
able to leave for the
Prosecution witness Geraldine Lagman,
for her part, testified that she is a registered nurse by profession. In the morning of P3,400.00) as processing fee for other
documents.
On
Four days after their last meeting,
Extelcom, a telephone company, called her because her number was appearing in
the appellant’s cellphone documents. The
caller asked if she knew him because they were trying to locate him, as he was
a swindler who failed to pay his telephone bills in the amount of P100,000.00. She became suspicious and told Bamba about
the matter. One (1) week before her
scheduled flight on
Lastly, witness Alma Singh who is
also a registered nurse, declared that she first met the appellant on
On
She again met the appellant on P10,000.00 covering the
half price of her plane ticket. Singh
did not meet the appellant as agreed upon.
Instead, she went to Bamba to inquire if the latter gave the appellant
the same amount and found out that Bamba has not yet given the said
amount. They then paged the appellant through
his beeper and told him that they wanted to see him. However, the appellant avoided them and
reasoned out that he could not meet them as he had many things to do. When the appellant did not show up, they
decided to file a complaint for illegal recruitment with the NBI.
The prosecution likewise presented the following documentary evidence:
Exh. “A” – Certification dated
Exh. “B” – Affidavit of Alma E.
Singh dated
On
the other hand, the case for the appellant, as culled from his Brief, is as
follows:
Accused JOSEPH JAMILOSA testified on
direct examination that he got acquainted with Imelda Bamba inside an aircon
bus bound for
On
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered
finding accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Recruitment in large
scale; accordingly, he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment
and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00), plus
costs.
Accused is ordered to indemnify each of the complainants, Imelda Bamba, Geraldine Lagman and Alma Singh the amount of Three Hundred US Dollars ($300.00).
SO ORDERED.[6]
In
rejecting the defenses of the appellant, the trial court declared:
To counter the version of the
prosecution, accused claims that he did not recruit the complainants for work
abroad but that it was they who sought his advice relative to their desire to
apply for jobs in
Accused’s contention simply does not hold water. Admittedly, he executed and submitted a counter-affidavit during the preliminary investigation at the Department of Justice, and that he never mentioned the aforesaid certifications, Exhibits 2, 3 and 4 in said counter-affidavit. These certifications were allegedly executed before charges were filed against him. Knowing that he was already being charged for prohibited recruitment, why did he not bring out these certifications which were definitely favorable to him, if the same were authentic. It is so contrary to human nature that one would suppress evidence which would belie the charge against him.
Denials of the accused can not stand against the positive and categorical narration of each complainant as to how they were recruited by accused who had received some amounts from them for the processing of their papers. Want of receipts is not fatal to the prosecution’s case, for as long as it has been shown, as in this case, that accused had engaged in prohibited recruitment. (People v. Pabalan, 262 SCRA 574).
That accused is neither licensed nor authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment, is shown in the Certification issued by POEA, Exh. “A.”
In fine, the offense committed by
the accused is Illegal Recruitment in large scale, it having been committed
against three (3) persons, individually.[7]
Appellant
appealed the decision to this Court on the following assignment of error:
THE TRIAL COURT
ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME OF ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT IN
LARGE SCALE DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE LATTER’S GUILT WAS NOT PROVED BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT BY THE PROSECUTION.[8]
According
to appellant, the criminal Information charging him with illegal recruitment
specifically mentioned the phrase “for a fee,” and as such, receipts to show
proof of payment are indispensable. He
pointed out that the three (3) complaining witnesses did not present even one
receipt to prove the alleged payment of any fee. In its eagerness to cure this
“patent flaw,” the prosecution resorted to presenting the oral testimonies of
complainants which were “contrary to the ordinary course of nature and ordinary
habits of life [under Section 3(y), Rule 131 of the Rules on Evidence] and
defied credulity.” Appellant also
pointed out that complainants’ testimony that they paid him but no receipts
were issued runs counter to the presumption under Section [3](d), Rule 131 of
the Rules on Evidence that persons take ordinary care of their concern. The fact that complainants were not able to
present receipts lends credence to his allegation that it was they who sought
advice regarding their desire to apply for jobs in
Appellee,
through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), countered that the absence
of receipts signed by appellant acknowledging receipt of the money and liquor
from the complaining witnesses cannot defeat the prosecution and conviction for
illegal recruitment. The OSG insisted that the prosecution was able to prove
the guilt of appellant beyond reasonable doubt via the collective testimonies
of the complaining witnesses, which the trial court found credible and
deserving of full probative weight. It
pointed out that appellant failed to prove any ill-motive on the part of the
complaining witnesses to falsely charge him of illegal recruitment.
On appellant’s claim that the
complaining witness Imelda Bamba was his girlfriend, the OSG averred:
Appellant’s self-serving declaration
that Imelda is his girlfriend and that she filed a complaint for illegal recruitment
after they quarreled and separated is simply preposterous. No love letters or other documentary evidence
was presented by appellant to substantiate such claim which could be made with
facility. Imelda has no reason to
incriminate appellant except to seek justice.
The evidence shows that Alma and Geraldine have no previous quarrel with
appellant. Prior to their being recruited
by appellant, Alma and Geraldine have never met appellant. It is against human nature and experience for
private complainants to conspire and accuse a stranger of a most serious crime
just to mollify their hurt feelings. (People v. Coral, 230 SCRA 499, 510
[1994])[10]
The
OSG posited that the appellant’s reliance on the certifications[11]
purportedly signed by the complaining witnesses is misplaced, considering that
the certifications are barren of probative weight.
On
The OSG filed a Supplemental Brief,
while the appellant found no need to file one.
The
appeal has no merit.
Article
13(b) of the Labor Code of the
(b) “Recruitment
and placement” refers to 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. Provided,
That any person or entity which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee
employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and
placement.
Section
6 of R.A. No. 8042 defined when recruitment is illegal:
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. x x x
Any
recruitment activities to be undertaken by non-licensee or non-holder of
contracts shall be deemed illegal and punishable under Article 39 of the Labor
Code of the
To
prove illegal recruitment in large scale, the prosecution is burdened to prove
three (3) essential elements, to wit: (1) the person charged undertook a
recruitment activity under Article 13(b) or any prohibited practice under
Article 34 of the Labor Code; (2) accused did not have the license or the
authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers; and
(3) accused committed the same against three or more persons individually or as
a group.[16] As gleaned from the collective testimonies of
the complaining witnesses which the trial court and the appellate court found
to be credible and deserving of full probative weight, the prosecution mustered
the requisite quantum of evidence to prove the guilt of accused beyond
reasonable doubt for the crime charged. Indeed,
the findings of the trial court, affirmed on appeal by the CA, are conclusive
on this Court absent evidence that the tribunals ignored, misunderstood, or
misapplied substantial fact or other circumstance.
The
failure of the prosecution to adduce in evidence any receipt or document signed
by appellant where he acknowledged to have received money and liquor does not
free him from criminal liability. Even in the absence of money or other
valuables given as consideration for the “services” of appellant, the latter is
considered as being engaged in recruitment activities.
It can be gleaned from the language
of Article 13(b) of the Labor Code that the act of recruitment may be for
profit or not. It is sufficient that the
accused promises or offers for a fee employment to warrant conviction for
illegal recruitment.[17] As the Court held in People v. Sagaydo:[18]
Such is the case before us. The complainants parted with their money upon the prodding and enticement of accused-appellant on the false pretense that she had the capacity to deploy them for employment abroad. In the end, complainants were neither able to leave for work abroad nor get their money back.
The fact that private complainants
Rogelio Tibeb and Jessie Bolinao failed to produce receipts as proof of their
payment to accused-appellant does not free the latter from liability. The absence of receipts cannot defeat a
criminal prosecution for illegal recruitment.
As long as the witnesses can positively show through their respective
testimonies that the accused is the one involved in prohibited recruitment, he
may be convicted of the offense despite the absence of receipts.[19]
Appellant’s
reliance on the certifications purportedly signed by the complaining witnesses
Imelda Bamba, Alma Singh and Geraldine Lagman[20]
is misplaced. Indeed, the trial court
and the appellate court found the certifications barren of credence and
probative weight. We agree with the following
pronouncement of the appellate court:
Anent the claim of the appellant that the trial court erred in not giving weight to the certifications (Exhs. “2,” “3” & “4”) allegedly executed by the complainants to the effect that he did not recruit them and that no money was involved, the same deserves scant consideration.
The appellant testified that he was in possession of the said certifications at the time the same were executed by the complainants and the same were always in his possession; however, when he filed his counter-affidavit during the preliminary investigation before the Department of Justice, he did not mention the said certifications nor attach them to his counter-affidavit.
We find it unbelievable that the appellant, a college graduate, would not divulge the said certifications which would prove that, indeed, he is not an illegal recruiter. By failing to present the said certifications prior to the trial, the appellant risks the adverse inference and legal presumption that, indeed, such certifications were not genuine. When a party has it in his possession or power to produce the best evidence of which the case in its nature is susceptible and withholds it, the fair presumption is that the evidence is withheld for some sinister motive and that its production would thwart his evil or fraudulent purpose. As aptly pointed out by the trial court:
“x x x These certifications were allegedly executed
before charges were filed against him. Knowing that he was already being charged
for prohibited recruitment, why did he not bring out these certifications which
were definitely favorable to him, if the same were authentic. It is so contrary to human nature that one
would suppress evidence which would belie the charge against him.” (Emphasis Ours)[21]
At
the preliminary investigation, appellant was furnished with copies of the
affidavits of the complaining witnesses and was required to submit his
counter-affidavit. The complaining
witnesses identified him as the culprit who “recruited” them. At no time did appellant present the
certifications purportedly signed by the complaining witnesses to belie the
complaint against him. He likewise did
not indicate in his counter-affidavit that the complaining witnesses had
executed certifications stating that they were not recruited by him and that he
did not receive any money from any of them.
He has not come forward with any valid excuse for his inaction. It was only when he testified in his defense that
he revealed the certifications for the first time. Even then, appellant lied when he claimed
that he did not submit the certifications because the State Prosecutor did not require
him to submit any counter-affidavit, and that he was told that the criminal
complaint would be dismissed on account of the failure of the complaining
witnesses to appear during the preliminary investigation. The prevarications of appellant were exposed
by Public Prosecutor Pedro Catral on cross-examination, thus:
Q Mr. Witness, you said that a preliminary investigation [was] conducted by the Department of Justice through State Prosecutor Dañosos. Right?
A Yes, Sir.
Q Were you requested to file your Counter-Affidavit?
A Yes, Sir. I was required.
Q Did you file your Counter-Affidavit?
A Yes, Sir, but he did not accept it.
Q Why?
A Because he said “never mind” because the witness is not appearing so he dismissed the case.
Q Are you sure that he did not accept your Counter-Affidavit, Mr. Witness?
A I don’t know of that, Sir.
Q If I show you that Counter-Affidavit you said you prepared, will you be able to identify the same, Mr. Witness?
A Yes, Sir.
Q I will show you the Counter-Affidavit dated
A Yes, Sir. This the same Counter-Affidavit.
Q There is a signature over the typewritten name Joseph J. Jamilosa, will you please go over this and tell this Honorable Court if this is your signature, Mr. Witness?
A Yes, Sir. This is my signature.
Q During the direct examination you were asked
to identify [the] Certification as Exh. “2” dated
A That is the date, Sir.
Q You mean the date appearing in the Certification.
A Yes, Sir.
Q Where was this handed to you by Imelda Bamba, Mr. Witness?
A At SM North Edsa, Sir.
Q During the direct examination you were also
asked to identify a Certification Exh. “3” for the defense dated
A On
Q And also during the direct examination, you
were asked to identify a Certification which was already marked as Exh. “4” for
the defense dated
A
Q During that time,
A Yes, Sir.
Q These were always in your possession. Right?
A Yes, Sir, with my papers.
Q Do you know when did the complainants file cases against you?
A I don’t know, Sir.
Q Alright.
I will read to you this Counter-Affidavit of yours, and I quote “I,
Joseph Jamilosa, of legal age, married and resident of Manila City Jail, after
having duly sworn to in accordance with law hereby depose and states that: 1)
the complainants sworn under oath to the National Bureau of Investigation that
I recruited them and paid me certain sums of money assuming that there is truth
in those allegation of this (sic) complainants. The charge filed by them should be
immediately dismissed for certain lack of merit in their Sworn Statement to the
NBI Investigator; 2) likewise, the complainants’ allegation is not true and I
never recruited them to work abroad and that they did not give me money, they
asked me for some help so I [helped] them in assisting and processing the
necessary documents, copies for getting US Visa; 3) the complainant said under
oath that they can show a receipt to prove that they can give me sums or amount
of money. That is a lie. They sworn (sic), under oath, that they can show a receipt that I gave to them
to prove that I got the money from them.
I asked the kindness of the state prosecutor to ask the complainants to
show and produce the receipts that I gave to them that was stated in the sworn
statement of the NBI; 4) the allegation of the complainants that the charges
filed by them should be dismissed because I never [received] any amount from
them and they can not show any receipt that I gave them,” Manila City Jail,
Philippines, June 16, 1997. So, Mr.
Witness,
A Yes, Sir.
Q Now, my question to you, Mr. Witness, you said that you have with you all the time the Certification issued by [the] three (3) complainants in this case, did you allege in your Counter-Affidavit that this Certification you said you claimed they issued to you?
A I did not say that, Sir.
Q So, it is not here in your Counter-Affidavit?
A None, Sir.
Q What is your educational attainment, Mr. Witness?
A I am a graduate of AB Course Associate Arts in 1963 at the University of the East.
Q You said that the State Prosecutor of the Department of Justice did not accept your Counter-Affidavit, are you sure of that, Mr. Witness?
A Yes, Sir.
Q Did you receive a copy of the dismissal which you said it was dismissed?
A No, Sir. I did not receive anything.
Q Did you receive a resolution from the Department of Justice?
A No, Sir.
Q Did you go over the said resolution you said you received here?
A I just learned about it now, Sir.
Q Did you read the content of the resolution?
A Not yet, Sir. It’s only now that I am going to read.
COURT
Q You said it was dismissed. Correct?
A Yes, Your Honor.
Q Did you receive a resolution of this dismissal?
A No, Your Honor.
FISCAL CATRAL
Q What did you receive?
A I did not receive any resolution, Sir. It’s just now that I learned about the finding.
Q You said you learned here in court, did you read the resolution filed against you, Mr. Witness?
A I did not read it, Sir.
Q Did you read by yourself the resolution made by State Prosecutor Dañosos, Mr. Witness?
A Not yet, Sir.
Q What did you take, if any, when you received the subpoena from this court?
A I was in court already when I asked Atty. Usita to investigate this case.
Q You said a while ago that your Affidavit was not accepted by State Prosecutor Dañosos. Is that correct?
A Yes, Sir.
Q Will you please read to us paragraph four (4), page two (2) of this resolution of State Prosecutor Dañosos.
(witness reading par. 4 of the resolution)
Alright. What did you understand of this paragraph 4, Mr. Witness?
A Probably, guilty to the offense charge.[22]
It
turned out that appellant requested the complaining witnesses to sign the
certifications merely to prove that he was settling the cases:
COURT
Q These complainants, why did you make them sign in the certifications?
A Because one of the complainants told me to sign and they are planning to sue me.
Q You mean they told you that they are filing charges against you and yet you [made] them sign certifications in your favor, what is the reason why you made them sign?
A To prove that I’m settling this case.
Q Despite the fact that they are filing cases against you and yet you were able to make them sign certifications?
A Only one person, Your Honor, who told me and he is not around.
Q But they all signed these three (3) certifications and yet they filed charges against you and yet you made them sign certifications in your favor, so what is the reason why you made them sign?
(witness can not answer)[23]
The
Court notes that the trial court ordered appellant to refund US$300.00 to each
of the complaining witnesses. The ruling
of the appellate court must be modified.
Appellant must pay only the peso equivalent of US$300.00 to each of the
complaining witnesses.
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the
appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals affirming
the conviction of Joseph Jamilosa for large scale illegal recruitment under
Sections 6 and 7 of Republic Act No. 8042 is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION. The appellant is hereby ordered to
refund to each of the complaining witnesses the peso equivalent of US$300.00. Costs against appellant.
SO ORDERED.
ROMEO J.
CALLEJO, SR.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice Associate Justice
I
attest 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’s
Division.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the
Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, 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’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Penned by Judge Lydia Querubin Layosa; CA rollo, pp. 51-56.
[2] Records, p. 7.
[3] CA rollo, pp. 130-135.
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11] Exhibits “2,” “3” and “4,” records, pp. 189-191.
[12] CA rollo, p. 127.
[13]
[14] Labor Code, Art. 38(a).
[15] Labor Code, Art. 38(b).
[16] People v. Dionisio, 425 Phil. 651, 665
(2002).
[17] People v. Dela Piedra, 403 Phil. 31, 51
(2001).
[18] 395 Phil. 538 (2000).
[19]
[20] Exhibits “2,” “3” and “4,” supra note 11.
[21] Rollo, pp. 13-14.
[22] TSN,
[23] TSN,