SECOND DIVISION
THE
PEOPLE OF THE
Appellee, [Formerly G.R.
No. 156497]
Present:
QUISUMBING,
J.,
- versus
- Chairperson,
CARPIO
MORALES,
TINGA,
VELASCO, JR., and
MARCOS
GANIGAN, BRION, JJ.
Appellant.
Promulgated:
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
Tinga,
J.:
Before us for automatic review is the
Decision[1]
dated
In an Information filed before the RTC,
accused Ruth, Monchito, Eddie, Avelin Sulaiman and Marcos (appellant), all
surnamed Ganigan, were charged with illegal recruitment committed as follows:
That
sometime between the period from July and August 1998 in Plaridel, Bulacan and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, representing
themselves to have the capacity to contract, enlist and transport workers for
employment in New Zealand, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one
another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously recruit for a
fee the following persons namely: MAURO EUSEBIO, VALENTINO CRISOSTOMO and
LEONORA DOMINGO, all residents of Sto. Niño, Plaridel, Bulacan for employment
in
CONTRARY TO LAW.[4]
Only appellant was arrested. The other accused remained at large.
Appellant,
assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty on arraignment. Trial ensued.
The
three private complainants, Leonora Domingo (Leonora), Mauro Reyes (Mauro), and
Valentino Crisostomo (Valentino), testified for the prosecution.
They narrated that they first met appellant
in the house of Manolito Reyes in Plaridel, Bulacan in June 1998. Appellant allegedly made representations to
private complainants, among others, that his brother, Monchito, and his sister-in-law,
Ruth, had the capacity to recruit apple and grape pickers for employment in
On
Each member of the group was asked to
pay P2,000.00 as assurance fee.[8] Leonora paid an additional P400.00 for
her National Statistics Office-issued birth certificate,[9] P500.00 for physical examination and P320.00 for
medical fee.[10] Mauro gave an additional P320.00 for
medical expenses[11] whereas
Valentino shelled out P180.00 for pictures, P1,000.00 for
bio-data and P350.00 for medical examination.[12] The
three attested that appellant received their payment and a document was
prepared by one of their companions as evidence of the receipt.[13] The exhibits submitted by the prosecution
show that Monchito acknowledged having received a total of P101,480.00
from various applicants.[14] Other documents showed that appellant and
Ruth received payment from the applicants.[15]
Ruth
and appellant allegedly promised them that they would leave for
They learned that appellant, Ruth and
Monchito do not have the authority to recruit workers for employment abroad.[16] Certifications to that effect were issued by
the POEA.[17]
Appellant
denied having recruited private complainants for work abroad. He claimed that he himself was also a victim as
he had also paid P3,000.00 for himself and P2,000.00 for his
daughter. He likewise attended the bible
study sessions as a requirement for the overseas employment.[18] He contended that he was merely implicated in
the case because he was the only one apprehended among the accused.[19]
The
trial court rendered judgment convicting appellant of the crime of illegal
recruitment. The dispositive portion of
the decision reads:
Wherefore,
all premises considered, this Court finds and so holds that the prosecution was
able to establish by proof beyond reasonable doubt the criminal culpability of
the accused Marcos Ganigan on the offense charged against him. Accordingly, this Court finds him guilty of
the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale resulting in economic sabotage
as defined under Section 6 and penalized under Section 7(b) of Republic Act No.
8042, otherwise known as the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of
1995. Accordingly, he is sentenced to
suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00.
Accused Marcos Ganigan is also
directed to pay complainants Leonora Domingo, Mauro Reyes and Valentino
Crisostomo the amounts of P2,400.00 each plus the sum of P500.00
for Leonora Domingo for actual damages and P25,000.00 as and for moral
damages.
With regard to accused Ruth Ganigan,
Monchito Ganigan, Eddie Ganigan and Avelin Sulaiman Ganigan, who remain at
large until this time, the case against them is ordered archived. Let an alias Warrant of arrest be issued for
their apprehension.
SO ORDERED.[20]
The trial court found that all elements
of illegal recruitment in large scale had been established through the
testimonial and documentary evidence of the prosecution.
In view of the penalty imposed, the
case was elevated to this Court on automatic review. However, this Court resolved to transfer the
case to the Court of Appeals for intermediate review in light of our ruling in People v. Mateo.[21]
On
Upon receipt of the unfavorable
decision, appellant filed a notice of appeal.
On
Appellant argues
that the prosecution has failed to establish his guilt beyond reasonable
doubt. He maintains that he did not
participate in any recruitment activity and that the alleged payments made by
private complainants were for membership in the Christian Catholic Mission, as
shown by the fact that private complainants have regularly attended bible study
sessions from 5 July to November 1998.
He also points out that nothing on record would show that the necessary
training or orientation seminar pertaining to the supposed employment has ever
been conducted.
Assuming arguendo that the Christian Catholic Mission
was only a front to an illegal venture, appellant avers that he was not part of
the conspiracy because he was a victim himself as he in fact also paid
assurance fees for membership in the Christian Catholic Mission. He laments that aside from introducing
private complainants to Ruth, he has not done any other act tantamount to
recruitment.
The OSG
defended the decision of the trial court in giving full faith and credence to
the testimonies of the complaining witnesses.
It contends that there is no showing that the victims were impelled by
any ill motive to falsely testify against appellant. It asserts that the collective testimony of
the witnesses has categorically established appellant’s participation in the
crime.[24]
The crime of
illegal recruitment is committed when these two elements concur: (1) the
offenders have no valid license or authority required by law to enable them to
lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers; and (2) the
offenders undertake any activity within the meaning of recruitment and
placement defined in Article 13(b) or any prohibited practices enumerated in
Article 34 of the Labor Code. In case of
illegal recruitment in large scale, a third element is added – that the accused
commits the acts against three or more persons, individually or as a group.[25]
Article 13(b)
defines recruitment and 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.” In the simplest terms, illegal
recruitment is committed by persons who, without authority from the government,
give the impression that they have the power to send workers abroad for
employment purposes.[26]
Since
appellant, along with the other accused, made misrepresentations concerning
their purported power and authority to recruit for overseas employment, and in
the process collected from private complainants various amounts in the guise of
placement fees, the former clearly committed acts constitutive of illegal
recruitment. In fact, this Court held that illegal recruiters need not even
expressly represent themselves to the victims as persons who have the ability
to send workers abroad. It is enough that these recruiters give the impression
that they have the ability to enlist workers for job placement abroad in order
to induce the latter to tender payment of fees.[27]
It is clear
from the testimonies of private complainants that appellant undertook to
recruit them for a purported employment in
Private
complainants testified in a clear, positive and straightforward manner. Leonora testified that appellant recruited
her to work in P2,000.00. She later learned that appellant and his cohorts
had not been licensed by the POEA to recruit for overseas employment.[28] On cross-examination, she confirmed that she
turned over the amount of fees to appellant with the understanding that such
payment was for employment abroad.[29]
Mauro
similarly recounted that he was introduced to Monchito and Ruth by appellant as
an applicant for farm work in P2,000.00
as assurance fee, which he paid to appellant.
When he was unable to leave, he checked with the POEA and found out that
appellant had no license to recruit.[30]
During the cross-examination, Mauro was firm in his stance that he paid
the amount of P2,000.00 as assurance of employment in
Valentino’s testimony corroborated that of Leonora and Mauro.[32]
The trial
court found these testimonies credible and convincing.
Well-settled
is the doctrine that great weight is accorded to the factual findings of the
trial court particularly on the ascertainment of the credibility of witnesses;
this can only be discarded or disturbed when it appears in the record that the
trial court overlooked, ignored or disregarded some fact or circumstance of
weight or significance which if considered would have altered the result.[33] In the present case, we find no reason to
depart from the rule.
Verily, we agree with the OSG that the
testimonies of private complainants have adequately established the elements of
the crime, as well as appellant’s indispensable participation therein. Appellant recruited at least three persons,
the private complainants in this case, giving them the impression that he and
his relatives had the capability of sending them to
Appellant miserably failed to
convince this Court that the payments made by the complainants were actually
for their membership in the religious organization. He did not present any document to prove this
allegation.
For their part, private complainants
were adamant that the payments made to appellant were for purposes of
employment to
Moreover, appellant has failed to
rebut the evidence presented by the prosecution consisting of a receipt of
payment signed by him.[34] His flimsy denial that the signature on the
receipt was not his own does not merit consideration in light of the trial
court’s contrary finding.
As between the positive and
categorical testimonies of private complainants and the unsubstantiated denial
proffered by appellant, this Court is inclined to give more weight to the
former.
In sum, appellant is correctly found
guilty of large scale illegal recruitment tantamount to economic sabotage.
Under Section 7(b) of Republic Act
No. 8042, the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of not less than P500,000.00
nor more than P1,000.000.00 shall be imposed if illegal recruitment
constitutes economic sabotage.
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No.
00867 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES PRESBITERO J.
VELASCO, JR.
Associate
Justice Associate Justice
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson,
Second Division
CERTIFICATION
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 had been 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]Rollo, pp. 3-14; penned by Associate Justice Arturo G. Tayag and concurred in by Associate Justices Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Noel G. Tijam.
[28]TSN,