Republic of the
SUPREME COURT
SECOND DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE
Plaintiff-Appellee,
Present:
QUISUMBING,
J., Chairperson,
- versus - CARPIO MORALES,
TINGA,
VELASCO,
JR., and
BRION, JJ.
GLORIA BARTOLOME, Promulgated:
Accused-Appellant.
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
VELASCO, JR., J.:
On
September 6, 1989, in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Naic, Cavite, the
Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Cavite filed eight (8) separate
Informations, four (4) for Illegal Recruitment and four (4) for Estafa, against accused-appellant Gloria Bartolome
and Lidelia Capawan. Docketed as Crim.
Case Nos. NC-354 to NC-361, the cases were eventually raffled to Branch 15 of
the court. Except for the names of the offended party and/or the amount
involved, the following informations in Crim. Case No. NC-354 for illegal
recruitment and Crim. Case No. NC-358 for estafa, as hereunder indicated,
typified the other informations for the crime of illegal recruitment and estafa,
as the case may be:
For Illegal Recruitment -
That on or about the period from
July to September 1988 or for sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in the
Municipality of Indang, Province of Cavite, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring,
confederating and mutually helping one another, with grave abuse of trust and
confidence reposed on them, with deliberate intent to defraud, by falsely
representing themselves to have the capacity to contract, enlist and recruit
workers abroad, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously for
a fee, recruit and promise employment/job placement in
CONTRARY TO LAW.
For Estafa –
That on or about the period from July to September 1988 or for sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in the Municipality of Indang, Province of Cavite, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another with deliberate intent to defraud with grave abuse of trust and confidence reposed on them, with false manifestation and misrepresentation pretending themselves that they possessed power and influence to recruit workers for employment abroad, obligated themselves to seek and facilitate employment abroad of Fe Rollon as saleslady in Bahrain and pursuant to said obligation received from Fe Rollon the total amount of P16,500.00, given them in Indang, Cavite and Makati, Metro Manila on different dates but accused upon receipt and possession of the aforementioned amount of P16,500.00 and far from complying with their obligation, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously misapply, misappropriate and convert the aforesaid amount of P16,500.00 to their own use and benefits and despite repeated demands made to make good of their promise and/or return the amount taken and/or received from the said victim, accused failed and refused to do so, thereby resulting to the damage and prejudice of said Fe Rollon in the aforesaid amount of P16,500.00.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Of
the two accused named in the informations, only accused-appellant Bartolome was
brought under the jurisdiction of the RTC, Capawan being then and still is at
large. When arraigned, accused-appellant entered a plea of not guilty to all
charges. Thereafter, by agreement of the parties, all eight (8) cases were
tried jointly.
The four (4) private complainants, Fe Rollon,
Raymundo Dimatulac, Esperanza Buhay, and Reynaldo Rollon, each charging
accused-appellant with one count of illegal recruitment and one count of
estafa, were all from Calumpang Lejos, Indang, Cavite, like accused-appellant.[1]
Buhay, presented as common prosecution witness for all cases, testified seeing accused-appellant,
her husband, and Capawan, sometime in July 1988, walking around Calumpang Lejos
making it appear that they were badly in need of workers for overseas
employment. When asked, Buhay evinced interest to work abroad and, upon being
assured by accused-appellant and Capawan of the genuineness of their offer,
later gave the two a sum of money to cover medical, processing, and passport
fees. And very much later, Buhay paid accused-appellant and Capawan, in
Dimatulac, on the other hand,
testified that he was given a run around about his departure for
With slight variations, complaining witnesses
Fe and Reynaldo gave parallel accounts about their dealings with the reneging
accused-appellant and Capawan, particularly with respect to personally meeting
the latter two who offered overseas job placements in Bahrain, being asked to pay and paying the processing
and placement fees, and being given a photocopy of a plane ticket.
Accused-appellant
denied the accusations against her and disclaimed ever pretending to possess
power and influence to recruit and secure overseas employment for private
complainants. She claimed that the private complainants were only out to
blackmail her because the wife of her brother-in-law is related to Capawan, who
actually did the recruiting; and that her husband and her brother-in-law were
themselves victims of Capawan’s recruitment activities.
In a consolidated decision[2]
dated
WHEREFORE, this Court finds accused
Gloria Bartolome guilty beyond reasonable doubt of four (4) counts or offenses
of illegal recruitment designated in Criminal Cases Nos. 354, 355, 356 and 357
under Art. 38, para. (b), Labor Code of the
Similarly, this Court finds said accused guilty beyond any shadow of doubt of four (4) counts or offenses of estafa under Art. 315, 2(A) [of the Revised Penal Code], and shall, for each count or offense designated in Crim. Case Nos. 358, 359, 360 and 361, suffer an imprisonment of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period, or six (6) years, eight (8) months and 21 days to eight (8) years.
Additionally, the said accused shall indemnify:
Fe Rollon, P16,500.00
Esperanza Buhay, P16,500.00
Reynaldo Rollon, P16,500.00
Raymundo Dimatulac, P15,850.00
The services of the foregoing imposed penalties of imprisonment shall be successive pursuant to Art. 70, Revised Penal Code.
With costs.
SO ORDERED.
In due time,
accused-appellant went to the Court of Appeals (CA) whereat her appellate
recourse was docketed as CA-G.R. CR No. 14239.
On
WHEREFORE,
the appealed Decision of
In view of the penalty of Life Imprisonment imposed on appellant Gloria Bartolome, the Division Clerk of Court is hereby ORDERED TO REFRAIN FROM ENTERING JUDGMENT and to forthwith elevate the records of the case to the Supreme Court for review, pursuant to Sec. 13, Rule 124 of the Rules of Court.
SO ORDERED. (Emphasis added.)
The
appellate court predicated its modificatory action on the following premises:
Appellant was charged and convicted of illegally recruiting four people and her crime is classified as Illegal Recruitment committed in large scale, and as such it is considered as involving economic sabotage. Said crime carries with it the penalty of Life Imprisonment and a fine of P100,000.00. x x x
In view of the penalty of life imprisonment imposed in CA-G.R. CR No.
14239, the CA forwarded the records of the case to the Court which docketed the
same as G.R. No. 128881.
In the meantime, accused-appellant
moved for reconsideration of the CA’s
Per Resolution[5]
dated
By Resolution dated
This brings us to G.R. No. 129486,
the case certified to the Court in view of the modified penalty of life
imprisonment the CA imposed on, but did not enter against, accused-appellant
for her conviction on the illegal recruitment in the large scale charge. It is over 10 years since accused-appellant
jumped bail. The deferred judicial
review of the certified case may now proceed without awaiting for her arrest.
Accused-appellant’s
underlying position is set forth in her “PETITION”[10]
urging this Court to acquit her of the crimes of illegal recruitment and estafa.
In it, she alleges that the CA erred “in affirming the decision of the lower
court finding her guilty beyond reasonable doubt of four (4) counts of illegal
recruitment and four (4) counts of estafa under Article 15 of the Revised Penal
Code.”
In
fine, accused-appellant assails the credibility of the four (4) private
complainants and the adequacy of the plaintiff-appellee’s evidence. Even as she
denies making representation about having the authority and capacity to recruit
and deploy workers abroad, accused-appellant insists that Capawan,
confederating with a Thai national, was the illegal recruiter.
The
Court is not convinced.
Illegal
recruitment is committed when two (2) elements concur: First, the
offender does not have the required license or authority to engage in the
recruitment and placement of workers. Second, the offender undertook (1)
recruitment and placement activity defined under Article 13(b) of the Labor
Code or (2) any prohibited practice under Art. 34 of the same code. Illegal recruitment is qualified into large
scale, when three or more persons, individually or as group, are victimized.[11]
Art.
13(b) of the Labor Code defines recruitment and placement, as follows:
x x x [A]ny 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.
After a circumspect review of the records, the Court is fully
convinced as to accused-appellant’s guilt of the crime of illegal recruitment
in large scale. The first element is present. Accused-appellant had not shown
any license to recruit or engage in placement activities. As found by the trial
court, the POEA no less initiated the filing of the complaints against
accused-appellant, a reality which argues against the existence of such license
or authority.
The second element also obtains. On
separate occasions, accused-appellant approached and recruited at least four
(4) persons at the same place and at about the same time, giving them the
impression that she and Capawan had the capability to send them to
The
private complainants were positive and categorical in their testimonies that
they personally met accused-appellant and that she asked for, among others,
placement fee in consideration for the promised employment in
Accused-appellant
cannot plausibly escape liability for her criminal acts by conveniently
pointing to and passing the blame on Capawan as the illegal recruiter. Like the
trial court, we entertain serious doubts on this self-serving and gratuitous
version of accused-appellant. What is more, her denials cannot prevail over the
positive declaration of the prosecution witnesses. It is basic that affirmative
testimony of persons who are eyewitnesses of the events or facts asserted
easily overrides negative testimony.[14]
The
crime of illegal recruitment in large scale is punishable under Art. 39(a) of
the Labor Code, as amended, with life imprisonment and a fine of PhP 100,000. The CA, accordingly, imposed the right
penalty.
IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Court
hereby AFFIRMS the Decision and
Resolution dated February 19, 1997 and June 5, 1997, respectively, of the CA
insofar as it convicted accused-appellant of illegal recruitment in a large scale and
sentenced her to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of one hundred thousand
pesos (PhP 100,000).
Let copies of this Decision be
furnished the NBI and the PNP which are hereby commanded to arrest accused-appellant
Gloria Bartolome whose last known address is at Bacao 2, Gen. Trias Cavite and
commit her in the Correctional Institution for Women.
Costs against accused-appellant.
SO ORDERED.
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
Associate Justice
Chairperson
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ARTURO D.
BRION
Associate Justice
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.
Pursuant to Section 13,
Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I
certify 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
[3]