THIRD DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF
THE Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus - NENITA B. HU, Accused-Appellant. |
|
G.R. No. 182232 Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., Chairperson, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CHICO-NAZARIO, NACHURA, and
REYES, JJ. Promulgated: |
x-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
CHICO-NAZARIO,
J.:
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by accused-appellant Nenita
B. Hu (Hu) seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision[1]
of the Court of Appeals dated 9 October 2007 in CA-G.R.-CR.-H.C. No. 02243,
affirming with modification the Decision[2]
dated 4 January 2005 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 66,
in Criminal Case No. 03-356. The RTC in its Decision found Hu guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale, as defined
and penalized under Section 7(b) of Republic Act No. 8042,[3]
and accordingly, sentenced her to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment, to
pay the fine of P500,000.00,
and to indemnify private complainants Paul Abril (Abril), Joel Panguelo
(Panguelo) and Evangeline Garcia (Garcia) in the amounts of P44,000.00, P50,000 and P50,000, respectively. The
decretal part of the assailed Court of Appeals Decision reads:
Wherefore, in the light of the foregoing
disquisitions, the decision of the
As modified, the award of actual damages in the amount
of P50,000 in favor of Evangeline Garcia, is DELETED.[4]
The antecedent facts are
as follows:
An Information[5] for Illegal
Recruitment in Large Scale was filed against
Hu and Ethel V. Genoves (Genoves) which reads:
The undersigned Prosecutor
accuses Ethel V. Genoves a.k.a. Merry Ann Genoves and Nenita B. Hu, of the
crime of Violation of Section 6 penalized under Section 7(b) of RA 8042[6]
(Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale) committed as follows:
That on or about the 9th day of October 2001,
in the City of Makati, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together
and both of them helping and aiding one another, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously recruit, promise employment/job placement abroad for
an overseas employment and collect fees from the following persons to wit:
NOEL P. DELAYUN JOEY
F. SILAO
JOEL U.
PANGUELO PAUL C. ABRIL
EVANGELINE
E. GARCIA ERIC V. ORILLANO
thus in large scale
amounting to economic sabotage without any license or authorized by the POEA of
the Department of Labor and Employment to recruit workers for an overseas
employment.
Upon arraignment, Hu assisted by counsel entered a plea of not guilty
while Genoves remained at large.[7] Subsequently, trial on the merits
ensued. While the Information for
illegal recruitment named several persons as having been promised jobs by Hu
and Genoves, only four of them – Panguelo, Garcia, Abril and Orillano --
testified.
Hu was the President of Brighturn
International Services, Inc. (Brighturn), a land-based recruitment
agency duly licensed by the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA) to
engage in the business of recruitment and placement of workers abroad, with
principal address at
Genoves worked as a consultant and
marketing officer of Brighturn. Aside
from her stint at Brighturn, Genoves was also connected with Riverland
Consultancy Service (Riverland), another recruitment agency located at Room No.
210,
Private complainants Orillano,
Panguelo, Abril and Garcia sought employment at Brighturn for the
positions of factory worker and electronic operator in
Sometime in June 2001, Panguelo was informed by a friend that Brighturn was
hiring factory workers for P50,000.00. Upon Hu’s instruction,
Panguelo paid in full the placement fee in the amount of P50,000.00 to Genoves. The payment
was evidenced by an Official Receipt dated
Also sometime in September 2001, Abril went to Brighturn to apply as a
factory worker in P44,000.00. As shown in Official
Receipts dated P44,000.00 as placement fee. Abril was
assured by Hu that he would be deployed to
For his
part, Orillano came to know of Brighturn thru Genoves. Orillano was interviewed
at Brighturn by a Taiwanese principal in
October 2001. After the interview, Hu informed Orillano to submit a medical
certificate, NBI clearance and passport; and to pay the requisite placement fee
in the amount of P50,000.00. Believing that Hu could send him abroad, Orillano
faithfully complied with these requirements including the placement fee, the
payment of which was made to Genoves at Brighturn’s office. Despite such payment, however, Orillano was
not able to leave the country.[12]
Garcia suffered the same fate as her
co-applicants. In April 2002, Garcia applied as Electronic Operator at
Brighturn wherein she was entertained by Hu who informed her that Brighturn’s license was suspended. Garcia was then referred by Hu to Best One
International (Best One), another recruitment agency likewise located in
Malate, P60,000.00 was paid by Garcia to Hu and Genoves as
placement fee upon Hu’s
instruction. Almost predictably, the
promise of an employment abroad never came to pass.[13]
When Hu was not able to refund the amounts
paid as placement fees upon demand, private complainants went to NBI to file a
complaint for illegal recruitment against Hu and Genoves.
For her
defense, Hu claimed that she was the President of Brighturn, a duly authorized land-based
recruitment agency. Brighturn had
foreign principals in
Hu admitted
knowing the private complainants because these individuals went to her office
demanding the return of their placement fees by showing their official
receipts. Hu averred that when she
examined such receipts, she found that private complainants paid their
placement fees to Riverland and not to Brighturn as shown in the heading of the
said receipts which bore the name and address of Riverland and its proprietress,
Genoves. Hu denied knowing Genoves.[15]
On
WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused Nenita Hu guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale
under Section 6 and 7(b) of Republic Act No. 8042, and, accordingly, sentences
the accused to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment, pay the fine of P500,000.00
and to indemnify private complainants Paul Abril in the amount of P44,000.00,
Joel Panguelo in the amount of P50,000.00 and Evangeline Garcia in the
amount of P50,000.00.
The
Court of Appeals, in its Decision[17]
dated P50,000.00 be deleted.
Hence,
this Petition raising the sole issue of:
WHETHER OR NOT THE
Hu
was charged with and convicted by the trial court of the crime of Illegal
Recruitment in Large Scale, which conviction was affirmed by the Court of
Appeals. The appellate court found that Hu made enticing, albeit empty promises,
which moved private complainants to part with their money and pay the placement
fee.
For
its part, the Solicitor General joined the lower courts in finding that Hu was
indeed guilty of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale. According to the Solicitor General, all the
elements of illegal recruitment in large scale had been established beyond
reasonable doubt.[18]
We cannot sustain the conviction for
illegal recruitment in large scale.
Illegal
recruitment is committed when two elements concur, namely: (1) the offender has
no valid license or authority required by law to enable him to lawfully engage
in the recruitment and placement of workers; and (2) he undertakes any activity
within the meaning of “recruitment and placement” defined under Article 13(b)
of the Labor Code.[19] Recruitment and placement is “any act of
canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or
procuring workers; and includes referrals, contact 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.”[20]
The
crime becomes Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale when the foregoing two
elements concur, with the addition of a third element – the recruiter committed
the same against three or more persons, individually or as group.[21]
A conviction for large scale illegal
recruitment must be based on a finding in each case of illegal recruitment of
three or more persons whether individually or as a group. While it is true that the law does not
require that at least three victims testify at the trial, nevertheless, it is
necessary that there is sufficient evidence proving that the offense was
committed against three or more persons.[22]
In the appreciation of evidence in
criminal cases, it is a basic tenet that the prosecution has the burden of
proof in establishing the guilt of the accused for the offense with which he is
charged. Ei incumbit probation qui dicit
non qui negat; i.e., “he who
asserts, not he who denies, must prove.” The conviction of appellant must rest
not on the weakness of his defense, but on the strength of the prosecution’s
evidence.[23]
In the case at bar, the prosecution
failed to adduce sufficient evidence to prove that illegal recruitment was
committed against three or more persons.
What we have uncovered upon careful scrutiny of the records was the fact
that illegal recruitment was committed against only one person; that is,
against Garcia alone. Illegal recruitment cannot successfully
attach to the allegations of Panguelo,
Abril and Orillano, since they testified that they accomplished their
pre-employment requirements through Brighturn from June 2001 up to October of
the same year,[24]
a period wherein Brighturn’s license to engage in recruitment and placement
was still in full force and effect. [25]
While there were six private complainants
in this case, four of whom were presented during the trial, the prosecution,
nonetheless, failed to establish that Hu engaged in illegal recruitment acts
against at least three of these complainants.
In offenses in which the number of victims is essential, such as in the present
petition, failure of the prosecution to prove by convincing evidence that the
offense is committed against the minimum number of persons required by law is
fatal to its cause of action.
Underscoring the significance of the number of victims was the
disquisition of Justice Florenz Regalado
in People v. Ortiz-Miyake[26]:
It is evident
that in illegal recruitment cases, the number of persons victimized is
determinative. Where
illegal recruitment is committed against a lone victim, the accused may be
convicted of simple illegal recruitment which is punishable with a lower
penalty under Article 39(c)[27]
of the Labor Code. Corollarily,
where the offense is committed against three or more persons, it is qualified
to illegal recruitment in large scale which provides a higher penalty under
Article 39(a)[28] of the
same Code. (Emphasis supplied.)
Regrettably, we cannot affirm the
conviction of Hu for the offense of illegal recruitment in large scale. While we strongly condemn the pervasive
proliferation of illegal job recruiters and syndicates preying on innocent
people anxious to obtain employment abroad, nevertheless, we find the pieces of
evidence insufficient to prove the guilt of Hu beyond reasonable doubt. It is unfortunate that the prosecution
evidence did not pass the test of reasonable doubt, since the testimonies of its
witnesses unveil a contradicting inference -- that the recruitment of Panguelo,
Abril and Orillano was
undertaken by Hu with the required authority from the POEA.
Failure of the prosecution to prove
the guilt of Hu beyond reasonable doubt does not absolve her of her civil obligation
to return the money she collected from private complaints Panguelo,
Abril and Orillano, plus legal interest in accordance with our ruling in Domagsang v. Court of Appeals.[29] There, the prosecution failed to
sufficiently establish a case to warrant a conviction, but clearly proved a
just debt owed to the private complainant.
Thus, the accused was ordered to pay the face value of the check with
12% legal interest per annum, reckoned from the filing of the information until
the finality of the judgment. It is well
settled that acquittal based on reasonable doubt does not preclude an award for
civil damages. The judgment of acquittal
extinguishes the liability of the accused only when it includes a declaration
that the facts from which the civil liability might arise did not exist. Thus, civil liability is not extinguished
where the acquittal is based on lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt, since
only preponderance of evidence is required in civil cases. There appears to be no sound reason to
require that a separate action be still filed considering that the facts to be
proved in the civil case have already been established in the criminal
proceedings.[30] In the present case, the prosecution
explicitly proved that private complainants parted with substantial amounts of
money upon the prodding and enticement of Hu on the false pretense that she had
the capacity to deploy them for employment abroad. In the end, private
complainants were not able to leave for work abroad or get their money back.
Neither
does her acquittal herein exempt Hu from subsequent criminal prosecution for
estafa[31]
provided that deceit, which is an essential element of estafa, be proven by the
prosecution.[32] Apparently, Hu deluded private complainants
into believing that she had the capacity to send them abroad for
employment. Through this hoax, she was
able to convince private complainants to surrender their money to her in the
vain hope, as it turned out, of securing employment abroad.
This leaves us a case of simple
illegal recruitment committed against Garcia.
Garcia testified that she applied for
employment in
The act of
referral, which means the act of passing along or forwarding an applicant after
an initial interview to a selected employer, placement or bureau, is included
in recruitment.[33] Undoubtedly, the act of Hu in referring
Garcia to another recruitment agency squarely fell within the purview of
recruitment that was undertaken by Hu after her authority to recruit and place
workers already expired on
Failure of
Garcia to present proof of payment is irrelevant. The absence of receipts in the case of
illegal recruitment does not warrant the acquittal of the appellant and is not
fatal to the prosecution’s case. As long
as the prosecution is able to establish through credible and testimonial
evidence, as in the case at bar, that the appellant had engaged in illegal recruitment,
a conviction for the offense can be very well justified.[34]
Irrefragably,
the prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of Hu of the
charge of illegal recruitment against Garcia when the former referred the
latter to another agency without the license or authority to do so. The trial court gave full credence to the
testimony of Garcia, which unmistakably demonstrated how Hu successfully
enticed her to part with a considerable amount of money in exchange for an
employment abroad which was never realized. This finding was adopted by the
appellate court, considering that that the trial court was in the best position
to ascertain credibility issues, having heard the witnesses themselves and
observed their deportment and manner of testifying during trial.
Aptly, the bare
denials of Hu have no probative value when ranged against the affirmative
declarations of Garcia, even if the latter failed to present receipts for the
payments she had made. In People v. Villas,[35] this
Court affirmed the conviction of the appellant for illegal recruitment even if private complaints were not able to present
any receipt that they paid appellant anything, thus:
Neither is there merit in the
contention of the defense that appellant should be exonerated for failure of
the prosecution to present any receipt proving that private complainants paid
her anything. The defense argues that a
receipt is the best evidence to prove delivery of money and the absence thereof
shows that no payment was made.
This argument is not novel. The Court has previously ruled that the
absence of receipts evidencing payment does not defeat a criminal prosecution
for illegal recruitment. In People vs. Pabalan [262 SCRA 574,
“x x x the absence of receipts in a criminal case
for illegal recruitment does not warrant the acquittal of 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 recruitment agreement and the procurement of fees in illegal
recruitment cases. The amounts may
consequently be proved by the testimony of witnesses.”
The private complainants have
convincingly testified that the accused enticed them to apply and, in actual
fact, received payments from them. And
to these testimonies, the trial court accorded credence. On the other hand, appellant has not shown
any reason to justify a modification or reversal of the trial court’s finding.
Our ruling in People v. Villas[36]
that the absence of receipts in illegal recruitment case does not warrant the
acquittal of the accused has been reiterated in several cases.[37] We are
not unaware of the proliferation of these scheming illegal recruiters who cunningly
rob Filipino workers, desperate to work abroad, of their money in exchange of
empty promises. This Court cannot be
drawn to the ingenious ploy of these illegal recruiters in withholding receipts
from their victims in their vain attempt to evade liability.
In fine, the
Court will have to discard the conviction for illegal recruitment in large
scale meted out by the RTC, since only one applicant abroad was recruited by Hu
without license and authority from the POEA.
Accordingly, Hu should be held responsible for simple illegal
recruitment only. Hu’s unsuccessful
indictment for illegal recruitment in large scale, however, does not discharge
her from her civil obligation to return the placement fees paid by private
complainants.
Under Section 7(a) of Republic Act
No. 8042,[38] simple
illegal recruitment is punishable by imprisonment of not less than six (6)
years and one (1) day but not more than twelve years and a fine of not less
than two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00) nor more than five hundred
thousand pesos (P500,000.00).
Section 1 of the Indeterminate
Sentence Law provides that if the offense is punishable by a special law, as in
this case, the court shall impose on the accused an indeterminate sentence, the
maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by the said law and
the minimum of which shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the
same. Accordingly, a penalty of eight
(8) to twelve (12) years of imprisonment should be meted out to Hu.
In addition, a fine in the amount of P500,000.00; and indemnity
to private complainants -- Abril in the amount of P44,000.00, Panguelo
in the amount of P50,000.00, Garcia in the amount of P60,000.00
and Orillano in the amount of P50,000.00, with 12% legal interest per
annum, reckoned from the filing of the information until the finality of the
judgment – is imposed.
WHEREFORE, IN
VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the instant petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Decision
dated P500,000.00 and to indemnify private complainant Evangeline Garcia in the amount of P60,000.00,
with 12% interest per annum, reckoned from the filing of the information
until the finality of the judgment.
Accused-appellant Nenita B. Hu is likewise ordered
to indemnify private
complainants Paul Abril in the amount of P44,000.00, Joel Panguelo in
the amount of P50,000.00, and Eric Orillano in the amount of P50,000.00, with 12% interest per annum, as reckoned above.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIOAssociate Justice |
WE
CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
RUBEN T. REYES
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
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, Third 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 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 Associate Justice Jose L. Sabio with Associate Justices Noel G. Tijam and Myrna Dimaranan Vidal, concurring; rollo, pp. 2-21.
[2] Penned by Judge Rommel O. Baybay.
[3] Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995.
[4] Rollo, pp. 19-20.
[5] Records, pp. 1-2.
[6] Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipino Act of 1995.
[7] CA rollo, p 20.
[8] TSN,
[9] CA rollo, pp. 20-22.
[10] TSN,
[11] TSN,
[12] TSN,
[13] TSN,
[14] TSN,
[15]
[16] CA rollo, pp. 20-25.
[17]
[18]
[19] People v. Gutierrez, 466 Phil. 609, 622 (2004).
[20] Article 13(b) of the Labor Code of
the
[21]
[22] People v. De la Piedra, 403 Phil. 31, 58 (2001).
[23] People v. Corpuz, 459 Phil. 100, 112 (2003).
[24] On
Fiscal: In
September of 2001, do you recall any undertaking that is significant to your
life, Mr. Witness?
Witness: Yes,
sir. I applied in one of the agency in
Brighturn.
Q: For
what position?
A.
As factory worker, sir.
Q: Where?
A: In
x x x x
Q: How were you supposed
to give her as placement fee?
A: I gave her
Forty-four thousand pesos sir.
Q: Where did you give her
this amount?
A: Riverland
Consultancy in LPL Bldg. In Gil Puyat,
Q: Do you have proof of
this?
A: Yes sir.
Fiscal: Witness is handing to this
Prosecutor a Xerox copy of two official receipts date October 9 and
On
Fiscal: In
the year 2001 of June, do you recall if you had employment then?
Witness: None, sir.
Q: And do
you recall having looked for work at that time?
B.
Yes, sir.
Q: Where did you apply
for work at that time?
A: In Brighturn.
x x x x
Q: And when you went to
this office in Brighturn, to whom did you talk about your application for work,
Mr. Witness?
A: Ms. Hu.
x x x x
Q: So, what did the
accused tell you about your employment in
A: She told me that
I’ll be sent abroad to work as a factory worker in
Q: And what did she ask
for in return if she did, Mr. Witness?
A: Payment, sir.
Q: How much were you
supposed to pay her. Mr. Witness?
A: Fifty Thousand Pesos
(Php 50,000.00).
Q: And were you able to
pay the accused the said amount?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Do you have proof,
Mr. Witness that you pay the said amount?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Where it is?
Fiscal: Witness handing to the
Prosecutor a Xerox copy of a receipt dated October 16, in the amount of Fifty
Thousand Pesos (Php 50,000.00). (TSN,
Orillano,
on
Fiscal: Mr. Witness, what is your
present occupation?
Witness: Selling
vegetables, sir.
Q: In the year 2000, were
you already working as a vegetable vendor?
A: No sir, only after the
incident happened.
Q: What incident are
you talking about, Mr. Witness?
A: When I was
victimized by illegal recruitment, sir.
Q: What year is this?
A: 2001, sir.
Q: Will you tell this
Court how were you victimized by illegal recruiters in this case?
A: In October of 2001,
Brighturn International conducted an interview for
x
x x x
Q: During your
interview, what were the documents required by the accused?
A: Medical Certificate,
picture, and NBI.
Q: What about fee, Mr.
Witness?
A: After the submission
of the documents, we were required to pay a placement fee.
Q: How much were you
required to pay?
A: Php50,000.00, sir.
Q: Where did you pay
this P50,000.00?
A: To Ms. Ethel
Genoves, sir.
Q: Where did you pay?
A: The office of Ms. Ethel
Genoves at
[25] Brighturn was duly authorized by the
POEA to engage in recruitment and placement of workers abroad from the period
of
[26] 344 Phil. 598, 608-609 (1997).
[27] Amended by Republic Act No. 8042.
[28]
[29] 400 Phil. 846, 858 (2000).
[30] Rico v. People, 440 Phil. 540, 555 (2002).
[31] Art. 315. x x x
2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud:
(a) By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of other similar deceits.
[32] People v. Gallardo, 436 Phil. 698, 716 (2002).
[33] Rodolfo
v. People, G.R. No. 146964,
[34] People v. Dujua, 466 Phil. 775, 786 (2004).
[35] G.R. No. 112180,
[36]
[37] People v. Gomez, 381 Phil. 870, 884 (2000); People v. Villas, id.; People v. Billaber, 465 Phil. 726, 743 (2004); People v. Sagaydo, 395 Phil. 538, 549 (2000); People v. Dujua, supra note 34; People v. Jamilosa, G.R. No. 169076, 23 January 2007, 512 SCRA 340, 352.
[38] Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995.