|
PEOPLE OF THE Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus - ANITA “KENNETH” TRINIDAD, Defendant and Appellant. |
G.R. No. 181244
Present: CORONA,
C. J., Chairperson, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,* BERSAMIN,** DEL CASTILLO, and PEREZ,
JJ. Promulgated: August 9, 2010 |
|
|
|
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
PEREZ, J.:
Appellant,
together with Taciana “Tess” Aquino, Mauro Marasigan, Louella Garen and Daniel
Trinidad, were charged with violation of Section 6 in relation to Section 7 of
Republic Act No. 8042[1]
for large scale illegal recruitment committed by a syndicate in an information
which reads:
That in or about the months of May, June, August and
December, 1998, or sometime prior and subsequent thereto, in the City of Pasay,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping each other,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously contract, enlist and
promise employment to the following Aires
V. Pascual, Elma J. Hernandez, Gemma Noche dela Cruz and Elizabeth de Villad (sic), as domestic
helpers in Italy, without first securing the required licensed (sic) or
authority from the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration.[2]
Upon
arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge against her. The rest of the accused have all remained at
large.[3]
The
factual antecedents of the case, based on the records, are as follows:
Sometime
in May 1998, private complainant Elizabeth de Villa (De Villa), together with
her cousin Elma Hernandez, was brought by their aunt Patricia to the house of
appellant in Pasay City for possible job placement as domestic helpers in
Italy.[4] A
cousin of hers was earlier able to leave for abroad through the help of
appellant.[5] Convinced
by appellant’s representation that she can send her to Italy, De Villa agreed
to give appellant P240,000.00, representing the price of her ticket and
the processing of her papers,[6]
which amount she paid in three installments.
The first installment of P100,000.00, was given by de Villa to appellant
in the same month of May after their first meeting.[7] This initial payment was covered by a
handwritten receipt signed and issued by appellant herself.[8] The second and third installments, in the
amounts of P50,000.00 and P90,000.00, respectively, were paid by
de Villa in June and August 1998.[9] These latter amounts were no longer covered
by receipts because, according to De Villa, appellant had won her trust as a
result of the former’s assurances that she would be able to send her to Italy.[10]
On
8 August 1998, de Villa and three other recruits left the Philippines.[11] However, instead of sending them to Italy,
appellant and accused Mauro Marasigan (Marasigan) sent them to Bangkok,
Thailand and told them that they (appellant and Marasigan) will secure the
visas for Italy in Bangkok because it would be easier to get an Italian visa in
Bangkok.[12]
Elma
Hernandez (Hernandez), a cousin of De Villa, was likewise introduced to
appellant by their aunt Patricia sometime after the elections of May 1998. Upon meeting appellant, Hernandez asked if
appellant could really send her to Italy to work as a domestic helper, and
appellant replied positively. Whereupon,
she agreed to give P240,000.00 to appellant representing the expenses
for the processing of her Italian visa.[13] Hernandez paid this amount in three
installments: P100,000.00 was
paid in May 1998, which payment was evidenced by the same receipt issued by
appellant to De Villa;[14] P100,000.00 in June of the same year;
and the balance of P40,000.00 was paid by her Aunt Patricia to appellant
in August 1998 because at that time, Hernandez had already left the
Philippines.[15] No receipts were issued for the latter
amounts because she trusted appellant’s promise that she would send her to
Italy.[16]
Appellant
told her that she was tentatively scheduled to leave in May 1998, but because
the processing of her papers were allegedly not completed on time, appellant
moved her flight to August. Hernandez
was able to leave the Philippines on this later date but not for Italy as
agreed upon, but for Bangkok where appellant will allegedly secure her Italian
visa.[17]
Gemma
dela Cruz (Dela Cruz) first met appellant and accused Taciana “Tess” Aquino
(Aquino) on 25 August 1998 in the house of one of appellant’s victims in
Blumentritt, Manila. During this
meeting, appellant and Aquino convinced her of their ability to send her to
Italy as long as she can produce the amount of P250,000.00. Their agreement was that Dela Cruz would give
an initial amount of P150,000.00 and when she gets to Italy, she will
give the remaining balance of P100,000.00. Thus, on the same date, Dela Cruz went to
appellant’s house in Pasay City and paid P150,000.00 to appellant.[18] This transaction was witnessed by dela Cruz’s
sister, Geraldine Noche, and the latter’s fiancé, Neopito Laraya[19]
(Laraya) and is evidenced by a document, denominated as “Contract to Service”[20]
which was signed by appellant and Laraya.
Dela Cruz did not sign the contract because it was meant to be a proof
that the P50,000.00 Laraya loaned to dela Cruz to complete the P150,000.00
payment to appellant was indeed given to the latter.[21] This claim was affirmed by Laraya when he
took the witness stand on 27 June 2002 to testify for the prosecution.
Dela
Cruz was able to leave the Philippines the following day, 26 August 2002. However, as in the cases of De Villa and
Hernandez, Dela Cruz was sent to Bangkok instead of Italy.[22]
In
Bangkok, De Villa, Hernandez and Dela Cruz met at the Benz Residence Hotel
where appellant and Marasigan instructed all their recruits to stay. There, they met appellant’s brother Daniel
Trinidad (Trinidad), who likewise assured them that appellant would be able to
secure an Italian visa for them.[23] Appellant and Marasigan followed them to
Bangkok in the month of September but nothing happened insofar as their visas were
concerned.[24] They stayed in Bangkok for four months but
because they could stay in Thailand for only one month at a time, they had to
exit to Malaysia two times to have their passports stamped to reflect their act
of exiting Thailand so they could return to Bangkok.[25] For this, Dela Cruz incurred expenses in the
total amount of US$200.[26] She incurred additional expenses for the
duration of her stay in Bangkok for calling collect to the Philippines,
totaling P9,387.30.[27] For her part, Hernandez spent a total of US$500
for board and lodging during her stay in Bangkok.[28]
After
staying idle for four months in Bangkok, De Villa, Hernandez, and dela Cruz,
together with other recruits, were taken by appellant and Marasigan to Morocco,
again, allegedly for the purpose of securing their Italian visa there. For this, Hernandez and Dela Cruz each spent
another US$2,700, which they gave to Marasigan and his wife Louella Garen.[29]
The
group stayed in Morocco for two months but appellant continued to fail to
deliver her promise of securing Italian visas for them. Hence, they returned to Bangkok and stayed
there for another month during which appellant persisted in dissuading them
from returning to the Philippines, assuring them that she would send them to
Italy.[30] They failed to be further dissuaded, however,
and they returned to the Philippines on 27 March 1999 and on 29 March 1999,
filed a complaint against appellant and her companions.[31]
On
24 October 2002, the trial court rendered judgment as follows:
WHEREFORE, accused ANITA “KENNETH”
TRINIDAD, also known as ANITA TRINIDAD MORAUDA, is hereby found GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of LARGE SCALE ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT as defined
under Section 6 of R.A. No. 8042, and penalized under Article 39(a) of the
Labor Code of the Philippines.
Accordingly,
said accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT,
and to pay a fine of P100,000.00.
Further,
she is ordered to pay the sum of P270,000.00 to Elizabeth de Villa; P270,000.00
plus the peso equivalent of US$500 to Elma Hernandez, and P159,387.30
plus the peso equivalent of US$2,900 to Gemma dela Cruz.[32]
The
trial court rejected appellant’s defense that the real illegal recruiter is
Mauro Marasigan to whom she referred private
complainants when they sought her help regarding jobs abroad and that they
complained against her only because they could no longer locate Marasigan. The trial court likewise disregarded
appellant’s bare denials that she did not promise employment to complainants,
that she did not receive any money from them, and that the signature appearing
on the receipt presented by them is not hers.[33] Instead, it gave credence to the respective
testimonies of private complainants that they were recruited by appellant, who
was not duly licensed to conduct recruitment activities, as certified[34]
by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) and the testimony
of prosecution witness Rosa Mangila, Senior Labor and Employment Officer of the
POEA.[35]
On
31 August 2007, the Court of Appeals rendered the herein assailed Decision[36]
affirming the judgment of the trial court.
Thus,
appellant is now before us on the following assignment of errors:
I
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT
GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE PATENT WEAKNESS
OF THE PROSECUTION’S EVIDENCE.
II
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE DEFENSE INTERPOSED
BY THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT.[37]
Appellant
maintains that she is a mere victim of circumstances in this case as the person
responsible for the crime imputed to her, Marasigan, is a fugitive from
justice. Thus, in order for private
complainants to recover their money, they blamed her. She claims that she simply indorsed
complainants to Marasigan, after which, she no longer had any participation in
their transactions.[38]
Appellant’s
submissions fail to convince us.
Section
6 of Republic Act No. 8042 or the “Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of
1995” defines illegal recruitment as “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.
During
their respective testimonies, complainants described their dealings with
appellant as follows:
1. Elizabeth de Villa:
x x x x
How [will]
you be able to work in Italy by the mere fact that you were introduced to the accused?
A: She convinced us that she could send us to
Italy to work.
Fiscal Kuong to the witness:
Q: Whom you are
referring to that convinced you that you will be sent to Italy?
A: Kenneth,
ma’am.
Q: Can you give
the full name of Kenneth Trinidad?
A: Anita Kenneth
Trinidad.
Q: Ms. Witness,
what happened after you and your aunt Patricia went to the house of Kenneth Trinidad?
A: We have an
agreement that we will give her the amount of P240,000.
x x x x
A: We do not
give the whole amount of P240,000 but partially I gave the amount of P100,000 on the month of
May I cannot recall the exact date.
x x x x
Q: Do you recall
where it was that you gave her P100,000 in May of 1998?
A: In her house
located in Lucban St., Pasay City.
x x x x
Q: And also for
what is the payment given to Anita Kenneth Trinidad?
x x x x
A: In payment
for our ticket and also for processing of the requirements.
Court to the witness:
Q: Who will
process the requirement?
A: Kenneth
Trinidad.
Q: And what are
these requirements for?
A: For us to go
to Italy.
x x x x
Q: And upon
giving her P100,000 did she issue to you any receipt?
A: Yes sir, the
one I handed to you earlier.
x x x x
Q: x x x. Now, you said the accused wrote this writings
in a piece of paper in your residence in
Pasay City, did she leave you for a while in
order to make this writing in the piece of paper?
A: No sir, she
wrote that in front of me and I saw it.
x x x x
Q: And after
writing the same the accused signed her signature Kenneth Trinidad?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Are you sure
this is her signature?
A: Yes sir.
x x x x
Q: Was this
writing continuous from beginning to end?
A: No sir, she
wrote the word commission P30,000, the amount of P570,000
and deposit 100,000. When she wrote
commission of P30,000 it
means that, because we were 3 she gave the discount of P30,000, sir.
x x x x
Q: Now, who
accompanied you to the airport?
A: Anita Kenneth
Trinidad.
x x x x
Q: Who was your
companion aside from the accused?
A: We were
conveyed by Anita Kenneth Trinidad because we were at her residence, Kenneth Trinidad accompanied me to the
airport.
x x x x
Q: Ms. Witness,
you stated accused Kenneth Trinidad, told you that she will get employment for you in Italy. What exactly, Ms. Witness, she told you?
A: She assured us she will help us to secure
employment because she has a
lot of relatives in Italy.[39] (Emphases supplied)
2.
Elma Hernandez:
x x x x
Q: And what did
you do after you went to her house at Lucban?
A: I asked her
if she could really sent (sic) [me] to Italy and she replied positively, ma’am.
COURT:
To sent you
to Italy as what?
WITNESS:
To work
there as a domestic helper, your Honor.
Q: In what
arrangements did you make with her regarding the payment of your visa?
A: She asked me
to give her P100,000.00 in order for her to process my documents in going to Italy, ma’am.
Q: So, the P100,000.00
is only for the processing of your documents, was
there any other fees that the accused Kenneth Trinidad asked from you?
A: Yes, ma’am.
Q: And how much
more, Miss witness?
A: All in all P240,000.00,
ma’am.
x x x x
Q: After you
gave the payment to the accused Kenneth Trinidad, what arrangement did you and the accused make regarding your
flight to Italy?
A: She told me
that she could have secured a visa for me in going to Italy.
x x x x
COURT:
So, what
was the undertaking of accused Anita Trinidad aside from sending you to Italy?
WITNESS:
She told me
that she has a lot of relatives there and she promised an employment to me, your Honor.
COURT:
If the undertaking of the accused was only to
send you to Italy or secure a
visa for you for Italy, would you have given her the amount of P240,000.00?
WITNESS:
No, your honor.
x x x x
Q: And you would
agree with me that you were able to meet the accused
Kenneth Trinidad through the intercession of your Tita Patricia, am I correct?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And likewise
your Tita Patricia informed you that she knows this Kenneth Trinidad and she told you that Kenneth Trinidad can help you in going to Italy am I correct?
A: It was Tita
Patricia who introduced Kenneth Trinidad to me but if Kenneth Trinidad would not
promised (sic) that employment I would not agree to pay that amount to her.
x x x x
Q: May I
clarify, if your Tita Patricia [was] not involved in this case, you would not met (sic) Kenneth Trinidad?
A: Yes, sir, if
not because of Tita Patricia I would not know this Kenneth Trinidad but if
not for the promised (sic) of
Kenneth Trinidad that she could
secure employment for us, I will not apply.
x x x x
Q: So when you
arrived at the house of the accused in Lucban Street, Pasay City, your Tita Patricia was the one holding that money?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And when you
arrived there your Tita Patricia brought out the money and she started counting the same, is that correct?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: After
counting the money she handed it over to Kenneth Trinidad, the accused?
A: After
counting that money the money was not yet handed to Anita Kenneth Trinidad because I’m still
clearing if she really could secure
employment for me in Italy, sir.
Q: And after
having cleared the fact that she could secure employment for you, your Tita Patricia already
gave the amount of P100,000.00 to
the accused, correct?
A: Not yet, sir,
my Tita Patricia still asked for my decision if I am decided to give that amount to Kenneth Trinidad.
Q: After you
have decided to give that amount, your Tita Patricia gave the amount to the accused?
A: Yes sir.
x x x x
Q: Now, this
piece of paper which is the receipt, this was according to you prepared by Kenneth Trinidad,
the accused in this case?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And did she
execute this receipt in front of you?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Were you able
to see her actually writing the notations here in this piece of paper?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Whose signature
is this, Miss witness?
A: That is the
signature of Anita Kenneth Trinidad, sir.[40] (Emphases supplied).
3. Gemma dela Cruz:
Q: Can you tell
us what transpire[d] during the meeting with accused Taciana “Tess” Aquino and Anita “Kenneth” Trinidad?
A: When I went
to the house of Pisyang Agno located at Blumentritt, I met Trinidad and Aquino who convinced me that they could
send me to Italy as long as I
can produce the amount of P250,000.00.
COURT:
Who told
you that they can send you abroad if you will give the amount of P250,000.00?
WITNESS:
Kenneth
Trinidad and Taciana Aquino, your Honor.
x x x x
Q: And Madam
Witness, what was the terms of your agreement with the two accused as regards this payment of P250,000.00?
A: The agreement
with them was that, initially, I will give the amount of P150,000.00, if I’m already in Italy that’s the time I
give the remaining P100,000.00.
Q: What happened
after the meeting on August 25, 1998?
A: I gave her P150,000.00,
in fact I have two witnesses, Geraldine Noce
(sic) and Taraya (sic). And I also have
receipt with me to prove that
she received the amount of P150,000.00.
x x x x
Q: To whom did
you hand the amount of P150,000.00?
A: To Neopito
Laraya, I first handed the P150,000.00 to Neopito Laraya and Neopito Laraya in turn handed
the P150,000.00 to Anita “Kenneth”
Trinidad. In that P150,000.00, I
borrowed the P50,000.00
from my sister’s boyfriend and the P100,000.00 I borrowed it from a Lending Company.
Q: Miss Witness,
do you have any documents to show that accused Anita
“Kenneth” Trinidad, received the amount of P150,000.00?
A: Yes, Ma’am.
Q: Showing to
you this document entitled “CONTRACT OF SERVICE”,
is this the document you are referring to?
A: Yes, Ma’am.
x x x x
Q: Miss Witness,
showing to you this signature above the handwritten word Anita Trinidad, do you know whose signature is this?
A: Yes, Ma’am,
that is the signature of Anita “Kenneth” Trinidad.
Q: How do you
know that this is the signature of Anita “Kenneth” Trinidad?
A: Because she
affixed her signature in front of me.[41]
It
is clear from the aforequoted statements that appellant engaged in recruitment
activities. The respective testimonies
of private complainants clearly established that appellant promised them
employment in Italy and that she asked money from them for the processing of
their papers. Relying upon appellant’s
representations, complainants parted with their money. That appellant recruited them without the
requisite license from the POEA makes her liable for illegal recruitment.
All
three private complainants testified in a categorical and straightforward
manner; hence, the trial court properly accorded full faith and credence to
their declarations on the witness stand.
The well-settled rule is that the credibility of witnesses is best left
to the judgment of the trial judge whose findings are generally not disturbed
on appeal, absent any showing that substantial errors were committed or that
determinative facts were overlooked which, if appreciated, would call for a
different conclusion.[42] The trial court has the advantage, not
available to the appellate courts, of observing the deportment of witnesses and
their manner of testifying during trial.
Thus, the appellate courts confer highest respect to such findings and
conclusions of the lower courts.[43]
Besides,
the only defense offered by appellant against the allegations against her was
mere denial, an inherently weak defense which cannot prevail over the positive
and unequivocal testimonies of complainants.
Bare denials, without clear and convincing evidence to support them,
cannot sway judgment. They are
self-serving statements which can easily be put forward.[44] It is inconceivable that private complainants
would be mistaken in their claim that it was appellant who recruited them
considering that it was she who personally talked with them on several
occasions and received the sums of money for which she issued receipts.[45] It is contrary to human nature and experience
for persons to conspire and accuse a stranger of a crime, or even a casual
acquaintance for that matter, that would take the latter’s liberty and send him
to prison just to appease their feeling of rejection and assuage the
frustration of their dreams to go abroad.[46]
The
proliferation of illegal job recruiters and syndicates preying on innocent
people anxious to obtain employment abroad is one of the primary considerations
that led to the enactment of The Migrant
Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995.
Aimed at affording greater protection to Overseas Filipino Workers
(OFWs), it is a significant improvement on existing laws in the recruitment and
placement of workers for overseas employment.
Otherwise known as the Magna Carta of Overseas Filipino Workers, it
broadened the concept of illegal recruitment under the Labor Code and provided
stiffer penalties therefor, especially those that constitute economic sabotage,
i.e., Illegal Recruitment in Large
Scale and Illegal Recruitment Committed by a Syndicate.[47]
In
the instant case, appellant is guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale
because it was committed against three private complainants. This is in accordance with the penultimate
paragraph of Section 6 Republic Act No. 8042 which provides, thus:
Illegal
recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of
three (3) or more persons conspiring or confederating with one another. It is
deemed committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons
individually or as a group.[48]
The trial court, as affirmed by the
Court of Appeals, imposed upon the appellant the penalty of life imprisonment
and a fine of P100,000.00 plus actual damages, with interest
thereon. However, the fine of P100,000.00
should be increased to P500,000.00 pursuant to Section 7(b) of Republic
Act No. 8042 which reads, thus:
(b) The penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of not
less than Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) nor more than One
million pesos (P1,000,000.00) shall be imposed if illegal recruitment
constitutes economic sabotage as defined therein.[49]
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of
Appeals dated 31 August 2007 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00490, affirming the
Judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 117, finding
appellant Anita “Kenneth” Trinidad guilty of illegal recruitment in large
scale, sentencing her to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and ordering
her to pay a fine and actual damages, is hereby AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS: (1) the amount of fine is increased to P500,000.00;
and (2) appellant is further ordered to pay Elma Hernandez the peso equivalent
of US$2,700.00.
SO ORDERED.
|
JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ
Associate
Justice |
|||
|
WE CONCUR: RENATO C.
CORONA
Chief Justice Chairperson |
|||
|
|
||
|
|
|||
* Designated as Working Chairperson in lieu of Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. per Special Order No. 878 dated 2 August 2010.
** Designated as Additional Member in lieu of Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. per Special Order No. 876 dated 2 August 2010.
[1] The Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos
Act of 1995.
[2] Records, p. 1.
[3] Id.
at 50.
[4] TSN,
1 February 2002, p. 3.
[5] Id.
at 18.
[6] Id.
at 4 & 7.
[7] Id.
at 4-5.
[8] Exhibit
“B,” Records, p. 632.
[9] TSN,
1 February 2002, pp. 25-26 and 29-30.
[10] Id.
at 16, 27 and 30.
[11] Id.
at 10.
[12] Id.
at 9-10.
[13] TSN,
1 March 2002, pp. 4-5.
[14] Id.
at 37.
[15] Id.
at 6 and
9.
[16] Id.
at 38-40.
[17] Id.
at 8-10 and 13.
[18] TSN,
21 June 2002, pp. 3-5.
[19] Id.
at 5.
[20] Exhibit
“D”, Records, p. 634.
[21] TSN,
21 June 2002, p. 20 and TSN, 27 June 2002, pp. 4 and 13-14.
[22] TSN,
21 June 2002, p. 8.
[23] TSN,
21 June 2002, p. 9, TSN, 1 February 2002, p. 18 and TSN, 1 March 2002, p. 21.
[24] TSN,
21 June 2002, p. 8, TSN, 1 February 2002, p. 11 and TSN, 1 March 2002, p. 14.
[25] TSN,
21 June 2002, p. 9-11 and TSN, 1 March
2002, pp. 14-15.
[26] TSN,
21 June 2002, p. 10.
[27] Id.
at 13-14 and Exhibits “E,” ‘F,” “G,” “H,” and “I,” Records, pp. 635-644.
[28] TSN,
1 March 2002, p. 14.
[29] TSN,
1 March 2002, p. 17, TSN, 1 February 2002, p. 12 and TSN, 21 June 2002, pp. 8-9
and 11.
[30] TSN,
1 March 2002, p. 17, TSN, 1 February 2002, p. 13 and TSN, 21 June 2002, p. 11.
[31] TSN,
1 February 2002, pp. 13-14 and TSN, 21 June 2002, p. 15.
[32] Records, pp. 857-873.
[33] TSN,
29 August 2002, pp. 8-9.
[34] Exhibit
“C,” Records, p. 633.
[35] TSN, 5 April 2002, pp. 3-5.
[36] Penned
by Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe with Justices Portia Aliño-Hormachuelos and
Lucas
P.
Bersamin (now member of this Court), concurring. Rollo,
pp. 2-10.
[37] CA
rollo, p. 50.
[38] Id
at 62-62A.
[39] TSN,
1 February 2002, pp. 4-5, 7, 22-24, 34-35 and 43.
[40] TSN,
1 March 2002, pp. 5-8, 11-12, 27-28 and 34-36.
[41] TSN,
21 June 2002, pp. 3-6.
[42] People vs. Villas, G.R. No. 112180, 15
August 1997, 277 SCRA 391, 404 citing People
vs. Comia,
1
September 1994, 236 SCRA 185, 194-195 and People
vs. Naparan, 30 August 1993, 225 SCRA
714,
721, 722.
[43] Id.,
citing People vs. Goce, 317 Phil.
897, 910-911 (1995) and People vs. Comia,
id.
[44] People vs. Navarra, 404 Phil. 693, 701
(2001) citing People vs. Agustin 317
Phil. 897 (1995); People vs. Hernandez, G.R. No. 108027, 4
March 1999, 304 SCRA 186; People vs.
Mercado, G.R. No. 108440-02, 11 March
1999, 304 SCRA 504; People vs. Apongan,
337 Phil. 393 (1997); and People vs. Henson, 337 Phil. 318 (1997).
[45] People vs. Dionisio, 425 Phil. 651, 664
(2002).
[46] People vs. Baytic, 446 Phil. 23, 30
(2003), citing People vs. Librero,
G.R. No. 132311, 28 September
2000, 341 SCRA 229.
[47] People
vs. Gamboa, 395 Phil. 675, 682, 683 (2000), citing Jorge R. Coquia, Annotation on Illegal
Recruitment of Overseas Filipino Workers
as Economic Sabotage, 279 SCRA 199, 16 September 1997.
[48] People vs. Ang, G.R. No. 181245, 6
August 2008, 561 SCRA 370, 378.
[49] Id.