Republic of the
SUPREME COURT
FIRST
DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus - MARY LOU OMICTIN y SINGCO, Accused-Appellant. |
|
G.R. No. 188130 Present: VELASCO, JR., LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, PEREZ, JJ. Promulgated: July 26, 2010 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I
S I O N
VELASCO,
JR., J.:
The Case
This
is an appeal from the November 25, 2009 Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02793, entitled People of the Philippines v. Mary Lou
Omictin y Singco. The CA Decision
affirmed the Decision[2]
dated May 3, 2007 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 104 in
The Facts
Primo Arvin Guevarra, one of the
private complainants, arrived home sometime in September 2003 after his
employment contract in
Omictin met Guevarra along with Anthony
Ambrosio and Elisa Dotimas.[4] In
that meeting, the three agreed to pay Omictin PhP 40,000 each for their deployment
in
For such deployment, Guevarra had a
medical examination, during which occasion he paid Omictin an additional PhP
10,000. Later, Guevarra completed his
placement payment by giving Omictin the balance of PhP 20,000. Upon said payment, Omictin informed Guevarra
that she would schedule an orientation and contract signing at a later date. However, the promised orientation and contract
signing never took place. Sometime in
February 2004, Guevarra was able to meet with Omictin, who promised to return
his money during the first week of March. Like the earlier promises, the promise to
reimburse remained unfulfilled.[6]
Another private complainant, Veronica
Caponpon, was assured of employment in
Roy Fernandez Mago, another private
complainant, was promised employment abroad as a caregiver within three months
from payment of a placement fee of PhP 40,000 and submission of the required
documents. Mago paid the total placement
fee and submitted the required documents.
However, the promised overseas employment remained unfulfilled.[9]
For
PhP 40,000, Omictin undertook to send private complainant Anthony Ambrosio
overseas for employment within three to four months. Ambrosio was only able to pay the amount of PhP
16,000. The promised employment never
materialized.[10]
On
On
As
a result, separate informations were filed before the Quezon City RTC charging Omictin
with illegal recruitment in large scale and estafa, docketed as Criminal Case
Nos. Q-04-125442 to 45. The informations read:
Crim. Case No. Q-04-125442
That on or about the 9th day of March 2004, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, without any authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously for a fee, enlist, recruit, and promise overseas employment to the following persons, to wit: PRIMO ARVIN S. GUEVARRA, ANTHONY P. AMBROSIO, ROY FERNANDEZ MAGNO and VERONICA G. CAPONPON, without first securing the required license from the Department of Labor and Employment, in violation of said law.
That the above-described crime is committed in large scale, as the same was perpetrated against four (4) persons individually or as a group as penalized under Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipino Act of 1995.
Crim. Case Nos. Q-04-125443-45
That on or about the period
comprised from January to March 2004, in
During trial, Omictin gave the
following version of the facts: She claimed that she was merely asked by the
private complainants to help them in the processing of their visas for the
On
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as
follows:
(1) In Criminal Case No. 04-125442, the Court
finds accused MARY LOU OMICTIN guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal of
ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT IN LARGE SCALE defined and penalized in Section 6 in
relation to Section 7(b) of Republic Act No. 8042, and sentences her to life
imprisonment and a fine of One Million Pesos.
(2) In Criminal Case No. 04-125443, the Court
finds accused MARY LOU OMICTIN guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal of
the crime of ESTAFA, defined and penalized in Article 315, paragraph 2 (a) of
the Revised Penal Code, and sentences her to an indeterminate penalty of two
(2) years, eleven (11) months and eleven (11) days of prision correccional as
minimum to seven (7) years of prision mayor as maximum, and to indemnify
complainant Roy Fernandez Mago in the amount of Forty Thousand (P40,000.00)
Pesos.
(3) In Criminal Case No. 04-125444, the Court
finds accused MARY LOU OMICTIN guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal of
the crime of estafa defined and penalized in Article 315, paragraph 2 (a) of
the Revised Penal Code, and sentences her to an indeterminate penalty of two
(2) years, eleven (11) months and eleven days of prision correccional as
minimum to six (6) years, eight (8) months and twenty (20) days of prision
mayor as maximum, and to indemnify complainant Anthony Ambrosio in the amount
of Sixteen Thousand (P16,000.00) Pesos.
(4) In Criminal Case No. 04-125445, the Court
finds accused MARY LOU OMICTIN guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal of
the crime of ESTAFA, defined and penalized in Article 315, paragraph 2 (a) of
the Revised Penal Code, and sentences her to an indeterminate penalty of two
(2) years, eleven (11) months and eleven (11) days of prision correccional as
minimum to seven (7) years of prision mayor as maximum, and to indemnify
complainant Arvin Guevarra in the amount of Forty Thousand (P40,000.00) Pesos.
SO ORDERED.[15]
Aggrieved,
Omictin appealed[16] to the
CA, raising in her Brief for the Accused-Appellant,[17] the
following issues:
(1) Primo Guevarra was not the one
who paid the accused, but Elisa Dotenes,[18]
who issued a check in favor of accused-appellant in behalf of Guevarra. Thus, without the supporting testimony of
Dotenes who was not presented by the prosecution, Guevarra’s testimony is
unsubstantiated and hearsay;[19]
and
(2) As to private complainant
Ambrosio, there was no receipt presented to show payment to accused-appellant,
rendering his testimony uncorroborated and self-serving.[20]
Eventually, the CA rendered the
assailed decision, the dispositive portion of which states:
WHEREFORE, in light of the [foregoing]
disquisitions, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch
104, in Criminal Case Nos. Q-04-125442, Q-04-125443, Q-04-125444, and
Q-04-125445, finding appellant Mary Lou Omictin, guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the crimes charged, is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.[21]
Hence,
we have this appeal.
Through a Manifestation (In lieu of
Supplemental Brief)[22]
dated October 12, 2009, Omictin repleads and adopts all the defenses and
arguments raised in her Brief for the Accused-Appellant[23]
dated January 22, 2008.
The Ruling of the Court
The appeal is without merit.
An examination of the issues raised
by Omictin in her Brief would readily reveal that the same are all factual
issues. Subject to well-defined
exceptions, the Court, not being a trier of facts, will not delve once more
into the factual findings of the trial court as affirmed by the appellate
court. The Court, in Dueñas v. Guce-Africa,[24] has
articulated the rule as follows:
We will not review, much less reverse, the
factual findings of the Court of Appeals especially where, as in this case,
such findings coincide with those of the trial court, since we are not a trier
of facts. The established rule is that
the factual findings of the Court of Appeals affirming those of the RTC are
conclusive and binding on us. We are
not wont to review them, save under exceptional circumstances as: (1) when the
inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (2) when there is
grave abuse of discretion; (3) when the findings are grounded entirely on
speculations, surmises or conjectures; (4) when the judgment of the Court of
Appeals is based on misapprehension of facts; (5) when the Court of Appeals, in
making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is
contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (6) when the
findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which
they are based; (7) when the Court of
Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the
parties and which, if properly considered, would justify a different
conclusion; and (8) when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are
premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on
record. (Emphasis supplied.)
None of the foregoing exceptions is present in
the instant case. We thus perceive no
reason to disturb the findings of fact and conclusions of law arrived at by the
courts a quo.
Omictin, however, maintains that the trial
and appellate courts overlooked certain facts, which, if considered, would lead
to her acquittal. Omictin asserts in her
brief the following:
The
testimony of Primo Guevarra undoubtedly shows that he was not the one who paid
the accused-appellant. His testimony, to the effect that the check, issued by a
certain Elisa Dotenes, was paid by the bank, clearly falls within the rules proscribing
the admission of hearsay evidence. It
bears stressing that the failure of the prosecution to present Elisa Dotenes
renders the testimony of witness Guevarra as unsubstantiated and hearsay.
Another
prosecution witness, Mr. Anthony Ambrosio, testified that he gave the
accused-appellant the amount of sixteen thousand (16,000.00) pesos,
representing initial payment in consideration of the work abroad. It is borne
on record however, that Anthony’s testimony was unsubstantiated by any proof
that he made such payment, i.e., receipts.
A
perusal of the records will show that Anthony’s testimony that he was divested
of said amount, through the misrepresentation of the accused-appellant, amounts
to nothing but a mere uncorroborated and self-serving allegation.
Surely, mere allegation, without proof, is
not enough to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
It is submitted that the trial court should
have first considered these testimonies before rendering a judgment of
conviction.[25]
These contentions are erroneous.
First, the testimony of Ambrosio
cannot be considered as self-serving evidence. The phrase “self-serving evidence” is a
concept which has a well-defined judicial meaning. Hernandez
v. Court of Appeals[26]
clarified what self-serving evidence is and what it is not, thus:
The common objection known as “self-serving”
is not correct because almost all testimonies are self-serving. The proper
basis for objection is “hearsay” (Wenke, Making and Meeting Objections, 69).
Petitioner fails to take into account the
distinction between self-serving statements and testimonies made in court.
Self-serving statements are those made by a party out of court advocating his
own interest; they do not include a party’s testimony as a witness in court
(National Development Co. v. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, 19 SCRA 861
[1967]).
Self-serving statements are inadmissible
because the adverse party is not given the opportunity for cross-examination,
and their admission would encourage fabrication of testimony. This cannot be
said of a party’s testimony in court made under oath, with full opportunity on
the part of the opposing party for cross-examination.
This principle was reiterated in the
more recent People v. Villarama,[27]
where the Court ruled, “x x x [A] self-serving declaration is one that is made
by a party, out of court and in his favor. It does not include the testimony he gives as
a witness in court.” Assayed against the
foregoing standards, Ambrosio’s testimony is not self-serving and is admissible
in evidence.
We
can hypothetically assume, as a second consideration, that the testimonies of
Guevarra and Ambrosio are unsubstantiated and self-serving. Still, the unsubstantiated and self-serving
nature of said testimonies would not carry the day for Omictin, since she
admitted, during trial, the substance of their testimonies. Omictin testified thus before the RTC:
Q So
how much did each of the four complainants paid (sic) you for the processing of
their visa?
A Arvin
[Guevarra] and Roy [Mago], P40,000.00 each.
Q How
about this Anthony Ambrosio?
A P16,000.00[28]
Through her testimony, Omictin admitted
and established the fact that she was paid by Guevarra the amount of PhP 40,000
and Ambrosio the amount of PhP 16,000.
In
all, we find no compelling reason to disturb the findings and core disposition
of the CA, confirmatory of that of the trial court.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the November 25, 2009 CA Decision in
CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02793 is hereby AFFIRMED
IN
TOTO.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
RENATO C.
CORONA
Chief
Justice
Chairperson
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO MARIANO C.
Associate Justice Associate Justice
JOSE
Associate Justice
C E R T I F I
C A T I O N
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, 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.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief
Justice