Republic
of the Philippines
Supreme
Court
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus
- DOLORES OCDEN, Accused-Appellant. |
|
G.R. No. 173198 Present: CORONA, C.J., Chairperson, VELASCO, JR., LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, PERALTA,* and PEREZ, JJ. Promulgated: June 1, 2011 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, J.:
For Our consideration is an appeal
from the Decision[1] dated
April 21, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 00044, which affirmed with modification the
Decision[2]
dated July 2, 2001 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Baguio City, Branch 60,
in Criminal Case No. 16315-R. The RTC
found accused-appellant Dolores Ocden (Ocden) guilty of
illegal recruitment in large scale, as defined and penalized under Article 13(b), in relation to
Articles 38(b), 34, and 39 of Presidential Decree No. 442, otherwise known as
the New Labor Code of the Philippines, as amended, in Criminal Case No.
16315-R; and of the crime of estafa under paragraph 2(a), Article 315 of the
Revised Penal Code, in Criminal Case Nos. 16316-R, 16318-R, and 16964-R.[3] The Court of Appeals affirmed Ocdens
conviction in all four cases, but modified the penalties imposed in Criminal
Case Nos. 16316-R, 16318-R, and 16964-R,
The Amended Information[4]
for illegal recruitment in large scale in Criminal Case No. 16315-R reads:
That
during the period from May to December, 1998, in the City of Baguio,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
for a fee, recruit and promise employment as factory workers in Italy to more
than three (3) persons including, but not limited to the following: JEFFRIES C.
GOLIDAN, HOWARD C. GOLIDAN, KAREN M. SIMEON, JEAN S. MAXIMO, NORMA PEDRO,
MARYLYN MANA-A, RIZALINA FERRER, and MILAN DARING without said accused having
first secured the necessary license or authority from the Department of Labor
and Employment.
Ocden was originally charged with six counts of estafa
in Criminal Case Nos. 16316-R, 16318-R, 16350-R, 16369-R, 16964-R, and
16966-R.
The Information in Criminal Case No.
16316-R states:
That sometime during the period from October to
December, 1998 in the City of
Baguio, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
defraud JEFFRIES C. GOLIDAN, by
way of false pretenses, which are executed prior to or simultaneous with the
commission of the fraud, as follows, to wit:
the accused knowing fully well that she is not (sic) authorized job
recruiter for persons intending to secure work abroad convinced said Jeffries
C. Golidan and pretended that she could secure a job for him/her abroad,
for and in consideration of the sum of P70,000.00 when in
truth and in fact they could not; the said Jeffries C. Golidan deceived
and convinced by the false pretenses employed by the accused parted away the
total sum of P70,000.00, in favor of the accused, to the
damage and prejudice of the said Jeffries C. Golidan in the aforementioned
amount of SEVENTY THOUSAND PESOS (P70,000,00), Philippine
Currency.[5]
The Informations in the five other cases for estafa
contain substantially the same allegations as the one above-quoted, except for
the private complainants names, the date of commission of the offense, and the
amounts defrauded, to wit:
Case No. Name of the Date of Amount
Private Complainant Commission of Defrauded
the Offense
16318-R Howard
C. Golidan Sometime during the P70,000.00
period
from October
to
December 1998
16350-R Norma
Pedro Sometime in
May, 1998 P65,000.00
16369-R Milan
O. Daring Sometime
during the P70.000.00
period
from November
13,
1998 to December
10,
1998
16964-R Rizalina
Ferrer Sometime in
September P70,000.00
16966-R Marilyn
Mana-a Sometime in
September P70,000.00[6]
1998
All seven cases against
Ocden were consolidated on July 31, 2000 and were tried jointly after Ocden
pleaded not guilty.
The prosecution presented
three witnesses namely: Marilyn Mana-a (Mana-a) and Rizalina Ferrer (Ferrer),
complainants; and Julia Golidan (Golidan), mother of complainants Jeffries and
Howard Golidan.
Mana-a testified that
sometime in the second week of August 1998, she and Isabel Dao-as (Dao-as) went
to Ocdens house in Baguio City to apply for work as factory workers in Italy
with monthly salaries of US$1,200.00.
They were required by Ocden to submit their bio-data and passports, pay
the placement fee of P70,000.00, and to undergo medical examination.
Upon submitting her
bio-data and passport, Mana-a paid Ocden P500.00 for her certificate of
employment and P20,000.00 as down payment for her placement fee. On September 8, 1998, Ocden accompanied
Mana-a and 20 other applicants to Zamora Medical Clinic in Manila for their
medical examinations, for which each of the applicants paid P3,000.00. Mana-a also paid to Ocden P22,000.00
as the second installment on her placement fee.
When Josephine Lawanag (Lawanag), Mana-as sister, withdrew her
application, Lawanags P15,000.00 placement fee, already paid to Ocden,
was credited to Mana-a.[7]
Mana-a failed to complete her testimony, but the RTC
considered the same as no motion to strike the said testimony was filed.
Ferrer narrated that she and her
daughter Jennilyn were interested to work overseas. About the second week of September 1998, they
approached Ocden through Fely Alipio (Alipio).
Ocden showed Ferrer and Jennilyn a copy of a job order from Italy for
factory workers who could earn as much as $90,000.00 to $100,000.00.[8] In the first week of October 1998, Ferrer and
Jennilyn decided to apply for work, so they submitted their passports and
pictures to Ocden. Ferrer also went to
Manila for medical examination, for which she spent P3,500.00. Ferrer paid to Ocden on November 20, 1998 the
initial amount of P20,000.00, and on December 8, 1998 the balance of her
and Jennilyns placement fees. All in
all, Ferrer paid Ocden P140,000.00, as evidenced by the receipts issued
by Ocden.[9]
Ferrer, Jennilyn, and
Alipio were supposed to be included in the first batch of workers to be sent to
Italy. Their flight was scheduled on
December 10, 1998. In preparation for
their flight to Italy, the three proceeded to Manila. In Manila, they were introduced by Ocden to
Erlinda Ramos (Ramos). Ocden and Ramos
then accompanied Ferrer, Jennilyn, and Alipio to the airport where they took a
flight to Zamboanga. Ocden explained to
Ferrer, Jennilyn, and Alipio that they would be transported to Malaysia where
their visa application for Italy would be processed.
Sensing that they were
being fooled, Ferrer and Jennilyn decided to get a refund of their money, but
Ocden was nowhere to be found. Ferrer
would later learn from the Baguio office of the Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration (POEA) that Ocden was not a licensed recruiter.
Expecting a job overseas,
Ferrer took a leave of absence from her work.
Thus, she lost income amounting to P17,700.00, equivalent to her
salary for one and a half months. She
also spent P30,000.00 for transportation and food expenses.[10]
According to Golidan, the
prosecutions third witness, sometime in October 1998, she inquired from Ocden
about the latters overseas recruitment.
Ocden informed Golidan that the placement fee was P70,000.00 for
each applicant, that the accepted applicants would be sent by batches overseas,
and that priority would be given to those who paid their placement fees
early. On October 30, 1998, Golidan
brought her sons, Jeffries and Howard, to Ocden. On the same date, Jeffries and Howard handed
over to Ocden their passports and P40,000.00 as down payment on their
placement fees. On December 10, 1998,
Jeffries and Howard paid the balance of their placement fees amounting to P100,000.00. Ocden issued receipts for these two payments.[11] Ocden then informed Golidan that the first
batch of accepted applicants had already left, and that Jeffries would be
included in the second batch for deployment, while Howard in the third batch.
In
anticipation of their deployment to Italy, Jeffries and Howard left for Manila
on December 12, 1998 and December 18, 1998, respectively. Through a telephone call, Jeffries informed
Golidan that his flight to Italy was scheduled on December 16, 1998. However, Golidan was surprised to again
receive a telephone call from Jeffries saying that his flight to Italy was
delayed due to insufficiency of funds, and that Ocden went back to Baguio City to
look for additional funds. When Golidan
went to see Ocden, Ocden was about to leave for Manila so she could be there in
time for the scheduled flights of Jeffries and Howard.
On December 19, 1998,
Golidan received another telephone call from Jeffries who was in Zamboanga with
the other applicants. Jeffries informed
Golidan that he was stranded in Zamboanga because Ramos did not give him his
passport. Ramos was the one who briefed
the overseas job applicants in Baguio City sometime in November 1998. Jeffries instructed Golidan to ask Ocdens
help in looking for Ramos. Golidan,
however, could not find Ocden in Baguio City.
On December 21, 1998, Golidan,
with the other applicants, Mana-a and Dao-as, went to Manila to meet
Ocden. When Golidan asked why Jeffries
was in Zamboanga, Ocden replied that it would be easier for Jeffries and the
other applicants to acquire their visas to Italy in Zamboanga. Ocden was also able to contact Ramos, who
assured Golidan that Jeffries would be able to get his passport. When Golidan went back home to Baguio City,
she learned through a telephone call from Jeffries that Howard was now likewise
stranded in Zamboanga.
By January 1999, Jeffries
and Howard were still in Zamboanga.
Jeffries refused to accede to Golidans prodding for him and Howard to
go home, saying that the recruiters were already working out the release of the
funds for the applicants to get to Italy.
Golidan went to Ocden, and the latter told her not to worry as her sons
would already be flying to Italy because the same factory owner in Italy,
looking for workers, undertook to shoulder the applicants travel
expenses. Yet, Jeffries called Golidan
once more telling her that he and the other applicants were still in
Zamboanga.
Golidan went to Ocdens residence. This time, Ocdens husband gave Golidan P23,000.00
which the latter could use to fetch the applicants, including Jeffries and
Howard, who were stranded in Zamboanga.
Golidan traveled again to Manila with Mana-a and Dao-as. When they saw each other, Golidan informed
Ocden regarding the P23,000.00 which the latters husband gave to
her. Ocden begged Golidan to give her
the money because she needed it badly.
Of the P23,000.00, Golidan retained P10,000.00, Dao-as
received P3,000.00, and Ocden got the rest. Jeffries was able to return to Manila on
January 16, 1999. Howard and five other
applicants, accompanied by Ocden, also arrived in Manila five days later.
Thereafter, Golidan and
her sons went to Ocdens residence to ask for a refund of the money they had
paid to Ocden. Ocden was able to return
only P50,000.00. Thus, out of the
total amount of P140,000.00 Golidan and her sons paid to Ocden, they
were only able to get back the sum of P60,000.00. After all that had happened, Golidan and her
sons went to the Baguio office of the POEA, where they discovered that Ocden
was not a licensed recruiter.[12]
The defense presented the
testimony of Ocden herself.
Ocden denied recruiting
private complainants and claimed that she was also an applicant for an overseas
job in Italy, just like them. Ocden
identified Ramos as the recruiter.
Ocden recounted that she
met Ramos at a seminar held in St. Theresas Compound, Navy Base, Baguio City,
sometime in June 1998. The seminar was
arranged by Aida Comila (Comila), Ramoss sub-agent. The seminar was attended by about 60
applicants, including Golidan. Ramos
explained how one could apply as worker in a stuff toys factory in Italy. After the seminar, Comila introduced Ocden to
Ramos. Ocden decided to apply for the
overseas job, so she gave her passport and pictures to Ramos. Ocden also underwent medical examination at
Zamora Medical Clinic in Manila, and completely submitted the required
documents to Ramos in September 1998.
After the seminar, many
people went to Ocdens house to inquire about the jobs available in Italy. Since most of these people did not attend the
seminar, Ocden asked Ramos to conduct a seminar at Ocdens house. Two seminars were held at Ocdens house, one
in September and another in December 1998.
After said seminars, Ramos designated Ocden as leader of the
applicants. As such, Ocden received her
co-applicants applications and documents; accompanied her co-applicants to
Manila for medical examination because she knew the location of Zamora Medical
Clinic; and accepted placement fees in the amount of P70,000.00 each
from Mana-a and Ferrer and from Golidan, the amount of P140,000.00 (for
Jeffries and Howard).
Ramos instructed Ocden that the applicants should each
pay P250,000.00 and if the applicants could not pay the full amount,
they would have to pay the balance through salary deductions once they start
working in Italy. Ocden herself paid
Ramos P50,000.00 as placement fee and executed a promissory note in
Ramoss favor for the balance, just like any other applicant who failed to pay
the full amount. Ocden went to Malaysia
with Ramoss male friend but she failed to get her visa for Italy.
Ocden denied deceiving
Mana-a and Ferrer. Ocden alleged that
she turned over to Ramos the money Mana-a and Ferrer gave her, although she did
not indicate in the receipts she issued that she received the money for and on
behalf of Ramos.
Ocden pointed out that she
and some of her co-applicants already filed a complaint against Ramos before
the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) offices in Zamboanga City and
Manila.[13]
On July 2, 2001, the RTC
rendered a Decision finding Ocden guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes
of illegal recruitment in large scale (Criminal Case No. 16315-R) and three counts
of estafa (Criminal Case Nos. 16316-R, 16318-R, and 16964-R). The dispositive portion of said decision
reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby
rendered as follows:
1. In Criminal
Case No. 16315-R, the Court finds the accused, DOLORES OCDEN, GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Recruitment committed in large scale
as defined and penalized under Article 13(b) in relation to Article 38(b), 34
and 39 of the Labor Code as amended by P.D. Nos. 1693, 1920, 2018 and R.A.
8042. She is hereby sentenced to suffer
the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P100,000.00;
2. In Criminal Case No. 16316-R, the Court finds the
accused, DOLORES OCDEN, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of estafa
and sentences her to suffer an indeterminate penalty ranging from two (2)
years, eleven (11) months and ten (10) days of prision correccional, as
minimum, up to nine (9) years and nine (9) months of prision mayor, as maximum,
and to indemnify the complainant Jeffries Golidan the amount of P40,000.00;
3. In Criminal Case No. 16318-R, the Court finds the
accused, DOLORES OCDEN, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of estafa
and sentences her to suffer an indeterminate penalty ranging from two (2)
years, eleven (11) months and ten (10) days of prision correccional, as
minimum, up to nine (9) years and nine (9) months of prision mayor, as maximum,
and to indemnify Howard Golidan the amount of P40,000.00;
4. In Criminal Case No. 16350-R, the Court finds the
accused, DOLORES OCDEN, NOT GUILTY of the crime of estafa for lack of evidence
and a verdict of acquittal is entered in her favor;
5. In Criminal Case No. 16369-R, the Court finds the
accused, DOLORES OCDEN, NOT GUILTY of the crime of estafa for lack of evidence
and a verdict of acquittal is hereby entered in her favor;
6. In Criminal Case No. 16964-R, the Court finds the
accused, DOLORES OCDEN, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of estafa
and sentences her to suffer an indeterminate penalty of Four (4) years and Two
(2) months of prision correccional, as minimum, up to Twelve (12) years and
Nine (9) months of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and to indemnify Rizalina
Ferrer the amount of P70,000.00; and
7. In Criminal Case No. 16966-R, the Court finds the
accused, DOLORES OCDEN, NOT GUILTY of the crime of estafa for insufficiency of
evidence and a verdict of acquittal is hereby entered in her favor.
In the service of her sentence, the provisions of
Article 70 of the Penal Code shall be observed.[14]
Aggrieved by the above
decision, Ocden filed with the RTC a Notice of Appeal on August 15, 2001.[15] The RTC erroneously sent the records of the
cases to the Court of Appeals, which, in turn, correctly forwarded the said
records to us.
In our Resolution[16]
dated May 6, 2002, we accepted the appeal and required the parties to file
their respective briefs. In the same resolution,
we directed the Superintendent of the Correctional Institute for Women to
confirm Ocdens detention thereat.
Ocden filed her Appellant's Brief on August 15, 2003,[17] while the People, through the Office of the Solicitor
General, filed its Appellee's Brief on January 5, 2004.[18]
Pursuant to our ruling in People v. Mateo,[19]
we transferred Ocdens appeal to the Court of Appeals. On April 21, 2006, the appellate court
promulgated its Decision, affirming Ocdens conviction but modifying the
penalties imposed upon her for the three counts of estafa, viz:
[T]he trial court erred in the imposition of accused-appellants penalty.
Pursuant
to Article 315 of the RPC, the penalty for estafa is prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period. If the amount of the fraud exceeds P22,000.00,
the penalty provided shall be imposed in its maximum period (6 years, 8 months
and 21 days to 8 years), adding 1 year for each additional P10,000.00;
but the total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed 20 years.
Criminal
Case Nos. 16316-R and 16318-R involve the amount of P40,000.00
each. Considering that P18,000.00
is the excess amount, only 1 year should be added to the penalty in its maximum
period or 9 years. Also, in Criminal Case No. 16964-R, the
amount involved is P70,000.00.
Thus, the excess amount is P48,000.00 and only 4 years should be added to the penalty
in its maximum period.
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DISMISSED. The assailed Decision, dated 02 July 2001, of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Baguio City, Branch 60 is hereby AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS:
1. In
Criminal Case No. 16316-R,
accused-appellant is sentenced to 2 years, 11 months, and 10 days of prision correccional, as minimum to 9
years of prision mayor, as maximum
and to indemnify Jeffries Golidan the amount of P40,000.00;
2. In
Criminal Case No. 16318-R,
accused-appellant is sentenced to 2 years, 11 months, and 10 days of prision correccional, as minimum to 9
years of prision mayor, as maximum
and to indemnify Howard Golidan the amount of P40,000.00; and
3. In
Criminal Case No. 16964-R,
accused-appellant is sentenced to 4 years and 2 months of prision
correccional, as minimum to 12 years of prision mayor, as maximum
and to indemnify Rizalina Ferrer the amount of P70,000.00.[20]
Hence, this appeal, in which Ocden
raised the following assignment of errors:
I
THE TRIAL COURT
ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT COMMITTED IN LARGE
SCALE ALTHOUGH THE CRIME WAS NOT PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
II
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF ESTAFA IN CRIMINAL CASES NOS. 16316-R, 16318-R AND 16[9]64-R.[21]
After a thorough review of the records of the case, we
find nothing on record that would justify a reversal of Ocdens conviction.
Illegal recruitment in large scale
Ocden
contends that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she
is guilty of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale. Other than the bare allegations of the prosecution
witnesses, no evidence was adduced to prove that she was a non-licensee or
non-holder of authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of
workers. No certification attesting to
this fact was formally offered in evidence by the prosecution.
Ocdens aforementioned contentions
are without merit.
Article
13, paragraph (b) of the Labor Code defines and enumerates the acts which
constitute recruitment and placement:
(b) Recruitment and placement refers to any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract services, promising for 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.
The amendments to the Labor Code
introduced by Republic Act No. 8042, otherwise known as the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act
of 1995, broadened the concept of illegal recruitment and provided stiffer penalties, especially for those that
constitute economic sabotage, i.e., illegal
recruitment in large scale and illegal recruitment committed by a syndicate. Pertinent
provisions of Republic Act No. 8042 are reproduced below:
SEC.
6. Definition. - For purposes of this Act, illegal
recruitment shall mean 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: Provided,
That any such non-licensee or non-holder who, in any manner, offers or promises
for a fee employment abroad to two or more persons shall be deemed so engaged. It
shall likewise include the following acts, whether committed by any person,
whether a non-licensee, non-holder, licensee or holder of authority:
(a) To charge or accept directly or indirectly any amount greater than that specified in the schedule of allowable fees prescribed by the Secretary of Labor and Employment, or to make a worker pay any amount greater than that actually received by him as a loan or advance;
(b) To furnish or publish any false notice or information or document in relation to recruitment or employment;
(c) To give any false notice, testimony, information or document or commit any act of misrepresentation for the purpose of securing a license or authority under the Labor Code;
(d) To induce or attempt to induce a worker already employed to quit his employment in order to offer him another unless the transfer is designed to liberate a worker from oppressive terms and conditions of employment;
(e) To influence or attempt to influence any person or entity not to employ any worker who has not applied for employment through his agency;
(f) To engage in the recruitment or placement of workers in jobs harmful to public health or morality or to the dignity of the Republic of the Philippines;
(g) To obstruct or attempt to obstruct inspection by the Secretary of Labor and Employment or by his duly authorized representative;
(h) To fail to submit reports on the status of employment, placement vacancies, remittance of foreign exchange earnings, separation from jobs, departures and such other matters or information as may be required by the Secretary of Labor and Employment;
(i) To substitute or alter to the prejudice of the worker, employment contracts approved and verified by the Department of Labor and Employment from the time of actual signing thereof by the parties up to and including the period of the expiration of the same without the approval of the Department of Labor and Employment;
(j) For an officer or agent of a recruitment or placement agency to become an officer or member of the Board of any corporation engaged in travel agency or to be engaged directly or indirectly in the management of a travel agency;
(k) To withhold or deny travel documents from applicant workers before departure for monetary or financial considerations other than those authorized under the Labor Code and its implementing rules and regulations;
(l) Failure to actually deploy without valid reason as determined by the Department of Labor and Employment; and
(m)
Failure to reimburse expenses incurred by the worker in connection with his
documentation and processing for purposes of deployment, in cases where the
deployment does not actually take place without the worker's fault. Illegal
recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall be considered
an offense involving economic sabotage.
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.
x x x x
Sec. 7. Penalties.
(a) Any person found guilty of illegal recruitment shall suffer the penalty
of imprisonment of not less than six (6) years and one (1) day but not more
than twelve (12) years and a fine of Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00)
nor more than Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00).
(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 herein.
Provided, however, That the maximum penalty shall be imposed if the person illegally recruited is less than eighteen (18) years of age or committed by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority. (Emphasis ours.)
It is well-settled that to prove
illegal recruitment, it must be shown that appellant gave complainants the
distinct impression that he had the power or ability to send complainants
abroad for work such that the latter were convinced to part with their money in
order to be employed.[22] As testified to by Mana-a, Ferrer, and
Golidan, Ocden gave such an impression through the following acts: (1) Ocden
informed Mana-a, Ferrer, and Golidan about the job opportunity in Italy and the
list of necessary requirements for application; (2) Ocden required Mana-a,
Ferrer, and Golidans sons, Jeffries and Howard, to attend the seminar
conducted by Ramos at Ocdens house in Baguio City; (3) Ocden received the job
applications, pictures, bio-data, passports, and the certificates of previous
employment (which was also issued by Ocden upon payment of P500.00), of
Mana-a, Ferrer, and Golidans sons, Jeffries and Howard; (4) Ocden personally
accompanied Mana-a, Ferrer, and Golidans sons, Jeffries and Howard, for their
medical examinations in Manila; (5) Ocden received money paid as placement fees
by Mana-a, Ferrer, and Golidans sons, Jeffries and Howard, and even issued
receipts for the same; and (6) Ocden assured Mana-a, Ferrer, and Golidans sons,
Jeffries and Howard, that they would be deployed to Italy.
It is not necessary for the
prosecution to present a certification that Ocden is a non-licensee or
non-holder of authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of
workers. Section 6 of Republic Act No.
8042 enumerates particular acts which would constitute illegal recruitment whether committed by any person, whether a
non-licensee, non-holder, licensee or holder of authority. Among such acts, under Section 6(m) of Republic
Act No. 8042, is the [f]ailure to reimburse expenses incurred by the worker in
connection with his documentation and processing for purposes of deployment, in
cases where the deployment does not actually take place without the workers
fault.
Since illegal recruitment under
Section 6(m) can be committed by any person, even by a licensed recruiter, a
certification on whether Ocden had a license to recruit or not, is
inconsequential. Ocden committed illegal
recruitment as described in said provision by receiving placement fees from
Mana-a, Ferrer, and Golidans two sons, Jeffries and Howard, evidenced by
receipts Ocden herself issued; and failing to reimburse/refund to Mana-a,
Ferrer, and Golidans two sons the amounts they had paid when they were not
able to leave for Italy, through no fault of their own.
Ocden questions why it was Golidan who testified for
private complainants Jeffries and Howard.
Golidan had no personal knowledge of the circumstances proving illegal
recruitment and could not have testified on the same. Also, Jeffries and Howard already executed an
affidavit of desistance. All Golidan
wants was a reimbursement of the placement fees paid.
Contrary to Ocdens claims, Golidan
had personal knowledge of Ocdens illegal recruitment activities, which she
could competently testify to. Golidan
herself had personal dealings with Ocden as Golidan assisted her sons, Jeffries
and Howard, in completing the requirements for their overseas job applications,
and later on, in getting back home from Zamboanga where Jeffries and Howard
were stranded, and in demanding a refund from Ocden of the placement fees
paid. That Golidan is seeking a
reimbursement of the placement fees paid for the failed deployment of her sons
Jeffries and Howard strengthens, rather than weakens, the prosecutions
case. Going back to illegal recruitment
under Section 6(m) of Republic Act No. 8042, failure to reimburse the expenses
incurred by the worker when deployment does not actually take place, without
the workers fault, is illegal recruitment.
The affidavit of
desistance purportedly executed by Jeffries and Howard does not exonerate Ocden
from criminal liability when the prosecution had successfully proved her guilt
beyond reasonable doubt. In People v. Romero,[23]
we held that:
The fact that complainants Bernardo Salazar and
Richard Quillope executed a Joint Affidavit of Desistance does not serve to
exculpate accused-appellant from criminal liability insofar as the case for
illegal recruitment is concerned since the Court looks with disfavor the
dropping of criminal complaints upon mere affidavit of desistance of the
complainant, particularly where the commission of the offense, as is in this
case, is duly supported by documentary evidence.
Generally, the Court attaches no persuasive value to
affidavits of desistance, especially when it is executed as an
afterthought. It would be a dangerous
rule for courts to reject testimonies solemnly taken before the courts of
justice simply because the witnesses who had given them, later on, changed
their mind for one reason or another, for such rule would make solemn trial a
mockery and place the investigation of truth at the mercy of unscrupulous
witness.
Complainants Bernardo Salazar and Richard Quillope may
have a change of heart insofar as the offense wrought on their person is
concerned when they executed their joint affidavit of desistance but this will
not affect the public prosecution of the offense itself. It is relevant to note that the right of
prosecution and punishment for a crime is one of the attributes that by a
natural law belongs to the sovereign power instinctly charged by the common
will of the members of society to look after, guard and defend the interests of
the community, the individual and social rights and the liberties of every
citizen and the guaranty of the exercise of his rights. This cardinal principle which states that to
the State belongs the power to prosecute and punish crimes should not be overlooked
since a criminal offense is an outrage to the sovereign State.[24]
In her bid to exculpate herself, Ocden asserts that
she was also just an applicant for overseas employment; and that she was
receiving her co-applicants job applications and other requirements, and
accepting her co-applicants payments of placement fees, because she was
designated as the applicants leader by Ramos, the real recruiter.
Ocdens testimony is self-serving and
uncorroborated. Ocdens denial of any
illegal recruitment activity cannot stand against the prosecution witnesses
positive identification of her in court as the person who induced them to part
with their money upon the misrepresentation and false promise of deployment to
Italy as factory workers. Besides,
despite several opportunities given to Ocden by the RTC, she failed to present
Ramos, who Ocden alleged to be the real recruiter and to whom she turned over
the placement fees paid by her co-applicants.
Between the categorical statements of the prosecution
witnesses, on the one hand, and the bare denial of Ocden, on the other, the
former must perforce prevail. An
affirmative testimony is far stronger than a negative testimony especially when
the former comes from the mouth of a credible witness. Denial, same as an alibi, if not
substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is negative and self-serving
evidence undeserving of weight in law.
It is considered with suspicion and always received with caution, not
only because it is inherently weak and unreliable but also because it is easily
fabricated and concocted.[25]
Moreover, in the absence of any evidence that the
prosecution witnesses were motivated by improper motives, the trial courts
assessment of the credibility of the witnesses shall not be interfered with by
this Court.[26] It is a settled rule that factual findings of
the trial courts, including their assessment of the witnesses credibility, are
entitled to great weight and respect by the Supreme Court, particularly when
the Court of Appeals affirmed such findings.
After all, the trial court is in the best position to determine the
value and weight of the testimonies of witnesses. The absence of any showing that the trial
court plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and value that, if
considered, might affect the result of the case, or that its assessment was
arbitrary, impels the Court to defer to the trial courts determination
according credibility to the prosecution evidence.[27]
Ocden further argues that the prosecution did not
sufficiently establish that she illegally recruited at least three persons, to
constitute illegal recruitment on a large scale. Out of the victims named in the Information,
only Mana-a and Ferrer testified in court.
Mana-a did not complete her testimony, depriving Ocden of the
opportunity to cross-examine her; and even if Mana-as testimony was not
expunged from the record, it was insufficient to prove illegal recruitment by
Ocden. Although Ferrer testified that
she and Mana-a filed a complaint for illegal recruitment against Ocden,
Ferrers testimony is competent only as to the illegal recruitment activities
committed by Ocden against her, and not against Mana-a. Ocden again objects to Golidans testimony as
hearsay, not being based on Golidans personal knowledge.
Under the last paragraph of Section 6, Republic Act
No. 8042, illegal recruitment shall be considered an offense involving economic
sabotage if committed in a large scale, that is, committed against three or
more persons individually or as a group.
In People v. Hu,[28]
we held that 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. In this case, there is conclusive evidence
that Ocden recruited Mana-a, Ferrer, and Golidans sons, Jeffries and Howard,
for purported employment as factory workers in Italy. As aptly observed by the Court of Appeals:
Mana-as testimony, although not completed,
sufficiently established that accused-appellant promised Mana-a a job placement
in a factory in Italy for a fee with accused-appellant even accompanying her
for the required medical examination.
Likewise, Julia Golidans testimony adequately proves that
accused-appellant recruited Jeffries and Howard Golidan for a job in Italy,
also for a fee. Contrary to the accused-appellants
contention, Julia had personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances
surrounding the charges for illegal recruitment and estafa filed by her
sons. Julia was not only privy to her
sons recruitment but also directly transacted with accused-appellant,
submitting her sons requirements and paying the placement fees as evidenced by
a receipt issued in her name. Even after
the placement did not materialize, Julia acted with her sons to secure the partial
reimbursement of the placement fees.[29]
And even though only Ferrer and Golidan testified as
to Ocdens failure to reimburse the placements fees paid when the deployment
did not take place, their testimonies already established the fact of
non-reimbursement as to three persons, namely, Ferrer and Golidans two sons,
Jeffries and Howard.
Section 7(b) of Republic Act No. 8042
prescribes a penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of not less than P500,000.00
nor more than P1,000,000.00 if the illegal recruitment constitutes
economic sabotage. The RTC, as affirmed
by the Court of Appeals, imposed upon Ocden the penalty of life imprisonment
and a fine of only P100,000.00.
Since the fine of P100,000 is below the minimum set by law, we
are increasing the same to P500,000.00.
Estafa
We are likewise affirming the
conviction of Ocden for the crime of estafa.
The very same evidence proving Ocdens liability for illegal recruitment
also established her liability for estafa.
It is settled that a person may be
charged and convicted separately of illegal recruitment under Republic Act No.
8042 in relation to the Labor Code, and estafa under Article 315, paragraph
2(a) of the Revised Penal Code. We
explicated in People v. Yabut[30]
that:
In this jurisdiction, it is settled that a person who
commits illegal recruitment may be charged and convicted separately of illegal
recruitment under the Labor Code and estafa under par. 2(a) of Art. 315 of the
Revised Penal Code. The offense of
illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum where
the criminal intent of the accused is not necessary for conviction, while
estafa is malum in se where the
criminal intent of the accused is crucial for conviction. Conviction for offenses under the Labor Code
does not bar conviction for offenses punishable by other laws. Conversely, conviction for estafa under par.
2(a) of Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code does not bar a conviction for
illegal recruitment under the Labor Code.
It follows that ones acquittal of the crime of estafa will not necessarily
result in his acquittal of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale, and
vice versa.[31]
Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the
Revised Penal Code defines estafa as:
Art. 315. Swindling (estafa). - Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow x x x:
x 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.
The elements
of estafa are: (a) that the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or
by means of deceit, and (b) that damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary
estimation is caused to the offended party or third person.[32]
Both these
elements are present in the instant case.
Ocden represented to Ferrer, Golidan, and Golidans two sons, Jeffries
and Howard, that she could provide them with overseas jobs. Convinced by Ocden, Ferrer, Golidan, and
Golidans sons paid substantial amounts as placement fees to her. Ferrer and Golidans sons were never able to
leave for Italy, instead, they ended up in Zamboanga, where, Ocden claimed, it
would be easier to have their visas to Italy processed. Despite the fact that Golidans sons,
Jeffries and Howard, were stranded in Zamboanga for almost a month, Ocden still
assured them and their mother that they would be able to leave for Italy. There is definitely deceit on the part of
Ocden and damage on the part of Ferrer and Golidans sons, thus, justifying
Ocdens conviction for estafa in Criminal Case Nos. 16316-R, 16318-R, and
16964-R.
The penalty
for estafa depends on the amount of defraudation. According to Article 315 of the Revised Penal
Code:
Art. 315. Swindling (estafa). Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow shall be punished by:
1st. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period, if the amount of the fraud is over 12,000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000 pesos; and if such amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional 10,000 pesos; but the total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases, and in connection with the accessory penalties which may be imposed and for the purpose of the other provisions of this Code, the penalty shall be termed prision mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be.
The prescribed
penalty for estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, when the amount
of fraud is over P22,000.00, is prision
correccional maximum to prision mayor
minimum, adding one year to the maximum period for each additional P10,000.00,
provided that the total penalty shall not exceed 20 years.
Applying the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, we take the minimum term from the penalty next
lower than the minimum prescribed by law, or anywhere within prision correccional minimum and medium
(i.e., from 6 months and 1 day to 4
years and 2 months).[33] Consequently, both the RTC and the Court of
Appeals correctly fixed the minimum term in Criminal Case Nos. 16316-R and
16318-R at 2 years, 11 months, and 10 days of prision correccional; and in Criminal Case No. 16964-R at 4 years
and 2 months of prision correccional,
since these are within the range of prision
correccional minimum and medium.
As for the
maximum term under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, we take the maximum period
of the prescribed penalty, adding 1 year of imprisonment for every P10,000.00
in excess of P22,000.00, provided that the total penalty shall not
exceed 20 years. To compute the maximum
period of the prescribed penalty, the time included in prision correccional maximum to prision
mayor minimum shall be divided into three equal portions, with each portion
forming a period. Following this computation, the maximum period
for prision correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum is from 6 years, 8
months, and 21 days to 8 years. The
incremental penalty, when proper, shall thus be added to anywhere from 6 years,
8 months, and 21 days to 8 years, at the discretion of the court.[34]
In computing
the incremental penalty, the amount defrauded shall be substracted by P22,000.00,
and the difference shall be divided by P10,000.00. Any fraction of a year shall be discarded as
was done starting with People v. Pabalan.[35]
In Criminal
Case Nos. 16316-R and 16318-R, brothers Jeffries and Howard Golidan were each
defrauded of the amount of P40,000.00, for which the Court of Appeals
sentenced Ocden to an indeterminate penalty of 2 years, 11 months, and 10 days
of prision correccional as minimum,
to 9 years of prision mayor as
maximum. Upon review, however, we modify
the maximum term of the indeterminate penalty imposed on Ocden in said criminal
cases. Since the amount defrauded
exceeds P22,000.00 by P18,000.00, 1 year shall be added to the
maximum period of the prescribed penalty (anywhere between 6 years, 8 months,
and 21 days to 8 years). There being no
aggravating circumstance, we apply the lowest of the maximum period, which is 6
years, 8 months, and 21 days. Adding the
one year incremental penalty, the maximum term of Ocdens indeterminate
sentence in these two cases is only 7 years, 8 months, and 21 days of prision mayor.
In Criminal
Cases No. 19694-R, Ferrer was defrauded of the amount of P70,000.00, for
which the Court of Appeals sentenced Ocden to an indeterminate penalty of 4
years and 2 months of prision
correccional, as minimum, to 12 years of prision mayor, as maximum.
Upon recomputation, we also have to modify the maximum term of the
indeterminate sentence imposed upon Ocden in Criminal Case No. 19694-R. Given that the amount defrauded exceeds P22,000.00
by P48,000.00, 4 years shall be added to the maximum period of the
prescribed penalty (anywhere between 6 years, 8 months, and 21 days to 8
years). There likewise being no
aggravating circumstance in this case, we add the 4 years of incremental
penalty to the lowest of the maximum period, which is 6 years, 8 months, and 21
days. The maximum term, therefor, of
Ocdens indeterminate sentence in Criminal Case No. 19694-R is only 10 years, 8
months, and 21 days of prision mayor.
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal of accused-appellant Dolores Ocden is DENIED.
The Decision dated April 21, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 00044 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION to read as follows:
1.
In
Criminal Case No. 16315-R, the Court finds the accused, Dolores Ocden, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of Illegal Recruitment committed in large scale as defined and penalized
under Article 13(b) in relation to Articles 38(b), 34 and 39 of the Labor Code,
as amended. She is hereby sentenced to
suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00;
2. In Criminal Case No. 16316-R, the Court
finds the accused, Dolores Ocden, GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of estafa and sentences her to an
indeterminate penalty of 2 years, 11 months, and 10 days of prision correccional, as minimum, to 7
years, 8 months, and 21 days of prision
mayor, as maximum, and to indemnify Jeffries Golidan the amount of P40,000.00;
3. In Criminal Case No. 16318-R, the Court
finds the accused, Dolores Ocden, GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of estafa and sentences her to an
indeterminate penalty of 2 years, 11 months, and 10 days of prision correccional, as minimum, to 7
years, 8 months, and 21 days of prision
mayor, as maximum, and to
indemnify Howard Golidan the amount of P40,000.00; and
4. In Criminal Case No. 16964-R, the Court
finds the accused, Dolores Ocden, GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of estafa and sentences her to an
indeterminate penalty of 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional, as minimum, to 10 years, 8 months, and 21
days of prision mayor, as maximum, and to indemnify Rizalina
Ferrer the amount of P70,000.00.
SO
ORDERED.
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
Chief Justice
Chairperson
|
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice
|
DIOSDADO
M. PERALTA Associate Justice
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JOSE
PORTUGAL PEREZ Associate Justice |
|
* Per Special Order No. 994 dated May 27, 2011.
[1] Rollo, pp. 3-20; penned by Associate Justice Noel G. Tijam with Associate Justices Elvi John S. Asuncion and Arcangelita Romilla-Lontok, concurring.
[2] Records (Crim. Case No. 16964-R), pp. 253-262; penned by Judge Edilberto T. Claravall.
[3] Originally, Ocden was indicted for six counts of Estafa (Criminal Case Nos. 16316-R, 16318-R, 16350-R, 16369-R, 16964-R and 16966-R).
[4] Records (Crim. Case No. 16315-R), p. 1.
[5] Records (Crim. Case No. 16316-R), p. 1.
[6] Rollo, p. 4.
[7] TSN, October 10, 2000, pp. 1-6.
[8] TSN, January 8, 2001, p. 4.
[9] Records (Crim. Case No. 16964-R),
p. 179; Exhibits A, A-1 and A-2.
[10] TSN, January 8, 2001, pp. 1-15.
[11] Records (Crim. Case No. 16318-R), pp. 54-55, Exhibits A-1 and A-2.
[12] TSN, November 14, 2000, pp. 1-9; November 20, 2000, pp. 1-15.
[13] TSN, February 27, 2001, pp. 1-15; March 6, 2001, pp. 1-6.
[14] Records (Crim. Case No. 16964-R), pp. 261-262.
[15] Id. at 263.
[16] CA rollo, p. 38.
[17] Id. at 67-85.
[18] Id. at 111-134.
[19] G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 640.
[20] Rollo, pp. 18-19.
[21] CA rollo, p. 69.
[22] People v. Gasacao, 511 Phil. 435, 445 (2005).
[23] G.R. Nos. 103385-88, July 26, 1993, 224 SCRA 749.
[24] Id. at 757.
[25] People v. Bulfango, 438 Phil. 651, 657 (2002).
[26] People v. Saulo, 398 Phil. 544, 554 (2000).
[27] People v. Nogra, G.R. No. 170834, August 29, 2008, 563 SCRA 723, 735.
[28] G.R. No. 182232, October 6, 2008, 567 SCRA 696, 705.
[29] Rollo, p. 16.
[30] 374 Phil. 575 (1999).
[31] Id. at 586.
[32] People v. Ballesteros, 435 Phil. 205, 228 (2002).
[33] People v. Temporada, G.R. No. 173473, December 17, 2008, 574 SCRA 258, 299.
[34] Id.
[35] 331 Phil. 64, 85 (1996).