FIRST
DIVISION
PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
G. R. No. 90017-18
March 1, 1994
-versus-
ELENA
VERANO y ABANES,
Accused-Appellant.
D
E C I S I O N
BELLOSILLO, J.:
Elena Verano y
Abanes was convicted[1]
of the crimes of illegal recruitment in large scale[2]
and estafa[3]
in two [2] separate Informations[4]
filed before the Regional Trial Court of Manila and sentenced thus:
[a] In Crim. Case No. 88-61017, this
Court
finds
the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal
recruitment
in large scale as defined under par. [b] of Art. 38 in relation to Art.
39 of the New Labor Code of the Philippines; and this Court hereby
sentences
the said accused to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay
a fine of P100,000.00; and to pay to the offended parties, Arturo
Espiel
and Alfonso Abanes, the sums of P10,000.00, and P7,150.00 respectively,
plus interest thereon at the legal rate of 12% per annum from the date
of filing of the Information on February 22, 1988. The damages due to
the
third offended party, Jose Daep, is taken care of in the estafa case,
Crim.
Case No.88-61018.
[b] In Crim. Case No. 88-6108, the Court
finds
the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of estafa; and
this Court hereby sentences the accused to suffer an indeterminate
sentence
of six [6] years of prision correccional, maximum period, as minimum
penalty,
to nine [9] years of prision mayor in its medium period, as
maximum
penalty, and to pay to Jose Daep, the sole complaining offended party
in
this case, the sum of P15,000.00 as actual damages plus interest
thereon
at the legal rate of P12% per annum from the date of filing of the
Information
on February 22, 1988.
As found by the
trial court, sometime in October
1987, accused-appellant Elena Verano y Abanes persuaded the
three
[3] private complainants, Jose Daep, Arturo Espiel and Alfonso Abanes,
to accept overseas employment as salesmen in Bahrain. In consideration
thereof, Alfonso, Arturo and Jose were required to pay P10,000.00 each
to cover the expenses for the processing of their travel papers, i.e.,
passports, visas and the cost of their plane tickets, medical
examination
and recruitment fees. Jose paid the total amount of P15,000.00, while
Arturo
and Alfonso paid P10,000.00 and P7,150.00, respectively. They were
issued
separate receipts by accused-appellant.[5]
To further convince them of her capacity to send them abroad,
accused-appellant
even signed a contract of employment with her as employer and Arturo as
employee.[6]
Assured that they
could depart for Bahrain on
27 December 1987, Alfonso, Jose and Arturo went to the Ninoy Aquino
International
Airport and waited for accused-appellant who was supposed to meet them
there to deliver their passports, visas and plane tickets. When she
failed
to show up, the three [3] recruits proceeded to her residence and there
waited for her until she returned four [4] days later. By way of
explanation,
they were told that their passports and visas were still being
processed
but were promised they were promised they could leave for their
overseas
jobs on 15 January 1988.cralaw:red
Again, the three
[3] hopefuls proceeded to the
NAIA but, like before, accused-appellant failed to show up. This time
they
were told that they could definitely leave on 13 February 1988.
However,
on the appointed date and time, accused-appellant failed to show up for
the third time. Jose, Arturo and Alfonso then went to the Western
Police
District Headquarters to lodge their complaint. Accused- appellant was
arrested on the same day and charged with illegal recruitment committed
in large scale, and estafa, with Jose Daep as the lone complainant in
the
latter case. After trial, Elena Verano y Abanes was found
guilty
in both cases.cralaw:red
In her brief
filed by the Public Attorney's Office,[7]
accused-appellant contends that the trial court gravely erred when it
imposed
the penalty of life imprisonment for the large scale illegal
recruitment
for the reason that it was too harsh in the light of her good faith in
just wanting to help the private complainants secure employment abroad.
However, in her Supplemental Brief and Reply[8]
filed by her counsel de parte, Atty. Mariano R. de Joya, Jr.,
accused-appellant
changed her position.[9]
Instead of pursuing her attack on the "harshness" of the penalty
imposed,
she now disputes the findings of fact. Thus she argues that, contrary
to
the trial court's findings, she never represented herself as having the
capacity to contract workers for overseas employment; that she merely
introduced
private complainants, Jose, Arturo and Alfonso, to a certain Juliet
Majestrado
who was the one who claimed to have such capacity; and, with respect to
her conviction for estafa, she argues that although she herself issued
the receipts marked Exhs. "C," "E," "E-1," "E-2" and "H," she never
profited
from the money paid as it was all given to and personally received by
Juliet
Majestrado.cralaw:red
Appellant's
argument is obviously without merit
in the light of the well-settled doctrine that findings of fact made by
the trial court are final and conclusive and cannot be reviewed on
appeal.[10]
Except for a few recognized instances,[11]
which do not apply in the case at bench, such findings are binding and
will not be reviewed by Us for this Court is not a trier of facts. The
issues raised by appellant are purely and undisputably factual, as she
herself admits.[12]
Considering that none of the exceptions apply, as aforesaid, We would
not
be justified in reversing the judgment of conviction. Hence, the appeal
must fail.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, the
Decision of the Court a quo
convicting accused-appellant Elena Verano y Abanes of the crimes of
illegal
recruitment committed in large scale [Crim. Case No. 88-61017] and
estafa
[Crim. Case No. 88-61018] is affirmed in toto. Costs against
accused-appellant.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Cruz, Davide,
Jr., Quiason and Kapunan, JJ.,
concur.cralaw:red
_____________________________
Endnotes
[1]
Decision penned by Judge Sabino R. de Leon, Jr., Regional Trial Court,
Br. 28, Manila; Rollo, pp. 26-36.
[2]
Art. 38. Illegal Recruitment. - [a] Any recruitment activities,
including the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of this
Code, to be undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of authority,
shall
be deemed illegal and punishable under Article 39 of this Code. The
Ministry
of Labor and Employment or any law enforcement officer may initiate
complaints
under this Article.
[b] Illegal recruitment
when
committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall be considered an
offense
involving economic sabotage and shall be penalized in accordance with
Article
39 hereof. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if
carried
out by a group of three [3] or more persons conspiring and/or
confederating
with one another in carrying out any unlawful or illegal transaction,
enterprise
or scheme defined under the first paragraph hereof. Illegal recruitment
is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three [3] or
more
persons individually or as agroup.
Art.
39. Penalties. -
[a] The penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of one hundred thousand
pesos [P100,000] shall be imposed if illegal recruitment constitutes
economic
sabotage.
[3]
By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power,
influence,
qualification, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary
transactions,
or by means of other similar deceits [Art. 315, Par. (a), Revised Penal
Code].
[4]
Docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 88-61017 and 88-61018, respectively.
[5]
Exhs. "C," "E," "E-1," E-2" and "H."
[6]
Exh. "G."
[7]
Rollo, p. 46.
[8]
Id., pp. 78-87.
[9]
Supplemental Brief and Reply, p. 1; Rollo, p. 78.
[10]
Surban vs. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 98457, 1 March 1993, 219 SCRA
309,
312; Donato vs. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 102603, 18 January 1993,
217
SCRA 196, 203; Paulmitan vs. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 61584, 25
November
1992, 215 SCRA 866, 875; People vs. Bechayda, G. R. No. 72001, 7 August
1992, 212 SCRA 336, 348; People vs. Pajares, G. R. No. 96444, 23 June
1992,
210 SCRA 237, 244; People vs. Diga, G. R. No. 94546, 24 April 1992, 208
SCRA 306, 315; De Ocsio vs. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 44237, 28
February
1989, 170 SCRA 729, 732; People vs. Raquinio, No. L-16488, 12 August
1966,
17 SCRA 914, 917-918.
[11]
[1] When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculations;
[2] When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or
impossible;
[3] Where there is grave abuse of discretion; [4] When the judgment is
based on a misapprehension of facts; and, [5] When the court, in making
its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same are
contrary
to the admissions of both appellant and appellee [People vs. Rivera, G.
R. No. 86491, 11 December 1992, 216 SCRA 363, 374].
[12]
Supplemental Brief and Reply, p. 2; Rollo, p. 79.
|