FIRST
DIVISION
PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
G. R. No. 121907
May 27, 1997
-versus-
NORMA
S. FERRER,
Accused-Appellant.
D
E C I S I O N
VITUG, J.:
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
An information
for "Illegal Recruitment on a
Large Scale," penalized under Presidential Decree ["P. D."] No. 442, as
amended by P. D. No. 2018, was filed on 01 December 1993, against
appellant
Norma S. Ferrer. The information, filed before the Regional Trial Court
of Dagupan City, Branch 41, and docketed as Criminal Case No. D-12331,
read:
That during the months of March, 1993 and
May,
1993, in the City of Dagupan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, NORMA S. FERRER, not
being a licensee nor holder of authority, did then and there,
willfully,
unlawfully and criminally, undertake and perform recruitment
activities,
in large scale, by recruiting Cristina T. Sapigao, Zenaida I. Lucas and
May Liza C. Corpuz, for supposed jobs abroad.
Contrary to P. D. 442, as amended by
P. D.
2018.[1]
Three [3] other
informations were filed with the
same court docketed Criminal Case No. D-12349, Case No. D-12350 and
Case
No. 94-00155-D, charging the same appellant with the crime of Estafa
under
Article 315, subdivision 2(a), of the Revised Penal Code.
Appellant, when
arraigned, pleaded "not guilty"
to the charges. The four cases were tried jointly.
In a joint decision, dated 27 June 1995, the
court a quo, upon the conclusion of trial, adjudged:
WHEREFORE, finding accused guilty beyond
reasonable
doubt of the offense charged in Criminal Case No. D-12331 [Violation of
Article 38 of P. D. 2018 as amended], she is hereby sentenced to suffer
a penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P100,000.00.
In Criminal Case Nos. D-12350, D-12349
and
94-00155-D,
accused is hereby acquitted for failure of the prosecution to prove her
guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
In the civil aspect of Criminal Case
No.
D-12350,
D-12349 and 94-00155-D, accused is hereby ordered to pay to Jesusa
Cabang
and Zenaida Lucas, the sum of P13,500.00 each as reimbursement of
placement
fees which they paid to the former, plus temperate damages in the
amount
of P3,000.00 each for expenses incurred by them in making a collection
of their claim.
Accused is likewise ordered to pay to
Cristina
Sapigao the sum of P16,500.00 as reimbursement of placement fees and
other
expenses she incurred in pursuing her claim judicially and
extra-judicially,
plus an exemplary damage of P5,000.00 which she shall pay to each of
the
above-named complainants.
SO ORDERED.[2]
Norma Ferrer
appealed to this Court raising a number
of errors allegedly committed by the court a quo and assailing, in
fine,
her conviction on the contention that her guilt had not been
established
beyond reasonable doubt. Appellant would insist that her transactions
with
private complainants were purely civil in nature, and that the sums
received
from them were really "advance rentals" for the lease of an apartment
unit.
Private complainants Zenaida Lucas, Cristina Sapigao, May Liza Corpuz
and
Jesusa Cabang categorically declared, upon the other hand, that
sometime
in March and May 1993, they had sought the help of appellant who,
representing
herself to be a labor recruiter, undertook to get them employed in
London
as nursing aides. The complainants were required to give their
bio-data,
pictures and copies of school transcripts and diploma, as well as to
each
pay a placement fee of P13,500.00, to appellant. Private complainants
complied
by submitting the above documentary requirements and by paying the
solicited
fees except far May Liza Corpuz who, in her case, was only able to hand
over P6,800.00 to appellant. The latter issued the corresponding
receipts
for the payments.[3]
Appellant assured
private complainants that soon
they could all leave for London. Several days passed but the promise
failed
to materialize. The supposed dates of departure were postponed several
times. Fed up, private complainants firmly asked appellant if she
really
could have them employed abroad. Appellant again gave them verbal
assurances.
In truth, of course, she was unable to send any of private complainants
for deployment overseas.[4]
Private
complainants ultimately demanded from
appellant the refund of their payments. Instead, she gave them
promissory
notes in exchange for the receipts she had issued. Except for May Liza
Corpuz who was able to recover a part of the amount she had paid, the
rest
were unable to recover any sum from appellant despite the tatter's
incessant
promises to make a refund.[5]
Private
complainants thereupon reported the matter
to the local police which, in turn, referred them to the National
Bureau
of Investigation ["NBI"] in Dagupan City. Upon the advice of the NBI,
private
complainants obtained from the Department of Labor and Employment
["DOLE"]
a certification to the effect that appellant was not a licensed
recruiter.[6]
Article 38,
paragraph [a] of the Labor Code provides:
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.
The Code so
defines recruitment and placement as
referring to "any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting,
transporting,
utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, and includes referrals,
contract
services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad,
whether
for profit or not: Provided that any person or entity which, in any
manner,
offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons shall be
deemed engaged in recruitment and placement."[7]
The Court
subscribes to the disquisition thus
aptly made by the trial court; it said:
In the wake of the contrasting versions
narrated
by both parties, one imputing criminal responsibility, and the other, a
mere civil obligation, which of them should be accorded credence and
belief?
This court, after a circumspectious study
of
the facts, is of the well-considered opinion that the prosecution's
evidence
should be given unequivocal belief and credence for the following
reasons:
FIRST: The testimony of accused
cannot
prevail over the positive assertions of complainants [People vs.
Tibayan,
85 SCRA 378, 395], whose testimony is negative in character. In the
absence
of improper motives, which has not been shown here by accused, there is
no reason why complainants would testify falsely against her [People
vs.
Lanseta, 95 SCRA 166].
SECOND: The story narrated by
complainant
is more consistent with logic and reason because they, being fresh
graduates,
their natural tendency would be to go looking for a job, instead of
searching
for an apartment to rent for a huge amount of money which they have
very
little, if no need, at all. This argument was strongly articulated by
the
prosecutor in the course of the proceedings. A convincing and logical
argument
which cannot be overlooked.
THIRD: Accused could not present
any
note
or memorandum of her alleged lease agreement with complainants. Neither
did she declare or explain the terms and conditions thereof in court to
show that their agreement was indeed a contract of lease.
It is indeed very unusual that accused,
an
operator
of a canteen and boarding house who considers a written evidence of an
agreement important [Exhibit "I"], would fail to draw a formal
agreement
with lessees which involved such a huge amount entailing reimbursement
if the same is not consummated. This is not normal business practice.
Furthermore, if the reimbursements she
gave
to
complainants and the promissory notes she executed in their favor truly
referred to her apartment or boarding house, why did she not mention
such
facts in those documents? Was it because she was afraid to express such
a brazen lie while her victims were looking?
In the opinion of this court, her act
of
retrieving
the receipts of payments to her by complainants and replacing them with
promissory notes was a carefully planned and deliberated scheme. Even
the
omission of the purpose for which said promissory notes referred to was
deliberate so that in case of any suit arising from its non-payment,
said
notes will be capable of two interpretations, one of which accused can
manipulate in her favor.
It is reasoning tested by time,
experience
and
application that a believable testimony should pass the test of
credulity,
having reference to the narrator himself and the story told. Briefly
stated,
it must not only proceed from a credible source, but must itself also
be
credible in itself. Judged according to this rule, the testimony of
accused
is not by itself credible.[8]
In the crime of
illegal recruitment in large scale,
it needs only to be established [1] that the accused is engaged in the
recruitment and placement of workers defined under Article 13(b) or in
any of the prohibited activities under Article 34 of the Labor Code;
[2]
that the accused has failed to comply with the guidelines issued by the
Secretary of Labor and Employment, particularly with respect to the
need
for a license or an authority to recruit and deploy workers, either
locally
or overseas; and [3] that the accused commits the infraction against
three
or more persons, individually or as a group.[9]
Appellant faults
the trial judge, who did not
personally try the case, for deciding it solely on the basis of the
records
before him. It is not essential for a judge in coming down with a
decision
that he himself should have tried the case. In People vs. Collado,[10]
this Court has made that clear. Hence:
It is not unusual for a judge who did not
try
a case to decide it on the basis of the record for the trial judge
might
have died, resigned, retired, transferred, etc. [People v. Escalante,
et
al., G. R. No. L-37147, August 22, 1984, 131 SCRA 237]. The fact that
the
judge who heard the evidence is not the one who rendered the judgment
and
that for that reason the latter did not have the opportunity to observe
the demeanor of the witnesses during the trial but merely relied on the
records of the case does not render the judgment erroneous.[11]
In People vs.
CFI of Quezon, Branch X,[12]
the Court has observed:
Today, when stenographers are employed in
the
courts in the trial of cases and when a complete, authentic record of
everything
that transpires during the trial is kept and when from said record,
every
one may read said record, and be informed fully of every act,
objection,
or exception taken or made during the trial, there seems to be but
little
reason for asserting that one qualified person may not be able to reach
a just and fair conclusion from said record. Every person may ascertain
for himself the correctness of any disputed fact in said record.[13]
Relative to
appellant's claim that she was denied
due process, the records would disclose otherwise. Evident during the
trial
were her participation in the proceedings and her own testimony in
court
given on 27 February 1995, 14 March 1995 and 03 April 1995. The right
to
due process of law would only require that an opportunity to be heard
was
duly accorded the accused. Undoubtedly she was given that opportunity.
Appellant avers
that former Assistant Prosecutor
Gregorio Domagas, in filing eight different estafa and illegal
recruitment
cases against her in different branches of the Regional Trial Court and
the Municipal Trial Court in Dagupan City,[14]
has openly violated the Supreme Court's Administrative Circular No.
04-94,
dated 08 February 1994, on forum-shopping.cralaw:red
The argument is
misplaced.cralaw:red
Administrative
Circular No. 04-94 concerns only
the subject of additional requisites for civil complaints, petitions
and
other initiatory pleadings filed in courts and other agencies.
Paragraph
1 thereof is explicit; it states:
The complaint and other initiatory
pleadings
referred to and subject of this Circular are the original civil
complaint,
counterclaim, cross-claim, third [fourth, etc.] party
complaint,
or complaint-in-intervention, petition, or application wherein a party
asserts his claim for relief(Emphasis supplied).
Parenthetically,
the criminal cases filed against
appellant in different courts appear to have distinct causes of action
involving different offended parties who are said to have all been
victimized
by appellant.
WHEREFORE, the
appealed decision is AFFIRMED in
toto. Costs against appellant.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Bellosillo,
Kapunan and Hermosisima, Jr., JJ.,
concur.
Padilla, J., is on leave.cralaw:red
_________________________________
Endnotes
[1]
Record, p. 1.
[2]
Rollo, pp. 33-34.
[3]
TSN, 14 March 1994, pp. 2-4; 05 April 1994, pp. 3 and 8; 24 May 1994,
p.
3; 16 August 1994, pp. 3-5.
[4]
TSN, 14 March 1994, p. 4; 05 April 1994, pp. 4-5; 24 May 1994, p. 4; 16
August 1994, p. 3.
[5]
TSN, 14 March 1994, pp. 3-4; 05 April 1994, pp. 3-5; 24 May 1994, pp.
4-5;
16 August 1994, pp. 3-5.
[6]
Exhibit C, Folder of Exhibit, p. 3.
[7]
Article 13 [b], Labor Code; see People vs. Bautista, 241 SCRA 216; also
People vs. Goce, 247 SCRA 780.
[8]
Rollo, pp. 282-284.
[9]
People vs. Bautista, supra.
[10]
196 SCRA 519.
[11]
At p. 532.
[12]
227 SCRA 457, citing United States vs. Abreu, 30 Phil. 402.
[13]
At p. 460.
[14]
Appellant's Brief, p. 16, Rollo, p. 139. |
