FIRST DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
G.R.
NO.
148137
January 16, 2003
-versus-
DOMINGA CORRALES
FORTUNA,
Appellant.
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
D E C I S I O N
VITUG,
J.:
On 29 September 1998,
Dominga Corrales Fortuna, herein appellant, was charged with illegal
recruitment
in large scale under Section 6, paragraph (m), of Republic Act No.
8042,
said to have been committed thusly: chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"That sometime in the
month of July, 1998, in the City of Cabanatuan, Republic of the
Philippines
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused
who is neither a licensee nor holder of authority in the overseas
private
recruitment or placements activities, did then and there, willfully,
unlawfully
and feloniously undertake a recruitment activity by inducing and
convincing
REBECCA P. DE LEON, ANNIE M. NUQUE, NENITA A. ANDASAN, ANGELYN N.
MAGPAYO,
LINA N. GANOT and EDGARDO C. SALVADOR, that she could secure for them a
job in Taiwan, and as a result of such enticement, said Rebecca P. De
Leon,
Annie M. Nuque, Nenita A. Andasan, Angolan N. Magpayo, Lina N. Ganot
and
Edgardo C. Salvador, who were interested to have such employment, gave
and delivered to the accused the total sum of THIRTY TWO THOUSAND FOUR
HUNDRED PESOS (P32,400.00), Philippine Currency, representing medical
fees
in connection thereof, to the latter’s damage and prejudice as they
were
not able to get a job in Taiwan through no fault of their own as
promised
by the accused, who likewise failed to reimburse to herein complainants
the aforementioned amount despite repeated demands; that considering
that
there are six (6) or more complainants prejudiced by the unlawful acts
of the accused, the same is deemed committed in large scale and
considered
an offense involving economic sabotage."[1]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
When arraigned on 29
February 2000, appellant Dominga Fortuna, with the assistance of
counsel,
pleaded not guilty to the crime charged; trial then ensued.cralaw:red
Taking the witness stand
for the prosecution were private complainants Lina Ganot, Nenita
Andasan
and Angelyn Magpayo. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Lina N. Ganot, Angelyn
N. Magpayo, Nenita A. Andasan, Rebecca P. De Leon, Annie M. Nuque and
Edgardo
L. Salvador met Dominga Fortuna y Corrales in a seminar on "Tupperware"
products being then promoted for sale in Cabanatuan City. Fortuna took
the occasion to converse with private complainants, along with some of
the attendees, offering job placements in Taiwan. Convinced that
Fortuna
could actually provide them with jobs abroad, private complainants, on
06 July 1998, each gave her the amount of P5,400.00 to take care of the
processing fee for medical examination and other expenses for securing
their respective passports. On 13 July 1998, private complainants took
the medical examination in Manila. Weeks went by but the promised
departure
had not materialized. Suspecting that something was not right, they
finally
demanded that Fortuna return their money. Fortuna, in the meanwhile,
went
"into hiding." After having later learned that Fortuna had neither a
license
nor an authority to undertake recruiting activities, Angelyn Magpayo
filed
a complaint which, in due time, ultimately resulted in the indictment
of
Fortuna for illegal recruitment. During the preliminary investigation,
as well as later at the trial, Fortuna gave assurance to have the money
she had received from private complainants returned to them but, except
for the amount of P1,250.00 paid to Angelyn Magpayo, Fortuna was unable
to make good her promise. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Dominga Fortuna, in
her testimony, admitted having attended the seminar on June 1998 where
she then met Annie Nuque, Rebecca De Leon, Nenita Andasan, Edgardo
Salvador,
Angelyn Magpayo and Lina Ganot. During the seminar, she purchased
"Tupperware"
products from private complainants after she was convinced to be their
sub-agent. Initially, she was able to remit payments to private
complainants
on her sales but, when she failed to make subsequent remittances, she
was
threatened with criminal prosecution. In order to settle the matter,
she
executed separate promissory notes. When she again failed to pay,
private
complainants filed the case for illegal recruitment against her.
Originally,
there were six private complainants but eventually only three of them
pursued
the case because the others were finally able to leave for abroad.cralaw:red
In its decision, dated
02 January 2001, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 27, Cabanatuan City,
held Dominga Corrales Fortuna guilty of Illegal Recruitment in Large
Scale.
The trial court held:
"WHEREFORE, the Court
finds the accused Dominga Fortuna GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
Illegal
Recruitment in Large Scale and hereby imposes upon her the penalty of
life
imprisonment and a fine of Five Hundred Thousand (P500,000.00) pesos,
as
the same involves economic sabotage. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
She is likewise ordered
to reimburse five thousand four hundred (P5,400.00) each to Lina Ganot,
Nenita Andasan representing the amount they gave to the accused as
processing
fee and the amount of four thousand one hundred fifty (P4,150.00) pesos
in favor of Angelyn Magpayo, as there was a partial restitution during
the trial of the original five thousand four hundred (P5,400.00) pesos
she delivered to the accused."[2]
Seeking a reversal of
her conviction, appellant Fortuna, in her assignment of errors, would
now
have the Court conclude that -
"I. The court a quo
erred in convicting the accused-appellant on an information wherein the
facts alleged therein do not constitute an offense;
II. The court a quo
erred in finding that accused-appellant violated Section 6, par. (m) of
R.A. 8042 when it did not reimburse the alleged amounts received from
private
complainants;
III. The court a quo
erred standing its finding that the accused-appellant was guilty of
illegal
recruitment."[3]
The appeal is bereft
of merit.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The crime of illegal
recruitment is committed when, among other things, a person who,
without
being duly authorized according to law, represents or gives the
distinct
impression that he or she has the power or the ability to provide work
abroad convincing those to whom the representation is made or to whom
the
impression is given to thereupon part with their money in order to be
assured
of that employment.[4]
Verily, the testimony
presented at the trial by the complaining witnesses adequately
established
the commission of the offense.
Testimony of
complainant
Lina Ganot -
Q. Mrs.
Witness,
where were you in the month of June, 1998?
A. At Macatbong,
Cabanatuan
City, sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q. Were you
gainfully
employed at that time?
A. No, sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q. On that
particular
month, June, 1998, having been unemployed at that time, was there ever
an occasion that you tried to look for a job?
A. Yes, sir, I
[tried]
to look for a job. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q. Was there
ever an
occasion that you tried to be a seller of Tupperware products?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Please tell
us in
connection with this intention of yours to sell Tupperware products,
did
you ever attend a seminar?
A. Yes, sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q. Where?
A. At Burgos
Avenue,
Cabanatuan City, sir.
Q. Have you ever
come
across this particular name Dominga Corrales Fortuna?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And where
were you
able to meet this particular person?
A. At the seminar
of
the Tupperware, sir.
Q. What
transpired with
respect to this particular meeting?
A. She recruited us
and told us that she will give us good jobs, sir. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
COURT
Q. Where is she now?
A. There, sir
(witness
pointing to a person who, when asked, answered by the name of Dominga
Corrales
Fortuna). chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
FISCAL
Q. How was this
accused
able to relate to you that job placement will be available for you in
Taiwan?
A. She told me [to
give] her P5,400.00 for processing fee and she went to our house and I
gave the said amount, sir.
Q. Upon hearing
this
particular proposition, what was your reaction?
A. I believe[d] and
I thought that I [could] really work, sir. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q. Aside from
the processing
fee of P5,400.00, were there any other financial matter that was given
by you?
A. None, sir; when
we went to Manila, we shouldered our expenses. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q. When did you
go to
Manila?
A. July 13, 1998,
sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q. What was the
purpose
why you went there?
A. For medical
purpose,
according to her, sir.
Q. And who was
with
you?
A. The accused,
sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q. Aside from
you and
the accused, were there any other persons?
A. We were
accompanied
by my co-complainants, sir, aside from the accused.[5]
Testimony of
Angelyn
Magpayo -
COURT:
Q. Do you know the
accused?
A. Yes, Your Honor.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q. Point to her
now.
A. She’s the one,
sir.
(Witness pointing to a person whom when asked of her name answered
Dominga
Fortuna y Corrales.) chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q. How did you
come
to know her?
A. I came to know
her
during the seminar of Tupperware, Your Honor. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
FISCAL MACARAIG:
Q. Why did you have
to attend this seminar in the selling of Tupperware?
A. As an additional
business, sir. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q. Could you
please
tell us, where this seminar [was] being held at that time?
A. At Burgos St.,
Cabanatuan
City, sir. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q. And when did
you
meet the accused for the first time?
A. At the seminar
in
Tupperware, sir.
Q. Could you
please
tell us what transpired during the first meeting with the accused?
A. She introduced
herself
to us, sir. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q. Afterwards,
what
happened next?
A. She conversed
with
us and asked if we want[ed] to work outside the Philippines, sir.
Q. And what was
your
response to the offer of the accused?
A. I said I was
willing
because I already have a passport, sir. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q. Aside from
that particular
question, what other matters that you and the accused talked about?
A. She asked me if
I had P5,400.00 for the processing of necessary papers, sir.
Q. And what was
your
response to this question?
A. I said I will
raise
the money, sir.
Q. Were you able
to
raise the money?
A. Yes, sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q. When was the
appointed
time that you would have to hand or give the money to the accused?
A. July 6, 1998,
sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q. And were you
able
to actually give the money, the P5,400.00?
A. Yes, sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q. Was there a
receipt
of this particular payment?
A. None, sir.
Q. Could you
please
tell us why there was no receipt for this particular payment?
A. Because I
trusted
her, sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q. And after the
payment
of P5,400.00 what happened next?
A. She brought us
to
Manila for medical purposes, sir.
Q. And what
happened
thereafter?
A. I was not able
to
get the result of the medical examination, sir. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q. By the way,
what
country was mentioned to you by the accused where you were going to
work?
A. Taiwan, sir.
Q. And were you
able
to go to Taiwan?
A. No, sir. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q. Could you
please
tell us why there was a failure in going to Taiwan?
A. After the
medical
examination, she never showed herself, sir.[6]
Testimony of
Nenita
Andasan -
Q. Do you know a
certain
Dominga Fortuna y Corrales?
A. Yes, sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q. In what
capacity
were you able to know this Dominga Fortuna?
A. During the
seminar
of Tupperware, sir. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q. And what is
this
seminar all about?
A. About selling
Tupperware
products, sir.
Q. And where was
this
seminar of Tupperware held?
A. At Burgos
Avenue,
Cabanatuan City, sir. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q. Do you know
who [was]
the one conducting this seminar?
A. No, sir. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q. Why did you
attend
this particular seminar of Tupperware products?
A. Because I was
invited,
sir.
Q. How many
persons
attended that seminar?
A. I cannot recall
how many persons there were, sir. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q. When was this
seminar
held?
A. In the month of
June, 1998, sir. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q. June of what
year?
A. 1998, sir.
Q. You mentioned
awhile
ago that it was during the seminar of Tupperware products that you were
able to meet Dominga Fortuna, will you please tell us what transpired
during
that particular meeting?
A. We [had]
conversation
and then she asked us if we wanted to go abroad, sir. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q. Who was the
one who
asked you that?
A. The accused
Dominga
Fortuna, sir.
Q. And what was
your
particular response?
A. I said to her
‘yes,’
sir, because I want[ed] to have a job.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q. Were you the
only
one [who] was present at the seminar of Tupperware that was offered
this
job?
A. Also my
co-complainants,
sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q. What happened
afterwards,
after you told her that you were interested in working abroad?
A. We set the date
in order to fix our papers, sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q. By the way,
were
those the only matters told to you by the accused at that point in time?
A. She also told us
to prepare money needed for that, sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q. And how much
would
that money be to be prepared by you?
A. P5,400.00, sir.
Q. And did she
tell
you what this P5,400.00 is all about?
A. For processing
of
papers needed, sir.
Q. And when was
the
time that you had to actually pay or tender this P5,400.00?
A. In July, 1998,
sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q. Were you able
to
comply with this particular requirement?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And when did
you
actually comply with this requirement?
A. On July 6, 1998,
sir. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q. To whom did
you personally
tender this P5,400.00?
A. In the house of
Mrs. Ganot, sir.
Q. And where is
the
house of this Mrs. Ganot?
A. At Macatbong,
Cabanatuan
City, sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q. By the way,
who is
this Mrs. Ganot?
A. She is the one
heading
us, sir,
Q. Do you have
knowledge
whether this Mrs. Ganot [was] also interested in working abroad?
A. Yes, sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q. How many were
you
who were present when you actually tendered the P5,400.00?
A. We were six (6),
sir.
Q. Do you know
the names
of the others?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Will you
please tell
us the names of those other persons who were present when you actually
tender the P5,400.00 to the accused?
A. Rebecca de Leon,
Annie Nuque, Nenita Andasan, Angelyn Magpayo, Lina Ganot and Edgardo
Salvador,
sir.
Q. At that point
in
time after you had given the amount of P5,400.00 to the accused, was
there
an official receipt that was issued or given to you by the accused?
A. None, sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q. Do you know
of any
reason why there was no receipt?
A. Because we
trusted
her, sir, because we were barriomates.
Q. At that point
in
time that you actually handed the P5,400.00, where was Dominga Fortuna?
A. She was present,
sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q. Did she tell
you
anything before and after the giving of this P5,400.00?
A. She said that we
will be going to Manila to process our papers and passport and we will
have a medical examination, sir.[7]
The narration made
by the complaining witnesses does appear to be straightforward,
credible
and convincing, and there scarcely is any reason for ignoring the trial
court in its evaluation of their credibility. Indeed, the trial court
has
additionally observed:
"x x x. There is no
showing that any of the complainants had ill-motives against accused
Dominga
Fortuna other than to bring her to the bar of justice. Furthermore,
appellant
was a stranger to private complainants before the recruitment. It is
contrary
to human nature and experience for persons to conspire and accuse a
stranger
of such a serious crime like this that would take the latter’s liberty
and send him or her to prison. Against the prosecution’s overwhelming
evidence,
accused could only offer a bare denial and an obviously concocted
story."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Doctrinally, the assessment
made on testimonial evidence by the trial judge is accorded the highest
respect for it is he who has the distinct opportunity to directly
perceive
the demeanor of witnesses and personally ascertain their reliability.
The
rule has been said that a person charged with illegal recruitment may
be
convicted on the strength of the testimony of the complainants, if
found
to be credible and convincing, and that the absence of receipts to
evidence
payment to the recruiter would not warrant an acquittal, a receipt not
being fatal to the prosecution's cause.[8]
The pertinent provisions
of Republic Act No. 8042 state: chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
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 of services, promising or advertising
for employment abroad, whether for profit or not, when undertaken by a
non-license 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.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x x x x x x x x x.cralaw:red
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. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Sec. 7.
Penalties.cralaw:red
(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 not less than Two hundred
thousand
pesos (P200,000.00) nor more than Five hundred thousand pesos
(P500,000.00).cralaw:red
(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. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"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." chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
This Court finds the
information which has charged appellant with the offense of Illegal
Recruitment
in Large Scale, defined and penalized in Republic Act No. 8042, to be
sufficient
in form and substance. While the information cited Section 6, paragraph
(m), of Republic Act No. 8042, its factual averments, however, are
sufficient
to constitute the crime of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale under the
aforequoted provisions of the law. It is not the specific designation
of
the offense in the information that controls but it is the allegations
therein contained directly apprising the accused of the nature and
cause
of the accusation against him that matter.[9]
The requisites constituting the offense of Illegal Recruitment in Large
Scale have sufficiently been proven by the prosecution. First,
appellant,
undeniably, has not been duly licensed to engage in recruitment
activities;
second, she has engaged in illegal recruitment activities, offering
private
complainants employment abroad for a fee; and third, she has committed
the questioned illegal recruitment activities against three or more
persons.
Illegal recruitment in large scale (when committed against three or
more
persons), like illegal recruitment committed by a syndicate (when
carried
out by a group of three or more persons), would be deemed constitutive
of economic sabotage[10]
carrying a penalty, under section 7, paragraph (b), of Republic Act
8042,
of life imprisonment and a fine of not less than five hundred thousand
(P500,000.00) pesos nor more than one million (P1,000,000.00) pesos.
The
sentence imposed by the trial court thus accords with the penalty
prescribed
by law. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A word in passing. No
two cases are exactly alike; almost invariably, surrounding
circumstances
vary from case to case. It is this reality that must have compelled the
adoption by the Revised Penal Code of the scheme of graduated penalties
providing, correspondingly, for the circumstances that affect criminal
liability. The system allows the judge to have a good latitude in the
sentencing
process. Indeed, in other jurisdictions, a bifurcated proceeding is
prescribed
in order to help make certain that the penalty is commensurate to the
wrong
done. Under this procedure, the guilt and the innocence of the accused
is first determined and then, after a verdict of plea or guilt, a
pre-sentence
hearing is conducted where the judge or a jury would hear argument and
receive additional evidence on such matters as the nature of the
offense,
manner of its commission, the milieu of time and place, as well as the
education, religion, physical and mental state of the accused, along
with
still other conditions or circumstances, that may find relevance in
either
mitigating or aggravating the punishment to be meted,[11]
all calculated to enhance a fair judgment. Statutory provisions for a
single
penalty, like those prescribed in Republic Act No. 8042, virtually
ignore
these safeguards that help obviate the danger of imposing either too
great
or too little a punishment for the offense.cralaw:red
It is in the above light
and given the factual circumstances of the case at bar, that Congress
might
see it fit to revisit Republic Act No. 8042 towards adopting the
provisions
of the Revised Penal Code on penalties, including its traditional
nomenclatures,
that could pave the way for the proper appreciation of the various
circumstances
long tested that affect criminal liability. Meanwhile, the Court
respectfully
recommends to the President of the Philippines a possible commutation
of
sentence.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, the appealed
decision of the Regional Trial Court, Cabanatuan City, in Criminal Case
No. 8589 for Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale against appellant
Dominga
Corrales is AFFIRMED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Let copies of this decision
be forwarded to the Office of the President and to the Congress of the
Philippines.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
(Chairman),
Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ., concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, p. 8.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Rollo, p. 73.
[3]
Rollo, p. 54.
[4]
People vs. Ong, 322 SCRA 38; People vs. Goce, 247 SCRA 780.
[5]
TSN, 09 May 2000, pp. 3-4.
[6]
TSN, 23 May 2000, pp. 4-8.
[7]
TSN, 16 June 2000, pp. 4-8.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
People vs. Saulo, 344 SCRA 605.
[9]
People vs. Elamparo, 329 SCRA 404.
[10]
Sec. 10 of the Omnibus Rules and Regulations Implementing Republic Act
8042.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
See Gerald D. Robin, Introduction to the Criminal Justice System, 2nd
Edition,
Harper and Row Publishers, New York (1984), at 332. |