December 2009 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2009 > December 2009 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 176638 : December 02, 2009] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. NENE AFRICA Y SEVALLEJO & MILLET DACUNES Y QUINE:
[G.R. No. 176638 : December 02, 2009]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. NENE AFRICA Y SEVALLEJO & MILLET DACUNES Y QUINE
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 02 December 2009:
G.R. No. 176638 - (People of the Philippines v. Nene Africa y Sevallejo & Millet Dacunes y Quine)
Many of our countrymen are placed in a situation where they are forced to seek employment abroad in their desire to provide a comfortable life for their family. They persevere and endure the hardships and loneliness that come with being separated from then- family because they believe that, at the end of the day, their sufferings would bring the realization of their dreams.
In some unfortunate cases, however, we have unscrupulous countrymen who prey on their fellow Filipinos by promising them job opportunities abroad, when in fact there is none. They lure them into parting with their hard-earned, and sometimes even borrowed, money. This is exactly the plight of herein private complainants who are here before us in their quest for justice.
No less than the Constitution ordains that labor - local and overseas, organized and unorganized - shall be given full protection. Further, it mandates the promotion of full employment and equality of employment opportunities. Thus, if an individual illegally recruits another for employment abroad, he shall be meted the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of not less than P500,000.00 but not more than -P1 million. The same individual could also be held liable for the crime of estafa.
On November 27, 1998, appellants Nene Africa and Millet Dacunes were charged with the crimes of illegal recruitment and 15 counts of estafa. Except for the dates of the commission of the crime, the amounts involved and the positions applied for, the private complainants[1] testified on similar events, to wit: that they went to the recruitment agency of appellants located at Suite 12, Midland Plaza, Adriatico Street, Manila to seek overseas employment; that appellants informed them that there were jobs available in Taiwan and assured each of them of employment in the position of their preference after payment of processing/ placement fees; that after private complainants gave appellants the amounts representing the processing/placement fees, the latter issued them receipts and thereafter promised them of their impending departure; that despite such promise, private complainants were not deployed; that appellants merely kept reassuring private complainants that they would soon leave for employment abroad and that when private complainants finally demanded for the return of the amounts paid as processing/placement fees, appellants failed to comply..
As documentary evidence, the prosecution offered the Certification issued by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) stating that appellants had no authority to recruit workers for overseas employment. The receipts issued by appellants for the sums of money received from private complainants representing placement/processing fees were also offered in evidence and were marked as Exhibits "A" to "G" with submarkings.
Appellants denied the accusations against them. They claimed that they were mere employees of I.G. Resources, a recruitment agency, and that they only followed the instructions of the owners of said recruitment agency to interview and accept payments from applicants. They also contended that they did not benefit from the processing/placement fees since it was the cashier of the recruitment agency who collected payments from private complainants.
The trial court,[2] however, did not give credence to appellants' contentions. It noted that appellants failed to refer private complainants to their alleged employer, who was supposed to exercise supervision over all their dealings with the applicants. The trial court also took against appellants their failure to adduce evidence showing that they were employees of the purported recruitment agency and that same was duly licensed by the POEA to engage in recruitment for overseas employment.[3]
Ultimately, the trial court convicted appellants of illegal recruitment in large scale. It held that the prosecution satisfactorily established the fact that appellants represented themselves as having the power or ability to send private complainants to Taiwan for employment after payment of the processing/placement fees. Private complainants relied on these assurances and parted with their money in order to ensure immediate deployment. However, appellants' representations proved false as private complainants were not even able to leave the country. Worse, appellants never returned to private complainants their money despite demands. Moreover, the POEA later certified that appellants had no authority to engage in the recruitment and placement of workers abroad. The trial court therefore sentenced the appellants to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay the fine of P500,000.00.
The trial court likewise found appellants guilty of six counts of estafa. It Riled that appellants misrepresented themselves to private complainants as persons who could send them to Taiwan for employment. By relying on appellants' misrepresentation, false assurances and deceit, private complainants were induced or influenced into parting with their money as payment for the processing/ placement fees, thereby resulting in their damage and prejudice. The dispositive portion of the trial court's Decision reads:
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the appellants' convictions but modified the penalties imposed by the trial court While the CA sustained the penalty of life imprisonment imposed by the trial court for Hie crime of illegal recruitment in large scale, it ruled that the fine should be P1million and not merely P500,000.00, pursuant to Section 7 of Republic Act (RA) No. 8042 (Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995),[5] considering that appellants were non-licensees or non-holders of authority. As regards the conviction for estafa, the CA held that the first paragraph of Article 315 provides that the proper penalty is prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period, if the amount involved in the fraud is over P12,000.00 but does not exceed P22,000.00. A year is added for each additional P10,000.00 but the total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed 20 years. The dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads:
The three elements of the crime of illegal recruitment, to wit: a) the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable him to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers; b) the offender undertakes any of the activities within the meaning of "recruitment and placement" under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code, or any of the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of the said Code (now Section 6 of RA No. 8042); and c) the offender committed the same against three or more persons, individually or as a group,[7] are present in the instant case.
It was clearly established that appellants did not possess any valid authority or license to recruit persons for employment overseas, as shown by the certification issued by the Licensing Branch of the POEA. Despite this, appellants engaged in recruitment for a fee by promising private complainants with employment in Taiwan. By reason of such promise, private complainants gave various amounts of money to appellants. And .since there were six victims recruited individually, the trial court correctly held appellants liable for illegal recruitment m large scale.
Appellants' insistence that they were ordinary employees of I.G. Resources fails to impress. They were positively identified by private complainants as their recruiters and the persons who signed the receipts acknowledging payment of the processing/placement fees. Moreover, there was no showing that private complainants had ill-motives against appellants.[8] It is contrary to human nature and experience for strangers to conspire and accuse another person of a grave offense just to placate their wounded feelings.[9] More importantly, appellants failed to adduce evidence that they were indeed mere employees of I.G. Resources. Taken together, we can only conclude that when appellants recruited private complainants, they acted on their own behalf, aid not on behalf of I.G. Resources or any recruitment agency for that matter. At any rate, settled is the rule that an employee of a company or corporation engaged in illegal recruitment may be held liable as principal, together with his employer, if it is shown that he actively participated in illegal recruitment.[10]
Appellants also committed acts constitutive of estafa, the elements of which are: a) the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit; and b) the offended party suffered damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation.[11] ' In this case, appellants committed estafa by making false statements or fraudulent representation prior to, or-at least simultaneously with, the delivery by private complainants of money in various amounts. They. misrepresented themselves to possess the power and capacity to recruit workers for jobs in Taiwan in order to induce private complainants to part with their hard-earned money. But since appellants' assurances turned out to be feigned, private complainants clearly suffered damage. And considering that all the elements of estafa are evident from the foregoing, appellants' conviction for the said crime is proper.
We have consistently ruled that the penalty for estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code is prision correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum if the amount defrauded is over P12,000.00 but does not exceed P22,000.00. When the amount exceeds P22,000.00, the penalty shall be imposed in its maximum. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum term is taken from the penalty next lower in degree or anywhere within prision correccional minimum and medium (i.e., from six months and one day to four years and two months).
Following the abovementioned procedure and our ruling in People v. Temporada,[12] we find that the penalties imposed by the CA in the subject cases of estafa are proper.
As an incidental issue, the Solicitor General avers that private complainants are entitled to recover interest on the amounts awarded in the illegal recruitment in large scale case from the time of the filing of the information until fully paid. We disagree with this averment since the legal interest sought is dependent upon an award of actual damages suffered by the private complainants individually. No civil liability was imposed in the illegal recruitment case since a similar award was already provided in the estafa cases. Thus, legal interest can be recovered only in the estafa cases in the amount equivalent to the actual damages awarded by he trial court at the rate of 6% per annum from the time of the filing of the informations until finality of the judgment and 12% per annum from finality of judgment until fullypaid.[13]
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that appellants are ordered to pay legal interest on the amounts to be recovered as indemnity in Criminal Case Nos. 98-168984, 98-168987 to 98-168989 and 98-168992 to 98-168993 at the rate of 6% per annum from the time of the riling of the informations until finality of judgment and 12% per annum from finality of judgment until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro (designated additional member per S.O. No. 776), Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. Del Castillo and Roberto A. Abad, Members, Second Division, this 2nd day of December, 2009.
G.R. No. 176638 - (People of the Philippines v. Nene Africa y Sevallejo & Millet Dacunes y Quine)
Many of our countrymen are placed in a situation where they are forced to seek employment abroad in their desire to provide a comfortable life for their family. They persevere and endure the hardships and loneliness that come with being separated from then- family because they believe that, at the end of the day, their sufferings would bring the realization of their dreams.
In some unfortunate cases, however, we have unscrupulous countrymen who prey on their fellow Filipinos by promising them job opportunities abroad, when in fact there is none. They lure them into parting with their hard-earned, and sometimes even borrowed, money. This is exactly the plight of herein private complainants who are here before us in their quest for justice.
No less than the Constitution ordains that labor - local and overseas, organized and unorganized - shall be given full protection. Further, it mandates the promotion of full employment and equality of employment opportunities. Thus, if an individual illegally recruits another for employment abroad, he shall be meted the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of not less than P500,000.00 but not more than -P1 million. The same individual could also be held liable for the crime of estafa.
On November 27, 1998, appellants Nene Africa and Millet Dacunes were charged with the crimes of illegal recruitment and 15 counts of estafa. Except for the dates of the commission of the crime, the amounts involved and the positions applied for, the private complainants[1] testified on similar events, to wit: that they went to the recruitment agency of appellants located at Suite 12, Midland Plaza, Adriatico Street, Manila to seek overseas employment; that appellants informed them that there were jobs available in Taiwan and assured each of them of employment in the position of their preference after payment of processing/ placement fees; that after private complainants gave appellants the amounts representing the processing/placement fees, the latter issued them receipts and thereafter promised them of their impending departure; that despite such promise, private complainants were not deployed; that appellants merely kept reassuring private complainants that they would soon leave for employment abroad and that when private complainants finally demanded for the return of the amounts paid as processing/placement fees, appellants failed to comply..
As documentary evidence, the prosecution offered the Certification issued by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) stating that appellants had no authority to recruit workers for overseas employment. The receipts issued by appellants for the sums of money received from private complainants representing placement/processing fees were also offered in evidence and were marked as Exhibits "A" to "G" with submarkings.
Appellants denied the accusations against them. They claimed that they were mere employees of I.G. Resources, a recruitment agency, and that they only followed the instructions of the owners of said recruitment agency to interview and accept payments from applicants. They also contended that they did not benefit from the processing/placement fees since it was the cashier of the recruitment agency who collected payments from private complainants.
The trial court,[2] however, did not give credence to appellants' contentions. It noted that appellants failed to refer private complainants to their alleged employer, who was supposed to exercise supervision over all their dealings with the applicants. The trial court also took against appellants their failure to adduce evidence showing that they were employees of the purported recruitment agency and that same was duly licensed by the POEA to engage in recruitment for overseas employment.[3]
Ultimately, the trial court convicted appellants of illegal recruitment in large scale. It held that the prosecution satisfactorily established the fact that appellants represented themselves as having the power or ability to send private complainants to Taiwan for employment after payment of the processing/placement fees. Private complainants relied on these assurances and parted with their money in order to ensure immediate deployment. However, appellants' representations proved false as private complainants were not even able to leave the country. Worse, appellants never returned to private complainants their money despite demands. Moreover, the POEA later certified that appellants had no authority to engage in the recruitment and placement of workers abroad. The trial court therefore sentenced the appellants to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay the fine of P500,000.00.
The trial court likewise found appellants guilty of six counts of estafa. It Riled that appellants misrepresented themselves to private complainants as persons who could send them to Taiwan for employment. By relying on appellants' misrepresentation, false assurances and deceit, private complainants were induced or influenced into parting with their money as payment for the processing/ placement fees, thereby resulting in their damage and prejudice. The dispositive portion of the trial court's Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds as follows:
1) In Crim. Case No. 98-168979 - accused NENE AFRICA Y SEVALLEJO and MILLET DACUNES Y QUINE GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged and are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Life Imprisonment, to pay [a] fine of P500,000.00 and to pay the costs.
2) In Crim. Cases Nos. 98-168980 (Antonino J. Caisip); 98-168981 (Anarico Panolino); 98-168982 (Ofelia N. Edar); 98-168983 (Renato A. Navergas); 98-168985 (Catalino Bruma); 98-168986 (Melvin Batilante); 98- 168990 (Efren R. Fontanilla); 98-168991 (Willie C. Calpo) and 98-168994 (Windry Valdrez) for failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, accused NENE AFRICA Y SEVALLEJO and MILLET DACUNES Y QUINE are hereby ACQUITTED of the crimes charged. With costs de oficio.
3) In Crim. Case No. 98-168984, accused NENE AFRICA Y SEVALLEJO and MILLET DACUNES Y QUINE GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as principals of the crime charged and are hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of FOUR (4) YEARS, TWO (2) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY to SIX (6) YEARS each of prision correccional and to indemnify jointly and severally private complainant BUENA R. ADVINCULA the amount of P95,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs.
4) In Crim. Case No. 98-168987, accused NENE AFRICA Y SEVALLEJO and MILLET DACUNES Y QUINE GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as principals of the crime charged and are hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of SIX (6) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY each of prision correccional and to indemnify jointly and severally private complainant NORA T. VINLUAN the amount of P31,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs.
5) In Crim. Case No. 98-168988, accused NENE AFRICA Y SEVALLEJO and MILLET DACUNES Y QUINE GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as principals of the crime charged and are hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of SIX (6) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY each of prision correccional and to indemnify jointly and severally private complainant ISABEL G. BELTRAN the amount of P30,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs.
6) In Crim. Case No. 98-168989, accused NENE AFRICA Y SEVALLEJO and MILLET DACUNES Y QUINE GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as principals of the crime charged arid are hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of TWO (2) YEARS, FOUR (4) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY to FOUR (4) YEARS and TWO (2) MONTHS each of prision correccional and to indemnify jointly and severally private complainant GAMALIEL C. VALDEZ the amount of P85,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs.
7) In Crim. Case No. 98-168992, accused NENE AFRICA Y SEVALLEJO and MILLET DACUNES Y QUINE GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as principals of the crime charged and are hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of SIX (6) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY each of pnsion correccional and to indemnify jointly and severally private complainant MARCIANO L. MENDIJA the amount of P20,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs.
8) In dim. Case No. 98-168993, accused NENE AFRICA Y SEVALLEJO and MILLET DACUNES Y QUINEGUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as principals of the crime charged and are hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of TWO (2) YEARS, FOUR (4) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY to FOUR (4) YEARS and TWO (2) MONTHS each of prision correccional and to indemnify jointly and severally private complainant ROGELIO R. PEREZ the amount of P60,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs.
SO ORDERED.[4]
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the appellants' convictions but modified the penalties imposed by the trial court While the CA sustained the penalty of life imprisonment imposed by the trial court for Hie crime of illegal recruitment in large scale, it ruled that the fine should be P1million and not merely P500,000.00, pursuant to Section 7 of Republic Act (RA) No. 8042 (Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995),[5] considering that appellants were non-licensees or non-holders of authority. As regards the conviction for estafa, the CA held that the first paragraph of Article 315 provides that the proper penalty is prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period, if the amount involved in the fraud is over P12,000.00 but does not exceed P22,000.00. A year is added for each additional P10,000.00 but the total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed 20 years. The dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads:
UPON THE VIEW WE TAKE OF THESE CASES, THUS, the appealed decision finding the accused-appellants Nene Africa y Sevallejo and Millet Dacimes y Quine guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale and six (6) counts of Estafa is AFFIRMED, with the following MODIFICATIONS-1. In Criminal Case No. 98-168979 (Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale), the accused-appellants are each sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Pl,000,000.00.
2. In Criminal Case No. 98-168984 (Estafa), the accused-appellants are sentenced each to an indeterminate prison term ranging from four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to fifteen (15) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and to indemnify the complainant Buena R. Advincula in the sum of P95,000.00.
3. In Criminal Case No. 98-168987 (Estafa), the accused-appellants are each sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correctional, as minimum, to eight (8) years of prision mayor, as maximum, and to indemnify the complainant Nora T. Vinluan in the sum of P31,000.00.
4. In Criminal Case No. 98468988 (Estafa), the accused-appellants are each sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years of prision mayor, as maximum, and to indemnify the complainant Isabel G. Beltran in the sum of P30,000.00.
5. In Criminal Case No. 98-168989 (Estafa), the accused-appellants are each sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and to indemnify the complainant Gamaliel C. Valdez in the sum ofP85,000.00.
6. In Criminal Case No. 98-168992 (Estafa), the accused-appellants are each sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of one (1) year, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days of prision correccional, as minimum, to five (5) years, five (5) months and eleven (11) days of prision correccional, as maximum, and to indemnify the complainant Marciano L. Mendija in the sum of P20,000.00.
7. In Criminal Case No. 98-168993 (Estafa), the accused-appellants are each sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to eleven (11) years of prision mayor, as maximum, and to indemnify the complainant Rogelio R. Perez in the sum of P60,000,00.
In the service of the various prison terms herein imposed upon the accused-appellants, the provisions of Art. 70 of the Revised Penal Code shall be observed. Costs shall also be taxed against the accused-appellants.
SO ORDERED.[6]
The three elements of the crime of illegal recruitment, to wit: a) the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable him to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers; b) the offender undertakes any of the activities within the meaning of "recruitment and placement" under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code, or any of the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of the said Code (now Section 6 of RA No. 8042); and c) the offender committed the same against three or more persons, individually or as a group,[7] are present in the instant case.
It was clearly established that appellants did not possess any valid authority or license to recruit persons for employment overseas, as shown by the certification issued by the Licensing Branch of the POEA. Despite this, appellants engaged in recruitment for a fee by promising private complainants with employment in Taiwan. By reason of such promise, private complainants gave various amounts of money to appellants. And .since there were six victims recruited individually, the trial court correctly held appellants liable for illegal recruitment m large scale.
Appellants' insistence that they were ordinary employees of I.G. Resources fails to impress. They were positively identified by private complainants as their recruiters and the persons who signed the receipts acknowledging payment of the processing/placement fees. Moreover, there was no showing that private complainants had ill-motives against appellants.[8] It is contrary to human nature and experience for strangers to conspire and accuse another person of a grave offense just to placate their wounded feelings.[9] More importantly, appellants failed to adduce evidence that they were indeed mere employees of I.G. Resources. Taken together, we can only conclude that when appellants recruited private complainants, they acted on their own behalf, aid not on behalf of I.G. Resources or any recruitment agency for that matter. At any rate, settled is the rule that an employee of a company or corporation engaged in illegal recruitment may be held liable as principal, together with his employer, if it is shown that he actively participated in illegal recruitment.[10]
Appellants also committed acts constitutive of estafa, the elements of which are: a) the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit; and b) the offended party suffered damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation.[11] ' In this case, appellants committed estafa by making false statements or fraudulent representation prior to, or-at least simultaneously with, the delivery by private complainants of money in various amounts. They. misrepresented themselves to possess the power and capacity to recruit workers for jobs in Taiwan in order to induce private complainants to part with their hard-earned money. But since appellants' assurances turned out to be feigned, private complainants clearly suffered damage. And considering that all the elements of estafa are evident from the foregoing, appellants' conviction for the said crime is proper.
We have consistently ruled that the penalty for estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code is prision correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum if the amount defrauded is over P12,000.00 but does not exceed P22,000.00. When the amount exceeds P22,000.00, the penalty shall be imposed in its maximum. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum term is taken from the penalty next lower in degree or anywhere within prision correccional minimum and medium (i.e., from six months and one day to four years and two months).
Following the abovementioned procedure and our ruling in People v. Temporada,[12] we find that the penalties imposed by the CA in the subject cases of estafa are proper.
As an incidental issue, the Solicitor General avers that private complainants are entitled to recover interest on the amounts awarded in the illegal recruitment in large scale case from the time of the filing of the information until fully paid. We disagree with this averment since the legal interest sought is dependent upon an award of actual damages suffered by the private complainants individually. No civil liability was imposed in the illegal recruitment case since a similar award was already provided in the estafa cases. Thus, legal interest can be recovered only in the estafa cases in the amount equivalent to the actual damages awarded by he trial court at the rate of 6% per annum from the time of the filing of the informations until finality of the judgment and 12% per annum from finality of judgment until fullypaid.[13]
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that appellants are ordered to pay legal interest on the amounts to be recovered as indemnity in Criminal Case Nos. 98-168984, 98-168987 to 98-168989 and 98-168992 to 98-168993 at the rate of 6% per annum from the time of the riling of the informations until finality of judgment and 12% per annum from finality of judgment until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro (designated additional member per S.O. No. 776), Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. Del Castillo and Roberto A. Abad, Members, Second Division, this 2nd day of December, 2009.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA.LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA.LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Nora Vinluan, Buena Advincula, Marciano L. Mendija, Isabel Beltran, Gamaliel Valdez, and Rogelio Perez.
[2] Regional Trial Court of Manila, Br. 21. Decision dated December 20, 2001 penned by Judge Amor A. Reyes.
[3] Records, vol. II, p. 464,
[4] Id. at 464-466.
[5] Sec. 7. Penalties.-
xxxx
(b) The penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of not less that 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.
[6] CA rollo, pp. 221-222; penned by Associate Justice Renato C. Dacudao and concurred in by Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe.
[7] See People v. Temporada, G.R. No. 173473, December 17, 2008, 574 SCRA 258, 279.
[8] See People v. Banzales,390Phil 1189,1203(2000).
[9] People v. Guevara, 365 PhD. 555,571 (1999).
[10] People v. Temporada, supra note 7 at 280.
[11] Id. at 282-283.
[12] Supra note 7.
[13] Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97412, July 12,1994,234 SCRA 78.
