Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > December 2008 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 178623 : December 03, 2008] ELVIRA DIAZ V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES :

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 03 December 2008:

G.R. No. 178623 (Elvira Diaz v. People of the Philippines). -Petitioner assails the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated August 31, 2005 which dismissed petitioner's appeal and the Resolution dated November 20, 2006, denying the motion for reconsideration thereof, finding her guilty of illegal recruitment.

Two (2) separate Informations were filed with the Regional Trial Court, Baguio City, against herein petitioner for violation of Article 3 8(a) in relation to Article 13(b), 16, 34 and 39(b) of Presidential Decree No. 442, a"s amended by P.D. 1920, or the "Labor Code of the Philippines" and Republic Act No. 8042, or the "Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipino Act of 1995."

Upon arraignment, petitioner pleaded "not guilty." Her co-accused Wendy Torres is still at large. Trial, therefore, proceeded against the petitioner alone.

On August 7. 2001, the RTC rendered a Decision with the following dispositive portion:

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered convicting the accused Elvira Diaz of the crimes charged and hereby sentences her after applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as follows;

1.	In Crim. Case l4423-R:
	to suffer imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1) day and a fine of P200,000.00;
2.	In Cnm. Case 14424-R:
	To suffer imprisonment of 3 years, 6 months and 21 days of prision correccional medium period, as minimum, to 5 years, 5 months and 11 days of prision correccional maximum, as maximum;

and to reimburse the private complainants, Ofelia Branzuela and Alex Cobcobo, the amount of P20,000.00 plus 12% interest thereon per annum from the filing of the complaint up to the time the obligation is actually paid, and farther, to indemnify the private complainants P50,000.00 as actual and/or compensatory damages.

Costs against the accused.

SO ORDERED.^[1]

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed in toto. Hence, this petition.

Petitioner contends that she cannot be held guilty for illegal recruitment because she herself was an applicant for caretaker and hoped to be employed abroad. She denies that she promised, referred, advertised or contracted services to the private complainant or to anyone for that matter for employment abroad.

The Labor Code defines recruitment as "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." In the instant case, the trial court found that petitioner committed acts of referring and promising employment abroad to private complainants, Ofelia Branzuela and Alex Cobcobo. Elvira Diaz and Wendy Torres recruited said complainants in Baguio City. They even inspired Ofelia Branzuela to commit falsification by advertising her to travel as a spouse of Alex Cobcobo and thereby changed her name from Ofelia Branzuela to Olivia Cobcobo. Petitioner persuaded and gaye the impression to them that she, together with her co-accused, had the ability and the power to send them to Jeddah. The trial court also found that petitioner had no license to do so and even asked for payment or consideration for the same which makes her culpable for illegal recruitment. Through the documentary and testimonial evidence, the prosecution was able to successfully prove petitioner's ploy to defraud hapless and unsuspecting victims, promising them overseas employment, by asking money, accepting referrals and other fees for alleged placement abroad despite the lack of authority to do so. Petitioner could only proffer mere denials to the accusations which deserve scant consideration. She alleged, that she did not recruit the complainants and merely accompanied them to the RONA Manpower Services Inc. in Manila. It was, however, clear that while she did not directly recruit the complainants, the petitioner led them to believe that she was acting for and in behalf of the RONA Manpower Services. We find no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the trial court which was affirmed by the appellate court.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court resolved to DENY the instant petition for lack of merit

SO ORDERED.

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Rollo, pp. 198-199.