Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 178204 August 20, 2008
[Formerly G.R. No. 156497]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee,
vs.
MARCOS GANIGAN, appellant.
D E C I S I O N
TINGA, J.:
Before us for automatic review is the Decision1 dated 14 November 2006 of the Court of Appeals affirming the judgment of conviction2 for the crime of illegal recruitment rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 21.3
In an Information filed before the RTC, accused Ruth, Monchito, Eddie, Avelin Sulaiman and Marcos (appellant), all surnamed Ganigan, were charged with illegal recruitment committed as follows:
That sometime between the period from July and August 1998 in Plaridel, Bulacan and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, representing themselves to have the capacity to contract, enlist and transport workers for employment in New Zealand, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously recruit for a fee the following persons namely: MAURO EUSEBIO, VALENTINO CRISOSTOMO and LEONORA DOMINGO, all residents of Sto. Niño, Plaridel, Bulacan for employment in New Zealand, without first obtaining the required license and/or authority from the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration.
CONTRARY TO LAW.4
Only appellant was arrested. The other accused remained at large.
Appellant, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty on arraignment. Trial ensued.
The three private complainants, Leonora Domingo (Leonora), Mauro Reyes (Mauro), and Valentino Crisostomo (Valentino), testified for the prosecution.
They narrated that they first met appellant in the house of Manolito Reyes in Plaridel, Bulacan in June 1998. Appellant allegedly made representations to private complainants, among others, that his brother, Monchito, and his sister-in-law, Ruth, had the capacity to recruit apple and grape pickers for employment in New Zealand.5
On 5 July 1998, the group, composed of the three private complainants and 35 others,6 went to La Union where they met with Monchito and Ruth. Ruth proceeded to explain their prospective employment with a $1,200.00 monthly salary. Ruth also required the group to attend bible study sessions every Sunday because their prospective employer is a devout Catholic. Pursuant to their desire to work in New Zealand, the group attended bible study from 5 July to December 1998.7
Each member of the group was asked to pay P2,000.00 as assurance fee.8 Leonora paid an additional P400.00 for her National Statistics Office-issued birth certificate,9 P500.00 for physical examination and P320.00 for medical fee.10 Mauro gave an additional P320.00 for medical expenses11 whereas Valentino shelled out P180.00 for pictures, P1,000.00 for bio-data and P350.00 for medical examination.12 The three attested that appellant received their payment and a document was prepared by one of their companions as evidence of the receipt.13 The exhibits submitted by the prosecution show that Monchito acknowledged having received a total of P101,480.00 from various applicants.14 Other documents showed that appellant and Ruth received payment from the applicants.15
Ruth and appellant allegedly promised them that they would leave for New Zealand before October 1998. When they were unable to leave, however, they were told that their prospective employer would arrive in the Philippines on 22 November 1998. On the designated date, they were informed that their prospective employer fell down the stairway of the airplane. An interview was then scheduled on 29 December 1998 but on that day, they were told that their prospective employer had been held up. This prompted the complainants to go to the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) to check on the background of the accused.
They learned that appellant, Ruth and Monchito do not have the authority to recruit workers for employment abroad.16 Certifications to that effect were issued by the POEA.17
Appellant denied having recruited private complainants for work abroad. He claimed that he himself was also a victim as he had also paid P3,000.00 for himself and P2,000.00 for his daughter. He likewise attended the bible study sessions as a requirement for the overseas employment.18 He contended that he was merely implicated in the case because he was the only one apprehended among the accused.19
The trial court rendered judgment convicting appellant of the crime of illegal recruitment. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
Wherefore, all premises considered, this Court finds and so holds that the prosecution was able to establish by proof beyond reasonable doubt the criminal culpability of the accused Marcos Ganigan on the offense charged against him. Accordingly, this Court finds him guilty of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale resulting in economic sabotage as defined under Section 6 and penalized under Section 7(b) of Republic Act No. 8042, otherwise known as the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995. Accordingly, he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00.
Accused Marcos Ganigan is also directed to pay complainants Leonora Domingo, Mauro Reyes and Valentino Crisostomo the amounts of P2,400.00 each plus the sum of P500.00 for Leonora Domingo for actual damages and P25,000.00 as and for moral damages.
With regard to accused Ruth Ganigan, Monchito Ganigan, Eddie Ganigan and Avelin Sulaiman Ganigan, who remain at large until this time, the case against them is ordered archived. Let an alias Warrant of arrest be issued for their apprehension.
SO ORDERED.20
The trial court found that all elements of illegal recruitment in large scale had been established through the testimonial and documentary evidence of the prosecution.
In view of the penalty imposed, the case was elevated to this Court on automatic review. However, this Court resolved to transfer the case to the Court of Appeals for intermediate review in light of our ruling in People v. Mateo.21
On 14 November 2006, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision.
Upon receipt of the unfavorable decision, appellant filed a notice of appeal. On 15 October 2007, this Court resolved to accept the case and to require the parties to simultaneously submit their respective supplemental briefs. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a Manifestation and Motion22 stating that it would no longer file any supplemental briefs and instead adopt its appellee's brief filed on 12 January 2006. Appellant likewise manifested that he would merely adopt his appellant's brief.23
Appellant argues that the prosecution has failed to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He maintains that he did not participate in any recruitment activity and that the alleged payments made by private complainants were for membership in the Christian Catholic Mission, as shown by the fact that private complainants have regularly attended bible study sessions from 5 July to November 1998. He also points out that nothing on record would show that the necessary training or orientation seminar pertaining to the supposed employment has ever been conducted.
Assuming arguendo that the Christian Catholic Mission was only a front to an illegal venture, appellant avers that he was not part of the conspiracy because he was a victim himself as he in fact also paid assurance fees for membership in the Christian Catholic Mission. He laments that aside from introducing private complainants to Ruth, he has not done any other act tantamount to recruitment.
The OSG defended the decision of the trial court in giving full faith and credence to the testimonies of the complaining witnesses. It contends that there is no showing that the victims were impelled by any ill motive to falsely testify against appellant. It asserts that the collective testimony of the witnesses has categorically established appellant's participation in the crime.24
The crime of illegal recruitment is committed when these two elements concur: (1) the offenders have no valid license or authority required by law to enable them to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers; and (2) the offenders undertake any activity within the meaning of recruitment and placement defined in Article 13(b) or any prohibited practices enumerated in Article 34 of the Labor Code. In case of illegal recruitment in large scale, a third element is added - that the accused commits the acts against three or more persons, individually or as a group.25
Article 13(b) defines recruitment and placement 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." In the simplest terms, illegal recruitment is committed by persons who, without authority from the government, give the impression that they have the power to send workers abroad for employment purposes.26
Since appellant, along with the other accused, made misrepresentations concerning their purported power and authority to recruit for overseas employment, and in the process collected from private complainants various amounts in the guise of placement fees, the former clearly committed acts constitutive of illegal recruitment. In fact, this Court held that illegal recruiters need not even expressly represent themselves to the victims as persons who have the ability to send workers abroad. It is enough that these recruiters give the impression that they have the ability to enlist workers for job placement abroad in order to induce the latter to tender payment of fees.27
It is clear from the testimonies of private complainants that appellant undertook to recruit them for a purported employment in New Zealand and in the process collected various amounts from them as "assurance fees" and other fees related thereto.
Private complainants testified in a clear, positive and straightforward manner. Leonora testified that appellant recruited her to work in New Zealand as a fruit picker and was promised by Ruth a monthly salary of $1,200.00. She was required to pay an assurance fee of P2,000.00. She later learned that appellant and his cohorts had not been licensed by the POEA to recruit for overseas employment.28 On cross-examination, she confirmed that she turned over the amount of fees to appellant with the understanding that such payment was for employment abroad.29
Mauro similarly recounted that he was introduced to Monchito and Ruth by appellant as an applicant for farm work in New Zealand. He was told to prepare P2,000.00 as assurance fee, which he paid to appellant. When he was unable to leave, he checked with the POEA and found out that appellant had no license to recruit.30 During the cross-examination, Mauro was firm in his stance that he paid the amount of P2,000.00 as assurance of employment in New Zealand. Furthermore, he regularly attended the bible study as a requirement for said employment.31
Valentino's testimony corroborated that of Leonora and Mauro.32
The trial court found these testimonies credible and convincing.
Well-settled is the doctrine that great weight is accorded to the factual findings of the trial court particularly on the ascertainment of the credibility of witnesses; this can only be discarded or disturbed when it appears in the record that the trial court overlooked, ignored or disregarded some fact or circumstance of weight or significance which if considered would have altered the result.33 In the present case, we find no reason to depart from the rule.
Verily, we agree with the OSG that the testimonies of private complainants have adequately established the elements of the crime, as well as appellant's indispensable participation therein. Appellant recruited at least three persons, the private complainants in this case, giving them the impression that he and his relatives had the capability of sending them to New Zealand for employment as fruit pickers. The OSG adds that appellant went to Bulacan to invite the victims and accompanied them to a fellowship and briefing in La Union; that appellant misrepresented that joining the religious group would ensure their overseas employment; and that appellant without any license or authority to recruit, collected various amounts from private complainants.
Appellant miserably failed to convince this Court that the payments made by the complainants were actually for their membership in the religious organization. He did not present any document to prove this allegation.
For their part, private complainants were adamant that the payments made to appellant were for purposes of employment to New Zealand. They further explained that their participation in the bible study sessions was but a requirement imposed by appellant because their prospective employer was also a member of the same religious group.
Moreover, appellant has failed to rebut the evidence presented by the prosecution consisting of a receipt of payment signed by him.34 His flimsy denial that the signature on the receipt was not his own does not merit consideration in light of the trial court's contrary finding.
As between the positive and categorical testimonies of private complainants and the unsubstantiated denial proffered by appellant, this Court is inclined to give more weight to the former.
In sum, appellant is correctly found guilty of large scale illegal recruitment tantamount to economic sabotage.
Under Section 7(b) of Republic Act No. 8042, the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of not less than P500,000.00 nor more than P1,000.000.00 shall be imposed if illegal recruitment constitutes economic sabotage.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00867 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
DANTE O. TINGA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson |
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice |
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice |
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
Footnotes
1 Rollo, pp. 3-14; penned by Associate Justice Arturo G. Tayag and concurred in by Associate Justices Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Noel G. Tijam.
2 CA rollo, pp. 29-36.
3 Presided by Acting Judge Rogelio C. Gonzales.
4 Records, pp. 2-3.
5 TSN, 20 September 1999, p. 4; 14 August 2000, p. 2.
6 TSN, 14 August 2000, p. 2.
7 TSN, 20 September 1999, pp. 4-6; 14 August 2000, p. 2.
8 See Doc. Exhibit, pp. 1, 16.
9 Id. at 6.
10 TSN, 17 December 1999, p. 4.
11 TSN, 2 February 2000, p. 8.
12 TSN, 14 August 2000, p. 4.
13 TSN, 20 September 1999, p. 7.
14 Doc. Exhibit, p. 4.
15 Id. at 1, 5, 6, 9, 10.
16 TSN, 11 February 2000, pp. 8-10; 20 September 1999, p. 8.
17 Doc. Exhibits, pp. 2, 12.
18 TSN, 23 October 2000, p. 4.
19 TSN, 14 February 2001, p. 5.
20 CA rollo, pp. 35-36.
21 Id. at 120-123.
22 Rollo, pp. 120-123.
23 Id. at 125-126.
24 Id. at 106.
25 People v. Baytic, 446 Phil. 23, 29 (2003).
26 People v. Alvarez, 436 Phil. 255, 265 (2002).
27 People v. Lapis, 439 Phil. 729, 741 (2002); People v. Fortuna, 443 Phil. 438 (2003).
28 TSN, 20 September 1999, pp. 3-9.
29 TSN, 17 December 1999, pp. 2-5.
30 TSN, 11 February 2000, pp. 2-5, 7-10.
31 TSN, 8 March 2000, pp. 2-4.
32 TSN, 14 August 2000, pp. 2-3.
33 Ferrer v. People, G.R. No. 143487, 22 February 2006, 483 SCRA 31, 50.
34 Doc. Exhibits, pp. 10-11.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
