SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 256420. July 12, 2021.]
CORAZON L. ARDE, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 12 July 2021 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 256420 (Corazon L. Arde v. People of the Philippines). — After a judicious review of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the petition 1 and AFFIRM the Decision 2 dated October 19, 2020 and the Resolution 3 dated March 3, 2021 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 43667 for failure of petitioner Corazon L. Arde (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in denying her appeal and affirming her conviction for Simple Illegal Recruitment, as defined and penalized under Section 6, in relation to Section 7 (a) of Republic Act (RA) No. 8042, 4 otherwise known as the Migrant Workers Act of 1995.
Illegal Recruitment is committed by a person who: (a) undertakes any recruitment activity defined under Article 13 (b) or any prohibited practice enumerated under Articles 34 and 38 of the Labor Code; and (b) does not have a license or authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers. 5 Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code defines recruitment and placement as '[a]ny 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.' 6 As correctly ruled by the CA, the evidence in this case established that without any license or authority to do so, petitioner promised private complainant Violeta Kibara (private complainant) overseas employment, prompting the latter to part with her money. It bears stressing that private complainant positively identified petitioner as the person who recruited and collected fees from her; conversely, petitioner's bare denials and self-serving assertions cannot prevail over the positive testimony of private complainant who had no ill motive to testify falsely against her. 7 Accordingly, the present petition must perforce be denied.
SO ORDERED." (Lopez, J., J., designated additional member per Special Order No. 2822 dated April 7, 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 11-27.
2.Id. at 34-42. Penned by Associate Justice Danton Q. Bueser with Associate Justices Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig and Alfredo D. Ampuan, concurring.
3.Id. at 45-46.
4. Entitled 'AN ACT TO INSTITUTE THE POLICIES OF OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT AND ESTABLISH A HIGHER STANDARD OF PROTECTION AND PROMOTION OF THE WELFARE OF MIGRANT WORKERS, THEIR FAMILIES AND OVERSEAS FILIPINOS IN DISTRESS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES,' approved on June 7, 1995.
5.People v. Bayker, 780 Phil. 489, 502 (2016).
6. See Carmen Ritualo v. People, 608 Phil. 548, 566 (2009).
7. See People v. Bayker, supra note 5.