THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 197086. February 12, 2014.]
ROWENA C. CARINGAL, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated February 12, 2014, which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 197086 (Rowena C. Caringal v. People of the Philippines). — The Court resolves to NOTE:
(1) the transmittal letter dated October 29, 2013 of the Court of Appeals elevating to this Court the CA rollo, original records and transcripts of stenographic notes of this case; and
(2) petitioner's motion for early resolution.
In April 2002 petitioner Rowena C. Caringal was introduced to complainant siblings, Rolly and Devina Lugar (the Lugars), as a recruiter of workers for deployment abroad. The Lugars submitted all the requirements for working abroad and paid Caringal the corresponding placement and other fees that she asked. In addition, Devina paid P3,500.00 to the Ministry of Healing and Unification Foundation International (MHUFI) based on Caringal's representation that, to be deployed, she needed to be inducted as a member of that organization. Because Caringal reneged on her undertaking to send the Lugars abroad, 1 the latter inquired with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) regarding her bona fides. They found out that her agency had no record in that office. ITaCEc
On November 6, 2002 the Public Prosecutor filed against petitioner Caringal and her co-accused, Rev. Efren P. Tan of the MHUFI, a charge of illegal recruitment in Criminal Case 02-2060 and four counts of estafa in Criminal Cases 02-2061 to 64. But trial in the cases only began five years later in 2007 following Caringal's arrest. Rev. Tan remained at-large.
Upon petitioner Caringal's motion invoking her right to speedy trial occasioned by the Lugars' repeated absence at the scheduled hearings despite notice, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) provisionally dismissed three of the estafa cases against her, leaving only Criminal Cases 02-2060 (for illegal recruitment in large scale) and 02-2061 (for estafa) where trial proceeded and was concluded.
For her defense, petitioner Caringal claimed that MHUFI was a non-governmental organization, not a recruitment agency. Its purpose was to feed the poor and street children, engage in medical missions, and provide soft loans to members. Further, it assists its members in acquiring missionary visas as members of the Seventh Day Adventists so they can receive training at MHUFI in Palau, USA. While in Palau, the members were allowed to work in addition to fulfilling their missionary duties. MHUFI never promised Devina the job of a waitress in Palau. In fact, she did not present any job contract in her favor.
Petitioner Caringal further claimed that the amounts she received from Devina were merely for safekeeping and were to be returned to her in the event her visa to Palau was not approved. Beyond this, Caringal had no knowledge of any transaction or promise allegedly made to the Lugars. She surmised that it must have been Rev. Tan who promised to deploy the Lugars abroad and she was just being used as a fall guy. THDIaC
Illegal recruitment is large scale if committed against three or more persons individually or as a group. 2 Here, however, the prosecution presented only the cases of the Lugars. For this reason, on December 15, 2008 the RTC convicted petitioner Caringal only of simple illegal recruitment and sentenced her to a prison term of 6 years and 1 day, as minimum, to 12 years, as maximum, and to pay a fine of P200,000.00. 3 The prosecution proved the two essential elements of illegal recruitment: one, that the offender had no valid license or authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers; and two, that he had undertaken an act of "recruitment and placement" as defined under Article 13 (b) 4 or any of the urohibited practices enumerated in Article 34 5 of the Labor Code.
Here, petitioner Caringal categorically admitted on cross-examination that she did not have any license from the POEA to deploy workers abroad. And, the trial court found incredible her defense that she did not know the significance of the transactions for which she issued the receipts. Indeed Caringal was a college graduate and served as MHUFI's office manager.
The trial court also found petitioner Caringal guilty of estafa under Article 315, paragraph (2) (a) of the Revised Penal Code 6 and sentenced her to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from 3 years and 1 day of prision correccional, as minimum, to 10 years of prision mayor, as maximum. 7 The trial court further ordered Caringal to indemnify Devina P49,850.00 as actual damages plus 12% interest per annum reckoned from the time that the case was filed. ATCaDE
The evidence is clear that, by falsely pretending that she had the capability of deploying the Lugars for overseas placement, petitioner Caringal succeeded in deceiving them into giving her money for fees. The defense failed to show that the Lugars harbored some ill feeling or animosity against her that could have motivated them to falsely accuse her of estafa. It would be against human nature and experience for strangers to conspire and accuse another stranger of a most serious crime just to mollify their hurt feelings. As such, the testimonies of the Lugars that it was petitioner who transacted business with them, promised them jobs, and in exchange, received money from them, are credible and trustworthy. 8
Petitioner Caringal attempted to appeal the RTC Decision to the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR 32550 but on January 31, 2011 the latter court dismissed her appeal for failure to file appellant's brief 9 despite a 30-day extension and a fresh period of 10 days to convince the court not to dismiss the appeal. 10
On February 14, 2011 petitioner, through a new counsel, filed a motion for reconsideration with the CA pleading that she be given another chance to file an appellant's brief since her previous lawyer was remiss in his duties. On March 1, 2011 the CA denied petitioner's motion for lack of merit. The CA likewise denied her second motion for reconsideration, hence, this petition for certiorari. AaCcST
The Office of the Solicitor General raised two points in its comment on the petition. First, petitioner Caringal's failure to file her appellant's brief as required automatically warranted the dismissal of her appeal. She was bound by the negligence or mistake of her counsel when the latter failed to file the same. 11 Second, she filed her petition for certiorari beyond the reglementary period, given that her filing a second motion for reconsideration before the CA, a prohibited pleading, did not toll the running of the period for her to file a special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. 12 Thus, even assuming that she could not be faulted for her previous counsel's mistake, she was bound by her present counsel's mistake in not filing the present petition on time.
At any rate, the Court finds no grave of abuse of discretion on the part of the CA in dismissing petitioner Caringal's appeal. The CA Resolution may be harsh to her but it falls within the pale of reasonable discretion. An appeal is not a right but a choice and a privilege. Thus, when she failed to file her appellant's brief despite the CA's numerous liberalities, then it was correct in concluding that she had abandoned her cause. Moreover, the Court has read petitioner's appellant's brief and her arguments. It found no merit in them.
WHEREFORE, this Court AFFIRMS the Court of Appeals Resolution in CA-G.R. C.R. 32550 dated January 31, 2011 that dismissed petitioner Rowena C. Caringal's appeal for failure to file appellant's brief and Resolution dated March 1, 2011 that denied her motion for reconsideration.
SO ORDERED." DSAacC
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LUCITA ABJELINA SORIANODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Petitioner allegedly promised Devina Lugar a job in Palau, USA as a waitress earning P30,000.00 a month. She then gave petitioner P40,000.00 as placement fee for which petitioner issued a receipt. It was agreed that such amount would be, returned if her Visa were not delivered as promised. Petitioner also told her that before she can be deployed, she would have to be inducted as member of the Ministry of Healing and Unification Foundation International (MHUFI) and pay P3,500.00. Devina likewise paid P2,600.00 for medical examination and P3,750.00 for the correction of an error in her Visa.
2. As defined in Section 6 of Republic Act 8042, otherwise known as the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995.
3. Rollo, pp. 18-19: Under Section 7 of R.A. 8042, 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). As held in People v. Simon (234 SCRA 555 [1994]), the provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law are applicable in the following manner: "It is true that Section 1 of said law, after providing for indeterminate sentence for an offense under the Revised Penal Code, states that, 'If the offense is punished by any other law, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same.' We hold that this quoted portion of the section indubitably refers to an offense under a special law wherein the penalty imposed was not taken from and is without reference to the Revised Penal Code, as discussed in the preceding illustrations, such that it may be said that the 'offense is punished' under that law."
4. LABOR CODE, Title I, Article 13. Definitions. — . . . (b) "Recruitment and placement" refers to 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.
5. Id., Art. 34. Prohibited practices. — It shall be unlawful for any individual, entity, licensee, or holder of authority:
(a) To charge or accept, directly or indirectly, any amount greater than that specified in the schedule of allowable fees prescribed by the Secretary of Labor, or to make a worker pay any amount greater than that actually received by him as a loan or advance;
(b) To furnish or publish any false notice or information or document in relation to recruitment or employment; . . .
6. 2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of fraud: (a) By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business, or imaginary transactions, or by means of other similar deceits.
7. Rollo, pp. 19-20: The Indeterminate Sentence Law provides that if an offense is punished by the Revised Penal Code or its amendments, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate penalty, the maximum term of which shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstances, can be properly imposed under the rules of the Revised Penal Code, while the minimum term of which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense [Section 1, Art. 4103, as amended by Act 4225]. Considering that the amount involved is P49,850.00, which exceeds P22,000.00, accused should be sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty, the maximum term of which shall be the maximum period of the penalty prescribed, which is prision correccional in its minimum period to prision mayor in its minimum period, or from six (6) years, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days to eight (8) years, adding one year for each additional P10,000.00, although the total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty (20) years. The minimum term of the indeterminate penalty shall be within the range of penalty next lower to that prescribed by law for the offense, which would be prision correccional minimum and medium periods, or from six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and two (2) months.
8. RTC Decision, rollo, p. 18.
9. Pursuant to Section 8, Rule 124 of the Revised Rules of Court.
10. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and Florito S. Macalino.
11. Heirs of the late Cruz Barredo v. Sps. Asis, 480 Phil. 642, 650 (2004), citing Alabanzas v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 74697, November 29, 1991, 204 SCRA 304, 308.
12. Rollo, pp. 72-73: According to the OSG, petitioner erroneously assumed that the period to file the instant petition is sixty (60) days from the denial of her second motion for reconsideration or until June 1, 2011. Petitioner is mistaken.