SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 199495. March 26, 2014.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. NIDA ADESER, ET AL., appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated26 March 2014which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 199495 (People of the Philippines v. Nida Adeser, et al.). — We decide the appeal filed by Nida Adeser (appellant) from the decision 1 dated March 31, 2011 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR.-HC No. 03274.
The CA decision affirmed with modification the decision 2 dated February 13, 2008 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 118, Pasay City, in Criminal Case Nos. 05-0619-CFM, 05-0622-CFM, 05-0623-CFM, and 05-0628-CFM, finding: (1) the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal recruitment in large scale and two (2) counts of estafa; and (2) accused Rose Mendoza guilty of simple illegal recruitment and estafa. The RTC decision in Criminal Case No. 05-0623 was modified as to the penalty imposed.
The RTC Judgment
In its decision, the RTC found the appellant guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale and two (2) counts of estafa, while Mendoza was found guilty of simple illegal recruitment and estafa. The court did not find sufficient evidence to convict Nieva Olayres and Edna Loot, and archived the criminal cases against the other accused who remained at large. aCATSI
The RTC gave full faith and credence to the testimonies of complainants Sharlyn Castillo, Melinda Quidez and Andres Dacanayan, who all testified that the appellant and Mendoza misrepresented that they had the capacity to send them overseas for employment. It rejected the appellants' defenses of denial and alibi for being self-serving. It significantly noted the admission that Naples Travels and Tours (Naples Tours) was not licensed to recruit workers for overseas employment.
For the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale, the RTC sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P1,000,000.00. For the crime of estafa in Criminal Case Nos. 05-0623-CFM and 05-0628-CFM, the RTC imposed upon her: (1) in Criminal Case No. 05-0623 — an indeterminate sentence of four (4) years and two (2) months, as minimum, to twelve (12) years, as maximum, and to indemnify Quidez in the sum of P70,000.00 with legal interest; and (2) in Criminal Case No. 05-0628 — an indeterminate sentence of four (4) years and two (2) months, as minimum, to eleven (11) years, as maximum, and to indemnify Dacanayan in the sum of P60,000.00, with legal interest from the time of the filing of the Information.
Mendoza, on the other hand, was sentenced to an indeterminate imprisonment of six (6) years, as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day, as maximum, and to pay a fine of P200,000.00 for the crime of simple illegal recruitment. For the crime of estafa, she was imposed an indeterminate imprisonment of four (4) years and two (2) months, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, as maximum and to indemnify Castillo in the sum of P85,000.00, with legal interest from the time of the filing of the Information.
The CA Decision
On intermediate appellate review, the CA affirmed the RTC's decision but modified the penalty in Criminal Case No. 05-0623-CFM (estafa); it imposed an indeterminate sentence of four (4) years and two (2) months, as minimum, to twelve (12) years, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days, as maximum, and to indemnify Quidez in the sum of P85,000.00. As the RTC did, the appellate court gave weight to the testimonies of the complainants and concluded that the prosecution clearly established the elements of illegal recruitment in large scale and estafa. The CA also noted that Loot and Olayres confirmed in their testimonies that Naples Tours (owned and managed by the appellant) had been engaged in recruitment activities. The CA ruled that its lack of license or authority rendered the recruitment unlawful and criminal. Lastly, it held that the absence of receipts or of the appellant's signature in the vouchers does not exculpate her of liability.
Our Ruling
We deny the appeal and affirm the appellant's guilt. We find no reason to reverse the findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA.
In order to sustain a conviction of illegal recruitment in large scale, the following elements must be established: first, the person charged undertook a recruitment activity under Article 13 (b) or any prohibited practice under Article 34 of the Labor Code; second, he/she did not have the license or the authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers; and third, he/she committed the prohibited practice against three or more persons, individually or as a group. 3 The Court finds that all these elements are present.
The presence of the second and third elements is beyond dispute. As the records show, the appellant herself admitted that Naples Tours was not licensed by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration to engage in the recruitment and placement of workers abroad. There were no less than three persons recruited by the appellant on separate occasions who, on the basis of the latter's misrepresentations, parted with their money in exchange for employment abroad. All three filed separate complaints and testified that the appellant promised them employment for a fee. EAcCHI
On the first element, the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant and Mendoza misrepresented and falsely pretended that they had the capacity to send the complainants for overseas employment. In their separate testimonies, each complainant positively identified the appellant as the one who promised them employment upon payment of placement and processing fees. Testimonial evidence also established that each of them separately came to the office of Naples Tours at Villaruel Tower, Villaruel Street, Pasay City, on various dates because they were informed by Olayres about the possible job opportunities abroad. As a result of the appellant's assurances, the complainants were induced to part with their money.
Although the appellant proved that she did not receive any payment nor issued or signed the vouchers in all these occasions, she was undoubtedly present. The appellant cannot escape liability by simply claiming that there were no receipts or documents, or that she was not a signatory to the vouchers issued to the complainants. As long as the witnesses can positively show, through their respective testimonies, that the accused was one of those involved in the prohibited recruitment, she may be convicted of the offense charged despite the absence of receipts. 4
Similarly, we find no reason to disturb the RTC's findings, as affirmed by the CA, that the appellant is guilty of the crime of estafa as defined under Article 315, paragraph 2 (a) of the Revised Penal Code. 5 All the elements of estafa were sufficiently proven by the complainants. In the present case, the appellant led the complainants to believe that she possessed the power, means and capability to provide the latter with overseas work, when in truth, she did not. The appellant's defense of denial cannot be given greater evidentiary weight than the positive evidence presented by the complainants. 6 Denial and alibi cannot prevail over positive evidence. 7
We likewise affirm the penalties imposed by the CA as they are well within the ranges provided by law with modification that the indemnity allowed shall earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the finality of this resolution.
WHEREFORE, the decision dated March 31, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-HC No. 03274 is hereby AFFIRMED. CTHDcE
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
* Perlas-Bernabe, J., recused herself from the case due to prior action in the Court of Appeals; Bersamin, J., designated as Additional Member per Raffle dated March 17, 2014.
1. Rollo, pp. 2-25; penned by Associate Justice Elihu Ybañez, and concurred in by Associate Justices Bienvenido L. Reyes (now a member of this Court) and Antonio L. Villamor.
2. CA rollo, pp. 25-44; penned by Judge Pedro B. Corales.
3. The term "recruitment and placement" is defined under Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code as follows: "(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." (emphasis ours)
4. People v. Sagaydo, 395 Phil. 538, 549 (2000).
5. Article 315. Swindling (Estafa). — Any person who shall defraud another by any means mentioned hereinbelow . . .[.]
2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the 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.
6. People v. Bitancor, 441 Phil. 758, 774 (2002).
7. People v. De Jesus, G.R. No. 186528, January 26, 2011, 640 SCRA 660, 671.