THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 212527. September 20, 2017.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. YOLANDA DE GUZMAN, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated September 20, 2017, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 212527 (People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Yolanda De Guzman, Accused-Appellant). — The accused seeks the review and reversal of the decision promulgated on November 29, 2013, 1 whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed her conviction for illegalrecruitmentinlargescale handed down by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 62, in La Trinidad, Benguet in Criminal Case No. 08-CR-7363 through its decision dated May 9, 2011. 2 She reiterates her arguments in the CA to the effect that the State did not establish her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 3
We dismiss the appeal because the CA did not commit any reversible error in affirming the conviction of the accused.
In its assailed decision, the CA fully and correctly explained its affirmance in the following manner:
The appeal is without merit.
The crime of illegal recruitment is defined under Section 6 of Republic Act (RA) No. 8042, or the MigrantWorkersandOverseasFilipinosAct of 1995, as follows: HEITAD
SEC. 6. Definition. — For purposes of this Act, illegal recruitment shall mean any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers and includes referring, contract services, promising or advertising for employment abroad, whether for profit or not, when undertaken by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority contemplated under Article 13 (f) of Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, otherwise known as the Labor Code of the Philippines: Provided, That any such non-licensee or non-holder who, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment abroad to two or more persons shall be deemed so engaged. It shall likewise include the following acts, x x x:
xxx xxx xxx
Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring or confederating with one another. It is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group.
The persons criminally liable for the above offenses are the principals, accomplices and accessories. In case of juridical persons, the officers having control, management or direction of their business shall be liable.
In order to hold a person liable for illegal recruitment, the following elements must concur: (1) the offender undertakes any of the activities within the meaning of "recruitment and placement" under Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code, or any of the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code (now Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042); and (2) the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable him to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers. In the case of illegal recruitment in large scale, a third element is added: that the offender commits any of the acts of recruitment and placement against three or more persons, individually or as a group.
In this case, appellant was positively identified by the private complainants as the person whom they met at SM-North who, prior to their meeting, promised that they will be deployed for work abroad — Satilyn Kitongan to Saudi Arabia as a nursing aide/caregiver, Joel Dinangwatan as a salesman to Saudi Arabia, and Rita Bilanggo to Cyprus as a domestic helper — and for which the private complainants paid various amounts for processing and/or placement fee. They were not deployed as promised. Appellant admits that she is a non-licensee or non-holder of an authority to recruit workers for employment locally or abroad.
Illegal recruitment includes the act of enlisting or promising for employment abroad, failing to deploy without valid reason and/or failing to reimburse expenses incurred in connection with the documentation and processing for purposes of deployment, without the worker's fault, whether for profit or not, undertaken by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority to recruit; and committed in large scale against three (3) or more, individually or as a group.
Ultimately, the issue comes down to the credibility of the private complainants for they were unable to produce receipts signed by the appellant (albeit Rita Bilanggo produced a pera padala receipt addressed to Liza O. Averion, who is at large). It is settled that where the issue is on credibility, the findings of the trial court will generally not be disturbed. The trial court has the advantage of hearing the witnesses and observing their conduct during the trial, circumstances that carry great weight in appreciating credibility. The trial court is thus in a better position to settle such an issue.
Now on the matter of appropriate penalty. Under Section 6, R.A. No. 8042, illegal recruitment when committed in large scale shall be considered as an offense involving economic sabotage. Accordingly, it shall be punishable by life imprisonment and a fine of not less than P500,000 nor more than P1,000,000. The law provides further that the maximum penalty shall be imposed if illegal recruitment is committed by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority. The trial court imposed the penalty provided by law, accordingly. 4
We adopt the explanations of the CA because they are in conformity with the pertinent law and jurisprudence. The accused has not shown to us any facts or circumstances that the CA ignored or misappreciated that, if properly considered or appreciated, would tilt the judgment in her favor. On the contrary, the CA was quite justified in holding that the proof of guilt depended on the credibility of the evidence adduced through the complainants. The CA accorded respect to the determination of the issue of credibility by the RTC as the trial court by virtue of its advantage of direct access to the witnesses, and of having observed their conduct and demeanor when they testified during the trial. ATICcS
Nonetheless, we modify the civil liability by imposing interest of 6% perannum on the respective amounts that the accused had collected from the complainants, to wit:
|
(a) Satilyn Kitongan |
- |
P30,000.00 |
|
(b) Joel Dinangwatan |
- |
P14,000.00 |
|
(c) Rita Bilanggo |
- |
P72,000.00 |
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on November 29, 2013 finding accused-appellant Yolanda De Guzman guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale, and sentencing her to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P1,000,000.00, subject to the MODIFICATION that she shall pay to the complainants as follows:
|
(a) Satilyn Kitongan |
- |
P30,000.00 |
|
(b) Joel Dinangwatan |
- |
P14,000.00 |
|
(c) Rita Bilanggo |
- |
P72,000.00 |
plus interest of 6% perannum from the finality of this decision until full satisfaction; and ORDERS her to pay the costs of suit. ETHIDa
SOORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-13; penned by Associate Justice Victoria Isabel A. Paredes, with the concurrence of Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao and Associate Justice Elihu A. Ybañez.
2. CA rollo, pp. 15-26; penned by Judge Danilo P. Camacho.
3.Rollo, pp. 34-35; the accused filed on March 6, 2015 her Manifestation in Lieu of Supplemental Brief informing the Court that she was not filing a supplemental brief, and that, instead, she was adopting all the argument tendered in the CA through her Appellant'sBrief.
4.Id. at 10-13.