FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 191070. October 2, 2013.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. JULIETA GABAY Y MANGAOANG, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court First Division issued a Resolution dated October 2, 2013, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 191070 (People of the Philippines vs. Julieta Gabay y Mangaoang). — This is an appeal from the Decision 1 dated August 20, 2009 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 03091 which affirmed the Decision 2 dated May 30, 2007 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 8 in Criminal Case No. 04-230681 finding Julieta Gabay y Mangaoang (Gabay) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Recruitment in large scale as defined in Republic Act No. 8042 (R.A. No. 8042) or The Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995.
An Information 3 charging Gabay with Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale was filed in the RTC of Manila, Branch 33, which reads as follows:
The undersigned accuses JULIETA GABAY Y MANGAOANG of a Violation of Article 38(a), Presidential Decree No. 1412, Amending Certain Provisions of Book No. 1, Presidential Decree No. 442, Otherwise known as the new Labor Code of the Philippines, in Relation to Article 13 (b) & (c) of said Code as Amended by Presidential Decree Nos. 1693, 1920 and 2018 and as Further Amended by Section 6 (a) (l) and (m) of Republic Act No. 8042 (Illegal Recruitment), committed in a large scale, as follows: TcDHSI
That in or about or sometime during the period comprised between July 14, 2004 and September 28, 2004, inclusive, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, representing herself to have the capacity to contract, enlist and transport Filipino workers for employment abroad, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly for a fee, recruit[ed] and promised employment/job placement abroad to the following, to wit:
| RENE ANDRES QUINTOS |
[P]22,500.00
|
| EMMANUEL TABLARIN Y FERNANDO |
22,500.00
|
| FLORANTE RIGOR FABROS |
35,000.00
|
as Hotel Bellboy and Waiter/Janitor, respectively, in the Republic of Palau Island, without first having secured the required license or authority from the Department of Labor and Employment, and charged or accepted directly or indirectly aforesaid amounts as placement/processing fees in consideration of their overseas employment, which amounts, are in excess of or greater than those specified in the schedule of allowable fees prescribed by the POEA, and without valid reasons and without the fault of the said complainants, failed to actually deploy them and continuously fail to reimburse the expenses incurred by the said complainants in connection with their documentation and processing for purposes of their employment.
Contrary to law. 4 EDHTAI
The Presiding Judge of Branch 33 inhibited from the case upon motion of Gabay; thus, the case was re-raffled to Branch 8. Gabay was arraigned and pleaded not guilty to the charge against her.
During the pre-trial, the parties stipulated on the court's jurisdiction, the identity of the accused, the due execution of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) Certification stating that Gabay is not licensed to recruit workers for overseas employment, and the existence of a pending case for Attempted Estafa involving the same parties in Branch 20 of the Manila RTC. 5
Trial on the merits then ensued.
The evidence for the prosecution clearly established that sometime in July 2004, complainants Florante Fabros (Fabros), Rene Quintos (Quintos) and Emmanuel Tablarin (Tablarin) who are provincial natives and looking for employment abroad were introduced to Gabay on separate occasions. Gabay readily assured the complainants that she can secure work for them as janitor and bellboys in a hotel located in Palau. As part of the recruitment process, Gabay discussed to them the required travel documents and the payment of certain amounts as placement fees for their deployment. After briefing the complainants, Gabay asked for an initial payment as processing fee for the processing of the complainants' travel documents. Afterwhich, she called each one again and demanded additional payments for the supposed job orders and the balance of the placement fee. 6 Thus, Gabay demanded Fabros, Quintos and Tablarin to pay the following amounts: ETaSDc
|
Placement Fee
|
Florante Fabros
|
Rene Quintos
|
Emmanuel Tablarin
|
| Processing Fee |
P7,500.00
|
P10,000.00
|
P10,000.00
|
| Job order |
10,000.00
|
12,500.00
|
12,500.00
|
| Balance paid |
17,500.00
|
-
|
-
|
|
——————————
|
———————————
|
———————————
|
|
| Total |
P35,000.00
|
P22,500.00
|
P22,500.00
|
|
=========
|
==========
|
==========
|
Several months after their first transaction with Gabay, the complainants have yet to depart for overseas as she promised. Realizing that they were duped, the complainants filed separate complaints in the Office of the Presidential Anti-Illegal Recruitment Task Force (PAIRTF) against Gabay. The operatives of the PAIRTF set up an operation for Gabay's entrapment. On September 28, 2004, Gabay was arrested while in the act of receiving additional payments from the complainants at a fast food chain situated in Morayta Street, Sampaloc, Manila. 7
In the course of the trial, the Senior Labor and Employment Officer of the POEA, Ms. Eraida Dumigpi identified the Certification as part of the agency's official records stating that Gabay is not a holder of any license to recruit workers for overseas employment. 8
Thereafter, the prosecution made its Offer of Evidence. Gabay moved for leave to admit Demurrer to Evidence which the RTC denied. After the receipt of the trial court's denial of her demurrer to evidence, Gabay did not present any evidence and instead manifested to submit the case for decision based on the evidence on record. 9
On May 30, 2007, the RTC of Manila, Branch 8, rendered its decision which decreed: TEDAHI
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Julieta Gabay y Mangaoang GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of the crime of large scale illegal recruitment and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and a FINE of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS ([P]500,000.00).
SO ORDERED. 10
In convicting Gabay, the RTC defined illegal recruitment pursuant to Section 6 of R.A. No. 8042, and reiterated its findings as stated in the Order denying Gabay's Demurrer to Evidence, that the elements for the commission of the crime were complied with, to wit: (1) Gabay has no license to recruit workers for overseas employment as shown in the POEA Certification; (2) Gabay undertook recruitment activities by recruiting the complainants and promised them work abroad for a fee and ultimately failed to deploy them; and (3) Gabay committed the act against the three complainants who testified that they were recruited for a fee, paid their placement fees and positively identified Gabay as the one whom they transacted with. 11
On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC decision in toto. 12 According to the CA, the prosecution was able to sufficiently establish the three necessary elements for the commission of the crime of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale: (1) the POEA certification that categorically stated that Gabay is not licensed to recruit workers for overseas employment, and as such, any recruitment activity she undertakes is deemed illegal; 13 (2) the fact that Gabay personally transacted with the victims separately, in a series of meetings, collected fees from each of them, and dealt with them by making false representations and empty assurance that she is capable of securing work for them overseas in Palau; 14 and (3) the fact that Gabay victimized three persons by inducing them to part with their hard-earned money through her acts, misrepresentations and declarations. 15
Hence, this appeal. ASTcaE
The appeal is dismissed.
This Court finds no compelling reason to reverse the findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA. It is well-settled that the crime of illegal recruitment is considered an offense involving economic sabotage if committed in a large scale, that is, committed against three or more persons individually or as a group 16 in accordance with Section 6, R.A. No. 8042.
Factual findings of the trial courts, including their assessment of the witnesses' credibility, are entitled to great weight and respect by the Supreme Court, particularly when the CA affirmed such findings. After all, the trial court is in the best position to determine the value and weight of the testimonies of witnesses. The absence of any showing that the trial court plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and value that, if considered, might affect the result of the case, or that its assessment was arbitrary, impels the Court to defer to the trial court's determination according credibility to the prosecution evidence. 17
As can be gleaned from the records, Gabay gave the complainants the impression that she has the license and the ability to send them abroad for work for which consideration they were persuaded to part with their money in order to be deployed. Gabay maintains that the POEA Certification does not refer to her considering that the first name is misspelled. 18 Notwithstanding, Gabay dismally failed to present any proof to the contrary. Evidently, Gabay did not have any authority from the POEA to recruit workers. Much less, she failed to fulfill her obligation to send them to Palau to work as janitor and bellboys of a hotel, as promised. Absent any evidence to the contrary, Gabay is indeed guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale. cDTaSH
With respect to the penalty, the RTC correctly imposed the penalty of life imprisonment and fine of P500,000.00 pursuant to Section 7 (b) of R.A. No. 8042 which prescribes a penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of not less than P500,000.00 nor more than P1,000,000.00 if the illegal recruitment constitutes economic sabotage, as in the instant case.
WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the Decision dated August 20, 2009 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 03091 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED." BERSAMIN, J., on leave; PERLAS-BERNABE, J., acting member per S.O. No. 1537 (Revised) dated September 6, 2013. VILLARAMA, JR., J., on leave; LEONEN, J., acting member per S.O. No. 1545 (Revised) dated September 16, 2013.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang, with Associate Justices Arturo G. Tayag and Michael P. Elbinias, concurring; rollo, pp. 2-18.
2. Issued by Judge Felixberto T. Olalia, Jr.; CA rollo, pp. 12-17.
3. Id. at 7-8.
4. Id. at 7.
5. Id. at 13.
6. Id. at 117-120.
7. Id. at 120.
8. Id. at 15.
9. Id. at 13.
10. Id. at 17.
11. Id. at 16.
12. Rollo, pp. 2-18.
13. Id. at 13-14.
14. Id. at 15-16.
15. Id. at 16.
16. People v. Ocden, G.R. No. 173198, June 1, 2011, 650 SCRA 124, 139.
17. Id. at 146.
18. The POEA Certification refers to a "Juliet Gabay" whereas the accused-appellant's name is Julieta; CA rollo, p. 41.