FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 207521. December 11, 2013.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs.ERNESTO P. YALONG and IMELDA YALONG, accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Fist Division, issued a Resolution dated December 11, 2013 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 207521 — PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, versusERNESTO P. YALONG and IMELDA YALONG, accused-appellants.
Before this Court is an appeal from the September 27, 2012 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA),which affirmed the judgment 2 of conviction of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 93 of San Pedro, Laguna, finding appellants guilty of one count of illegal recruitment in large scale 3 and three counts of estafa under paragraph 2 (a), Article 315 4 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, (RPC).
Summarily, the prosecution proved the following facts: Sometime in May to August 1999, appellants promised the private complainants Paul Doronila, Cesar Bercilla, and Rex Quirimit that they could help them be deployed abroad as seamen. The three went to appellants' house in San Pedro, Laguna and gave appellants various sums as payment. 5
Paul and his brother-in-law Cesar were introduced to appellants by Cesar's sister, Trinidad Bercilla, at appellants' residence. Appellants told them that they could get Paul and Cesar deployed in three or four months after payment of the required fees. In June 1999, Paul and Cesar each paid appellants the partial amount of P35,000. Appellant Ernesto Yalong even accompanied Paul and Cesar to the Albatross Foundation in San Pedro, Laguna to undergo training for their Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) certificates. Paul and Cesar then made full payment of their fees, with Paul having paid a total of P40,000 6 and Cesar a total of P60,000. 7 Appellant Ernesto promised that he would submit their papers to shipping companies. But after the lapse of four months, appellants were still not able to deploy Paul and Cesar abroad. Later, Paul and Cesar were referred by a certain Jun Cania to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). There they learned that appellants had pending illegal recruitment cases against them and that appellants had no license from the Philippine Overseas Employment Authority (POEA) to recruit workers for overseas employment. 8 AIaSTE
In the case of private complainant Rex, he was accompanied and introduced to appellants sometime in June 1999 at the latter's house by the brother of appellants' daughter-in-law. He submitted all the required papers and initially paid P18,000 to appellants. He also underwent SOLAS training at the Albatross Foundation and obtained a certificate. On the second week of July 1999, he paid another P62,000 as full payment of the required fees. Like Paul and Cesar, however, Rex was never deployed abroad. When he inquired with the POEA, Rex learned that appellants had no license or authority to recruit workers abroad. He also sought assistance from the NBI. 9
During trial, appellants denied knowing Paul and Rex, but admitted knowing Cesar and the latter's sister, Trinidad, because the two came to their house offering to sell Venetian blinds. Trinidad asked appellant Ernesto for advice since she wanted her husband and nephew to be deployed as seamen. Appellant Ernesto then told her to go to the seaman's Union, AMASOF Agency. Appellants denied asking money from Cesar and Trinidad, and claimed that private complainants filed the charges against them because they knew that appellant Ernesto had received P50,000 from his principal in London due to his accident. 10
The RTC held appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of one count of illegal recruitment in large scale and three counts of estafa. 11 It found that appellants promised overseas employment to private complainants and required them to pay placement fees and to submit documents, knowing fully well that they had no license from the POEA to undertake such activities. The RTC held that there was no doubt as to the truthfulness of private complainants' testimonies and appellants had not shown that there was any ill motive for them to testify falsely. Likewise, appellants were guilty of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2 (a) of the RPC since appellants falsely represented to private complainants that they had the capacity to deploy them abroad for employment as seamen although they did not have any such authority or license. The RTC added that it was because of appellants' false representation that private complainants were induced to pay the placement fees. 12
On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC. The CA agreed with the findings of the RTC and held that appellants were active participants in the various phases of recruitment, and that private complainants would not have undergone trainings, submitted the required documents, and paid placement fees had it not been for the representation and assurance of appellants that they would be deployed abroad as seamen. The prosecution also presented as evidence a POEA certification dated November 4, 1999 stating that appellants were not authorized or licensed by the POEA to recruit workers for overseas employment. Since the illegal recruitment was committed against three or more persons, the CA added that appellants were properly held liable for illegal recruitment in large scale. Likewise, appellants were guilty of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2 (a) of the RPC since it was through their false representation to the private complainants that they had the capacity to deploy private complainants as seamen that the private complainants gave them money for placement fees. Private complainants suffered damages because appellants failed to return their money to them. The prosecution was able to prove that Rex, Paul, and Cesar paid the sums of P80,000, P40,000, and P60,000 respectively. 13 IHTASa
After a careful review of the records of this case and the parties' submissions, the Court finds no cogent reason to disturb the decision of the CA. It has been consistently held that in criminal cases, the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, whose conclusion thereon deserves much weight and respect because the judge had the direct opportunity to observe them on the stand and ascertain if they were telling the truth or not. This deference to the trial court's appreciation of the facts and of the credibility of witnesses is consistent with the principle that when the testimony of a witness meets the test of credibility, that alone is sufficient to convict the accused. This is especially true when the factual findings of the trial court are affirmed by the appellate court. 14 Absent any showing that the lower courts overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated substantial facts and circumstances, which if considered would change the result of the case, this Court gives deference to the trial court's appreciation of the facts and of the credibility of witnesses.
However, as regards the amount of damages, the Court deems it proper to award interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the amount of actual damages proven as there has been a delay in the recovery thereof.
WHEREFORE,the September 27, 2012 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 04984 is AFFIRMED.
Interest at the rate of 6% per annum on all monetary damages awarded in this case reckoned from the finality of this Resolution until fully paid shall likewise be paid by appellants.
With costs against the appellants.
The confirmation of confinement of accused-appellant Imelda Yalong at the Correctional Institution for Women-Mandaluyong on April 2, 2011 and the confirmation of confinement of accused-appellant Ernesto Yalong y Pinili at the New Bilibid Prison on April 2, 2011, both in compliance with the Resolution dated August 5, 2013 are NOTED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 2-34. Penned by Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta with Associate Justices Rodil V. Zalameda and Angelita A. Gacutan concurring. The assailed decision was rendered in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 04984.
2. CA rollo, pp. 18-24. Penned by Judge Francisco Dizon Paño.
3. Rollo, pp. 11-12. Sec. 6 (m) in relation to Sec. 7 (b) both of Republic Act No. 8042 or the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995. Sec. 6 provides:
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, whether committed by any person, whether a non-licensee, non-holder, licensee or holder of authority.
xxx xxx xxx
(m) Failure to reimburse expenses incurred by the worker in connection with his documentation and processing for purposes of deployment, in cases where the deployment does not actually take place without the worker's fault. Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall be considered an offense involving economic sabotage.
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.
4. ART. 315. Swindling (estafa).— Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow shall be punished by:
xxx xxx xxx
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 a fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions; or by means of other similar deceits.
5. Rollo, p. 3.
6. Id. at 31; CA rollo, p. 24.
7. Id.;id.
8. Id. at 3-4; id. at 20-21.
9. Id. at 4-5; id. at 21-22.
10. CA rollo, p. 22.
11. Id. at 23-24. The dispositive portion of the decision reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
(1) In Criminal Case No. . . . 1481-SPL, the Court finds accused ERNESTO P. YALONG and IMELDA YALONG guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT IN LARGE SCALE defined and penalized in Section 6 in relation to Section 7 (b) of Republic Act No. 8042, and sentences them to life imprisonment and a fine of Five Hundred Thousand (P500,000.00) Pesos.
(2) In Criminal Case No. 1482-SPL, the Court finds ERNESTO P. YALONG and IMELDA YALONG guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of ESTAFA, defined and penalized in Article 315, paragraph 2 (a) of the Revised Penal Code, and sentences them to an indeterminate penalty of One (1) Year, Eight (8) months and Twenty (20) days of prision correccional as minimum to Eleven (11) years, Eight (8) months and Twenty One (21) days of prision mayor as maximum, and to indemnify REX QUIMIRIT y NARVAS in the amount of Eighty Thousand (P80,000.00) Pesos.
(3) In Criminal Case No. 1484-SPL, the Court finds accused ERNESTO P. YALONG and IMELDA YALONG guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of estafa defined and penalized in Article 315, paragraph 2 (a) of the Revised Penal Code, and sentences them to an indeterminate penalty [of] One (1) Year, Eight (8) months and Twenty (20) days of prision correccional as minimum to Seven (7) years, Eight (8) months and Twenty One (21) days of prision mayor maximum, and to indemnify complainant Paul Doronila in the amount of Forty Thousand (P40,000.00) Pesos.
(4) In Criminal Case No. 1488-SPL, the Court finds ERNESTO P. YALONG and IMELDA YALONG guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of ESTAFA, defined and penalized in Article 315, paragraph 2 (a) of the Revised Penal Code, and sentences them to an indeterminate penalty [of] One (1) Year, Eight (8) months and Twenty (20) days of prision correccional as minimum to Nine (9) Years, Eight (8) months and Twenty One (21) days of prision mayor as maximum, and to indemnify complainant CESAR BERCILLA y AREVALO in the amount of Sixty Thousand (P60,000.00) Pesos.
SO ORDERED.
12. Id. at 22-23.
13. Rollo, pp. 12-33.
14. People v. Obina, G.R. No. 186540, April 14, 2010, 618 SCRA 276, 281.