People v. Zamora y Bagatela

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 191757. September 18, 2013.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RICHARD ZAMORA Y BAGATELA, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated September 18, 2013, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 191757 (People of the Philippines v. Richard Zamora y Bagatela). — On December 10, 2002 the City Prosecutor's Office of Makati charged the accused Richard Zamora y Bagatela, together with the spouses Joey and Nida Bermudez who evaded arrest, of Illegal Recruitment (Large Scale) 1 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City in Criminal Case 03-612. 2

During the trial, complainants Bienvenido T. Verdillo, Josefino G. Duran, Joseph I. Fernandez, Dennis A. Membrot, Myrna V. Julian, and Augusto C. Lucena uniformly testified that Zamora lured them into applying for work abroad through Barnwell Marketing Services and Consultancy (Barnwell), a supposed recruitment office. 3 Complainants all claimed having paid hefty sums of money on a promise that they would be working in Hong Kong. 4 But they were never deployed and the money they paid over to Barnwell were never returned. 5 HIAEaC

Accused Zamora testified, on the other hand, that as a Barnwell employee he was merely running errands for the Bermudez spouses when he invited the complainants to apply for overseas employment. 6 Zamora claimed that he, too, had been a victim of the illegal recruitment activities of the Bermudez spouses. 7 He had merely followed the instructions of his bosses when he transacted business with the complainants. He insisted that he never intended to deceive them. 8

On March 30, 2005 the RTC found Zamora guilty of recruitment constituting economic sabotage 9 and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00 as well as indemnify the complainants the reimbursements to which they were entitled as follows: Bienvenido T. Verdillo, P56,000.00; Josefino G. Duran, P55,000.00; Joseph I. Fernandez, P70,000.00; Dennis A. Membrot, P45,000.00; Augusto C. Lucena, P75,000.00; and Myrna V. Julian, P40,000.00. 10

Zamora appealed the RTC decision 11 but on November 19, 2009, the Court of Appeals (CA) rendered a fairly comprehensive decision in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. 01151 that affirmed the findings of the RTC in all aspects. 12 This prompted him to file the present petition for review. 13

Notably, Zamora never categorically denied having directly transacted with complainants regarding their desire to be deployed for work abroad. 14 He did not dispute the fact that he had no license to carry out recruitment activities involving them. 15 His only defense is that he did not hold himself out to the complainants as a recruiter, he being a mere employee of Barnwell and subject to the control of its officers. 16 SAHITC

Thus, the sole issue before this Court is whether or not the CA erred in failing to rule that Zamora was not a recruiter and that he merely acted as Barnwell's employee when he invited the complainants to seek employment abroad through his company.

The crime of illegal recruitment has two elements: 1) the offender has undertaken recruitment activities; and 2) he has no license or authority to do so. 17 The offense is qualified into large scale illegal recruitment when the offender commits the offense against three or more persons, whether individually or as a group. 18

Zamora contends that he cannot be regarded as having actively taken part in illegal recruitment activities since he worked merely as an employee of Barnwell. He was just "helping out" in the conduct of the latter's operations by running errands for his employers.

But, as the Court has consistently held, the defense of being a mere employee is not a shield against conviction for large scale illegal recruitment. 19 Besides, Zamora also takes the inconsistent defense that he himself was a victim of Barnwell's illegal recruitment activities. Unfortunately for him, he was unable to explain how he could possibly have been obeying masters that had done him such grave a wrong.

Illegal recruitment is committed by the mere act of promising employment without a license or authority, whether for profit or not. 20 Here, Zamora promised or offered employment to complainants for a fee. 21 As complainants testified, he gave them a distinct impression that he can deploy them for work abroad. Indeed, he interviewed them and managed to convince them to part with their money so they could get what they wanted. This made Zamora principal by direct participation. 22 HaTAEc

Since the evidence shows that Zamora victimized at least nine persons who filed complaints against him, there is no question that his illegal recruitment activities were of the large scale and amounts to economic sabotage. 23

WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the appeal of accused Richard Zamora y Bagatela and AFFIRMS in toto the November 19, 2009 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. 01151 that upheld the judgment of conviction rendered by the Regional Trial Court (Branch 62) of Makati City in Criminal Case 03-612 dated March 30, 2005. (Peralta, J., on official leave; Del Castillo, J., Acting Member, per Special Order 1541 [Revised] dated September 9, 2013.)

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) LUCITA ABJELINA SORIANODivision Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1.Section 6 of Republic Act 8042 (Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995).

2.Records, p. 2.

3.See TSN, September 11, 2003, pp. 5-8; TSN, February 18, 2004, pp. 7, 18-19; TSN, February 23, 2004, pp. 7-8; TSN, March 24, 2004, pp. 6-9, 35-39; TSN, August 4, 2004, pp. 11-12, 19-28.

4.Id.

5.Id.

6.TSN, October 4, 2004, pp. 7, 9, 14-15, 24, 39.

7.Id. at 20, 29, 31-33, 52-58, 62-64.

8.CA rollo, p. 53.

9.Records, p. 248.

10.Id.

11.Id. at 249.

12.CA rollo, pp. 129-150; penned by Justice Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla and concurred in by Justices Josefina Guevara-Salonga and Celia C. Librea-Leagogo.

13.Id. at 153; see Section 13 (c), Rule 124, as amended by A.M. 00-5-03-SC.

14.Id. at 51-53.

15.Id. at 52.

16.Id. at 53.

17.People v. Gallo, G.R. No. 185277, March 18, 2010, 616 SCRA 162, 175-176.

18.Id. at 176.

19.Id. at 175.

20.People v. Bacos, G.R. No. 178774, December 8, 2010, 637 SCRA 592, 597.

21.See People v. Domingo, G.R. No. 181475, April 7, 2009, 584 SCRA 669, 677-678.

22.People v. Sagayaga, 467 Phil. 961, 971 (2004).

23.Supra note 2.