PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JANNETTE GARIN-BALDEVARONA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Because of another of the seemingly endless labor recruitment capers, the appellant Jannette Garin-Baldevarona _{(or Jannette)} is in jail, her husband and co-accused Samuel Baldevarona _{(or Samuel)} is in hiding, while their complainants Leslie Malasig-Bibat _{(or Leslie)}, Leovigildo Bibat _{(or Leovigildo)}, and Loida Juan-Bautista _{(or Loida)} are still in the country and nowhere near the promised worker’s paradise in Canada.

On complaints initiated by Leslie, Leovigildo and Loida, Jannette and Samuel were charged before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City with Large Scale Illegal Recruitment under Art. 38 (a) in relation to Art. 39(b) of the Labor Code and the concomitant Estafa under Article 315, par. 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code. It was alleged that the spouses have acted in concert in committing the said offenses in Quezon City on or about the period comprised from August 1990 up to February 1991, by recruiting and promising employment and/or job placement abroad to the three (3) complainants without first obtaining the required license and/or authority from the Department of Labor and Employment, and by their fraudulent representations that they have the authority and capacity to facilitate their employment abroad and to complete the necessary papers for these if given the amounts to meet the requirements as well as their fees, induced and succeeded in taking from them moneys of P12,300.00 from Leslie, P122,096.00 from Leovigildo, and P57,350.00 from Loida. They made these misrepresentations and deceits knowing fully well that these were false and fraudulent, and made only to obtain said sums which once were in their possession they misappropriated and converted to their own personal use and benefit to the damage and prejudice of the said complainants.

All three (3) complainants testified. Leslie is a nurse and the first among them to know Jannette and Samuel whom she met while applying for a job placement abroad at the DRC Recruitment Agency in Malate, Manila. Jannette was always there and appeared to be familiar with and part of the people working there. Samuel told Leslie that his wife Jannette was herself recruiting workers for Canada, and Jannette confirmed this. By that time Leslie had noticed that the DRC Recruitment Agency was not too successful in job placement. Jannette convinced her to withdraw her application because she herself could send her abroad as a tourist and in three (3) months time she will work in a hospital as a nurse. The couple and Leslie by then have become close friends, and they started talking in earnest and this they did mostly in the house of Leslie in Cruz na Ligas, Quezon City where Jannette and Samuel became frequent visitors. There they recruited workers for Canada and among those enticed were Leovigildo who was to be a janitor and his relative Loida who was promised a job as a teacher with travel papers for the other six (6) members of her family. The spiel of Jannette was that she had these influential connections as a former member of the Women’s Auxiliary Corps assigned to Customs and having a relative married to a Canadian consul. Of course there was the little matter of fees and expenses which the spellbound complainants willingly paid to Jannette from time to time, and which totaled to P12,300.00 for Leslie, P122,096.00 for Leovigildo, and P57,350.00 for Loida.

Jannette promised the complainants that they will be able to leave for Canada by March 10, 1991. The day came and went, but they were unable to leave and Jannette did not even show up. The complainants went looking for her at her house in St. Jude Subdivision in Novaliches but failed to find her there. They proceeded to POEA and there learned that Jannette and/or Samuel is neither licensed nor authorized by this Administration to recruit workers for overseas employment _{(Exhs. “A” & “E”)}.

The complainants went on to Camp Crame because of the lead that Jannette had told them that she was once a WAC. But she is not listed there as ever being one. As further recourse the complainants went to the Anti-Organized Crime Task Force at Camp Caringal and filed a complaint against Jannette and Samuel, and this started the successful prosecution of Jannette.

Jannette testified for her defense, and no one else. She denied all the charges, and asserted that it was only in court at the trial when she saw and met Leslie, Leovigildo and Loida for the first time. She alleged that the false charges were all the handiwork of Ponciano Bernardo to harass them. He is a Central Bank examiner with whom she and her husband were in dispute over the ownership and possession of a 50,708 square meters fishpond in Brgy. Salvacion, Rizal, Occidental Mindoro, which has reached the DAR and the local PNP. She submitted documents to show their ongoing legal dispute.

Jannette was found Guilty on all charges in the Decision the fallo of which reads:

Jannette appealed, alleging that the trial court committed grave error.

The elements of the crime charged of Large Scale Illegal Recruitment are: (1) the person undertakes any recruitment activity defined under Article 13, paragraph (b), or any prohibited practice enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code; (2) said person does not have a license or authority to engage in the recruitment and placement of workers; and (3) the act is committed against three or more persons, individually or as a group _{(People vs. Alzona, G. R. No. 132029, July 30, 2004)}. Recruitment and placement are broad and encompassing terms, and refer 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 _{(People vs. Navarra, 352 SCRA 84)}.

The acts of Jannette testified to which prejudiced the three (3) complainants constitute recruitment and placement, and because she admittedly has no license or authority to engage in the said activities, the prosecution was able to prove large scale illegal recruitment. By the same evidence, the charge of Estafa was proven too. The elements of this are: (1) There must be a false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means; (2) Such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; (3) The offended party must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means, that is, he was induced to part with his money or property because of the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means; (4) As a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage _{(Sim vs. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 159280, May 18, 2004)}. Leslie, Leovigildo and Loida were all parted from their moneys by the fraudulent representations and commitments, but never reached the shores of Canada where they were promised work.

In the face of the accusations against her, Jannette could only interpose the uncorroborated defense of denial and claim that she and her fugitive husband were mere victims of false accusations by stooges manipulated by their enemy Ponciano Bernardo. But denial is an inherently weak defense and cannot prevail over the positive and categorical statements of eyewitnesses. Accusatory testimonies which are categorical and consistent and without any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter, prevails over a denial which, if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law _{(People vs. Carino, G. R. No. 131117, June 15, 2004)}.

It is difficult to ingest that the complainants would allow themselves to be used by one Ponciano Bernardo and go to the extent of falsely and criminally testifying against Jannette just so Ponciano Bernardo could gain leverage and satisfaction in their dispute over a picayune property. There is no explanation why the complainants would get involved in that byzantine plot, and worse, there is even no showing that Ponciano Bernardo and the complainants know each other.

The trial court had this to say about the witnesses and their testimonies:

The testimonies of the three complaining witnesses with all the details which could not easily be concocted deserve credence. They testified spontaneously and in a straightforward manner. As between the positive declarations of the private complainants and the negative statements of the accused, the former deserves more credence. _{(p. 272, record)}

This Court will not interfere with the trial court’s assessment of the credibility of witnesses, absent any indication that some material fact was overlooked or a grave abuse of discretion committed. None of the exceptions obtain in the instant case _{(Olivarez vs. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 163866, July 29, 2005)}.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED and the appealed Decision is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Guarin, III, and Tagle, JJ., concur.