PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CARMELITA PUERTOLLANO COMIA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

For falsely representing herself to have the capacity and power
to contract, enlist, and recruit workers for employment abroad, Carmelita
Puertollano Comia was charged with illegal recruitment in large scale under
paragraphs (a) and (b) of Article 38, in relation to paragraph (a) of Article
39, of the Labor Code. The information^[1]
was filed with the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Metro Manila, docketed
therein as Criminal Case No. 91-6443, and assigned to Branch 141 of the said
court. After trial on the merits, the
court promulgated on 4 February 1993 its decision^[2] finding
the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged and
sentencing her to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of
P100,000.00.

The complaining victims of the illegal recruitment activities of
the accused were Fe Dadap, Susana Belloso, Marilyn Bibar, Sandra Cosart, and
Remedios Asis. With the exception of Fe
Dadap, who withdrew her complaint because she had moved to the province with
her two children, they testified in open court that the accused defrauded each
of them of sizeable cash on the assurance that they would be given janitorial
jobs in Hongkong.

The trial court summarized the evidence for the prosecution as
follows:

“The evidence for the prosecution shows that complainant Susana
Belloso came to know Carmelita Comia, the accused herein, thru her husband who
was selling ice candy within the premises of Tambo Elementary School in
Parañaque, M.M. She had known the
accused for five years. She was working
as a janitress of the above-mentioned school. It was her husband who applied to the accused Comia for a job employment
abroad as a janitress. She paid the
following amounts to Comia: P2,600.00
at her house at Pulang Lupa, Las Piñas; P450.00 at the elementary school;
P750.00 at the same school; again, P247.00 at her residence in Las Piñas; and
P2,500.00 at the Chinese General Hospital in Blumentritt, Manila. After paying these amounts, the accused
Comia told her to await for a certain Doctora who will be coming from Hong Kong. This
Doctora is her boss there. On a
date which she cannot remember the accused told her that they would be leaving
for Hong Kong and to bring with her her personal belongings. At the airport, the accused Comia told them
that the Doctora will be coming at the airport. However, they were not able to leave and so they went to the
Immigration Office where she and her companions were told that they were not
scheduled to leave for abroad. A
certain Sgt. Afuang brought them to the NBI were they were investigated. The payments she gave to Comia were never
receipted by her and everytime she would ask for receipts, accused Comia would
get angry and tell her that the money would be eventually given to the Doctora.

The second complainant, Marilyn Bibar, had known the accused for
two years, also thru her husband. It
was the husband of the accused Comia who told her that the accused came from
Hong Kong, and being interested to work in Hong Kong, she talked to the
accused. She was supposed to work as a
janitress in Hong Kong. The accused
told her that her employer has a hospital in Hong Kong and her name is Dr.
Zenaida Andres. She was asked to
produce the originals of her birth certificate, NBI clearance, ECG, marriage
contract and x-ray. She paid the amount
of P2,600.00 in the month of March 1991. She also paid the amount of P720.00 for immigration fee in the
month of August 1991; P450.00 for processing fee of the passport in July 1991;
and P2,500.00 in August of 1991. All
these amounts were paid at Tambo Elementary School in Parañaque. She was not given receipts for the payments
she made to the accused, who told her that the receipts will be kept by
her. When nothing happened to her
promise for employment abroad, complainant, together with her other companions,
asked when they would be leaving but the accused merely told her to wait until
they are finally scheduled. Then, the
accused told her and her companions that they were about to leave and were
advised to pack up to leave for abroad. She and her companions proceeded to NAIA on September 31, 1991. Her companions were Susana Belloso, Sandra
Cosart, Fe Dadap, and Remedios Asis. At
the airport, they arrived at about 12 noon, and the accused Comia told her to
wait for her boss, Dra. Zenaida Andres. She, together with her companions, waited until 7:00 in the
evening. When the Doctora did not
arrive, her husband inquired with the Immigration Office, but there was no such
person by the name of Dra. Zenaida Andres. She has never been introduced to Dra. Zenaida Andres by the
accused. After that they agreed among
themselves to call up Dra. Zenaida Andres but the number they called was that
of McDonald’s. Accused Comia even
called the same number but after waiting for a while for somebody to answer the
call, a policeman grabbed the telephone receiver and found out that there was
nobody on the other line. The
policeman, after that, told them to bring accused Comia to the NBI. Sgt. Afuang of the Immigration Office accompanied
them to the NBI and accused Comia was handcuffed. At the NBI a certain Atty. Vaplor informed them that they should
proceed with their charges against accused Comia but first, they should secure
a certification from the POEA regarding the accused’s authority or license to
recruit. They were able to secure the
certification dated October 1, 1991, which is Exhibit B.

The third witness for the prosecution and who is also a
complainant, Sandra Cosart, identified the accused Comia and stated that she
knew the accused a long time ago. The
accused came to her house located at Fortunato Village, Feliciano Cpd., Sucat,
Parañaque, M.M. in March 1991. The
accused received money from her in the amount of P2,600.00 for the processing
of her papers. The papers are the NBI
clearance, ECG, medical certificate, x-ray and visa. These papers were intended for Hong Kong for her to work as
janitress in one of the hospitals there and her employer would be one Dra.
Zenaida Andres. This was told to her by
the accused Comia. She did not receive
any receipts from the accused when she gave the amount of P2,600.00. The accused simply told her to trust
her. She also gave the accused the
additional sums of P3,000.00, then P750.00, then P450.00, and then P3,000.00,^[3]
which payments she gave to the accused sometime in July and August of
1991. She paid these additional amounts
to the accused in her house. The
accused did not issue to her any receipts and told her to just trust her. The additional amounts were for her plane ticket,
visa and passport. Nothing happened to
her intended employment in Hong Kong, and in September of 1991 the accused
Comia told her they will go to NAIA and it will be there where she will give
her passport, ticket and visa. She was with Marilyn Bibar, Susana Belloso,
Fe Dadap and Remedios Asis. They were
not able to leave and so she and her companions complained at the Immigration
Office at the NAIA and they were told that no such Zenaida Andres was leaving
for abroad. They complained to the
police and the police arrested accused Comia who was brought to the NBI. Then the NBI told them to go to POEA and
there, they were able to verify that there was no person by the name of Zenaida
Andres registered as a recruiter. Comia
is also not registered as a recruiter. She identified Exh. B, which
is a certification to this effect.

The fourth witness, Remedios Asis, after identifying the accused
Comia, stated that she came to know the accused because the latter was doing
laundry work near their place sometime in the first part of 1991. She and accused Comia talked about her
employment as a janitress in Hong Kong. For this reason, accused Comia received money from her for her
employment abroad as a janitress in Hong Kong. She gave to the accused Comia P6,970.00 at her residence in 843 Manuyo
St., Las Piñas, M.M. She gave the said amount last
year. She did not demand any receipt
from the accused because the accused just told her to trust her. She was not able to work as a janitress in
Hong Kong. The accused Comia just told
her to wait for her employer, a certain Doctora, whose name she cannot recall.”^[4]

It also summarized the testimony of the
accused, to wit:

“The defense did not introduce any documentary evidence and the
accused was the only witness. The
accused denied having received any money from any of the complainants. She claimed that since she did not receive
any money from the complainants why should she give receipts? She claimed that she was also one of the
victims of Dra. Zenaida Andres. She was
applying with said Doctor in Tramo in the same place where she (accused) resides. In fact, she claimed to have given an
application fee in the amount of P450.00 and P2,500.00. With respect to the P2,500.00 she was able
to raise this amount because she also used to work with other families as
laundrywoman. This P2,500.00 was given
to Dr. Andres in installment. Dr.
Andres gave her a receipt before she was to leave for abroad because her
husband was demanding for a receipt. However, she could not produce this receipt because the NBI allegedly
took all the contents of her bag, including the receipt. She claimed that she is only Grade II but
could not read and can only write her name. She denied that she told one of the complainants that she had been in
Hong Kong.”^[5]

The trial court accepted the version of the prosecution because the
statements of the complaining witnesses were positive and affirmative in nature
and were worthy of credit than the mere uncorroborated and self-serving denial
of the accused. It further observed
that the accused had not shown any ill motive on the part of the complainants
and that the accused’s reference to a certain Dr. Zenaida Andres as the
employer and, therefore, the real recruiter does not inspire belief. As to the latter, it stated:

“To the mind of the Court, Dr. Zenaida
Andres is a non­existent person invented by the accused to ward off suspicion
from her when the moment of truth came, that is, when the complainants started
to show their impatience to the accused as to their inability to leave for
Hongkong. To appease the complainants,
the accused, true to her criminal mind, made up the story about leaving for
Hongkong on September 31, 1991 and even pretended to be one of them. In vain, they waited for the fictitious Dra.
Andres to come, after which they agreed to call her but the telephone number
they dialed turned out to be McDonald’s. Accused dialed the phone number again, pretending to be waiting for
somebody to answer the call. A
policeman grabbed the telephone from the accused and found out that there was
nobody on the other line.”^[6]

The accused seasonably filed her notice of appeal which did not,
however, indicate the court to which she was appealing.^[7] In
its order of 23 February 1993, the trial court erroneously directed the
elevation of the records of the case to the Court of Appeals.^[8]
The latter rectified the error by transmitting the records to this Court after
its receipt thereof.^[9]

In her Appellant’s Brief,^[10] the
accused contends that the trial court erred:

“I

X X X IN GIVING WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONIES OF THE FOUR
COMPLAINANTS AND IN DISREGARDING THE TESTIMONY OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

II

X X X IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT FOR ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT
DESPITE OF [sic] THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HER GUILT BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT.”^[11]

In the Appellee’s Brief,^[12] the Office
of the Solicitor General maintains that the trial court committed no error and
prays that the assailed decision be affirmed in toto.

The appeal is without merit.

Article 38 of the Labor Code provides in part as follows:

“Illegal Recruitment. — (a) Any recruitment activities,
including the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of this Code, to
be undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of authority shall be deemed
illegal and punishable under Article 39 of this Code. The Ministry of Labor and Employment or any law enforcement
officers may initiate complaints under this Article.

(b)  Illegal recruitment when committed by a
syndicate or in large scale shall be considered an offense involving economic
sabotage and shall be penalized in accordance with Article 39 hereof.

Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried
out by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring and/or confederating
with one another in carrying out any unlawful or illegal transaction, enterprise
or scheme defined under the first paragraph hereof. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if
committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group.”

Article 13(b) of the same Code defines
recruitment as follows:

“Recruitment and placement refers 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: Provided, that any
person or entity which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment
to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement.”

It is clear from the foregoing provisions that there is illegal recruitment in large scale when
a person (a) undertakes any recruitment activity defined under Article 13(b) or
any prohibited practice enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code; (b) does
not have a license or authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and
placement of workers; and (c) commits
the same against three or more persons, individually or as a group.

In this case, the presence of the second and third elements is
beyond dispute. That the accused is not
authorized by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) to
engage in the recruitment and placement of workers is evidenced by a
certification of the said agency dated 1 October 1991. In fact, to abbreviate the proceedings, the
parties duly stipulated on the due issuance, authenticity, and truth of the
said certification.^[13]
There are no less than four complainants who patiently endured the rigors of
trial to denounce the accused and expose her illegal recruitment activities.

Proffered to satisfy the first element of the crime were the
testimonies of the complainants pointing to the accused as the person who
promised them employment abroad and who collected and received various amounts
from them. The accused questions the
sufficiency of the said testimonies contending that Article 13(b), which
defines recruitment and placement, specifically provides that the offer or
promise of employment must be “for a fee”
thereby making receipts indispensable in proving alleged payment. Since none of the four complaining witnesses
presented a single receipt to prove alleged payment of a fee, the accused
contends that their claim of payment without being issued receipts defies
belief as this fact is contrary to the ordinary course of nature and ordinary
habits of life^[14]
and runs against the presumption that persons take ordinary care of their
concerns.^[15]

The complainants’ failure to ask for receipts for the fees they
paid to the accused, as well as their consequent failure to present receipts
before the trial court as proof of the said payments, is not fatal to their
case. The complainants duly proved by
their respective testimonies that the accused was involved in the entire
recruitment process. She gave the
impression that she knows a certain Dr. Zenaida Andres who owns a hospital in
Hongkong and has the power to hire people for janitorial jobs thereat. She relayed the requirements to them,
monitored their compliance, and, most especially, collected and received
fees. Their testimonies in this regard,
being clear and positive, are sufficient. The accused’s contention that she would not have hesitated to issue
receipts if it were true that she did transact with them is purely hypothetical
and hence, does not detract from the fact adduced by the complainants that she
got their money. In People vs.
Naparan^[16]
and People vs. Sendon,^[17] this
Court did not fault the victims of illegal recruitment for not asking for
receipts explaining that inasmuch as they were inexperienced and titillated by
the prospect of earning easy money abroad, they fell easy prey to the
accused-appellant’s glibness and roseate promises and were deluded into relying
on her assurance that receipts for their money would be issued later.

Nor is the lack of corroboration of the testimonies of the four
complainants damaging to their case. Corroborative evidence is necessary only when there are reasons to
warrant the suspicion that the witness is prevaricating or that his
observations were inaccurate.^[18] In
the case at bench, the combined weight of the complainants’ testimonies,
unerringly narrating how they were similarly wheedled by the accused to part
with their money without receipts, render unnecessary any corroborating
evidence.

Moreover, this matter essentially involves the credibility of the
complainants, the best judge of which is the trial court. It has long been settled that when the issue
is one of credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will generally not disturb
the findings of the trial court, considering that the latter is in a better
position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses themselves and
observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial, unless it
plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and value that, if considered,
might affect the result of the case.^[19]
Since the trial court found the positive declarations of the complainants more
credible than the sole testimony of the accused denying the transactions, there
must be a well-founded reason in order to deny great weight to its evaluation
of the complainant’s testimonies. The
accused has failed to provide that reason.

The accused anchors her denial on another supposition, i.e.,
if it were true that she had received money from the complainants, she could
have easily transferred or fled to an unknown address where she could not be
located or arrested after getting the complainants’ money. However, we have held that non-flight is not
conclusive proof of innocence.^[20]
Unlike flight of an accused, which is competent evidence against him as having a tendency to establish his
guilt,^[21]
non-flight is simply inaction, which may be due to several factors. Hence, it may not be positively construed as
an indication of innocence.

The accused cannot feign innocence of the illegal recruitment by
claiming that she too was a victim of the illegal recruitment of Dr.
Andres. Firstly, all the transactions
from the beginning to the end were handled by the accused. In fact, none of the complainants ever met
said Dr. Andres. Noteworthy is the fact
that when the complainants asked to be introduced to Dr. Andres, the accused
brought them to the Chinese General Hospital only to be told by the accused
that the doctor had already left.^[22]
Secondly, if the accused were a victim of
Dr. Andres and she really felt aggrieved, she could have filed a case
against her for illegal recruitment. At
the very least, in order to save her own neck, she could have utilized the
compulsory process of the court to summon Dr. Andres to appear and testify as a
hostile witness. The records of the
case are bereft of any indication that
the said courses of action were taken. Nor was there any allegation that said Dr. Andres was nowhere to be
found. All these raise a well-founded
belief that said Dr. Andres is a fictitious person conjured by the accused to
support her nefarious scheme in the recruitment process.

This Court is fully aware of the use of fictitious persons by
illegal recruiters so as to give the impression that they have the power to
send people abroad for work. In People vs. Sendon,^[23]
we considered the failure of the accused therein to present evidence that the
alluded person really existed and was not merely a figment of her imagination
as the factor that assumed the crucial and decisive role against the former’s
bid for exculpation. Assuming arguendo,
as it was similarly done in the aforecited case, that there is really such a
person, still there is sufficient evidence to hold the accused liable. The prosecution
of other persons equally culpable or even more so than the accused
herein may come later as soon as their true identities and addresses become
known. The thrust of the defense to
deflect liability from the accused by claiming that she is also a victim of Dr.
Andres, who should be held responsible for the whole mess, is unavailing.

Affirmance of the appealed decision is thus inevitable. However, the dispositive portion thereof
failed to adjudge the restitution of the amounts the accused had obtained from
the complainants which, as proved, are P6,270.000 from Marilyn Bibar; P6,547.00
from Susana Belloso; P6,800.00 from Sandra Cosart; and P6,970.00 from Remedios
Asis. The accused is ordered to restore
to each of them the above amounts.

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision of the Regional
Trial Court of Makati, Metro Manila, in Criminal Case No. 91-6443 is hereby AFFIRMED, subject to the above modification decreeing the
restitution of the amounts the accused had obtained from the complainants.

Costs against accused Carmelita Puertollano Comia.

SO ORDERED.

Bellosillo, Quiason, and
Kapunan, JJ., concur.

Cruz, (Chairman), J., on
official leave.

^[1]
Original Records (OR), 1.

^[2]
Rollo, 18-26. Per Judge
Marcelino F. Bautista, Jr.

^[3]
The last amount of P3,000.00 should be deleted. See TSN, 23 January 1992, 6.

^[4]
OR, 196-200; Rollo, 18-22.

^[5]
OR, 200-201; Rollo, 22-23.

^[6]
Id., 203-204; Id., 25-26.

^[7]
OR, 209.

^[8]
Id., 210.

^[9]
Rollo, 1.

^[10]
Id., 43-57.

^[11]
Id., 45.

^[12]
Id., 84 et seq.

^[13]
TSN, 16 January 1992, 20.

^[14]
Citing Section 3(y), Rule 131, Rules of Court.

^[15]
Citing Section 3(d), Id.

^[16]
225 SCRA 714 [1993].

^[17]
G.R. Nos. 101579-82, 15 December 1993.

^[18]
People vs. Dela Cruz, 207 SCRA
632 [1992].

^[19]
People vs. Pascual, 208 SCRA 393
[1992]; People vs. Simon, 209 SCRA 148 [1992]; People vs. Garcia,
209 SCRA 164 [1992]; People vs. Florida, 214 SCRA 227 [1992]; People vs.
Matrimonio, 215 SCRA 613 [1992].

^[20]
People vs. Hangdaan, 201 SCRA 568 [1991]; People vs. Macalino,
209 SCRA 788 [1992]; People vs. Genobia, G.R. No. 110058, 3 August 1994.

^[21]
U.S. vs. Alegado, 25 Phil. 510
[1913]; People vs. Garcia, supra; People vs. Genobia, supra.

^[22]
TSN, 17-18 January 1992, 19.

^[23]
Supra at footnote 17.