G.R. No. 122508. June 26, 1998
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ELVIS SANCHEZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
VITUG, J.:
of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, Branch 6, finding appellant
Elvis Sanchez guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of illegal
recruitment in large scale (Criminal Case No. 12357-R) and three (3)
counts of estafa (Criminal Cases No. 12359-R, No. 12360-R and No.
12362-R) and sentencing him accordingly.
Appellant was charged, on 25 November 1993, with violation of
Article 38(b) of Presidential Decree No. 442 (Labor Code), as amended,
for illegal recruitment in large scale. The information averred –
“That during the period from the month of November, 1992, to March
8, 1993, in the City of Baguio, Philippines and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, representing himself
to have the capacity to contract, enlist and hire and transport Filipino
workers for employment abroad, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously for a fee, recruit and promise employment/job placement
to the following persons:“1. Alice G. Kimay
“2. Veronica Filog
“3. Aaron John Acena
“4. Nancy Fesset
“5. Jerry Akia“without first securing or obtaining license or authority from the proper government agency.”[2]
Likewise filed against appellant on the same day (25 November 1993)
were the corresponding five cases of estafa. Except for the names of the
complainants and the amounts involved, the informations substantially
contained like allegations to the effect –
“That on or about the 8th day of March, 1993, in the City of
Baguio, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously defraud one JERRY AKIA by way of false
pretenses, which are executed prior to or simultaneously with the
commission of the fraud, as follows, to wit: the accused knowing fully
well that he/she/they is/are not authorized job recruiters for persons
intending to secure work abroad convinced said JERRY AKIA and pretended that he/she/they could secure a job for him/her abroad, for and in consideration of the sum of P15,000.00 when in truth and in fact they could not; the said JERRY AKIA deceived and convinced by the false pretenses employed by the accused parted away the total sum of P15,000 in favor of the accused, to the damage and prejudice of the said JERRY AKIA in the aforementioned amount of FIFTEEN THOUSAND PESOS, (P15,000.00), Philippine Currency.”[3]
The accused in all the charges brought up against him pleaded not
guilty when arraigned. Since the cases involved a common factual
background, a joint trial was conducted. Pending trial and before they
could be put to the witness stand, Nancy Fesset and Veronica Filog, who
were among those who filed Criminal Case No. 12357-R and the
complainants in, respectively, Criminal Case No. 12358-R and Criminal
Case No. 12361-R, left for abroad.
Alice Kimay, the 54-year-old complainant in Criminal Case No.
12357-R and Criminal Case No. 12360-R, used to be an elementary school
teacher in Kalinga, Apayao. She left for Italy in 1985 to work as a
baby-sitter and there stayed until 1990 when she returned to the
Philippines. In November 1992, she learned from a certain Estela that a
recruiter, named Elvis Sanchez, was in town recruiting workers for
Taiwan. Alice passed on the information to her “nephews and nieces,” her
co-complainants in Criminal Case No. 12357-R, namely, Aaron John Acena,
Jerry Akia, Veronica Filog and Nancy Fesset. Being all interested in
gaining employment abroad, the group went to see appellant at the
Leisure Lodge in Magsaysay Avenue, Baguio City, where he was billeted.
Appellant assured complainants that he could secure jobs for them abroad
if they would each pay a placement fee and submit pertinent papers,
like their bio-data, NBI clearances, medical certificates and passports,
required for foreign travel. The applicants requested appellant to
instead secure for them the passports upon their submission of NBI
clearances and medical certificates.
Alice, who had applied for a domestic helper job in Taiwan, was
able to deliver to appellant the required papers. Alice paid the
placement fee of sixteen thousand pesos (P16,000.00) to appellant in two
(2) installments evidenced by two (2) receipts. The first receipt,[4] dated 09 November 1992, was for the amount of five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) and the second receipt,[5]
dated 17 January 1993, was for eleven thousand pesos (P11,000.00). The
receipts were both issued in Makati, Metro Manila. Appellant assured
Alice that she would be able to leave by December 1992. Seeing that
appellant had reneged on his promise to send her to Taiwan, Alice went
to see him in his residence at Pateros, Metro Manila, where he merely
gave another promise. Tired of appellant’s failed assurances, Alice and
the other complainants ultimately went to the Philippine Overseas
Employment Administration (“POEA”) office in Magsaysay Avenue, Baguio
City, where they were to learn that appellant was not a licensed
recruiter. The complainants executed a joint affidavit[6]
subscribed and sworn to by Atty. Justinian O. Licnachan before whom the
corresponding criminal charges against appellant were submitted.
Jerry Akia, 28-year-old complainant in Criminal Case No. 12357-R
and Criminal Case No. 12359-R, corroborated the testimony of Alice
Kimay. Like the rest of the group, he also met with appellant at the
Leisure Lodge in Baguio City. Along with his application for an
electrician job in Saudi Arabia, he handed over to appellant five
thousand pesos (P5,000.00) in partial payment of the required placement
fee. Jerry later paid the balance of ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) in
appellant’s office in Guadalupe, Makati, Metro Manila. The receipt for
the first payment was turned over to him only on 02 January 1993.[7]
The receipt for the second installment was unfortunately lost by his
father. Appellant did not live up to his promise to send Jerry abroad
despite his submission of all required documents.
Aaron John Acena, 24-year-old complainant in Criminal Case No.
12357-R and Criminal Case No. 12362-R, came to know appellant, through
Alice Kimay. He too went to see appellant at the Leisure Lodge in
Magsaysay Avenue, Baguio City. The placement fee in his case was pegged
at eighteen thousand pesos (P18,000.00). On 08 January 1993, Aaron went
with Alice to see appellant in his office in Guadalupe, Makati, where he
paid the amount of eighteen thousand one hundred seventy pesos
(P18,170.00).[8] Aaron was
thereupon told by appellant to follow up his flight booking with the
Philippine Airlines. Aaron, indeed, was twice booked with the airline
company, the first on 11 January 1993 and the second on 14 January 1993
but that was just about all. His departure for abroad never
materialized. In the meantime, Aaron stayed with appellant in Pateros
until March 1993. After a long wait and numerous follow-ups, Aaron
decided to return to Baguio City. Ultimately, Aaron, along with the
other complainants went to the POEA office in Baguio City and filed
their complaint against appellant. After his arrest, appellant, his wife
and his brother talked with Aaron about possibly settling the case.
The prosecution submitted a certification,[9]
dated 22 November 1993, issued by Jose D. Matias, Attorney II, of the
POEA Regional Extension Unit in Baguio City, to the effect that “ELVIS
SANCHEZ per existing and available records from (the) Office is not
licensed nor authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment in
the City of Baguio or any part of the Region.” Matias attested in open
court to the veracity of the certification.
Testifying in his defense, appellant denied having tried to
recruit complainants for overseas employment. He asserted that he was
not in Baguio City, let alone billeted in Leisure Lodge, during the
period from October to December 1992. He said that his mother, Eutropia
Sanchez, was at the time confined at the Philippine Heart Center whom he
had to visit daily. He did meet complainants Alice Kimay, Jerry Akia
and Aaron John Acena some time in September or October 1992 when they
requested him to allow them to stay overnight at his house in Hermoso,
Pateros, Metro Manila. After that, appellant saw complainants only
during the interment of his mother. To help establish his claim that he
was not billeted at the Leisure Lodge during the last quarter of 1992,
appellant presented Caroline Castillo, hotel operations manager of Prime
Hotel, who submitted to the court the hotel registry book for the
period of October to December 1992.[10]
Caroline was connected with Leisure Lodge from 1986 up to May 1992
after which she was transferred to the Prime Hotel even while
maintaining her position as an overall supervisor in Leisure Lodge that
required her to periodically check on the front desk clerk and the
supervisor.
Assessing the evidence, the trial court found appellant guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of illegal recruitment in large scale and of
three counts of estafa. It adjudged:
“Wherefore, judgment is rendered as follows:
“1. In Crim. Case No. 12357-R, the Court Finds the accused Elvis Sanchez guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Recruitment in a large
scale as defined and penalized under Article 38 (b) in relation to
Article 39 of PD 442 as amended by PD 2018 and sentences him to Life
Imprisonment and to pay a Fine of P100,000 and to pay the costs.“2. In Crim. Case Nos. 12359-R, 12360-R and 12362-R (3
counts) the Court Finds accused Elvis Sanchez guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of Estafa as charged in each of the Informations in
the aforesaid 3 cases as defined and penalized under Article 315 first
paragraph in relation to No. 2 (a) of the same article and sentences
him, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, to an imprisonment ranging
from six (6) months and one (1) day of prision correccional as Minimum
to six (6) years, eight (8) months and twenty (20) days of Prision Mayor
as Maximum in each of the aforesaid 3 cases; to indemnify the offended
parties, Jerry Akia the sum of P15,000 in Crim. Case 12359-R; Alice
Kimay the sum of P16,000 in Crim. Case No. 12360-R and Aaron John Acena
the sum of P18,170.00 in Crim. Case No. 12362-R as actual damages
without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the
costs.“The accused Elvis Sanchez being a detention prisoner is entitled
to be credited 4/5 of his preventive imprisonment in the service of his
sentence in accordance with Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code.“3. In Crim. Case No. 12358-R (Nancy Fesset, complainant)
and Crim. Case No. 12361-R (Veronica Filog, complainant), the
prosecution having failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt,
the Court hereby acquits Elvis Sanchez of the offense of estafa charged
in said Informations. Cost de oficio.“The City Jail Warden is directed to release accused in so far as
Crim. Case No. 12358-R and 12361-R only unless held for other cases.“SO ORDERED.”[11]
The Court finds no merit in the instant appeal.
Appellant argues that the trial court did not acquire territorial
jurisdiction over the criminal cases since he has been able to
convincingly prove his having been in Manila, not in Baguio City, at the
time of the alleged commission of the offenses charged against him. He
brands the testimony given by the prosecution witnesses as being
inconsistent, “poorly chorused and inadequately coached” and rues the
fact that the trial court has merely considered the “inconsistencies” to
be mere “lapses in memory and minor discrepancies.” This invocation is
indeed one fine way of putting up, in reality, the defense of alibi
for, in this so-called issue of “territorial jurisdiction over the
cases,” appellant actually is saying that he could not have met the
complainants in Baguio City for the latter’s possible deployment abroad
because it would not be possible for him to be in two places at the same
time.
The defense presented Caroline Castillo to state that appellant
was never registered at the Leisure Lodge in Baguio City. Such fact,
even if true, did not necessarily mean that appellant was not in Baguio
City, nor at the lodge, at the time in question. Caroline herself said
that she was no longer assigned at the Leisure Lodge from October to
December 1992 and that, although she still supervised the front desk
clerk, she was not always physically present thereat which could explain
why she might have failed to recognize appellant. She admitted,
moreover, that the registration of guests in the hotel registry did not
require the presentation of identification cards and that the front desk
clerk could instead merely rely on the name given by the guest.
Appellant’s own testimony to establish an alibi is
itself feeble. The fact that his sick mother has been confined at the
Philippine Heart Center during the “crucial months” of October to
December 1992 could not have rendered highly unlikely, certainly not at
all impossible, his taking a trip to Baguio City and briefly staying
thereat.
Denial and alibi, if not substantiated by clear and
convincing evidence, are negative and self-serving evidence bearing no
real weight in law and jurisprudence.[12] Alibi
is one of the weakest defenses that can be resorted to by an accused
not only because it is inherently unreliable but also because it can
easily be fabricated.[13] It is practically worthless in the face of positive identification of the accused to be the perpetrator of a crime.[14] To be convincing, the alibi
should preclude any doubt that the accused could not have been
physically present at the place of the crime or its vicinity at the time
of its commission.[15]
Appellant has not disputed the fact that he had no previous
quarrel with any of the complainants. It is well-settled that if the
defense fails to prove any nefarious motive on the part of one who
testifies against an accused, the presumption is that the witness has
not been so moved and that his testimony should thereby be accorded
faith and credit.[16] Most
importantly, when an appeal knocks on the issue of credibility of
witnesses, the chances are, unless strong compelling reasons dictate
otherwise, the appellate court would rely, rather than not, on the
evaluation made by the trial court which is in an excellent position to
do that assessment.
The Court must thus take issue against appellant’s contention
that he did not undertake recruitment activities in Baguio City. By
procuring workers in Baguio City and promising them employment overseas,
appellant has maintained a recruitment activity thereat. It is
immaterial that acts subsequent to the procurement of workers, such as
receiving placement fees and requiring documents for employment, are
done in another place. Appellant should not forget that the latter acts
would not have taken place if it is not for the singular act of
enlisting workers and assuring them jobs in foreign shores.
Appellant bewails the testimony of the complainants. The
“inconsistencies” he refers to pertain merely to the description of the
complainants’ relationship with one another. Alice Kimay has said that
the other persons recruited by appellant are her nephews and nieces.
Jerry Akia has stated, however, that while he would call Alice “auntie,”
she really is not his aunt but a neighbor for a long time.[17]
On the other hand, Aaron John Acena has testified that Alice’s husband
is a distant relative of his mother and quite close to Alice.[18]
It is not a strange custom, and the Court can take judicial notice,
that one would call or refer to another as a brother, an uncle or an
aunt, a nephew or niece, either as a sign of respect or of close
association. Furthermore, the matter is too insignificant to affect the
credibility of the witnesses. What is really important is that the
witnesses have been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the case for
illegal recruitment and to positively identify the accused as being the
offender of the law.[19]
Article 13(b) of the Labor Code defines recruitment and placement
as “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.” The
essential elements then of the crime of illegal recruitment in large
scale are that: (1) the accused engages in acts of recruitment and
placement of workers defined under Article 13(b) or in any prohibited
activities under Article 34 of the Labor Code; (2) the accused has not
complied with the guidelines issued by the Secretary of Labor and
Employment, particularly with respect to the securing of a license or an
authority to recruit and deploy workers, either locally or overseas,
and (3) the accused commits the unlawful acts against three or more
persons, individually or as a group.[20]
The series of acts done by appellant of promising complainants
employment abroad, instructing them to comply with the documentary
requirements therefor, requiring them to undergo tests such as the trade
test undergone by Jerry Akia, using airline procedures for checking
reservations and demanding the payment of fees for his services, have
created an impression upon complainants that he is capable of providing
them with work abroad.[21] It
is not disputed that appellant has had no license or authority to engage
in job recruitment. A license is that which is issued by the Department
of Labor and Employment (“DOLE”) authorizing a person or entity to
operate a private employment agency, while an authority is that issued
by the DOLE entitling a person or association to so engage in
recruitment and placement activities as a private recruitment agency.[22] It is the lack of the necessary license or authority that renders the recruitment activity unlawful or criminal.[23]
Appellant is neither licensed nor authorized to recruit workers in
Baguio City or any part of the Region for overseas work per the
uncontroverted certification of the POEA to that effect. More than three
complainants have come out to denounce appellant’s illegal venture.
Under Article 39 of the Labor Code, the offense of illegal
recruitment in large scale, a crime deemed to involve economic sabotage,
is punishable by life imprisonment and a fine of one hundred thousand
pesos (P100,000.00). Conviction for the crime of illegal recruitment
under the Labor Code does not preclude punishment under other statutes
if some other crimes or felonies are committed in the process.[24]
Thus, a person convicted for illegal recruitment may also be convicted
for the crime of estafa. The principal reason for this is that the
former offense is malum prohibitum where the criminal intent of the accused is not necessary for conviction, while estafa is malum in se where the criminal intent of the accused is an additional element for conviction.[25]
The elements of estafa in general are: (1) that the accused has
defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by deceit, and (2) that
damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the
offended party or third person.[26]
These elements are present in the case at bench – (a) appellant has
deceived complainants into believing that he is capable of providing
them with work abroad, and (b) that, by reason of his false assurances,
complainants have parted with money to their damage and prejudice – that
thereby can render appellant liable for estafa under paragraph 2(a),
Article 315, of the Revised Penal Code. This law imposes the penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor
in its minimum period “if the amount of the fraud is over 12,000 pesos
but does not exceed 22,000 pesos.” The amount involved in each of the
three cases for estafa is within the above range. Under the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum term of the penalty shall be
“that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly
imposed” under the Revised Penal Code, and the minimum shall be “within
the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed” for the offense.[27]
There being no mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the trial court
did not err in imposing the indeterminate sentence of six (6) months
and one (1) day of prision correccional minimum, as minimum penalty, to six (6) years eight (8) months and one (1) day of prision mayor minimum, as maximum penalty, for each of the three (3) counts of estafa.
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision of the trial
court finding appellant Elvis Sanchez guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crimes of illegal recruitment in large scale and three counts of
estafa and sentencing him accordingly, as well as ordering the payment
to the complainants of actual damages, is AFFIRMED. Costs against
appellant.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., Bellosillo, Panganiban, and Quisumbing, JJ., concur.
[1] Penned by Judge Ruben C. Ayson.
[2] Rollo, p. 7.
[3] Rollo, p. 9.
[4] Exh. B, Record of Criminal Case No. 12357-R, p. 98.
[5] Exh. C, ibid.
[6] Exh. D, ibid., p. 96.
[7] Exh. E, ibid., p. 99.
[8] Exh. F, ibid., p. 100.
[9] Exh. A.
[10] Exhs. 2 to 2-E, ibid., pp. 101-106.
[11] Rollo, pp. 40-41.
[12] People vs. Apongan, 270 SCRA 713.
[13] People vs. Mañozca, 269 SCRA 513.
[14] People vs. Avillano, 269 SCRA 553.
[15] Ibid.
[16] People vs. Salvame, 270 SCRA 766; People vs. Buemio, 265 SCRA 582.
[17] TSN, February 1, 1995, pp. 20-21.
[18] TSN, February 9, 1995, p. 4.
[19] People vs. Mañozca, supra.
[20] Ibid., at p. 523.
[21] People vs. De Leon, 267 SCRA 644, 651; People vs. Benemerito, 264 SCRA 677.
[22] Ibid.
[23] People vs. Señoron, 267 SCRA 278.
[24] People vs. Calonzo, 262 SCRA 534, reiterating People vs. Turda, 233 SCRA 702.
[25] People vs. Benemerito, supra.
[26] Ibid.
[27]Sec. 1, Act No. 4103, as amended.