PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MARY LOU OMICTIN Y SINGCO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Omictin

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Mary Lou Omictin, an appeal from a conviction for illegal recruitment in large scale and three counts of estafa. Omictin was accused of promising overseas employment to four complainants, collecting placement fees from them, and never deploying anyone, all without the license required by law. The case matters because it fixes two working rules every reviewee must carry: the elements of illegal recruitment in large scale under the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, and the correct meaning of self-serving evidence, a phrase that appears in nearly every defense brief and is almost always misused.

Procedural History

Separate informations were filed before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 104, charging Omictin with illegal recruitment in large scale and with estafa. On May 3, 2007, the trial court found her guilty as charged. For illegal recruitment in large scale it imposed life imprisonment and a fine of one million pesos. For the three estafa counts it imposed indeterminate penalties and ordered indemnification of the complainants. Omictin appealed to the Court of Appeals. On November 25, 2009, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court decision in its entirety. The case then reached the Supreme Court on appeal. Through a manifestation in lieu of a supplemental brief, Omictin repleaded and adopted the defenses and arguments in her appellant's brief.

Facts

Primo Arvin Guevarra returned home from Libya in September 2003. In January 2004, a former classmate introduced him to Omictin, who presented herself as a recruiter for overseas employment. In a meeting with Guevarra, Anthony Ambrosio, and Elisa Dotimas, the three agreed to pay Omictin forty thousand pesos each for deployment to London as caregivers. Each gave ten thousand pesos as initial payment, and Omictin assured them they would leave within sixty to ninety days. Guevarra paid an additional ten thousand pesos at his medical examination and completed the balance of twenty thousand pesos. The promised orientation and contract signing never happened, and the promised reimbursement in the first week of March never came.

Veronica Caponpon was promised work in New Zealand as an apple picker for a placement fee of twenty thousand pesos. She paid ten thousand pesos, then eight thousand pesos on April 22, 2003, and the remaining two thousand pesos on April 27, 2003. She never left. Roy Fernandez Mago paid the full placement fee of forty thousand pesos and submitted his documents for promised work as a caregiver, but the employment never materialized. Ambrosio was promised overseas employment within three to four months for forty thousand pesos, but he was able to pay only sixteen thousand pesos, and the employment never came.

On March 8, 2004, the four complainants filed complaints with the National Bureau of Investigation. Mago reported that Omictin had demanded an additional sixty thousand pesos, and an entrapment operation was set at a restaurant at the corner of EDSA and Quezon Avenue. On March 9, 2004, Omictin received the marked money and was arrested by agents of the Bureau. At trial, Omictin claimed she was merely helping the complainants process their visas, that Dotimas issued a check for one hundred six thousand pesos as initial payment for all four, and that she met Mago on the day of the arrest to discuss changing his visa application, for which she asked sixty thousand pesos.

Issues

• Whether or not the conviction for illegal recruitment in large scale and estafa should stand, given that the issues raised on appeal are purely factual.
• Whether or not the testimony of Guevarra is hearsay and unsubstantiated because the prosecution did not present Dotimas, who issued the check.
• Whether or not the testimony of Ambrosio is self-serving and uncorroborated because no receipt proved his payment.

Applicable Provisions

Section 6 of Republic Act Number 8042, the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, defines illegal recruitment and provides:

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.

This is the provision under which Omictin was convicted, since she recruited four persons without a license.

Section 7, paragraph b, of the same law fixes the penalty for illegal recruitment in large scale, and the trial court applied it in relation to Section 6.

Article 315, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code, under which the three estafa counts were charged, punishes estafa committed with false pretenses or fraudulent acts, and the informations alleged that Omictin falsely represented her power and capacity to recruit and deploy the complainants.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the appeal is without merit. The issues Omictin raised are all factual, and the Court is not a trier of facts. The factual findings of the Court of Appeals affirming those of the trial court are conclusive and binding, save under exceptional circumstances, and the Court found none of those exceptions present. It thus saw no reason to disturb the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the courts below.

On the second issue, the Court rejected the claim that Guevarra's testimony was hearsay for want of Dotimas. More decisively, the Court held that even if the testimonies of Guevarra and Ambrosio were unsubstantiated, that would not carry the day for Omictin, because she admitted during trial the substance of their testimonies. She testified that Guevarra and Mago each paid her forty thousand pesos and that Ambrosio paid sixteen thousand pesos. Her own admission established the payments.

On the third issue, the Court held that Ambrosio's testimony is not self-serving evidence. The phrase has a well-defined judicial meaning, and the Court quoted its earlier ruling:

Self-serving statements are those made by a party out of court advocating his own interest; they do not include a party's testimony as a witness in court.

The Court explained that self-serving statements are inadmissible because the adverse party is not given the opportunity for cross-examination, and their admission would encourage fabrication of testimony. That cannot be said of a party's testimony in court made under oath, with full opportunity on the part of the opposing party for cross-examination. Assayed against these standards, Ambrosio's testimony is not self-serving and is admissible in evidence.

Doctrine

First, illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three or more persons individually or as a group, and the accused need only be shown to have recruited without the required license. Second, the factual findings of the Court of Appeals affirming those of the trial court are conclusive and binding on the Supreme Court, save under the well-defined exceptions, none of which was present here. Third, a self-serving statement is one made by a party out of court and in his favor; it does not include the testimony he gives as a witness in court under oath and subject to cross-examination. Fourth, an accused's own admission during trial of the substance of the complainants' testimonies supplies the proof, even if the testimonies were otherwise unsubstantiated.

Disposition

The appeal was denied for lack of merit, and the Court of Appeals decision affirming the conviction of Omictin for illegal recruitment in large scale and three counts of estafa was affirmed in its entirety.

Remember This

Memorize the line: a self-serving declaration is one made by a party out of court and in his favor, and it does not include the testimony he gives as a witness in court. Examiners use this case to test the elements of illegal recruitment in large scale and to trap students who object to in-court testimony as self-serving.