PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MOISES DEJOLDE, JR. Y SALINO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Dejolde

The Case

This is People versus Dejolde, a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Moises Dejolde, Junior for recruiting six complainants for promised caregiver jobs in the United Kingdom without any license from the Department of Labor and Employment, and for defrauding two of them of large sums supposedly paid for travel documents. The accused was convicted of illegal recruitment in large scale and of two counts of estafa. The case matters to a reviewee for two reasons: it restates the rule that the defense of denial cannot overcome the positive testimony of credible witnesses, and it shows how a supervening statute — Republic Act Number 10951, which adjusted the amounts on which penalties under the Revised Penal Code are based — changes the penalty for estafa even on appeal.

Procedural History

The Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, Branch 60, tried the accused on three amended informations and, on April 3, 2010, found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal recruitment in large scale and of two counts of estafa. For illegal recruitment it imposed life imprisonment and a fine of 100,000 pesos; for each estafa count it imposed an indeterminate penalty of four years, two months and one day of prision correccional as minimum to twenty years of reclusion temporal as maximum, and ordered payment of actual damages of 440,000 pesos to Jessie Doculan and 350,000 pesos to Naty Loman, with interest at the legal rate.

The accused elevated the case to the Court of Appeals. On July 31, 2014, the Court of Appeals denied the appeal and affirmed the trial court with modification: it raised the fine for illegal recruitment to 1,000,000 pesos pursuant to Section 7 of Republic Act Number 8042, and it adjusted the indeterminate sentences in the estafa cases. The accused then filed the present appeal before the Supreme Court, which required supplementary briefs from both parties; both opted not to file them.

Facts

Sometime between January and March 2007, in Baguio City, the accused recruited Naty Loman, Jessie Doculan, Fraulein Edoc, Olivia Gabol, Rosieline Marcos and Jerry Diwangan, promising them employment as caregivers in the United Kingdom. He charged them 450,000 pesos each for the processing of their visas and the cost of plane fares. Naty paid 400,000 pesos and Jessie paid 450,000 pesos.

The complainants later discovered that the visas were fake and that the accused was not authorized by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration. They demanded the return of their money. The accused returned only 50,000 pesos to Naty and 10,000 pesos to Jessie.

For his part, the accused denied recruiting the complainants as caregivers. He claimed he was in the business of processing student visa applications for those who wanted to study in the United Kingdom, and that the money he received was for school tuition fees and student visa processing. He said he could not process the applications or refund the money because he had been arrested.

Issues

• Whether or not the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused recruited the complainants for employment abroad without the required license, making him liable for illegal recruitment in large scale.
• Whether or not the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the two counts of estafa for the amounts he received from Jessie Doculan and Naty Loman.
• Whether or not the penalties for the two counts of estafa must be modified in view of the enactment of Republic Act Number 10951.

Applicable Provisions

Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act Number 10951, fixes the penalty for estafa according to the amount of the fraud:

Article 315. Swindling (estafa). Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow shall be punished by: 1st. 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; and if such amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional 10,000 pesos; but the total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases, and in connection with the accessory penalties which may be imposed and for the purpose of the other provisions of this Code, the penalty shall be termed prision mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be. 2nd. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if the amount of the fraud is over 6,000 pesos but does not exceed 12,000 pesos. 3rd. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period, if such amount is over 200 pesos but does not exceed 6,000 pesos. 4th. By arresto mayor, if such amount does not exceed 200 pesos, or by a fine of not less than 50 pesos nor more than 200 pesos, or both, in the discretion of the court.

As the Court reads it after the amendment, the third bracket now covers amounts over 40,000 pesos but not exceeding 1,200,000 pesos, which is the bracket into which the amounts of 440,000 pesos and 350,000 pesos fall.

Section 7 of Republic Act Number 8042, the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, fixes the penalty for illegal recruitment in large scale:

Section 7. Penalties. — (a) Any person found guilty of illegal recruitment shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of not less than six (6) years and one (1) day but not more than twelve (12) years and a fine of not less than Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00) nor more than Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00). (b) The penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of not less than Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) nor more than One million pesos (P1,000,000.00) shall be imposed if illegal recruitment constitutes economic sabotage as defined herein.

This is the provision the Court of Appeals used to raise the fine to 1,000,000 pesos, and it bears on the first issue because illegal recruitment in large scale is economic sabotage.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the appeal is without merit. The prosecution witnesses positively testified that the accused recruited them as caregivers for the United Kingdom and collected money from them. Against this, the accused offered only denial, which the Court described as an inherently weak defense, a self-serving negative evidence that cannot be given more evidentiary weight than the affirmative declarations of credible witnesses. The Court also applied the settled rule that factual findings of trial courts deserve great respect, because they are in the best position to assess the credibility of witnesses whose demeanor they observed during trial. Finding no reason to disturb the findings of the trial court as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, the Court upheld the conviction for illegal recruitment in large scale.

On the second issue, the Court likewise upheld the conviction for the two counts of estafa, for the same reason: the positive testimony of the complainants prevailed over the unsubstantiated denial.

On the third issue, the Court held that the recent enactment of Republic Act Number 10951 required a modification of the penalties for the two estafa counts. Under Article 315 as amended, the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period applies where the amount involved is over 40,000 pesos but does not exceed 1,200,000 pesos. With no mitigating and no aggravating circumstance, the maximum penalty is one year and one day of prision correccional. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum term is drawn from arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods, ranging from one month and one day to four months. The Court therefore fixed the indeterminate penalty for each estafa count at two months and one day of arresto mayor as minimum to one year and one day of prision correccional as maximum. It also imposed interest at six percent per annum on the amounts of 440,000 pesos and 350,000 pesos from the date of finality of the resolution until full payment.

Doctrine

First, the defense of denial is inherently weak. It is self-serving negative evidence that cannot be given more evidentiary weight than the affirmative declarations of credible witnesses, especially when it is unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence.

Second, the factual findings of trial courts on the credibility of witnesses are accorded great respect, because the trial judge had the opportunity to observe their demeanor, and the Supreme Court will not disturb them absent a showing of reason to do so.

Third, the penalty for estafa is determined by the amount of the fraud under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act Number 10951, which placed amounts over 40,000 pesos but not exceeding 1,200,000 pesos within the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period. A supervening statute that adjusts the amounts on which penalties are based applies to pending appeals and requires modification of the penalty even where the conviction stands.

Fourth, illegal recruitment in large scale is economic sabotage, punishable by life imprisonment and a fine of not less than 500,000 pesos nor more than 1,000,000 pesos under Section 7 of Republic Act Number 8042.

Disposition

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction of Moises Dejolde, Junior for illegal recruitment in large scale and two counts of estafa, modifying only the estafa penalties to two months and one day of arresto mayor as minimum to one year and one day of prision correccional as maximum for each count, and imposing six percent interest per annum on the amounts of 440,000 pesos and 350,000 pesos from finality until full payment.

Remember This

Remember the line that denial is an inherently weak defense that cannot outweigh the positive testimony of credible witnesses. Examiners like to use this case to test the effect of Republic Act Number 10951 on the penalty for estafa pending on appeal, and the rule that factual findings of the trial court on credibility are binding on the Supreme Court.