PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JOEY BODOZO Y BULA AND NIMFA BODOZO Y NERI, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

This is an appeal^[1]
interposed by accused Joey Bodozo and Nimfa Bodozo, husband and wife, from the
decision^[2]
of the Regional Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region, Branch XLIX,
Manila, in Criminal Case Nos. 89-73608-SCC to 89-73613-SCC, finding them guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal recruitment defined in and
penalized by Article 13 in relation to Article 38 of the Labor Code, as amended, and sentencing each of them to
suffer the penalty of Life Imprisonment.

Accused-appellants were charged before the Regional Trial Court
with five (5) counts of Estafa (docketed as Criminal Case No. 89-73609 to
89-73613) and a separate charge for Illegal Recruitment (docketed as Criminal
Case No. 89-73608).

With regards to the charge of Estafa, accused-appellants were
aquitted of the crime charged. Hence
this appeal refers only to the crime of illegal recruitment.

On May 30, 1989, the Assistant Prosecutor filed the following
information for illegal recruitment against Joey Bodozo and Nimfa Bodozo, to
wit:

“The undersigned accuses JOEY BODOZO y BULA and NIMFA BODOZO y
NERI of a violation of Article 38 (a), Presidential Decree No. 1412, amending
certain provisions of Book I, Presidential Decree No. 442 (New Labor Code of
the Philippines), in relation to Article 13 (b) and (c) of said Code, as
further amended by Presidential Decree No. 1693 and Presidential Decree No.
1920, committed in a large scale, as follows:

“That in or about and during the period comprised between
October 3, 1988 and April 8, 1989, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said
accused conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping each other,
representing themselves to have the capacity to contract, enlist and transport
Filipino workers for employment abroad, did then and there wilfully and
unlawfully, for a fee, recruit and promise employment/job placement abroad to
Domingo Obiacoro y Gagtan, Ludovico Gagtan y Lopez, Angelino Obiacoro y Aspiras, Prudencio Renon y Lopez and
Fernando Gagtan y Lopez, without first having secured the required license or
authority from the Department of Labor and Employment.

Contrary to Law”.^[3]

On arraignment, accused-appellants, Joey Bodozo and Nimfa Bodozo,
assisted by their counsel de oficio, pleaded not guilty to the information.

On July 6,1990, the trial court rendered judgment, the decretal
portion of which reads as follows:

“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in these cases as
follows:

1. In
People versus Joey Bodozo and Nimfa Bodozo, Criminal Case No. 89-73608, the
Court finds both Accused guilty, beyond reasonable doubt, of the crime of
illegal recruitment defined in and penalized by Article 13 in relation to
Article 38 of the Labor Code, as amended, and hereby metes on each of them the
penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and hereby condemns each of them “to
pay” a fine of P100,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency.

2. In People versus Joey Bodozo and Nimfa
Bodozo, Criminal Case Nos. 89-73609 to 89-73613, the Court finds that the
Prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable
doubt for the crimes charged therein and hereby acquits them of said charges.

Both Accused are hereby ordered to refund, jointly and severally,
to the following Private Complainants the amounts appearing opposite their
respective names, as follows:

1. Prudencio Renon  —————————–    P 19,000.00

2. Fernando Gagtan  —————————–    20,000.00

3. Angelino Obiacoro —————————-   20,000.00

4. Ludovico Gagtan   —————————–    10,000.00

With costs against the accused.

SO ORDERED.”^[4]

Hence the instant appeal by the accused Joey Bodozo and Nimfa
Bodozo.

Accused-appellants raised
the following assignment of errors, to wit:

I

IN FAILING TO APPRECIATE
THE QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE IN FAVOR OF THE CLAIM OF BOTH ACCUSED THAT THEY ONLY
HELPED THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANTS APPLIED FOR JOB ABROAD, THAT THEY WERE NOT
RECRUITERS.

II

IN HOLDING THAT THE
PROSECUTION HAS MARSHALLED THE DEGREE OF PROOF WHICH PRODUCED THE CONVICTIONS
OF BOTH ACCUSED.

The main thrust of this case hinges on whether or not the guilt
of the accused-appellants have been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

As found by the trial court, the facts as could be gleaned from
the evidence on record, were as follows:

When the accused Nimfa Bodozo was in Luna, La Union, she told the
private complainants, who are simple farmers, and at the time unemployed, that
she was recruiting workers for employment in Saudi Arabia and Singapore. The accused Nimfa Bodozo required the five
(5) private complainants to submit to her, in addition to their respective
applications, NBI clearances and medical certificates in connection with their
applications. The private complainants
Prudencio Renon and Fernando Gagtan were told by the accused Nimfa Bodozo that
their salary in Saudi Arabia was US$200.00 a month, while the accused Nimfa
Bodozo assured private complainants, Angelino Obiacoro, Ludovico Gagtan and
Domingo Obiacoro that they were going to be paid, by their respective
employers, in Singapore, the amount of Singapore 16.00 dollars a day. The private complainants Prudencio Renon and
Fernando Gagtan submitted their application forms, duly filled up, passports,
their NBI clearances and medical certificates to the accused Nimfa Bodozo in
their residence at Quirino Avenue, Manila. Domingo Obiacoro, Angelino Obiacoro and Ludovico Gagtan likewise
submitted to the accused their NBI clearances and medical certificates as
required by the accused. Moreover, the
accused demanded from the private complainant Prudencio Renon the amount of
P19,000.00 in connection with his application for employment abroad. Of the said amount, P15,000.00 was to be
used by the accused as processing fee for the application and papers of the
private complainant for his employment abroad. Prudencio Renon paid to the accused Nimfa Bodozo, on October 3, 1988,
the amount of P15,000.00 for which the said accused signed a Receipt.^[5]
The mother of Prudencio Renon paid the balance of P4,000.00 to the same accused
but the latter did not issue any receipt for said amount.

The accused Nimfa Bodozo demanded from the private complainant
Fernando Gagtan the amount of P20,000.00 in connection with his application for
employment abroad. Fernando Gagtan paid
to the accused Nimfa Bodozo, also on October 3, 1988, the amount of P12,000.00
for which the said accused signed and issued Receipts^[6] and
the amount of P8,000.00 through Maxima Gagtan the mother of Fernando Gagtan,
for which the accused Nimfa Bodozo issued a Receipt dated April 8,1989.^[7]

The accused Nimfa Bodozo
demanded from Domingo Obiacoro the amount of P20,000.00 in connection
with his application for employment abroad. Of the amount, P10,000.00 will be used for the purchase of a plane
ticket for the private complainant for Singapore and the balance of P10,000.00
was to be used as placement fee for the application of the private complainant
for employment abroad. Domingo Obiacoro
paid P10,000.00 to the accused Nimfa Bodozo in the house of the friend of the
accused in Luna, La Union but the accused did not issue any Receipt for the
amount at the time. Domingo Obiacoro
paid the balance of P10,000.00 to the accused Nimfa Bodozo, in the presence of
the accused Joey Bodozo in the house of the accused at President Quirino
Avenue, Manila. The accused Joey Bodozo
later signed and issued a Receipt for the said amount of P20,000.00.^[8]

The accused Joey Bodozo demanded from Angelino Obiacoro the payment
of P20,000.00 in connection with the latter’s application for employment
abroad. Angelino Obiacoro gave to the
accused Joey Bodozo the amount of P10,000.00 in two (2) installments on
different occasion for which the accused Joey Bodozo later signed and issued a
Receipt.^[9]

The accused Joey Bodozo likewise demanded from Ludovico Gagtan the
payment of the amount of P20,000.00 in connection with his application for
employment abroad. Ludovico Gagtan,
through his mother, Maxima Gagtan, gave to the accused Nimfa Bodozo the amount
of P10,000.00 but the latter failed to issue any receipt at that time. However, considering that the private
complainant did not have the amount of P10,000.00 to pay the balance of the
P20,000.00 demanded by the accused, but the latter offered to advance the
amount for the account of private complainant for which the latter and his
mother, Maxima Gagtan, signed a “Promissory Note” in favor of the
accused Joey Bodozo.^[10]
However, the accused added the amount of P4,000.00 to the P10,000.00
purportedly advanced by the accused for the private complainant by way of
interests on said loan. The accused
Nimfa Bodozo later signed and issued a Receipt^[11] for
the amount of P10,000.00 remitted to her by the mother of Ludovico
Gagtan”.^[12]

After a careful scrutiny of the evidence, We found no cause to
disapprove the facts as stated above and we adopt the same as Our findings of
facts. In the absence of any
substantial proof that the trial court’s decision was grounded entirely on speculations,
surmises or conjectures, the same must be accorded full consideration and
respect. After all, the trial court is
in a much better position to observe and correctly appreciate the respective
parties’ evidence as they were presented.^[13]

The crime of illegal recruitment is defined under Article 38 (a)
in relation to Articles 13 (b) and 34, and penalized under Article 39 of
the Labor Code as amended by PD
1920 and PD 2018.

Article 38 (a) of the Labor Code provides as follows:

Art. 38. 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 officer may initiate
complaints under this Article. (Underscoring Ours).

Under Article 13 (b) Recruitment and Placement is defined 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. (Underscoring Ours).

It should be noted that any of the acts mentioned in Article 13
(b) can lawfully be undertaken only by licensees or holders of authority to
engage in the recruitment and placement workers.

The crime of illegal recruitment has two elements:

1. The offender is a
non-license or non-holder of authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment
and placement of workers; and

2. That the offender undertakes either any
recruitment activities defined under Article 13(b), or any prohibited practices
enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code.

In this case at bar, it is undisputed that accused?appellants
Joey Bodozo and Nimfa Bodozo are neither licensed nor authorized to recruit
workers for overseas employment as shown by the certification^[14]
issued by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA).

Accused-appellants want this Court to believe that they merely
helped private complainants apply for overseas employment. Evidences on record, however, show
otherwise. Accused-appellants not only
asked private complainants to fill up application forms but also to submit to them their NBI clearances, passports
and medical certificates. In addition
thereto, accused-appellants collected payment for processing fee and other
sundry expenses from private complainants, all of which constitutes acts of
recruitment within the meaning of the law.

Accused-appellants point to a certain Belen Hernandez, a manager
of Mogleo International Management and Service Contractor a duly registered and
licensed recruiter, and Jing Evangelista of Ultragen, Inc. as the persons who
were responsible for the recruitment of private complainants. If such allegations were true, why did
accused-appellants not present any one of them as witness to corroborate their
claim? For reasons only known to them,
they chose to suppress such testimony as evidence and instead risked the
adverse inference and legal presumption that “evidence wilfully suppressed
would be adverse if produced”.^[15]

Besides, if it was Belen Hernandez and Jing Evangelista who were the recruiters, why did
accused-appellants issue the receipts^[16]
acknowledging payments made by private
complainants?

Accused-appellants Nimfa Bodozo alleged that she was forced to
issue and sign receipts marked as Exhibits J and N because private
complainants Prudencio Renon and Fernando Gagtan were mad and refused to leave
the house. On the other hand,
accused-appellant Joey Bodozo claimed that he, too, was forced to issue and
sign Exhibits L and E at Kalaw Street, Ermita, Manila because private
complainants Angelino Obiacoro and Domingo Obiacoro would kill him.

We find accused-appellants’ alibi not convincing. Such allegations are self-serving. No evidence of force was represented by
accused-appellant Nimfa Bodozo to bolster her claim that she was forced except
to state that she was afraid of private complainants’ anger. In the case of accused-appellant Joey
Bodozo, it will be noted that the alleged force happened in a busy public
street. Neither did the
accused-appellants file any case against private complainants for forcing them
to sign and issue said receipts. At
most, their claim of force may be said to be merely an afterthought to
exculpiate themselves from the charges levelled against them by private
complainants.

Moreover, We agree with the findings of the trial court that no
improper motives may be attributed to private complainants to charge
accused-appellants with a serious crime as illegal recruitment.

Records show that private complainants are simple farmers,
unemployed and natives of La Union, who see employment abroad as a means to
alleviate their living conditions, only to find out that they have been the
victims of illegal recruiters preying on poor workers. It has been held that “the absence of
evidence as to an improper motive actuating the principal witnesses of the
prosecution strongly tends to sustain no improper motive existed and their
testimony is worthy of full faith and credit.”^[17]

Lastly, under Article 38 of the Labor Code, as amended, the crime of illegal
recruitment is qualified when the same is
committed against three (3) or more persons, individually or as a group. Accused-appellant having committed the crime of illegal
recruitment against Prudencio Renon, Fernando Gagtan, Angelino Obiacoro,
Domingo Obiacoro and Ludovico Gagtan, the penalty of life imprisonment and the
fine of P100,000.00 (Article 39 (a) Labor Code of the Philippines as amended) was correctly imposed by the trial
court.

In the light of foregoing findings and for reasons indicated, We
hold that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict finding the
accused guilty of the crime of illegal recruitment as charged. Accordingly, the judgment of the Regional
Trial Court is hereby AFFIRMED with no pronouncement to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Feliciano, Regalado, and
Nocon, JJ., concur.

Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), on official
leave.

^[1]
Counsel for appellant – Hon. Solicitor General Counsel for Appellee – Atty.
Augusto J. Tobias.

^[2]
Penned by Judge Romeo J. Callejo.

^[3]
Rollo, p. 7.

^[4]
Rollo, pp. 59-60.

^[5]
Exhibits “N” and “N-1”.

^[6]
Exhibit “J”.

^[7]
Exhibits “J” and “J-1”.

^[8]
Exhibits “L” and “L-1”.

^[9]
Exhibits “E” and “E-1”.

^[10]
Exhibits “1” to “1-B”.

^[11]
Exhibits “H” and
“H-1”.

^[12]
Rollo, pp. 48-49; Decision, pp. 22-23.

^[13]
People of the Phils., vs.
Martinada, 194 SCRA 36 (1991).

^[14]
Exhibits “P”, “P-1”, “Q” and “Q-1”.

^[15]
People of the Phils. vs. Damaso, 190 SCRA 595 (1990).

^[16]
Exhibits E, E – 1, H, H-1, L, L -1, N, and N -1.

^[17]
Araneta, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals; Bautista vs. Court of
Appeals, 187 SCRA 123 (1990).