THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ALICIA B. GAOAT, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

On September 22, 1987, the
appellant, Alicia B. Gaoat, and two (2) others — Magdalena Abenir Irons and
Domingo B. Babol — ­were charged before the Regional Trial Court of Manila
with “the crime of violation of Article 38 (1) of Presidential Decree No.
1412 in relation to Article 13 (b) (c) of the New Labor Code of the
Philippines, as amended **.” The case was docketed as Criminal Case No.
87-57826.

The acts allegedly
constituting the crime are set out in the information as follows:

“That in or about and during the period comprised between
June, 1986 and February, 1987, inclusive, in the City of Manila, ** the said
accused, conspiring and confederating together and helping one another,
willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously defraud LUCIA BERNARDO, FROILAN BRIONES
and REYNALDO VALIDOR, who are applicants for Stewardess, Utility Galley and
Utility Man in Miami, Florida, U.S.A., by then and there collecting the sum of
P15,300.00, P19,300.00 and P15,000.00, respectively, which are P10,300,
P14,300.00 and P10,000.00, respectively, more than the maximum placement and
documentation fees of P5,000.00 to cover all costs and services relative to
their recruitment pursuant to M.C. No. 5, Series of 11985 which is allowed by
the POEA for them to collect from the said LUCIA BERNARDO, FROILAN BRIONES and
REYNALDO VALIDOR, to the damage and prejudice of the said complainants in the
aforesaid amount of P10,300.00, P14,300.00 and P10,000.00, respectively.”

On the same day, September 22, 1987, three (3) other informations
were separately filed against the three aforenamed individuals, Gaoat, Irons
and Babol. These were docketed as
Criminal Cases Numbered 87-57827, 87-57828, and 87-57829. The indictments basically accused them of
receiving money from the same persons already named, Lucia Bernardo, Froilan
Briones and Reynaldo Validor — in the amounts stated in the information just
quoted — upon the “false and fraudulent” representations and
assurances that “they had the power and capacity to recruit and employ
said ** (said persons) and could facilitate the processing of the pertinent
papers in connection therewith,” which money they did thereafter
“misappropriate, misapply and convert to their own personal use and
benefit to the damage and prejudice of ** (their victims) ** ** .”

And in October, 1987, three (3) more informations were filed
against Alicia B. Gaoat, charging her with estafa, allegedly
committed in conspiracy “with others whose true names, identities and
present whereabouts are still unknown.” Specifically, she was charged with
having, on different occasions in 1986, obtained money from Priscilla de Leon y
Lautrizo, Reynaldo Singuya y Gabriel, and John Fortes y Co thru “false
manifestations and fraudulent representations that she had the power and
capacity to recruit and employ ** (persons applying therefor) and could
facilitate the processing of the pertinent papers if given the necessary amount
to meet the requirements thereof,” but once in possession of the money,
she “feloniously misappropriated, misapplied and converted (it) to her own
personal use and benefit to the damage and prejudice of ** (her victims).”
The cases were respectively docketed as Criminal Cases Numbered 87-58151, 87­-58085,
87-58086,

Only Alicia B. Gaoat was arrested in connection with these seven
(7) indictments. None of her co-accused
was ever apprehended or brought to trial. As far as is known, her co-defendants have remained at large to this
day.

On being arraigned, Alicia Gaoat entered a plea of not guilty in
relation to all the seven (7) cases against her, with the assistance of counsel
de parte. The
cases were subsequently consolidated before Branch 49 of the Regional Trial
Court of Manila^[1]
and, by agreement of the parties, a joint trial was conducted.

On February 3, 1989, the Trial Court rendered judgment the
dispositive portion of which reads as follows:^[2]

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

1. In Criminal Case No.
87-57826, the Court finds the Accused Alicia Gaoat guilty beyond reasonable
doubt, as principal, for the crime of illegal recruitment, in a large scale,
defined in Article 39 in relation to Articles 32, 34 and 38 of the Labor Code,
as amended, and in relation to Memorandum Order No. 5, Series of 1985 and Book
I, Rule II, Section I (cc) of the Rules of the Philippines Overseas Employment
Administration and hereby imposes on her the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT with
all the accessory penalties of the law and to pay a fine of P100,000.00,
without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.

2. Criminal Cases Nos.
87-57827 to 87-57829 are hereby dismissed only as against the Accused Alicia
Gaoat.

3. The Accused Alicia Gaoat
is hereby acquitted of the crime charged in Criminal Cases No. 87-58158,
87-58086 and 87­-58085 for failure of the Prosecution to prove the guilt of
the Accused beyond reasonable doubt for said crime.

The Court cannot render judgment on the civil liability of the
Accused in favor of the Private Complainants because the Department of Labor
and Employment has already ordered Roan Philippines, Inc. and First Integrated
Bonding and Insurance Company, Inc., to pay, jointly and severally, the Private
Complainants their monetary claims against the said corporations (Exhibit
‘D’).”

Gaoat filed a motion for reconsideration of the verdict on February
20, 1989. The motion was denied. Hence, the appeal at bar, “only with
respect to the order of conviction,” as her counsel is careful to point
out. To gain acquittal, she strives to
make the following points, to wit:^[3]

1) she was “only
obeying and acting [on] the orders of her superiors (in Roan Philippines,
Inc.);” indeed, “she wanted to resign from the company but was
overtaken by events beyond her control;”

2) being a mere cashier,
she was never informed of the circular allegedly violated: “Memorandum Circular No. 5 of the POEA
(Re: Overcharging of Placement
Fees),” and insofar as it is made to apply to her, “the law is
oppressive and unjust;”

3) assuming she is
responsible for the crime charged, the milder form of responsibility should
have been imposed on her.

Alicia Gaoat was the
cashier of Roan Philippines, Inc.,^[4] a recruitment or manning agency. The latter’s operations were suspended by
the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration in the first quarter of 1987.^[5] At that time, Gaoat was receiving a salary
of P1,150.00 a month, as cashier.^[6] Her superiors — later indicted with her as
allegedly her co-conspirators — were Magdalena Abenir Irons, the President of
the Company,^[7] and Domingo B. Babol, the General Manager.^[8]

Although no less than
seven (7) crimes were attributed to her — one for illegal recruitment, and six
(6) for estafa — she
was, to repeat, convicted of only one, the first, that for illegal recruitment.

Now, the information under
which she was convicted, accused her of having, willfully, unlawfully, and
feloniously and in conspiracy with her superiors, Irons (president of the
corporation) and Babol (general manager), collected from LUCIA BERNARDO,
FROILAN BRIONES and REYNALDO VALIDOR — applicants for Stewardess, Utility
Galley and Utility Man in Miami, Florida, U.S.A. — the sums of P15,300.00,
P19,300.00 and P15,000.00, respectively, which amounts are more than the
maximum placement and documentation fees of P5,000.00 allowed by the POEA
pursuant to its Memorandum Circular No. 5, Series of 1985 to cover all costs
and services relative to their recruitment.

Unfortunately for the
prosecution, its evidence does not adequately show that Gaoat had any knowing
and wilful participation in dealing with, and fixing and collecting fees from,
the complaining witnesses. There is no
proof that she knew that the fees being collected were in excess of those
allowed by law or regulation or that she knew or had been advised of any such
limits. There is no proof that she had
talked with any of the complainants about the amounts they would have to pay to
Roan Philippines, Inc.; in fact, she was absolved from the six (6) other
accusations leveled against her, that she had made “false and fraudulent”
representations and assurances to the complaining witnesses that she or her
co-accused “had the power and capacity to recruit and employ said ** (said
complainants) and could facilitate the processing of the pertinent papers in
connection therewith.”^[9] Neither is there any proof that she had
converted or misappropriated any part of the money coming into her hands as
cashier. All that the State’s evidence
does show is that after Irons or Babol had fixed the fees payable by
complainants, they had turned over the money collected to Gaoat — or
instructed her to receive the money directly from said complainants — for
recording (in index cards) and subsequent deposit in the bank, as were her
duties as the company cashier, in line with normal practice and usage.^[10]

The paucity of the
prosecution evidence as regards the appellant’s complicity in the crime charged
is evident, for instance, from the testimony of Lucia Bernardo, one of the
complainants. Lucia Bernardo testified
pertinently as follows:^[11]

“FISCAL FORMOSO:

When you went there in
May, 1986, to whom did you talk with?

WITNESS:

To Mrs. Magdalena
Iron, sir.

FISCAL FORMOSO:

What did she tell you?

WITNESS:

I was told to fill up
an application form, sir.

FISCAL FORMOSO:

What else did she tell
you?

WITNESS:

I was told to come
back after a few days for my interview, sir.

FISCAL FORMOSO:

When you went there
for the first time, were you able to talk to Mr. Babol?

WITNESS:

Yes, sir.

FISCAL FORMOSO:

And what did Babol
tell you?

WITNESS:

He told
me that if I pass the interview I would be able to leave in a period of six
months, sir.

FISCAL FORMOSO:

Upon
the filing of your application what were the requirement (sic) asked of you?

WITNESS:

The Seaman’s book,
Medical Certificate and the NBI Clearance, sir.

FISCAL FORMOSO:

Were you able to
accomplish these requirements?

WITNESS:

Yes, sir.

FISCAL FORMOSO

To whom did you
submit?

WITNESS:

To Mr. Babol, sir.

FISCAL FORMOSO:

After that what did he
tell you?

WITNESS:

I was asked to give
them cash bond, sir.

FISCAL FORMOSO:

When you submitted
those requirements to Babol, what did he tell you?

WITNESS:

He told me to give a
cash bond, sir.

FISCAL FORMOSO:

Were you able to give?

WITNESS:

Yes, sir.

FISCAL FORMOSO:

How much?

WITNESS:

P15,300.00, sir.

FISCAL FORMOSO:

What else?

WITNESS:

Fee for the plane
ticket, sir.

FISCAL FORMOSO:

By the
way, how much was the total amount that you were obliged to pay in order that
you could leave?

WITNESS:

P30,000.00 all in all,
sir.

FISCAL FORMOSO:

And out of this P30,000.00,
you were only able to pay P15,300.00?

WITNESS:

Yes, sir.

FISCAL FORMOSO:

To whom did you give
this P15,300.00?

WITNESS:

I was informed by Mrs.
Iron to give the money to Mrs. Alicia Gaoat, their cashier, sir.

FISCAL FORMOSO:

When you delivered the
P15,300.00 were there persons present?

WITNESS:

My companions who made
payments also, sir.

FISCAL FORMOSO:

Now, was Mr. Babol
present when you gave the P15,300.00?

WITNESS:

Yes, sir.

FISCAL FORMOSO:

What did he tell you,
if any?

WITNESS:

That I would also give
the money to Mrs. Alicia Gaoat, sir.

FISCAL FORMOSO:

Did you actually give
the P15,300.00?

WITNESS:

Yes, sir.

* * *.”

Lucia Bernardo made clear
that it was Babol and Irons who had assured her she would be able to leave for her
projected employment in Miami, Florida, U.S.A., and instructed her to pay the
fees required of her to Alicia Gaoat;^[12] and that she had spoken to the latter only
after paying the amount fixed by Irons and Babol.^[13]

Much the same thing may
be said of the evidence given by the other complainant, Froilan Briones.^[14] Froilan Briones’ testimony is that it was
only Ms. Irons, Mr. Babol, and a certain Ms. Robinson who interviewed him and
other applicants; that it was the first two, Irons and Babol, who asked that he
put up a cash bond; and that all that Gaoat did was to receive the money that
he (Briones) was told by Irons and Babol to pay.^[15]

Nor is there any evidence
satisfactorily establishing that Gaoat had “conspired and
confederated” with her co-accused, apart from the implausibility on its
face of the theory of conspiracy between a mere clerk or cashier, on the one
hand, and her superiors, the president and the general manager of the company,
on the other, because of the patent disparity in their status or rank. On this point, and as regards Gaoat’s failure
to issue official receipts to the complainants, the Office of the Solicitor
General makes the following persuasive observations:^[16]

” * * (T)he evidence thus far adduced is bereft of any showing
of conspiracy among the three (3) accused. Neither could it be inferred from the act of appellant in receiving or
accepting the money paid by private complainants since indubitably, she was
merely complying with the orders of her superiors. As established by the evidence, appellant received said sums of
money in her capacity as cashier of the Roan Philippines, Inc. All transactions, insofar as she is
concerned, were above board. She had no
inkling that the corporation would in the future, without her knowledge, simply
fold-up, leaving her and other co-employees to the wayside, so to speak.

Proof beyond reasonable doubt is required to establish a finding of
criminal conspiracy (Castañeda vs. Sandiganbayan, 171 SCRA 263).

Granting that appellant was negligent in failing to issue receipts
to private complainants, such failure was sufficiently explained as having been
omitted per specific instruction of the president, Mrs. Iron and/or the general
manager, Mr. Babol. There was, therefore,
no concurrence by herein appellant with her superiors in withholding issuance
of receipts.

In analogy, ‘the concurrence of accused’s negligence with the
defalcation perpetrated by his co-accused will not suffice to make him a
co-conspirator’ (Valdez vs. People, 173 SCRA 1163).

The prosecution has thus failed to prove that appellant conspired
with the other accused in this case, clearly and convincingly as the commission
of the crime itself (Valdez vs. People, supra). The acts of appellant in receiving money
from private complainants far exceeding that required by law, in her official
capacity as cashier is not among acts enumerated in law as ‘recruitment and
placement’.”

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court a quo in
Criminal Case No. 87-57826, subject of this appeal, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE,
and the appellant, Alicia B. Gaoat, ACQUITTED, with costs de officio.

SO ORDERED.

Padilla, Regalado, and
Nocon, JJ., concur.

---

^[1]
Hon. Romeo J. Callejo, presiding

^[2]
Rollo, pp. 20, 56-57

^[3]
Id., p. 113

^[4]
Id., pp. 83-84, 125, 189-190

^[5]
Id., id., pp. 85, 126

^[6]
Id., p. 84, 129

^[7]
Id., pp. 84, 141

^[8]
Id., p. 141

^[9]
SEE p. 2, supra

^[10]
Rollo, pp. 84, 208. The evidence
is that the issuance of official receipts was not part of “office
procedure” (Rollo, pp. 141-142).

^[11]
TSN, Jan. 4, 1988, A.M., pp. ______________

^[12]
Rollo, p. 143

^[13]
TSN, Jan. 4, 1988, A.M., pp. 38-39

^[14]
The prosecution did not present the third offended party, Reynaldo Validor, as
one of its witnesses (Rollo, p. 145).

^[15]
TSN, Jan. 4, 1988, P.M., pp. 5-8, 14, 23, 25, 27, 29, 34

^[16]
Rollo, pp. 215-216