PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. NELIA CORONACION Y NOQUE AND EDUARDO AQUINO Y AQUINO, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

Once again, the pernicious practice of illegal recruitment is the
matter at hand. Nelia Coronacion,
Eduardo Aquino, and June Mendez were charged with the crime of illegal
recruitment in large scale and by a syndicate for falsely representing
themselves to have the capacity to contract, enlist and transport Filipino
workers for employment abroad. We are
now asked to adjudge them guilty or not.

The information was filed on July 29, 1987 before the Regional
Trial Court of Manila, Branch XII, and was docketed as Criminal Case No. 87-56415.^[1] The indictment reads:

The undersigned accuses NELIA CORONACION y NOQUE, EDUARDO AQUINO y
AQUINO and JUN MENDEZ also known as ANTONIO MUNOZ DELA ROSA of a Violation of
Article 33(a) Presidential Decree 1412, amending certain provisions of Book I,
Presidential Decree 442, otherwise known as the New Labor Code of the
Philippines, in relation to Article 13(b) and (c) of said code as amended by
Presidential Decree 1693, 1920 and 2018 (ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT), committed in a
large scale by a syndicate, as follows:

That in (sic) or about and during the period comprised between June
18, 1987 and July 5, 1987, inclusive, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the
said accused, representing themselves to have the capacity to contract, enlist
and transport Filipino workers for employment abroad, did then and there
willfully and unlawfully, for a fee, recruit and promise employment/job
placement in Saudi Arabia to the following persons, namely: ARISTOTLE HILARIO y COLOCADO, ANDRES RAMOS y
PEREZ, SOLEDAD TADEO y HILARIO, ROLANDO LAED y TABISOLA, ZOILO RADAN y RODA and
RANDI HILARIO y ALCANTARA, without first having secured the required license or
authority from the Ministry of Labor.

Contrary to law.^[2]

However, only Nelia
Coronacion and Eduardo Aquino were apprehended. Accused June Mendez is still at large. Hence, on August 11, 1987, the former were arraigned and each
entered a plea of not guilty.^[3] Trial on the merits proceeded with respect
to them.

In its decision
promulgated on October 8, 1990, the trial court found Nelia Coronacion and
Eduardo Aquino guilty as charged and decreed as follows:

WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing considerations, the Court
finds the two (2) accused, NELIA CORONACION y NOQUE and EDUARDO AQUINO y
AQUINO, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Recruitment,
committed in large scale, as defined in Article 38 (a) & (b) of
Presidential Decree No. 442, otherwise known as the Labor Code of the
Philippines, as amended by Presidential Decrees Nos. 1693 and 1920 and further
amended by Presidential Decree No. 2018, in relation to Article 13 (b) and (c),
and penalized under Article 39 (a), same Code, and as charged in the
information and, accordingly, hereby sentences each of them to suffer the
penalty of life imprisonment (reclusion perpetua), with the accessory penalties
provided for by law; each to pay a fine of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS
(P100,000.00), without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency; to
jointly and solidarily return and pay to Randie Hilario the amount of THIRTEEN
THOUSAND PESOS (P13,000.00); to Rolando Laed the amount of FIFTEEN THOUSAND
PESOS (P15,000.00); to pay to Zoilo Radam the amount of FIFTEEN THOUSAND PESOS
(P15,000.00); to Aristotle Hilario the amount of TEN THOUSAND PESOS (P10,000.00)
and to Soledad Tadeo the amount of TEN THOUSAND PESOS (P10,000.00), also
without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and each to pay
one-third (1/3) of the costs.

Trial as against the third accused, JUNE MENDEZ aka ANTONIO MUNOZ y
DE LA CRUZ, shall be held the moment he shall be apprehended.

In the meantime and in order that this case as against him will not
appear pending for an indefinite period of time in the criminal docket of this
Court, as he has not been arrested from the time a warrant for his arrest was
issued last August 3, 1987, let the record of this case as against said accused
be sent to the files for archiving without prejudice to its revival and subsequent prosecution the moment he shall
have been apprehended.

SO ORDERED.^[4]

The narration by the People of the prosecution’s evidence as
found by the trial court concerning the recruitment activities of herein
accused-appellants is hereby adopted, it being fully supported by the
testimonies of the complaining witnesses:

xxx                            xxx                               xxx

2.       RANDIE HILARIO,
21 years old, single, tricycle driver and a resident of 195 Poblacion, Bustos,
Bulacan testified that he came to know the two accused, Nelia Coronacion and
Eduardo Aquino, when on July 2, 1987, he, together with Andres Ramos, Aristotle
Hilario, Rolando Laed and Soledad Tadeo, went to Room 1110, 11th Floor,
Producers Bank Bldg., Dasmarinas corner Nueva Sts., Binondo, Manila, where the
two accused held office. June Mendez,
who gave them said address, was also in the office at that time. They were there, per earlier instructions of
Mendez, to bring the documents needed to support their applications to work
abroad. [TSN, September 9, 1987, pp.
5-6]

At the office, Nelia Coronacion and June Mendez told
them to sign certain papers like their bio-data and they were told to prepare
their passports, NBI and police clearances. Once they can secure these documents, they were told to come back and
each to pay P10,000.00 as placement fee. [Ibid., p. 7]

On June 18, 1987, he gave to June Mendez the amount of P3,000.00 as
documentation fee in the office of the accused at Producers Bank Bldg. Nelia Coronacion, sitting at her table, saw
it. Mendez issued a receipt for it
(Exhibit ‘E’) and told him that the amount will be used for the processing of
his papers, after which Mendez and Coronacion told him to come back after two
weeks. When he returned, Mendez showed
him some documents which made him happy because he was assured they will leave
after two weeks. Coronacion and Eduardo
Aquino, who was introduced to them that day by Mendez, were also in the
office. Some documents shown to him are
(sic) the Travel Exit Pass (TEP) and the Medical Referral (Exhibit ‘F’) bearing
the signature of Eduardo Aquino. He was
told by Mendez that each must raise P10,000.00 and deliver it at their EAAALCO
office. When he gave said amount at a
date he can no longer recall, the three accused were present. Actually, it was Mendez who received the
P10,000.00 from him and, in turn, Mendez delivered/handed it to Nelia
Coronacion who kept the money in her desk. No receipt was issued and he did not ask for one because he was
confident he can already leave to work abroad just as his cousin, Fe Julian was
able to work abroad through the efforts of the accused. But he was not able to leave on July 5, 1987
as promised. Hence, when they failed to
leave, they filed their complaint with the Western Police Department because
the amount of P13,000.00 he gave to the accused was never refunded or returned
to him. [Ibid., pp. 7-8; TSN,
October 7, 1987, pp. 1-11]

3.       ROLANDO LAED,
28 years old, single, driver and a resident of 610 Pitong Gatang St., Tondo,
Manila, testified that he met accused Nelia Coronacion at the airport when they
saw off Coronacion’s niece, Josephine Abelo [while] he met accused Eduardo
Aquino at their EAAALCO Office. [TSN,
September 22, 1987; pp. 2-3]

On June 2, 1987, he went to EAAALCO office and filed with
Coronacion and Mendez his application as driver in Riyadh. He was told that accused Eduardo Aquino was
out of town at that time. Mendez and
Coronacion gave him the application papers to be filled up and he was told to
secure his NBI clearance, photographs and passport. When he had all of them duly accomplished, he delivered them in
the accused’s office and he was told to pay P15,000.00. He later gave said amount to Mendez who
actually received it. Evelyn Dalimot,
his cousin, and Evelyn’s mother, Leticia Dalimot, witnessed the payment. He was not issued a receipt. Notwithstanding his payment of P15,000.00
and the submission of the required documents he, together with Randie Hilario,
Aristotle Hilario, Zoilo Radam and others, was (sic) not able to leave as
promised. So, they went to the Western
Police District where they filed a written complaint. His statement was taken down in writing (Exhibit ‘C’ and ‘C?1′). [Ibid., pp. 3-5].

He came to meet Nelia Coronacion because as a jeepney driver, his
services were contracted to bring the workers to work abroad from the office to
the airport. He stated that Eduardo
Aquino had no participation in his application but it was he who gave him a
referral note (Exhibit ‘D’) dated June 2, 1987, addressed to a physician for
his medical examination. The note,
already signed by Aquino, was given to him by Coronacion in the presence of
Mendez. In his several visits (from
June 2 to 18, 1987) to EAAALCO Office, he did not see Aquino but Coronacion and
Mendez told him that Aquino is their employer. [Ibid., pp. 6-7]

4.       ZOILO RADAM,
42 years old, tricycle driver and resident of 424-B Ortega St., Tondo, Manila,
testified that actually, accused Nelia Coronacion and Eduardo Aquino were not
formally introduced to him. They were
just pointed to by their co-accused, June Mendez. [TSN, November 19, 1987, pp. 2-­3]

He declared further that per earlier instruction of Mendez, he went
on June 2, 1987 to the EAAALCO Office at Room 1110, Producers Bank Bldg.,
Dasmarinas, Binondo, Manila, which turned out to be the office of Eduardo
Aquino, to get a referral for medical examination for his working abroad after
Mendez and Coronacion told them they are in need of workers at Riyadh. So he gave his bio-data, NBI clearance and
passport on that day to Mendez who told them that they will be leaving for abroad
on July 5, 1987. In consideration thereof,
he must pay them P13,000.00. Thus, he
first gave the amount of P12,500.00 on June 8, 1987 at 429 Padre Ortega St.,
Tondo, Manila, which is the residence of his neighbor, Leticia Dalimot. A receipt (Exhibit ‘H’) was issued by June
Mendez. Then, he and Mendez went to
EAAALCO office and thereat, Mendez handed the money to Nelia Coronacion in her
room. Aquino was not around at that
time. On July 2, 1987, Mendez went to
Dalimot’s house to tell him that the balance of P2,500.00 was already needed as
they were to leave on that day. He gave
him the amount and he (witness) wrote the additional amount in the receipt
(Exhibit ‘H’) upon Mendez’ instruction. [Ibid., pp. 4-9]

It was at Dalimot’s house where they learned that Mendez was recruiting
workers for abroad. When they failed to
leave on the promised date, he, together with the others, went to complain at
the Western Police District. They
complained against Mendez, Nelia Coronacion and Eduardo Aquino because if
Mendez was not around, he was told to go to Nelia Coronacion and Eduardo
Aquino. At the police station, he
executed a sworn statement (Exhibits “I” and “I-1).

5.       ARISTOTLE HILARIO, 22
years old and a resident of 250 El Prado St., Poblacion, Bustos, Bulacan,
testified that he came to know the three accused, Nelia Coronacion, Eduardo
Aquino and June Mendez, on June 2, 1987 at EAAALCO Construction Office, Suite
1110 Prudential Bank Bldg., Damarinas office of accused Eduardo Aquino while
Coronacion and Mendez held office therein too. His companions in going to EAAALCO office were Andres Ramos, Soledad
Tadeo and Randie Hilario. He told the
three accused of his desire to work abroad and after which he consented to work
as a janitor, he was told that his monthly salary at Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia, will be $260.00. Thereat, he
and his companions were told to sign application forms and to prepare their
respective bio-data. After
accomplishing them, they were instructed to secure NBI and police clearances
and other certification. [TSN, December
22, 1988, pp. 2-5]

In consideration of his job placement abroad he was told to pay the
company the sum of P10,000.00. He paid
the same in two installments to Mendez in the Office of the accused Eduardo
Aquino, the first on June 18, 1987 in the amount of P2,500.00 and the second on
July 1, 1987 in the amount of P7,500.00. He saw Mendez hand the money to Nelia Coronacion. He was not given any receipt for said
amounts. After he gave the money, the
three accused promised him and his companions that they will leave for abroad
after two (2) weeks which was to be on July 1, 1987. But it was postponed to July 5, 1987. They were not able to leave on July 5, 1987 because Mendez did
not appear. He saw Coronacion and
Aquino in the ground floor of Producers Bank Building and so they asked the two
why they were not able to leave. The
duo answered that Mendez did not appear anymore and they could not tell them
where he was. On July 7, 1987, they
went to the police headquarters to complain. He executed his sworn statement. Later, the police went to the house of Nelia Coronacion at Valenzuela,
Metro Manila, and invited her to come to the headquarters for
interrogation. [Ibid., pp. 5-7]

He identified the request for medical examination/check-up (Exhibit
‘J’), the original of which was lost in Bulacan when he lost his wallet, as the
same request for medical examination/check-up given to him by the accused. He pointed to the signature of accused
Eduardo Aquino (Exhibit ‘J-1’). [Ibid.,
pp. 8-9]

x x x

In re-direct examination, he stated he was present when accused
Eduardo Aquino signed on his
table the medical referral before it was given to him. [TSN, December 23, 1987, p. 7]

6.       SOLEDAD TADEO, 26 years old, single, jeepney driver and
a resident of 71 Pitong Gatang, Bustos, Bulacan, testified that she knows the
two accused, Nelia Coronacion and Eduardo Aquino. It was her cousin, Fe Juliano, who mentioned the name of Nelia
Coronacion at the airport when they saw her off for Dubai. She finally met Nelia Coronacion through
June Mendez, who is the right-hand man of Eduardo Aquino, at EAAALCO Office,
Dasmarinas St., Binondo, Manila. Mendez
told that Coronacion is the secretary of Eduardo Aquino, manager of EAAALCO. [TSN, February 5, 1988, pp. 2-4]

She testified further that after seeing off her cousin at the
airport, she went to see Nelia Coronacion on June 2, 1987 at their EAAALCO
Office to fill up her bio-data. She was
told there were certain papers to be processed by the engineer although she can
not remember anymore what those papers were. But these papers are for her and her cousins to facilitate their working
abroad. Engr. Aquino and Nelia
Coronacion were the ones who asked her to fill up her bio-data and Aquino even
told her that if she can recruit more applicants, she will be given a
discount. The last time she talked to
Coronacion was on June 18, 1987 when she brought many recruits to her. [Ibid.,
pp. 4-6]

She was told that she will work as a driver at Dubai and in
consideration thereof, she was told to pay to the accused the sum of
P10,000.00. They told her that a part
thereof will be used for processing her papers and the balance as their
fee. She gave it in two installments,
the first on June 18, 1987 in the amount of P2,500.00 given to Coronacion. Aquino was then at the adjacent room. She was not given a receipt for said amount
because Coronacion told her that they ran out of receipts. Later, Aquino and Coronacion told her that
she will pay the balance of P7,500.00 when they will leave. Hence, she gave the same to Coronacion at
their EAAALCO Office on July 1, 1987 and the latter placed it in her
drawer. No receipt was issued by her
because she claimed to be in a hurry and, anyway, they were about to leave for
abroad. She, too, was excited when she
was told that they were about to leave. But she was deceived by the three accused, Eduardo Aquino, Nelia
Coronacion and June Mendez as she was not able to go abroad to work. When the three failed to comply with their
promise, she and the others went to the Western Police District to lodge their
complaint against them. She was shown a
sworn statement and although she was not sure it is her statement, she admitted
that the signature appearing therein is her signature. [Ibid.,
pp. 6-10]

x x x

In (sic) re-direct examination, she admitted having given the money
to Mendez but in the presence of Coronacion and Aquino and it was Mendez who
told her that she will leave in 2-weeks time, the promise made in the presence
of his two co-accused.

x x x

(Decision,
pp. 2-10)^[5]

The prosecution likewise proved through the unrebutted testimony
of Orlino Regualos, Assistant Chief of the Licensing Division of the Philippine
Overseas Employment Administration (POEA), that Nelia Coronacion and Eduardo
Aquino do not have any license or authority from POEA to recruit workers for
overseas employment.^[6]

Upon the other hand, the defense of accused-appellants rests on
denial and alibi. Accused Eduardo
Aquino maintained that he had no knowledge of the transactions between the
complainants and his co-accused as he was always out of town, hence out of the
office during the weeks when the alleged transactions took place therein. On her part, accused Nelia Coronacion
claimed that she did not know anything about the said transactions, reasoning
that she herself is a victim of June Mendez’ nefarious activities.

After promulgation of the judgment, both accused appealed.

Appellants, represented by their respective counsels, filed
separate briefs.

In her brief, appellant Nelia Coronacion raised the following
errors allegedly committed by the trial court:

A

ACCUSED CORONACION IS ALSO A VICTIM OF THE
DECEITFUL SCHEME OF JUN MENDEZ; THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT
CORONACION REPRESENTED HERSELF AS A RECRUITER OF WORKERS AND THAT SHE PROMISED
JOBS TO THE COMPLAINANTS FOR A FEE.

B

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT
ACCUSED CORONACION ACTED IN CONSPIRACY WITH AQUINO AND MENDEZ. ACCUSED CORONACION WAS FRAUDULENTLY USED BY
MENDEZ IN HIS ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT SCHEME.

C

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THERE
ARE INCONSISTENCIES IN THE TESTIMONIES OF CORONACION AND AQUINO; ON THE
CONTRARY, IT IS THE TESTIMONIES OF THE COMPLAINANTS THAT ARE FULL OF
SUBSTANTIAL AND MATERIAL INCONSISTENCIES.^[7]

On the other hand, appellant Eduardo Aquino ascribed the
following errors to the court a quo:

I

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN RELYING HEAVILY ON
THE EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION AND IN TOTALLY DISREGARDING THE EVIDENCE FOR
THE DEFENSE.

II

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT
CONSPIRACY ATTENDED THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME CHARGED AGAINST
ACCUSED-APPELLANT EDUARDO AQUINO.

III

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING
ACCUSED-APPELLANT EDUARDO AQUINO GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE
FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.^[8]

The appeal lacks merit.

At the outset, we note some deficiency in the preparation of the
information thus filed. The information
charges the appellants with “a violation of Article 33(a) of Presidential
Decree 1412, amending certain provisions of Book I, Presidential Decree 442,
otherwise known as the new Labor Code of the Philippines, in relation to
Article 13(b) and (c) of said code as amended by Presidential Decree 1693, 1920
and 2018 (ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT), committed in a large scale by a
syndicate.” However, the said decrees merely amended Articles 38 and 39 of
the Labor Code by making large scale illegal recruitment, i.e.,
committed against three or more persons individually or collectively, a crime
of economic sabotage and punishable by life imprisonment. More accurately, therefore, the information
should have been for the violation of Article 38 in relation to Article 39 of
the Labor Code, as amended. Although
such inadvertence may seem insignificant as the body of the complaint
enumerates the requisites or elements of the crime of large scale illegal
recruitment, it would not be amiss to articulate our observation by way of
advice to all concerned to exercise extreme care and prudence in preparing
informations.^[9]

Articles 38 and 39 of the Labor Code, as amended by P.D. No.
2018, read 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.

(b)     Illegal recruitment
when committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall be considered an offense
involving economic sabotage and shall be penalized in accordance with Article
39 hereof.

Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried
out by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring and/or confederating
with one another in carrying out any unlawful or illegal transaction,
enterprise or scheme defined under the first paragraph hereof. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in
large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a
group.

xxx    xxx     xxx

ART. 39. Penalties. – (a)
The penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of One Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P100,000.00) shall be imposed if illegal recruitment constitutes economic
sabotage as defined herein:

(b)     Any licensee or holder
of authority found violating or causing another to violate any provision of
this Title or its implementing rules and regulations shall, upon conviction
thereof, suffer the penalty of imprisonment of not less than two years nor more
than five years or a fine of not less than P10,000 nor more than P50,000, or
both such imprisonment and fine, at the discretion of the court;

(c)     Any person who is
neither a licensee nor a holder of authority under this Title found violating
any provision thereof or its implementing rules and regulations shall, upon
conviction thereof, suffer the penalty of imprisonment of not less than four
years nor more than eight years or a fine of not less than P20,000.00 nor more
than P100,000 or both such imprisonment and fine, at the discretion of the
court;

xxx    xxx     xxx

Article 13(b) of the same Code defines recruitment as follows:

‘Recruitment and placement’ refers to 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.

Evidently, the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale is
committed when a person (a) undertakes any recruitment activity defined under
Article 13(b) or any prohibited practice enumerated under Article 34 of the
Labor Code; (b) does not have a license or authority to lawfully engage in the
recruitment and placement of workers; and (c) commits the same against three or
more persons, individually or as a group.^[10]

In the case at bench, the presence of the second and third
elements is not disputed. The
appellants are neither licensees or holders of any authority from POEA to
engage in recruitment and placement activities as evidenced by a certification
of the said agency dated September 8, 1987.^[11] It
was likewise established that the private complainants were unaware of the
appellants’ lack of authority when they transacted business with them. It was only later, upon inquiry at POEA,
that they discovered the appellants’ lack of authority. Finally, the number of private complainants,
certainly more than three, is beyond dispute.

Now, we resolve whether the first element of the offense of
illegal recruitment, i.e., that the appellants undertook any of the
recruitment activities defined under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code, as
amended, or any of the prohibited activities defined under Article 34 of the
same Code, was successfully established by the prosecution.

To satisfy the first element, the prosecution presented the
testimonies of the complainants clearly pointing to the appellants as two of
the three persons who promised them employment abroad and who collected and
received varying amounts from them. The
appellants, on the other hand, vigorously maintain that the lower court erred
(a) in finding that there was conspiracy and (b) in giving credence to the
conflicting testimonies of the private complainants.

We find the submission untenable.

A careful examination and evaluation of the testimonies of the
complaining witnesses lead to no other conclusion than that the appellants and
their co-accused June Mendez who is still at large, acted in concert in the
illegal recruitment business conducted in the office of appellant Eduardo
Aquino with each of them performing acts contributive to the success of an
enterprise designed for mutual benefit and advantage.

While it may be true that appellant Eduardo Aquino had hardly any
personal dealings with herein
private complainants, the following facts remain incontrovertible with respect
to him, viz: (a) the illegal
transactions in question took place in his office; (b) the medical referral
slips given to private complainants bore his signature; (c) he was present when
complainant Randie Hilario gave his payment in the amount of P10,000.00 to
Mendez; (d) he personally handed to complainant Aristotle Hilario his medical
referral slip; and (e) he told complainant Soledad Tadeo to prepare her
bio-data and that if she could recruit more applicants, she would be given a
discount.^[12]
Though he may not have directly recruited private complainants, he certainly
made no disclaimer to private complainants of Coronacion and Mendez’ authority
to recruit workers for abroad in his office.

Appellant Nelia Coronacion’s feigned ignorance of the illegal
transactions by claiming that she too was a victim of co-accused June Mendez is
highly incredible, to say the least. The testimonies of private complainants Randie Hilario, Rolando Laed,
Aristotle Hilario, and Soledad Tadeo are clear. They testified that it was appellant Nelia Coronacion, together
with June Mendez, who told them (a) to fill up the appropriate application forms,
(b) to prepare their passports and bio-data, (c) to secure the requisite NBI,
police and other clearances, and (d) to pay documentation and processing fees,
with respect to their application for work abroad. Moreover, the same witnesses testified that it was appellant
Coronacion who gave them the medical referral slips pre-signed by appellant
Aquino and that they saw Mendez hand the money they paid him to appellant
Coronacion who, in turn, kept the same in her drawer. In fact, she even advised herein private complainants to be
devoted to their work abroad and be loyal to their employers. Finally, the presence of the special power
of attorney authorizing Evelyn Dalimot to recruit workers for abroad^[13]
in her possession quickly douses any doubt in her favor. Clearly, she led private complainants to
believe that she was acting for somebody in authority when she extended her
recruiting services.

Appellants likewise assail the trial court’s appreciation of the
testimonies of the private complainants and the latter’s credibility. However, it is a long-standing practice that
when the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will
generally not disturb the findings of the trial court, considering that the
latter is in a better position to decide the controversy, having heard the
witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying
during the trial^[14]
unless it has overlooked certain facts of substance and value that, if
considered, will alter the outcome of the case. In the instant case, we find no reason to depart from the general
rule. The alleged inconsistencies
appear too slight and insignificant to affect the credibility of the
testimonies as a whole. Similarly,
given the natural frailties of the human mind to assimilate all material
details of a given incident, slight inconsistencies and variances in private
complainants’ testimonies hardly weaken their probative value. On the contrary, they strengthen their
credibility.

Finally, no improper motives to testify falsely against herein
appellants and to impute a serious charge against them can be attributed to
herein private complainants. They did
not know the appellants before their illegal recruitment so they had no reason
to harbor any spite against them. It is
difficult to believe that private complainants would fabricate a story that
would result in appellants’ life imprisonment for no other reason than to
vindicate their frustrated dreams of employment abroad. “It is against human nature and
experience for strangers to conspire
and accuse another stranger of a most serious crime just to mollify their hurt
feelings.”^[15] The fact that complainants hail from rural
areas with no sophisticated education at all certainly militates against the
imputation of any evil motive on their part.

WHEREFORE, the
judgment of conviction rendered by the trial court is hereby AFFIRMED, with the sole modification that the penalty properly imposable and
hereby imposed is life imprisonment and not reclusion perpetua. Costs
against appellants.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, (Chairman), Davide, Jr., Bellosillo, and Quiason, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Original Records, pp. 1-2.

^[2]
Information; Original Records, p. 1.

^[3]
Original Records, p. 10.

^[4]
Decision, pp. 28-29; Original Records,
pp. 367­-368.

^[5]
Rollo, pp. 237-246.

^[6]
TSN, September 9, 1987, pp. 2-5.

^[7]
Appellant Coronacion’s Brief, pp. 5-6; Rollo, pp. 92-93.

^[8]
Appellant Aquino’s Brief, p. 1; Rollo, p. 146.

^[9]
See People v. de Leon, 225 SCRA 651, 658 [1993].

^[10]
People v. Carmelita Puertollano Comia, G.R. No. 109761, September 1,
1994.

^[11]
Exhibit “A”.

^[12]
TSN, February 5, 1988, pp. 5-6.

^[13]
Exhibit “2”.

^[14]
People v. Comia, supra.; People v. Bodozo, 215 SCRA
33 [1992]; People v. Elizabeth Coral, G.R. No. 97849-54, March, 1994; People
v. Simon, 209 SCRA 148 [1992]; People v. Pascual, 208 SCRA 393
[1992]; People v. Martinada, 194 SCRA 36 [1991].

^[15]
People v. Elizabeth Coral, supra.,
p. 18.