THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. PAULINO NAPARAN, JR. Y NACAR, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Accused Paulino Naparan, Jr. y Nacar interposes the present appeal
from the decision of the Regional Trial Court, National Capital Judicial
Region, Branch 104, Quezon City in Criminal Case No. Q-89-4696 finding him
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Recruitment committed in large scale.

On June 21, 1989, accused-appellant was charged with Illegal
Recruitment in an information which reads:

“The undersigned Assistant City Prosecutor accuses PAULINO NAPARAN
JR Y NACAR of the crime of ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT (Sec. 39 PD 442 as amended by PD
2018), committed as follows:

That during the period from May 26, 1989 to June 9, 1989, in Quezon
City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said
accused, did then and there, wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously canvas, enlist, contract and promise employment to
the following persons to wit:

1. Dalton Dizon y Arida                                  –           P 4,500.00

2. Eduardo Cortez y Paner                            –           P 3,000.00

3. Pedro Enipto Jr y Santiago                        –           P 7,000.00

4. Teresita Santiago y Factor                        –           P13,000.00

as recruitment fees, such recruitment activities
being done without the required license or authority from the Department of
Labor; and committed in a large scale against said victims, individually or as
a group, an offense involving economic sabotage.

CONTRARY
TO LAW.”^[1]

Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty.^[2]

During trial, the prosecution presented the four complainants and
one Angelita Cawili who corroborated the testimony of complainant Teresita
Santiago.

Complainant Eduardo Cortez^[3]
testified that, in the course of his employment as bellboy at Monte Carlo
Hotel, Sta. Cruz, Manila, he met accused-appellant sometime in March 1989 while
the latter was billeted therein. During one of their conversations,
accused-appellant offered him an overseas job in the United States of
America as a “boy by washing airplanes” with a salary of $100.00 a
day. He decided to accept the offer
which he perceived as “an opportunity to work abroad.”

On May 31, 1989, he went to see accused-appellant at his new
place in Room 304, PM Apartelle,^[4]
Matalino Street, Quezon City and gave the latter P3,000.00 for his visa and
plane ticket. No receipt was issued and
he did not insist on one because accused?appellant threatened that he
would not be able to go abroad if he insists. In connection with his departure, he underwent a medical examination^[5]
at the Protacio Hospital for which he paid P270.00.

Accused-appellant disappeared after complainant was not able to
leave as promised. He saw the accused
two days later at the latter’s apartelle where he explained that the delay was
due to a “need for money.” Later, complainants discovered some tapes
in the attache case of accused-appellant. While playing these, they heard accused-appellant’s mother advising his
son to reform as he had already swindled a lot of people in Ilocos. It was then that they decided to report the
matter to the police.

Complainant Pedro Enipto, Jr.^[6]
narrated that it was through Eduardo Cortez and one Roger Salvatierra that he
came to know accused-appellant. During
their initial meeting, accused-appellant talked about his projects at Fort
Ilocandia of which, according to him, he was part owner. It was in this conversation that he
encouraged them to work in Washington, D.C. as aircraft maintenance crew with a
salary of about hundred dollars. He
assured them that he was in a position to petition for them to work there
because he was a “balikbayan” and his deceased father was a retired
colonel in Washington.

Enipto gave accused-appellant P4,000.00 on May 30, 1989 and
another P3,000.00 on June 2, 1989 at PM Apartelle at the back of Quezon City
Hall. He did not ask for a receipt
because accused-appellant told him that if he asked for one he would be left
behind. His aunt, complainant Teresita
Santiago, was present when he gave the money.

Accused-appellant accompanied them in procuring their passport
and undergoing medical examination at Protacio Hospital.^[7] For
these services, Enipto incurred additional expenses of P550.00 and P270.00,
respectively.

When they were unable to leave on June 15, 1989 for Washington,
D.C., accused-appellant disappeared. Later, he called them up to explain that he was the victim of a
holdup. They waited again to find out
when they could leave. On his second
call, he asked them to fetch him in Intramuros which they did. He likewise asked them to get his things at
PM Apartelle. One of their companions,
Dalton Dizon, discovered a tape where accused-appellant’s parents were advising
him not to go back to Laoag because many people were looking for him. Thereafter, they agreed to report the matter
to the police to whom they gave their statements and the tape.

Complainant Teresita Santiago^[8] met
accused-appellant through her nephew Pedro Enipto, Jr. who brought him to her
residence at Novaliches. Accused-appellant encouraged her to work abroad as baby sitter for
$750.00 a month. He told her that he
would take care of the expenses that would be incurred except for the plane
ticket but even this would be refunded later. She believed him as he introduced himself as a millionaire who owns Fort
Ilocandia, Benguet Mining Corp. and Contrex Industrial Corporation. He also mentioned a certain Atty. Efren
Ramos from Laoag whom she happened to know personally. He even said that he was a “pamangkin
ni Marcos.” Subsequently, he asked for P8,000.00 for the plane ticket
which she gave on May 30, 1989. Later,
he asked for an additional P5,000.00 which she gave on June 5, 1989. Both amounts were delivered to
accused-appellant at Room 304, PM Apartelle, Quezon City. She received no receipt for these amounts
although these transactions were witnessed by Angelita Cawili who corroborated
her testimony on these points.^[9]

On cross-examination, she stated further that she entertained
no doubt about the accused-appellant who assured her that he could get jobs
even for twelve persons abroad. Moreover, he was driving a car when he came to her house and was staying
in an apartelle. That he gave his
office address in Washington, D.C. and impressed on her that he was a son of a
retired US Air Force officer convinced her of his capability in sending them
abroad. Accused-appellant even
accompanied them in securing their passports.^[10]
However, the promised trip did not materialize. Accused-appellant would disappear intermittently and upon
surfacing, would promise to withdraw some money at PNB. Another time, he called up to inform them
that he was kidnapped for ransom. When
she asked him to return her money, accused-appellant failed to do so.

Complainant Dalton Dizon^[11]
testified that accused-appellant was introduced to him by his friend Cesar
Angeles on December 1988. After this
meeting, they did not see each other again until May 1989 when
accused-appellant went to Dizon’s house at 157 Alley 2, Project 6, Quezon City
asking for his help to look for a place to stay in. Later, they met again at PM Apartelle where accused-appellant offered him
employment in Washington, D.C. as a hospital aide. In consideration of the promise for employment, he gave the
accused P4,500.00 in the latter’s apartelle. No receipt was given for the payment
although his mother, Candelaria Dizon, was with him when he paid said
recruitment fee. He was asked to secure
a passport while the accused would take care of everything else. Later, he underwent a medical examination at
Protacio Clinic to determine his physical fitness to work abroad.^[12]

When accused-appellant
failed to make good his promise, he reported the matter to the Quezon City
police.

The lower court dispensed
with the taking of the testimony of Ruben de Castro, Jr. of the Philippine
Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) after the parties stipulated that he
would testify to the fact that the accused-appellant was not authorized to
recruit workers for abroad.^[13] The corresponding certification issued by
the POEA was marked as Exh. “E.”

Counsel for
accused-appellant offered his testimony as the lone evidence for the defense.

Accused-appellant^[14] denied the charge of engaging in the
recruitment of complainants for overseas employment and of receiving money from
them. According to him, he used to
reside in Laoag City but came to Quezon City when he was called by Dalton
Dizon. He first stayed for one whole
afternoon, at Dalton’s parlor in Tandang Sora. Then, he moved to PM Apartelle, the rent of which was paid by
Dalton’s brother, Daniel. Accused-appellant met the three other complainants during the
“despedida” party of Daniel held at PM Apartelle. He went to Teresita Santiago’s house in
Novaliches upon the latter’s invitation for him to eat there. He admitted receiving P5,000.00 from her as
a loan. He denied ever claiming that he
was a multi-millionaire and that former Pres. Marcos was his grandfather.

The lower court,^[15] on
April 3, 1991, promulgated its judgment finding that:

“WHEREFORE, finding the accused PAULITO NAPARAN, JR. Y NACAR,
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT committed in
a large scale, an offense involving ECONOMIC SABOTAGE, accused is hereby
sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of One Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) and to pay the following persons:

a) Dalton Dizon y Arida                   –           P4,500.00;

b) Eduardo Cortez y Paner             –          
P3,270.00;

c) Pedro Enipto, Jr. y
Santiago       –           P7,820.00;

and,

d) Teresita Santiago y Factor          –           P13,000.00

without subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency and to pay the costs.

SO
ORDERED.”^[16]

Hence, this appeal on the ground that the trial court erred in
convicting accused-appellant for Illegal Recruitment despite the absence of
evidence required to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Accused-appellant points out that the prosecution evidence
consists merely of the testimonies of complainants and the letter he allegedly
wrote addressed to Dalton Dizon where he acknowledged the complaint filed
against him by Teresita Santiago. These
evidence, according to him, do not prove beyond reasonable doubt that he
illegally recruited complainants. For
one, the testimonies are nothing but self-serving allegations unsupported by
concrete evidence. If accused-appellant
did transact with them and receive sums of money as recruitment fees, he would
not have hesitated to give them the corresponding receipts; on the other hand,
complainants should have demanded receipts from him. In his opinion, it was very unusual for complainants as overseas
applicants to neglect investigating whether the recruiter is licensed or
authorized by the POEA, or has an office address and can issue official receipts. For another thing, the letter was not shown
to him for his identification; hence, it cannot be given any evidentiary
value. Granting that the letter was
written by him, its contents acknowledging the receipt of money from Teresita
Santiago refer only to her and the loan she gave him as he testified. Having transacted
with Teresita Santiago only and never with the three other complainants,
he cannot possibly be convicted under PD 2018, that is, illegal recruitment
committed in large scale and considered an offense involving economic sabotage.

The evidence of the prosecution consists mainly of the
testimonies of the four complainants. The fact that only the testimony of Teresita Santiago was corroborated
by Angelita Cawili does not water down the weight of their combined
testimonies. It is not necessary that
the testimony of each of the four complainants be corroborated by other
witnesses. Corroborative evidence is
necessary only when there are reasons to warrant the suspicion that the witness
falsified the truth or that his observations are inaccurate.^[17]
In this case, complainant’s positively identified accused-appellant as the one
who recruited them for work abroad, employing the same modus operandi for all. They were one in stating that he assured them that he could find jobs
for them in the United States and on several occasions, inveigled them into giving him money in his
apartelle. Against their clear and
positive testimonies, accused-appellant’s defense was merely a denial which the
lower court found to be weak as against the hard evidence built by the
prosecution. Accused-appellant’s attack
is ultimately directed against the credibility of complainants, the best judge
of which is the trial court. In the
matter of weighing the evidence of the prosecution against that of the defense through
an assessment of their respective merits, “it is firmly settled that the
findings of the trial court are given weight and the highest degree of respect
by the appellate court, and may be disregarded only where substantial errors
have been committed or determinative facts have been overlooked and which
otherwise would have dictated a different conclusion or verdict.”^[18]
No reason appears to us to deny great weight to the trial court’s evaluation of
complainants’ testimonies.

Accused-appellant
stresses the absence of receipts evidencing complainants’ payment and argues
that he would not have hesitated to issue the same if it were true that he did
transact with them. This argument,
being purely hypothetical, does not strengthen his denial nor weaken the
complainants’ testimonies. That there
were no receipts does not mean that he did not transact with them. Moreover, he questions complainants’ failure
to insist on a receipt after they allegedly paid their recruitment fees. Complainants have satisfactorily explained
that they did not insist on one because accused-appellant threatened that they
would not be able to depart if they insisted. Who can fault them for giving up a measly receipt in return for a golden
opportunity to fulfill their dreams of earning easy money abroad? The Court in an earlier case had observed
that “poor laborers, seamen, domestics, and other workers (who) see
employment abroad as the only way out of their grinding poverty.”^[19]

Moreover, there is nothing unusual in complainants’ failure to investigate the truth of
appellant’s representations as regards his
personal and business background for, being
inexperienced and titillated by the prospect of traveling to the proverbial land of milk and honey,
they fell easy prey to appellant’s glibness and roseate promises. Even Teresita Santiago, the eldest
complainant, endowed though she was with a college degree, fell for his suave
ways and could not help but be
impressed when she saw him driving a car and learned that he was staying
in an apartelle. What clinched his
credentials, in her eyes, was his acquaintance
with a certain Atty. Efren Ramos whom she
knew.

Another evidence presented by the prosecution was the letter of accused-appellant addressed
to Dalton Dizon. A portion states:

“… kung iurong nila Ate Tess ang demanda makakagawa ako ng paraan para maybalik ang
nawala sa kanila within 20 days basta nasa laya ako…”^[20]

When this was formally offered in evidence, accused?appellant did not object to
its admissibility. He cannot now deny its authorship and
assert that it should not be given evidentiary
value. While the quoted portion
mentions only Teresita Santiago, it does not support accused-appellant’s
alternative theory that if he should be found guilty of having committed illegal
recruitment, it should be limited only to Teresita Santiago whose name was
mentioned in his letter. A careful
reading shows that accused-appellant promises to return to Teresita Santiago
and company (“nila” Ate Tess) the money he got from them (“kanila”)
in connection with his representations that he can send them abroad.

The crime of illegal recruitment has two elements. First, the offender is a non-licensee or
non-holder of authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of
workers; and second, the offender undertakes either any recruitment activity
defined under Article 13 (b) or any prohibited practice enumerated under
Article 34 of the Labor Code.^[21] That
the offender is not authorized by the POEA to engage in the recruitment and
placement of workers is evidenced by the certification^[22]
of the POEA. In fact, the parties
stipulated on the testimony of Mr. Ruben de Castro, Jr. regarding his lack of
authority. The testimonies of
complainants unerringly pointed to accused-appellant as the one who enlisted,
contracted and promised employment to them. Accused-appellant’s denial cannot prevail over the positive assertions
of complainants to whom we can hardly ascribe any motive to testify falsely
against him.^[23]
Undoubtedly, accused-appellant’s dealings
with the four complainants constitute illegal recruitment committed on a large
scale.

Nitóng mgá nakaraang buwán, ang pansín ng sambayanán ay nátuón
sa mga krimen na karumaldumal na
katulad ng pagpatáy at pagsasamantalá ating mga kababaihan. Warì ay nákaligtaán natin ang mga salarín na
dì náhuhulí sa mga mamamatay tao. Silá rin ay nágsasamantalá sa
mga inosente at waláng malay. Ang kaibhán ngâ lamang ay ang kaniláng biktimá ay yáong ating mga
kababayan na nangangarap na mangibáng bayan upang silá ay mahangò sa karalitaan
sampû ng kaniláng pamilya.

Sa masidhî nilang hangarin, halos hindî nagdádalawáng-isip kapág
may bálanáng nangangakò na
ipadadalá silá sa mga bayang nakaríriwasâ kung silá ay
magbabayad ng sapát na salapî. Upang
mapaniwalà silá, ang mga may masasamáng tangkâ ay nagpapanggáp na silá ay
malakás at may koneksyón sa mga Embahada ng mga bayang itó. Hindî lamang madudulás ang kaniláng dilà. Umaastâ siláng maykaya. Naroóng sabihin
na nakatirá silá sa otél o poók ng mayayaman. Kapág nakikipagkita sa kaniláng kliyente ay magarà ang suót at
nakakotse. Anupát ang mga pobreng
nangangarap ay gagawin ang lahát ng makakaya upang makapagbayad ng hinihinging
pamasahe sa eroplano.

Kadalasan ay nangungutang silá o ang mga magulang nilá sa
“sinco-seis;” o dilì kayá’y nagsasanglâ ng lupaín o nagbibilí ng mga
ari-ariang gaya ng kalabáw. Kanilá
namáng nahihimok ang kamaganakan nilá na tumulong sapagkát nangangakong
magpapadalá ng higít na maraming
kuwarta na pambayad sa kaniláng utang o dilì kayâ ay pampaaral sa mga
nakababatang kapatíd.

Sa oras na nakapagbitíw ng salapî ang biktimá, ang manlilinláng
ay daglíng nawawalâ na parang bulâ. Sapagkát karamihan sa kanilá ay “illegal recruiter” at waláng
lisensya sa Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA), hindî na
matutuntón ang kaniláng bakás.

Totoóng nápakarami na ang ating kaawa-awang kababayan na
napagsamantalahán na ng gayon. Nakalulungkót na kahit na magbabalâ ang pámahalaán at ang mga opisinang
kinauukulan, hindî rin dinidinggín ng mga nais na mapabuti ang kalagayan nilá
sa buhay sa pamamagitan ng pangingibáng bayan.

Nápapanahón nang iparatíng sa mga salarín na iyán na hindî pahihintulutan ng pámahalaán ang
gayong malawakang pangloloko sa mga maralitâ na masasabing ang kasalanan lamang
ay “naghangád ng kagitnâ, isang salop ang nawalâ.” Kamí ay máaasahang magpataw ng akmâ at
nauukol na parusa na bilanggô habang buhay at multá sa halagang Isáng Daang
Libong Piso (P100,000.00) sa katulad ng nasasakdál sa kasong itóng nakasalang
sa Kátaastaasang Hukuman ngayon.^[24]
Umaasa kamíng itó ay magsisilbing halimbawa sa mga waláng awà nating kababayan
na patuloy ang gawáng panlilinláng sa kaniláng kapwà Pilipino.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the lower court dated April 3,
1991 finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal
Recruitment in Large Scale is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Feliciano, (Chairman), Bidin, Melo, and Vitug, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Record, p. 1.

^[2]
Record, p. 6.

^[3]
Also referred to as Eduardo Cortes
in the TSN of May 23, 1990.

^[4]
Sometimes referred to interchangeably
by complainants as PM Apartment or PM Condominium in their testimonies.

^[5]
Exhibit “I.”

^[6]
TSN, November 15, 1989 and January 17,
1990; Exh. “D” to “D-2.”

^[7]
Exh. “G” and “G-1.”

^[8]
TSN, November 7, 1989; Exhs.
“B” to “B-2.”

^[9]
TSN, January 9, 1990.

^[10]
Exh. “C” and “C-1.”

^[11]
TSN, July 3, 1990; Exh. “F” and “F-1.”

^[12]
Exh. “G” and “G-1.”

^[13]
TSN, January 9, 1990, pp. 20-21.

^[14]
TSN, November 29, 1990.

^[15]
Judge Maximiano C. Asuncion, presiding.

^[16]
Rollo, pp. 33-41. at pp. 40-41.

^[17]
People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No.
68319, March 31, 1992, 207 SCRA 632, 643.

^[18]
People v. Aguiluz, G.R. No. 91662, March 11, 1992, 207 SCRA 187, 191.

^[19]
Aquino v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 91896, November 21, 1991, 204 SCRA 240, 249.

^[20]
Exh. “A-1.”

^[21]
People v. Bodozo, G.R. No. 96621, October 21, 1992, 215 SCRA 33, 40.

^[22]
Exh. “E.”

^[23]
People v. Alforte, G.R.
Nos. 91711-15, March 3, 1993.

^[24]
Arts. 38 and 39 of the Labor Code.