PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. MANUEL DE GUIA Y SAMONTE, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

Illegal recruiters constitute one of the worst vultures of our society
today. They prey on the gullible, and
often, they victimize the already marginalized Filipinos who will do anything
to improve their economic status. The
case before us involves one of their kind.

Accused-appellant Manuel de Guia y Samonte was convicted by the
Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch XLI,^[1] of
the crime of Illegal Recruitment in large scale^[2] and
three (3) counts of Estafa,^[3] in
violation of Article 38 of the Labor Code, as amended and Article 315 (2)(a) of
the Revised Penal Code, respectively.

The Information in each case reads as follows:

1.  Criminal Case No. 92-103341:

“That in (sic) or about and during the period comprised between May
23, 1991 and December 11, 1991, inclusive, in the City of Manila, Philippines,
the said accused, conspiring and confederating with one whose true name,
identity and present whereabouts are still (unknown) and mutually helping each
other, representing himself 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 Cirilo Lising y Mercado, Monteza (sic) Gazmin y Pascual, Leopoldo Realino y
Arceo and Jesus Sumalinog y Carin, without first having secured the required
license or authority from the Department of Labor and Employment.

“Contrary to law.” (Rollo, p. 4)

2.  Criminal Case No. 92-103342:

“That on or about November 24, 1991, in the city of Manila, the
said (accused,) conspiring and confederating with one whose true name, identity
and present whereabouts are still unknown, and mutually helping each other, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud Leopoldo Realino y Arceo in the following
manner, to wit: the said accused by
means of false manifestations and fraudulent representation which he made to
said Leopoldo Realino y Arceo to the effect that he had the proper (authority)
and capacity to recruit and employ said Leopoldo Realino y Arceo as factory
worker in Japan and could facilitate the processing of the pertinent papers if
given the necessary amount to meet the
requirements thereof, and by means of other similar deceits, induced and
succeeded in inducing said Leopoldo Realino y Arceo to give and deliver, as in
fact he gave and delivered to said accused the amount of P120,000.00 on the
strength of said manifestations and representations, said accused well knowing
that the same were false and fraudulent and were made solely to obtain, as in
fact he did obtain the amount of P120,000.00, which amount once in his
possession, with intent to defraud he, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously
misappropriated, misapplied and converted to his own personal use and benefit,
to the damage and prejudice of said Leopoldo Realino y Arceo in the aforesaid
amount of P20,000.00 Philippine Currency.” (Rollo, pp.5-6)

3.  Criminal Case No. 92-103343:

“That on or about
and during the period comprised between October 3 and December 11, 1991,
inclusive, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused conspiring and
confederating with one whose true name, identity and present whereabouts are
still unknown and mutually helping each other did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud
Jesus Sumalinog y Carin (in) the following manner, to wit: the said accused by means of false
manifestations and fraudulent representation which they made to said Jesus
Sumalinog y Carin to the effect that he had the proper (authority) and capacity
to recruit and employ said Jesus Sumalinog y Carin as x x x contract worker in
Japan and could facilitate the processing of the pertinent papers if given the
necessary amount to meet the requirements thereof, and by means of other
similar deceits, induced and succeeded in inducing said Jesus Sumalinog y Carin
to give and deliver, as in fact he gave and delivered to said accused the
amount of P50,000.00 on the strength of said manifestations and representation,
said accused well knowing that the same were false and fraudulent and were made
solely to obtain, as in fact he did obtain the amount of P50,000.00 which
amount once in his possession, with intent to defraud he, willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously misappropriated, misapplied and converted to his own personal
use and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of said Jesus Sumalinog y Carin in
the aforesaid amount of P50,000.00 Philippine Currency.” (Rollo, pp. 7-8)

4.  Criminal Case No. 92-103344:

“That on May 23, 1991, in
the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring and confederating
with one whose true name, identity and present whereabouts are still unknown
and mutually helping each other did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously defraud Monteza (sic) Gazmin y Pascual in the following manner, to
wit: the said accused by means of false
manifestations and fraudulent representation which he made to said Montesa
Gazmin y Pascual to the effect that he had the power and capacity to recruit
and employ said Montesa Gazmin y Pascual as factory worker in Korea and could
facilitate the processing of the pertinent papers if given the necessary amount
to meet the requirements thereof, and by means of other similar deceits,
induced and succeeded in inducing said Montesa Gazmin y Pascual to give and
deliver, as in fact she gave and delivered to said accused the amount of
P30,000.00 on the strength of said manifestations and representations, said
accused well knowing that the same were false and fraudulent and were made
solely to obtain, as in fact he did obtain the amount of P30,000.00 which
amount once in his possession, with intent to defraud he, wilfully, unlawfully
and feloniously misappropriated, misapplied and converted to his own personal
use and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of said Montesa Gazmin y Pascual
in the aforesaid amount of P(30,000.00)
Philippine Currency.” (Rollo, pp. 9-10)

Upon arraignment, the accused pleaded not guilty to the offenses
charged. The cases were tried jointly.

The prosecution presented the four (4) private complainants
(Cirilo Lising, Montessa Gasmin, Leopoldo Realino and Jesus Sumalinog) as
witnesses. They testified as follows:

CIRILO LISING, a 41-year old farmer from Gapan, Nueva
Ecija testified that in August 1991, he was summoned by his brother-in-law,
Jose (Jhun) Cruz, to fix the septic tank in his house.^[4] There,
he was introduced to the accused and a certain Loida de Guia who represented
themselves to be husband and wife. The
two were boarders in Cruz’ house.^[5] While
fixing the tank, the couple engaged him in a conversation and told him they
could facilitate his employment in Korea. He was informed that the placement fee was forty thousand pesos
(P40,000.00). Relying on the couple’s
representations, he decided to try his luck abroad. The couple promised him a job as factory worker in Korea with an
income of $500.00 per month. They asked
him to prepare an initial amount of nine thousand seven hundred pesos
(P9,700.00) for his plane fare. They
told him that he could pay for the balance of the fee when he reach Korea for
upon his arrival, he would receive a two-months cash advance on his
salary. He agreed.^[6]

On August 12, 1991, he submitted to the accused his passport and
biodata in their office, ML Promotions, at Room 102, Marrieta Apt., 1200 J.
Bocobo Street, Ermita, Manila. He
handed the amount of P9,700.00 to Loida and the latter issued and signed a
receipt therefor.^[7]

Lising, however, failed to leave for Korea. He then verified the status of the agency
from the POEA and discovered that the accused and Loida were not licensed
recruiters.^[8]
Thus, on February 13, 1992, he complained to CIS PO3 Romeo M. Cerezo and gave a
written statement.^[9]

On cross-examination, Lising produced two (2) calling cards of ML
Promotions: one showed Loida de Guia as
the general manager while the other showed the accused as its travel
consultant.^[10]

MONTESSA GASMIN, a 19-year old, high school graduate
from San Juan, Tarlac testified that she learned from her cousin, Joey Lino,
that the accused and Loida de Guia
were engaged in job placement overseas. On May 15, 1991, she asked her cousin to accompany her to the couple’s
Ermita office where the accused informed her that they deploy workers to
Korea. Relying on said representation,
she applied as a factory worker in Korea and accomplished the corresponding
application form. She was told that she
would earn $500.00 per month and was asked to pay thirty thousand pesos
(P30,000.00) to cover her traveling expenses.^[11]

She gave the couple the required amount in two (2) installments, viz: P10,000.00 on May 23, 1991 and P20,000.00 on
June 4, 1991, as evidenced by two (2) receipts of even date.^[12]
She gave the money to Loida who signed the receipts in her presence.^[13]
The couple assured her that she could leave for Korea by the end of June
1991. The promise proved to be
false. On July 14, 1991, she again went
to the couple’s office in Ermita to follow-up her departure. Again, the spouses assured her that she
would be able to leave on the succeeding week. Nothing came out of the promise. Thus, together with the other private complainants, she reported the
matter to the CIS Camp Crame where she executed her written statement.^[14]

LEOPOLDO REALINO, a 42 year-old driver, residing at
Balibago, Angeles City testified that her brother, Roger, brought him to the
couple’s recruitment office in Ermita where he met the accused. He inquired from the accused whether he
could work out his employment in Japan. The accused replied in the affirmative. Still undecided, he told the accused he would just come back.^[15]

Sometime in August 1991, he returned to their Ermita office and
applied as a contract worker in Japan. The accused told him to prepare one hundred twenty thousand pesos
(P120,000.00). He was also asked to
fill up and sign an application
form.^[16]

On November 4, 1991, Leopoldo went to their office and handed the
money to the accused. The accused then
ordered Loida, whom Leopoldo met for the first time, to prepare the necessary
receipt.^[17]
The accused failed to employ him in Japan despite repeated promises. He demanded the return of his money but to
no avail. He, together with his
companions, went to the POEA where they discovered that the accused was not
licensed to recruit workers for overseas employment. With the intention of confronting the accused, they proceeded to
their Ermita office but were informed that the accused was already detained at
Camp Crame. Thus, they went to Camp
Crame where they gave their statements.^[18]

The last witness for the prosecution was JESUS SUMALINOG,
an industrial electrician from Makati. He testified that he first met the accused in May 1991 in the accused’s
Ermita office where he inquired about the possibility of employment in
Japan. The accused interviewed
him. The accused told him that the cost
of processing his papers would run from P85,000.00 to P95,000.00. However, when Sumalinog intimated that he
could only afford to pay P50,000.00, the accused conferred with Loida, who was
introduced by the accused as his wife. The couple then agreed to be paid P50,000.00 and he was told to fill up
an application form. He was informed
that he could work as a contract worker in a computer firm where he would earn
$1,200.00 per month. The couple asked
him to prepare the money.^[19]

Sumalinog gave the money to the accused in four (4) installments,
thus: P10,000.00 on October 3, October
30, November 18 and November 21, 1991; P8,000.00 on November 25, 1991; and
finally, P2,000.00 on December 11, 1991. In each instance, the accused instructed Loida to prepare the receipts
and the same were duly issued and signed by Loida.^[20]

The two assured Sumalinog that he could leave after two (2)
weeks. Failing to leave as promised, he
was again made to wait for another two (2) weeks. Still, the accused did not make good with said promise.^[21]

He then went to the POEA where he discovered that the accused was
not licensed to recruit workers for overseas employment. He sought the accused in his Ermita office
but found out that the accused was already in the custody of the CIS. He talked with the accused in Camp Crame and
the latter asked him not to file any complaint. The accused assured him that his money would be returned. He did not heed said request and filed the
complaint at bar.^[22]

The evidence of the accused rests mainly on denial and alibi. He alleged that he was not a recruiter but a
driver by profession from 1970 up to December 1991. He contended that he could not have participated in the
recruitment of complainants since from May to December 1991, he was employed at
RTS Trading Associate Corporation where he reported for work from 7:00 o’clock
in the morning until 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon. He was employed as a driver delivering various merchandise for
the corporation. He alleged that after
work, he always went straight home to Montalban, Rizal.^[23]

He further testified that his legal wife is Paula Diones and that
he has no illicit relationship with one Loida de Guia. According to the accused, he first met Loida
in the latter’s house in Baclaran in May 1991. He met Loida to secure overseas employment for his son. He again went to Loida’s house in July 1991
to follow-up his son’s employment application. Further, the accused claimed that he met the complainants only while he
was already detained in Camp Crame.^[24]

Renato Samonte, owner of RTS Trading and a childhood friend of
the accused, corroborated his alibi. He
testified that the accused acted as his part-time driver from May 1991 until
December 1991.^[25]

On the basis of the above evidence, the trial court found the
accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged. The dispositive portion of the decision
reads:

“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:

“1. In Crim. Case No.
92-103341, finding the accused Manuel de Guia y Samonte guilty beyond
reasonable doubt for (sic) the crime of Illegal Recruitment committed in large
scale and hereby sentences the said accused to suffer the penalty of life
imprisonment and for him to pay a fine of P100,000.00. The said accused is further hereby ordered
to pay the complainant Cirilo Lising the sum of P9,700.00 as and by way of
actual damage;

“2. In Crim. Case No.
92-103342, finding the accused Manuel Guia y Samonte guilty beyond reasonable
doubt for (sic) the crime of Estafa and hereby sentences the said accused to
suffer an indeterminate sentence ranging from Eight (8) years and One (1) day
of prision mayor as minimum to Fourteen (14) years Five (5) months and Eleven
(11) days of reclusion temporal as maximum and for the said accused to
indemnify the complainant Leopoldo Realino the sum of P120,000.00 as and by way
of actual damage;

“3. In Crim. Case No.
92-103343, finding the accused Manuel de Guia y Samonte guilty beyond
reasonable doubt for (sic) the crime of Estafa and hereby sentences the said
accused to suffer an indeterminate sentence ranging from Three (3) years Six
(6) months and Twenty One (21) days of prision correccional as minimum to Seven
(7) years Five (5) months and Eleven (11) days of prision mayor as maximum and
for the said accused to indemnify the complainant Jesus Sumalinog the sum of
P50,000.00 as and by way of actual damage; and

“4. In Crim. case No.
92-103344, finding the accused Manuel de Guia y Samonte guilty beyond
reasonable doubt for (sic) the crime of Estafa and hereby sentences the said
accused to suffer an indeterminate sentence ranging from One (1) year Eight (8)
months and Twenty One (21) days of prision correccional as minimum to Five (5)
years Five (5) months and Eleven (11) days also of prision correccional as
maximum and for the said accused to indemnify the complainant Montesa P. Gazmin
the sum of P30,000.00 as and by way of actual damage.

“Costs against the accused.

“SO ORDERED.” (Rollo, pp.
20-30)

Accused appealed to this Court raising the following assignment
of errors:

I.

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO
PROSECUTE THE REAL MALEFACTOR, LOIDA DE GUIA, WHO SHOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED AS
ONE OF THE ACCUSED CONSIDERING THAT SHE ISSUED AND SIGNED THE RECEIPTS
EVIDENCING THE PAYMENTS ALLEGEDLY MADE BY THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANTS AND WHICH
WERE THE ONLY BASES FOR FINDING THE ACCUSED GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

II.

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE
ACCUSED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT ON THE BASIS OF THE PAUCITY OF THE EVIDENCE FOR
THE PROSECUTION (receipts of payments) ALTHOUGH THE SAME ARE INADMISSIBLE IN
CHARACTER FOR BEING PURELY HEARSAY EVIDENCE.

III.

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN (UP)HOLDING THE
UNLAWFUL ARREST OF THE ACCUSED IN A PUBLIC PLACE WITHOUT ANY WARRANT OR PROCESS
ISSUED BY A COMPETENT COURT.

The first (2) assigned errors are interrelated and shall be
discussed together.

Appellant’s position is that the real perpetrator of the charges
imputed against him is Loida de Guia whose signature appears on all the
receipts issued to the complainants. He
submits that his mere presence at the Ermita office everytime the complainants
paid the required fees cannot be made the basis of a finding that he was
involved in the illegal recruitment of private complainants. He contends that Loida de Guia should have
been charged as the proper accused.

Appellant’s submission deserves scant consideration. To begin with, appellant did not raise this
argument in the trial court. It is too
late to raise it on appeal. More
importantly, the Informations against the appellant show that the appellant was
charged with “conspiring and confederating with one whose true name, identity and present whereabouts are still
unknown x x x.” From the
evidence, this co­-conspirator is
Loida de Guia who pretended to be the wife of herein appellant. There is no obstacle for the State to charge
this person who goes by the name of Loida de Guia as soon as her true identity
and address become known to the prosecution. Her non-prosecution at this stage, however, provides no ground for the
appellant to fault the decision of the trial court convicting him.

Appellant also erred in dismissing the receipts issued by Loida
de Guia as hearsay evidence. The
records show that Leopoldo Realino and Jesus Sumalinog testified that they personally
handed the money representing the required fees to herein appellant. The latter, in turn, instructed Loida to prepare the corresponding
receipts. This was after private
complainants were made to believe that the accused and Loida, aside from being
husband and wife, were jointly operating the recruitment business, with the
former as travel consultant and the latter as the general manager. The evidence shows that the receipts were
signed by Loida in the presence of the complaining witnesses. Consequently, Realino and Sumalinog had
personal knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the issuance of these
receipts and their testimonies cannot be considered as hearsay evidence.

It is not also correct to argue that the guilt of the appellant
was based alone on the receipts issued by Loida de Guia. All the complaining witnesses testified that
the accused took an active and direct part in misrepresenting that he had the
authority and the power to facilitate their employment abroad. Aside from their testimonial evidence,
calling cards were presented showing the accused to be the Travel Consultant of said agency, with Loida
as the General Manager. Moreover, the
evidence also showed that it was the accused who asked the applicants to fill
up their applications and to prepare their respective biodata. He also demanded from them varying amounts
of money as processing fees. All these
show that the accused and Loida de Guia, who are not licensed recruiters,
adopted a systematic and elaborate scheme to defraud the complainants through
false promises of jobs abroad.

We are not also impressed by the defense of the appellant. Glaring inconsistencies marred his short
testimony. At one time, he testified
that he was arrested by the CIS officers at a department store in Ermita,
Manila.^[26]
Later on, however, he stated that he was arrested in Marrieta Apartment,
located at J. Bocobo Street, Ermita, Manila.^[27] He
likewise claimed during the trial that he was not aware that Loida de Guia had
an office located in Marrieta Apartment, Ermita,^[28] but
at the same time, he raises in this appeal the defense that he himself has been
at the Ermita office to follow-up the job placement of his son in Korea.^[29]

This is not all. Initially, appellant claimed during the trial that he could not have possibly been at the Ermita office and
received payments made by the complainants for he was then employed as a
professional driver for RTS Trading. On
appeal, however, appellant would have Us believe that during the period from
May to December 1991 when private complainants went to the Ermita office to
file their application and pay the corresponding fees, accused-appellant “just
happened to be there” for he was himself following-up the job application of
his son.^[30]

Appellant’s corroborating witness, Renato Samonte, was equally
unimpressive. In fact, Samonte’s
testimony rendered the defense’s theory more open to doubt. For one, his testimony that appellant has
been in his employ from May to December 1991 was not corroborated by any
documentary evidence, such as pay slip/pay roll, certification of SSS
contributions and, hence, has little value. Moreover, even assuming that appellant was a part-time driver of
Samonte, the nature of his job would not make it physically impossible for him
to operate a recruitment business on the side. Time and again, We have ruled that alibi, being a weak defense, must be
proved by clear and convincing evidence which should reasonably satisfy the
Court of its veracity.^[31]

The credence of the private complainants is further bolstered by
the admission of appellant himself that he does not know of any ill-motive why
they would hurl such serious accusations against him.^[32]
The private complainants were all previously unknown to him.

Finally, appellant’s alleged warrantless arrest will not
exculpate him from his guilt as found by the trial court. To be sure, the plea comes too late in the
day. We note that upon arraignment,
appellant pleaded not guilty to the Information and did not raise the alleged
illegality of his arrest. By so
pleading, he waived the alleged illegality of his arrest.^[33]
In People v. Briones,^[34] we
ruled that the illegality of appellant’s warrantless arrest cannot render all
the other proceedings, including the appellant’s conviction, void. It cannot deprive the State of its right to
convict the guilty when all the facts on record point to his culpability.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of
the court a quo finding the appellant Manuel de Guia y Samonte guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale for
having engaged in the business of recruiting the four (4) private complainants
for overseas employment without any license or authority from the POEA and three (3) counts of Estafa, for
falsely pretending to possess power and qualification to deploy private
complainants for overseas employment, is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. Costs
against appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Padilla, Regalado, and Nocon, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Presided by Judge Domingo D. Panis.

^[2]
Docketed as Criminal Case No. 92-103341.

^[3]
Docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 92-103342, 92-103343 and 92-103344.

^[4]
TSN, April 7, 1992, pp. 3-4, 10.

^[5]
id., pp. 8-9.

^[6]
id., pp. 4-5, 10-12.

^[7]
id., pp. 5, 17-18; Exh. “A”.

^[8]
POEA Certification dated April 2, 1992, Exhibit “C”, Original Records, p. 67.

^[9]
id., pp. 6 & 15.

^[10]
id., p. 8; Exhibits “D” and “E”, respectively.

^[11]
id., pp. 19-21, 31.

^[12]
Exhibits “F” and “G”, Original Records, pp. 70-71.

^[13]
id., pp. 22-23, 31.

^[14]
id., pp. 23-25, 32.

^[15]
TSN, April 8, 1991, pp. 2-4.

^[16]
id., pp. 5-6.

^[17]
Exhibit “I”, Original Record, p. 74.

^[18]
TSN, April 8, 1991, pp. 6-10, 13.

^[19]
id., pp. 16-19.

^[20]
id., pp. 20-22; Exhibits “K” to “K-5”, Original Records, pp. 77-82.

^[21]
id., p. 22.

^[22]
id., pp. 22-24.

^[23]
TSN, April 28, 1992, pp. 7-16.

^[24]
TSN, April 28, 1992, pp. 3-7.

^[25]
TSN, June 9, 1992, pp. 2-5.

^[26]
TSN, April 28, 1992, p. 16.

^[27]
TSN, May 19, 1992, p.3.

^[28]
TSN, April 28, 1992, p. 20.

^[29]
Appellant’s Brief, Rollo, p. 46.

^[30]
Appellant’s Brief, supra.

^[31]
People v. Loste, G.R. No. 100198, July 1, 1992, 210 SCRA 647.

^[32]
TSN, April 28, 1992, p. 23.

^[33]
People v. de Guzman, et al., G.R. Nos. 983221-24, June 30, 1993.

^[34]
G.R. No. 90319, October 15, 1991, 202 SCRA 708.