PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. LUCILLE SENDON, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

This is an appeal from the August 8, 1990 decision* of the Regional Trial Court, Fifth Judicial Region,
Branch 35 of Iriga City in Criminali Cases Nos. IR-2577, 2582 and IR-2592,
finding the accused Lucille B. Sendon guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT IN LARGE SCALE as defined in Section 38 of the Labor Code, as amended by
Presidential Decrees Numbers 1920 and 2018.

The appellant was charged in three separate Informations filed by
City Prosecutor Reno R. Gonzales of Iriga City.

The Information in Criminal Case No. IR-2577, reads as follows:

“The undersigned City Prosecutor hereby accuses LUCILLE B. SENDON
who is presently under detention and an unidentified person known presently only
as MARITES “DOE” and at large, all residents of San Miguel, Iriga City of the
crime of ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT defined under Art. 38 of P.D. 442 (Labor Code) as
amended by P.D. 1693, P.D. 1920 and P.D. 2018 and penalized under Art. 39 of
the same laws, committed as follows:

“That on or about the 5th day of October 1988 in Iriga City,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said
accused, conspiring and confederating with each other and representing to be
legitimate labor recruiters, with intent to defraud and without authority of
law or license from the Department of Labor and Employment, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, defraud one Bernie de Villa, the amount
of Fifteen Thousand (P15,000.00) Pesos, Philippine Currency, under promise to
employ him in the Sultanate of Oman as bellboy with a salary of $250 U.S.
Dollars a month and to work for his travel papers, all of which have not been realized up to the present
time, inspite of many excuses and promises, and despite repeated demands to
return said amount, accused failed and refused to do so, to his damage and
prejudice in the aforesaid amount.

“That one Arnel V. Ibias and Gerardo P. Escano were also defrauded
of undetermined amounts each by said accused under the same style of
recruitment, thus, this illegal recruitment is committed in large scale, hence,
now classified as an offense involving economic sabotage.

“CONTRARY TO LAW.” (Original Record, pp. 1-2).

The Information in Criminal Case No. IR-2582 reads:

“The  undersigned City
Prosecutor hereby accuses LUCILLE B. SENDON who is presently under detention and an unidentified person known
presently only as MARITES “DOE” and at large, all residents of San Miguel,
Iriga City of the crime of ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT defined under Art. 38 of P.D.
442 (Labor Code) as amended by P.D. 1693, P.D. 1920 and P.D. 2018 and
penalized under Art. 39 of the same code, committed as follows:

“That on or about the 8th day of October 1988 in Iriga City,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said
accused, conspiring and confederating with each other and representing to be
legitimate labor recruiters, with intent to defraud and without authority of
law or license from the Department of Labor and Employment, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, defraud one Arnel V. Ibias, the amount
of SIXTEEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED (P16,500.00) PESOS, Philippine Currency, under
promise to employ him in the Sultanate of Oman as a Security Guard with a salary of $280 U.S. Dollars a month and to work for his travel papers, all of
which have not been realized up to the
present time, inspite of many excuses and promises, and despite repeated
demands to return said amount, accused failed and refused to do so, to
his damage and prejudice in the aforesaid amount.

“That one Bernie de Villa and Gerardo P. Escano were also defrauded
of undetermined amounts each by said accused under the same style of
recruitment, thus, this illegal recruitment is committed in large scale, hence,
now classified as an offense involving economic sabotage.

“CONTRARY TO LAW.” (Original Record, pp. 1-2).

And the Information in Criminal Case No. IR-2592 reads:

“The undersigned City Prosecutor hereby accuses LUCILLE B. SENDON
who is presently under detention and an unidentified person known presently
only as MARITES “DOE” and at large, all residents of San Miguel, Iriga City of
the crime of ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT defined under Art. 38 of P.D. 442 (Labor Code)
as amended by P.D. 1693, P.D. 1920 and P.D. 2018 and penalized under Art. 39 of
the same code, committed as follows:

“That on or about the 3rd day of October 1988 in Iriga City,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said
accused, conspiring and confederating with each other and representing to be
legitimate labor recruiters, with
intent to defraud and without authority of law or license from the Department of Labor and Employment, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, defraud one GERARDO P. ESCANO, the
amount of SEVEN THOUSAND ((P7,000.00) PESOS, Philippine Currency, under promise
to employ him in the Sultanate of Oman as a bellboy with a salary of $250 U.S.
Dollars a month and to work for his travel papers, all of which have not been
realized up to the present time, inspite of many excuses and promises, and
despite repeated demands to return said amount, accused failed and refused to
do so, to his damage and prejudice in the aforesaid amount.

“That one Bernie de Villa and Arnel V. Ibias were also defrauded of
undetermined amounts each by said accused under the same style of recruitment,
thus, this illegal recruitment is committed in large scale, hence, now
classified as an offense involving economic sabotage.

“CONTRARY TO LAW.” (Original Record, pp. 1-2).

Upon arraignment in Criminal Case No. IR-2577 (Original Record,
pp. 27; 28), in Criminal Case No. IR-2582 (Original Record, pp. 13; 14) and in
Criminal Case No. IR-2592 (Original Record, p. 7), the accused pleaded not
guilty to the crime charged.

A Motion for Consolidation of Cases was filed by the City
Prosecutor (Original Record, p. 49) and the two (2) cases (IR-2582 &
IR-2592) pending before the other branches (Branches 34 & 36) were
consolidated in Branch 35. Thus, the
three (3) cases were jointly tried.

Trial ensued.

To prove the guilt of the accused-appellant, the prosecution
presented the complainants as witnesses.

ARNEL IBIAS, 27 years old, a government employee
and a resident of San Jose, Iriga City, testified that on October 8, 1988, he
was recruited by the accused Lucille Sendon in his house at San Jose, Iriga City as a Security Guard at the Sultanate of
Oman with a monthly salary of $280 U.S. Dollars. As a condition for his employment, he had to pay an amount of
P16,500.00 for his plane ticket
and other expenses. Thus, in the presence of co-complainants, Bernie de
Villa and Gerardo Escano, he gave the accused his first payment in the amount
of P5,000.00 in his house on October 10, 1988, then he paid the balance of
P11,500.00 on October 18, 1988.

After receiving the same, the accused told them that they were
scheduled to leave on October 25, 1988 but their departure was cancelled
because their supposed employer will be arriving in Manila. When their supposed employer failed to arrive,
he asked the accused to return his money but the latter could not pay him so he
reported the matter to the police. At
the headquarters, the accused promised to return the money on the 30th of
November, 1988 and issued a promissory note signed by her and her sister
Marites Sendon. The appellant however,
failed to fulfill said promise despite repeated demands. (TSN, Hearing of July 10, 1989, pp. 3-8).

GERARDO ESCANO, 26 years old, a waiter and a
resident of San Jose, Iriga City, corroborated the testimony of Arnel Ibias on
all material points. In his case, he
was required to pay P7,000.00 only as a good friend. He confirmed that at the headquarters, the accused and her sister
Marites Sendon signed a promissory note but the promise to return the money to
them was not fulfilled. (TSN, Hearing
of October 19, 1989, pp. 18-29).

BERNIE DE VILLA, 23 years old, single,
jobless and a resident of
San Jose, Iriga City, gave exactly the same version as his co-complainants Ibias and Escano. He added that the accused showed him a
document which was signed by the supposed employer named Abdullah Mohammad
Alhabre requesting two bellboys and one security guard. When his departure for abroad failed to materialize,
he demanded the return of his money but to no avail because the accused had no
money.

The defense, on the other
hand, presented only the accused-appellant, who testified as follows:

LUCILLE SENDON, 24 years old, married, jobless and
a resident of San Miguel, Iriga City, testified that on October 5, 1988 while
she was in her house talking
with co-accused Marites Dimasalang (the person who helped her find work
abroad), Gerardo Escano came and talked with Marites Dimasalang about going
abroad. On October 8, 1988, she
accompanied Marites Dimasalang to the house of Gerardo Escano and the latter,
together with Arnel Ibias and Bernie de Villa, talked about their leaving for
Oman. As she was a little bit far from
their place, she does not know much about their conversation. She did not demand money from the
complainants, neither did she receive any amount from them, for it was not her
but Marites Dimasalang who convinced them to go abroad.

On instruction of Marites Dimasalang, she accompanied the three
complainants to Manila to the medical clinic but she did not inform them of
their allegedly scheduled flight to Oman. However, thinking that Marites Dimasalang would return the money to
them, she signed a promissory note in their favor but she does not know whether
the other signature appearing on said note is that of her sister because she is
unfamiliar with the same. (TSN, Hearing
of March 20, 1990, pp. 101-109).

On August 8, 1990, the trial court rendered its decision, the
decretal portion of which reads as follows:

“WHERFORE, premises considered,
the court finds the accused, Lucille B. Sendon, guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the crime of Violation of Article 38, in relation to Article 39, Chapter
III, Title I of the Labor Code of the Philippines as amended, sentenced to pay
a fine of P20,000.00 in each case and failure to pay such fine to serve
subsidiary imprisonment pursuant to Art. 39, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, and to return to each of the
complaining witnesses the amount she got from each of them, from Bernie de
Villa the sum of Fifteen Thousand (P15,000.00) Pesos; from Gerardo Escano the
sum of Seven Thousand (P7.000.00) Pesos; and Arnel Ibias the sum of Sixteen
Thousand Five Hundred (P16,500.00) Pesos and also to pay the costs in each
case.

“SO ORDERED.” (p. 23. Decision, Rollo)

A motion for reconsideration of the decision was filed by the
City Prosecution Office on September 11, 1990, claiming that pursuant to P.D.
2018 which amends Articles 38 and 39 of the Labor Code, since the accused has
been charged and has in fact been convicted in three separate cases of Illegal
Recruitment, then it should he considered as committed in large scale, in which
case the penalty should be as provided under Article 39 of the same code, which
is, “(t)he penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of One Hundred Thousand (P100,000.00) Pesos shall be
imposed” (Original Record, pp. 112-113).

On September 19, 1990, the trial court amended its decision and
issued an order, the dispositive portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the court finds the accused,
Lucille B. Sendon, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of
Article 38 and Article 39 of the Labor Code of the Philippines, P.D. 2018 as
amended, sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and a fine of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00). Accused is also directed to return to each
of the complaining witnesses the amount she got from each of them, from Bernie
de Villa the sum of Fifteen Thousand (P15,000.00) Pesos; from Gerardo Escano
the sum of Seven Thousand (P7,000.00) Pesos and Arnel Ibias the sum of Sixteen
Thousand Five Hundred (P16,500.00) Pesos and also to pay the costs.

SO ORDERED.” (Rollo, p. 25).

Hence, this appeal.

The brief for the accused-appellant was filed on July 23, 1991
(Rollo, pp. 38-51) while the brief for the plaintiff-appellee was filed on
November 8, 1991 (Rollo, p. 66).

Accused-appellant raises two assignments of error:

I

The trial court erred in giving weight and credence to the
contradictory testimonies of the three
complaining witnesses.

II

The trial court erred in not acquitting
the accused-appellant on the ground of reasonable doubt.

(p. 38, Rollo)

The main issue in this case hinges on the credibility of the
witnesses.

The appeal is devoid of merit.

Under the prevailing doctrine, when the issue is one involving
the credibility of witnesses, the trial court’s findings and conclusions with
respect thereto are entitled to great weight and respect on appeal. Subject to certain exceptions which do not obtain
in this case, the trial court is in a better position to decide this question
having seen and heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment
and manner of testifying (People v. Oscar Diquit, et al., G.R. No. 96714,
January 27, 1992).

Accused-appellant’s main objection on the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses is that they are inconsistent and contradictory to one
another as to manner as well as to place of payment of the amounts in question.

It must be stressed that the place where complainants Arnel Ibias
and Bernie de Villa gave the money is not material. What is important is that it was accused-appellant Sendon who
lured complainants to work abroad and succeeded in getting certain amounts from
them allegedly for plane tickets and other expenses. The fact of payment was duly established by the prosecution and
in fact admitted by appellant when she executed a promissory note on November
4, 1988.

Inconsistencies in the
testimony of prosecution witnesses with respect to minor details and collateral
matters do not affect the substance of their declaration, their veracity or the
weight of their testimony. In fact,
these inconsistencies, if only in minor details, reinforce rather than weaken
their credibility (People v. Lapnayo Buka, et al., G.R. Nos. 68311-13, Jan. 30,
1992).

The alleged conflicting testimonies of the prosecution witnesses
refer only to minor details which do not destroy their credibility (People v.
Talla, 181 SCRA 133, 1990). Discrepancies in minor details are to be expected from an uncoached
witness (People v. Noguerras, 181 SCRA 19; 1990).

Accused-appellant Sendon’s allegations that the promissory note
she executed should not be taken against her because she executed the same on
the belief that her co-accused, Marites Dimasalang, would return the money herself
cannot be given full credit.

It will be observed that accused-appellant never presented
evidence that it was Marites Dimasalang, her co-accused, who enticed
complainants in entering into the aborted deal. In fact, the existence of the latter was not established. Evidently, Marites Dimasalang was a phoney participant in appellant’s
illegal acts.

All in all, appellant’s guilt has been proved beyond reasonable
doubt. It was established that appellant,
who is without license to recruit overseas workers, snared and convinced
complainants to work abroad. It was
also established that appellant received money from the complainants allegedly
for their plane tickets and other expenses. Unfortunately, the jobs promised to complainants were never realized,
nor was the money she received from them, returned.

Considering these findings, it is clear that the appellant is
GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT IN LARGE SCALE as defined
in Section 38 of the Labor Code, as amended by Presidential Decrees Numbers
1920 and 2018.

PREMISES CONSIDERED the appealed decision is hereby
AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

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

Nocon, J., on leave.

* Penned by Presiding Judge
Esteban R. Abonal.