People v. Verano y Abanes
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Sometime in October 1987, the accused-appellant, Elena Verano y Abanes, persuaded three private complainants, Jose Daep, Arturo Espiel, and Alfonso Abanes, to accept overseas employment as salesmen in Bahrain. She required them to pay P10,000.00 each for processing their travel papers, passports, visas, medical examinations, and recruitment fees. Jose paid P15,000.00, Arturo paid P10,000.00, and Alfonso paid P7,150.00. Verano issued receipts for these payments and even signed a contract of employment with Arturo to convince them of her capacity. The complainants were promised departure dates of December 27, 1987, January 15, 1988, and February 13, 1988, but Verano failed to show up at the airport on all these occasions, offering various excuses. After the third failed attempt, the complainants lodged a complaint, leading to Verano's arrest and subsequent charges. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court of Manila convicted Elena Verano y Abanes of illegal recruitment in large scale (Crim. Case No. 88-61017) and estafa (Crim. Case No. 88-61018). In the illegal recruitment case, she was sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of P100,000.00, with indemnification to Arturo Espiel (P10,000.00) and Alfonso Abanes (P7,150.00). In the estafa case, she was sentenced to an indeterminate sentence of six (6) years of prision correccional, maximum period, to nine (9) years of prision mayor, medium period, and ordered to pay Jose Daep P15,000.00 as actual damages. The Petition: Accused-appellant Elena Verano y Abanes appealed her conviction. Initially, she argued that the penalty of life imprisonment for large-scale illegal recruitment was too harsh, given her alleged good faith. However, in a supplemental brief, she changed her stance, disputing the trial court's findings of fact. She claimed she never represented herself as having the capacity to contract workers for overseas employment, asserting she merely introduced the complainants to one Juliet Majestrado, who allegedly possessed such capacity. Regarding the estafa conviction, she argued that while she issued the receipts, the money paid was given to Juliet Majestrado and she did not profit from it.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court gravely erred in imposing the penalty of life imprisonment for large-scale illegal recruitment and whether the accused-appellant's actions constituted illegal recruitment in large scale. Whether the accused-appellant's contention that she merely introduced the complainants to another person who had the capacity to contract workers for overseas employment, and that she did not profit from the payments, is a valid defense against the charges of illegal recruitment and estafa, and whether the elements of estafa were proven. Whether the findings of fact made by the trial court are reviewable on appeal.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court in toto. The accused-appellant was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal recruitment in large scale and estafa. The penalties and damages imposed by the trial court were upheld.
Ratio Decidendi
On the penalty for illegal recruitment in large scale: The Court affirmed the imposition of life imprisonment for illegal recruitment in large scale, recognizing it as an offense involving economic sabotage as defined under Article 38(b) in relation to Article 39(a) of the New Labor Code. The law mandates such a penalty when illegal recruitment is committed against three or more persons individually or as a group. On the defense of introducing complainants to another person and the alleged lack of profit, and on the conviction for estafa: The Court found the appellant's argument that she merely introduced the complainants to Juliet Majestrado, who allegedly had the capacity to contract workers, to be without merit. The trial court's findings, which were given finality, established that the appellant herself persuaded the complainants and required them to pay for processing their travel documents. The issuance of receipts and the contract of employment signed by the appellant further supported the conclusion that she represented herself as having the capacity to provide overseas employment. Similarly, the appellant's claim that she did not profit from the money paid, as it was all given to Juliet Majestrado, was also a factual issue. Given the finality of the trial court's factual findings, this defense was deemed insufficient to overturn the conviction. The act of recruitment and the receipt of payments, regardless of whether the appellant personally profited or passed the money to another, constituted the elements of the offenses charged. The conviction for estafa was based on the appellant's deceitful acts in falsely pretending to possess the power and capacity to contract workers for overseas employment, thereby inducing the complainants to part with their money. The failure to provide the promised employment and the subsequent non-return of the payments established the elements of estafa under Article 315, paragraph (a), of the Revised Penal Code. On the reviewability of findings of fact: The Supreme Court reiterated the well-settled doctrine that findings of fact made by the trial court are final and conclusive and cannot be reviewed on appeal, except for a few recognized instances which were not present in this case. The Court emphasized that it is not a trier of facts and would not be justified in reversing the judgment of conviction when the issues raised are purely factual, as admitted by the appellant. The appellant's attempt to dispute the findings of fact in her supplemental brief was therefore unavailing.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of the accused for illegal recruitment in large scale and estafa, holding that findings of fact by the trial court are final and conclusive and cannot be reviewed on appeal, absent any exceptions. The Court also reiterated that illegal recruitment in large scale constitutes economic sabotage.