People v. Remullo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private complainants Rosario Cadacio, Jenelyn Quinsaat, and Honorina Mejia testified that they went to appellant Nimfa Remullo's house in March 1993, where appellant told them she was recruiting factory workers for Malaysia. Appellant required them to fill up application forms, submit passports, pictures, and NBI clearances, and undergo medical examinations. Each applicant paid P15,000 as a placement fee to appellant, partly at her house and partly at the Jamila office, without receipts. They were supposed to leave for Malaysia on June 6, 1993, but were offloaded at the airport due to lacking POEA requirements. Appellant claimed their visas were for tourists only and promised they would leave on June 20, 1993, which also did not materialize. Inquiries with Jamila and Co., where appellant worked as a marketing consultant, revealed that appellant was not authorized to recruit or receive payments, and Jamila had no job orders for Malaysia. Appellant denied recruiting the complainants and receiving money, claiming they transacted with Steven Mah and Lani Platon, to whom the fees were allegedly paid, and presented photocopies of receipts purportedly signed by Platon. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court, Branch 132, Makati City, convicted appellant Nimfa Remullo in Criminal Cases Nos. 95-653 to 95-656. In Criminal Case No. 95-653, she was convicted of illegal recruitment on a large scale and sentenced to life imprisonment and a P100,000 fine. In Criminal Cases Nos. 95-654 to 95-656, she was convicted of estafa for each complainant, with each conviction carrying a sentence of two years, four months, and one day of prision correccional to six years and one day of prision mayor, and ordered to indemnify each private complainant P15,000. The Petition: Appellant appealed the decision, contending that the trial court erred in not finding the exhibits (receipts and fax message) credible, in not finding the complainants' versions incredible, in giving probative value to the testimony of Evelyn Landrito, and in finding her guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in not finding the exhibits presented by the defense as credible proofs of transactions with third parties. Whether the trial court erred in not finding the complainants' versions incredible. Whether the trial court erred in giving probative value to the testimony of Evelyn Landrito. Whether the appellant was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal recruitment in large scale and estafa.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court. Appellant Nimfa Remullo was found guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale and sentenced to life imprisonment and a P100,000 fine. She was also found guilty of estafa in three separate cases, each with a sentence of two years, four months, and one day of prision correccional to six years and one day of prision mayor, and ordered to pay P15,000 in restitution to each of the three private complainants.
Ratio Decidendi
On the defense's evidence: The Court found that the receipts and fax message presented by the defense were not credible proofs of transactions between the complainants and third parties, Lani Platon and Steven Mah. The Court noted that if Platon indeed received the money and issued receipts, it would have been easy for the complainants to prove their claim against her. The natural tendency of a wronged party is to seek redress from the person who caused the harm. The testimony of defense witness Amado Pancha was also found to be patently incomplete and lacking probative value, as he did not specifically identify the persons he allegedly saw handing money to Lani Platon, only referring to them as "four girls." On the credibility of witnesses and evidence: The Court reiterated the general rule that the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is accorded great weight and respect, as the trial court has the advantage of observing their demeanor and deportment firsthand. The exception, where appellate courts may deviate, is when the trial court has overlooked or misapprehended certain facts or circumstances that, if considered, would alter the result. In this case, the Court found no such exceptional circumstances. The trial court's findings and conclusions were duly supported by the evidence on record, and there was no sufficient reason to disturb them. The appellant's arguments assailing the credibility of prosecution witnesses and presenting her own evidence were found unpersuasive. On the issue of illegal recruitment in large scale: The Court held that the elements of illegal recruitment in large scale were present. The private complainants were enticed by the appellant to apply for jobs abroad, filled up application forms at her house, and each paid P15,000 as a placement fee. Crucially, appellant acted without the requisite license or lawful authority from the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). A certification from the POEA's licensing branch confirmed appellant's lack of authority to engage in recruitment activities. Furthermore, Evelyn Landrito, general manager of Jamila and Co., Inc., where appellant was employed, testified that appellant's scope of work did not include recruiting workers or receiving placement fees. The defense of denial offered by appellant was deemed intrinsically weak and self-serving, unable to prevail over the positive testimonies of credible witnesses. The Court also found no merit in appellant's attempt to shift blame to Steven Mah and Lani Platon, noting that it would have been more natural for the complainants to pursue those individuals if they were indeed the culprits, especially if receipts were involved. On the issue of estafa: The Court found no error in the trial court's conviction for estafa. The elements of estafa were clearly established: (1) the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit, and (2) damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation was caused to the offended party. Appellant clearly defrauded the private complainants by falsely representing that she had the power and authority to send them for overseas employment. Relying on these false representations, each complainant parted with P15,000 as a recruitment fee, which appellant appropriated for her own benefit without providing the promised job placements. The scheme involved providing defective visas, bringing the recruits to the airport, only to be offloaded, and then making empty promises of future departure, ultimately leaving the complainants gypped.
Main Doctrine
The elements of illegal recruitment in large scale are: (1) the accused engaged in recruitment activity defined under Article 13(b) or any prohibited practice under Article 34 of the Labor Code; (2) the accused lacks the requisite license or authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers; and (3) the accused committed such acts against three or more persons, individually or as a group. For estafa, the elements are: (1) the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit, and (2) damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party or third person.