People v. Omictin

G.R. No. 188130 · 2010-07-26 · J. VELASCO, JR., J.: · Primary: Criminal; Secondary: Labor
REITERATION

Facts

The Antecedents: Private complainants Primo Arvin Guevarra, Veronica Caponpon, Roy Fernandez Mago, and Anthony Ambrosio each paid accused-appellant Mary Lou Omictin various amounts totaling PhP 40,000 (Guevarra and Mago), PhP 20,000 (Caponpon), and PhP 16,000 (Ambrosio) for promised overseas employment as caregivers and apple pickers in London and New Zealand. Despite these payments and assurances, the complainants never departed for their supposed jobs. Subsequently, an entrapment operation was conducted by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) after Mago was asked to pay an additional PhP 60,000, leading to Omictin's arrest. Procedural History: Separate informations were filed charging Omictin with illegal recruitment in large scale and three counts of estafa. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 104, Quezon City, found Omictin guilty beyond reasonable doubt for all charges. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision in toto. Omictin appealed to the Supreme Court. The Petition: Omictin argued that Guevarra's testimony was hearsay as it was based on a check issued by Elisa Dotenes, who was not presented as a witness. She also contended that Ambrosio's testimony regarding his payment was unsubstantiated by receipts and thus self-serving.

Issue(s)

Whether the testimonies of private complainants Guevarra and Ambrosio, regarding payments made to the accused-appellant, are admissible and sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Whether the accused-appellant committed illegal recruitment in large scale and estafa.

Ruling

The Supreme Court denied the petition for lack of merit and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals in toto, upholding the conviction of Mary Lou Omictin for illegal recruitment in large scale and three counts of estafa.

Ratio Decidendi

On the admissibility and sufficiency of testimonies: The Court held that the testimony of Anthony Ambrosio cannot be considered self-serving evidence. Citing Hernandez v. Court of Appeals and People v. Villarama, the Court clarified that self-serving statements are those made out of court in one's favor, not testimony given in court under oath with the opportunity for cross-examination. Therefore, Ambrosio's testimony was admissible. Furthermore, even if the testimonies of Guevarra and Ambrosio were hypothetically considered unsubstantiated or self-serving, the accused-appellant's own admissions during trial, where she testified to receiving PhP 40,000 from Guevarra and PhP 16,000 from Ambrosio, served to establish the fact of payment. This admission effectively corroborated the complainants' testimonies and substantiated the factual findings of the lower courts, negating the argument that the testimonies were unsubstantiated or hearsay. On the commission of illegal recruitment and estafa: The Court found no compelling reason to disturb the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the RTC and CA. The evidence presented, including the testimonies of the private complainants and the accused-appellant's own admissions, established that Omictin engaged in illegal recruitment by promising overseas employment for a fee without the necessary license, and committed estafa by defrauding the complainants of their payments through false manifestations and fraudulent representations. The entrapment operation further supported the finding of guilt for illegal recruitment. The Court reiterated the rule that it will not delve into factual findings of the lower courts, which were affirmed by the CA, unless exceptional circumstances are present, none of which were demonstrated in this case.

Main Doctrine

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of the accused for illegal recruitment in large scale and estafa, holding that the testimonies of complainants, even if uncorroborated by receipts, are admissible and not self-serving when given under oath and subject to cross-examination. Furthermore, the accused's own admission of receiving payments from the complainants during trial substantiates the factual findings of the lower courts.

Access audio review, related cases, codal links, and more.

Open LexMatePH →