People v. Jamilosa
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainants Imelda D. Bamba, Geraldine M. Lagman, and Alma E. Singh, all registered nurses, were approached by appellant Joseph Jamilosa who represented himself as an FBI agent with connections to the US Embassy and a sister who was a head nurse in Los Angeles, California. He promised them employment as nurses in the US for a fee, claiming he could secure their visas and passports. The complainants paid various amounts totaling US$300.00 each, along with other valuables and processing fees, and submitted their credentials. Appellant assured them of departure dates and even showed some flight confirmations. However, appellant failed to deliver the promised employment, passports, and visas, offering various excuses, including the death of his wife or mother. The complainants discovered that appellant was not an FBI agent and had no authority to recruit, leading them to file complaints with the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). Procedural History: The Information for large scale illegal recruitment was filed on August 29, 1997. After trial, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City convicted appellant Joseph Jamilosa and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00, ordering him to indemnify each complainant US$300.00. Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the RTC decision. Appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court. The Appeal: Appellant argued that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, primarily contending that the prosecution failed to present receipts as proof of payment, which he claimed were indispensable given the Information's mention of "for a fee." He asserted that the complainants' testimonies were not credible and that he had them sign certifications to prove he never recruited them and no money was involved, as they were merely seeking his advice on working abroad. He also argued that the trial court erred in disregarding these certifications and that there was no rule barring their presentation during the trial.
Issue(s)
Whether the guilt of the appellant for large scale illegal recruitment was proven beyond reasonable doubt despite the absence of receipts. Whether the certifications allegedly executed by the complainants, stating that appellant did not recruit them and no money was involved, are credible evidence.
Ruling
The appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the conviction of Joseph Jamilosa for large scale illegal recruitment under Sections 6 and 7 of Republic Act No. 8042 is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION. The appellant is ordered to refund to each of the complaining witnesses the peso equivalent of US$300.00.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the guilt of the appellant for large scale illegal recruitment was proven beyond reasonable doubt despite the absence of receipts: The Court held that the guilt of the appellant was proven beyond reasonable doubt. It reiterated that the prosecution must establish three essential elements for illegal recruitment in large scale: (1) the person charged undertook a recruitment activity under Article 13(b) or any prohibited practice under Article 34 of the Labor Code; (2) the accused did not have the license or authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers; and (3) the accused committed the same against three or more persons individually or as a group. The Court found that the collective testimonies of the three complaining witnesses, which were found credible by the trial and appellate courts, sufficiently established these elements. The absence of receipts did not defeat the prosecution's case, as testimonial evidence can prove the recruitment activity and the receipt of fees. The Court cited People v. Sagaydo and People v. Dela Piedra to support the principle that even without receipts, conviction is possible if witnesses positively identify the accused as involved in prohibited recruitment. The POEA certification (Exh. "A") clearly showed that appellant was neither licensed nor authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment, satisfying the second element. The fact that the offense was committed against three complainants individually satisfied the third element. The Court also noted that Article 13(b) of the Labor Code states that recruitment may be for profit or not, and it is sufficient that the accused promises or offers employment for a fee. On Whether the certifications allegedly executed by the complainants, stating that appellant did not recruit them and no money was involved, are credible evidence: The Court found the certifications (Exhibits "2," "3," and "4") to be barren of credence and probative weight, agreeing with the lower courts. The appellant claimed to have possessed these certifications at the time of their alleged execution but failed to present them during the preliminary investigation at the Department of Justice when he filed his counter-affidavit. The Court found it contrary to human nature and experience for an accused facing charges of illegal recruitment to withhold evidence favorable to him if it were authentic. The appellant's explanation that he did not submit them because the State Prosecutor did not require a counter-affidavit and allegedly dismissed the case was contradicted by the prosecutor's cross-examination, which revealed that the appellant did prepare and attempt to file a counter-affidavit. Furthermore, the appellant's own testimony during cross-examination showed inconsistencies regarding the acceptance of his counter-affidavit and the dismissal of the case. The Court also noted the appellant's admission that he asked the complainants to sign the certifications to "prove that I’m settling this case," which further undermined their credibility and suggested they were obtained under duress or for a different purpose than what they purported to show. The Court applied the principle that when a party possesses and withholds the best evidence, the presumption is that its production would thwart his fraudulent purpose.
Main Doctrine
The crime of illegal recruitment in large scale requires proof of three elements: (1) the accused undertook recruitment activities as defined by law; (2) the accused lacked the necessary license or authority; and (3) the offense was committed against three or more persons. The prosecution must establish these elements beyond reasonable doubt. Testimonial evidence from complainants is sufficient to prove the recruitment activity and the receipt of fees, even without documentary evidence like receipts, especially when the accused's defense, such as fabricated certifications, is found to be incredible.