FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 148198 October 1, 2003]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. ELIZ!ETH "!ETH#
$ORP%Z, appellant.
& E $ I S I O N
'NRES(SNTIGO, J.)
This is an appeal from the decision
[1]
of the Regional Trial Court of anila! "ranch
#$! in Criminal Case No% &&'1())*( finding appellant +li,a-eth Corpu, guilt. -e.ond
reasona-le dou-t of Illegal Recruitment in /arge Scale constituting economic sa-otage
under Sec% ) 0l1 and 0m1 in relation to Sec% (0-1 of R%2% No% 34$5! other6ise 7no6n as
the 8Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of l995!9 and sentencing her to life
imprisonment and to pa. a fine of :#44!444%44%
The Information against appellant reads as follo6s;
That sometime in July 1998 in the City of Manila and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, reresentin! herself to have the caacity
to contract, enlist and transort wor"ers abroad, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously recruit for a fee the followin! ersons, namely# $%&'()*
C*$*(T+,, C+(C%-C'+( .*( )'%,+, %/&'()* -*.C0*& *() /%.T'*(
.0/'+ for emloyment abroad without first obtainin! the re1uired license and2or
authority from the -hiliine +verseas %mloyment *dministration and said accused
failed to actually deloy without valid reasons said comlainants abroad and to
reimburse the e3enses incurred by them in connection with their documentation and
rocessin! for uroses of deloyment abroad to their dama!e and rejudice4
C+(T/*/5 T+ &*64
789
<hen arraigned on arch 51! 5444! appellant pleaded not guilt.% <hereupon! trial
on the merits ensued%
The facts of the case are as follo6s;
In =une 1&&3! pri>ate complainants "elinda Ca-antog! Concepcion San Diego!
+rlinda :ascual and Restian Surio 6ent to 2lga'oher International :lacement Ser>ices
Corporation at 1)#1 San arcelino Street! alate! anila to appl. for emplo.ment as
factor. 6or7ers in Tai6an% The. 6ere accompanied -. a certain 82ling =osie9 6ho
introduced them to the agenc.?s :resident and @eneral anager rs% +>el.n @loria A%
Re.es%
[*]
rs% Re.es as7ed them to accomplish the application forms% Thereafter! the.
6ere told to return to the office 6ith :14!444%44 each as processing fee%
[$]
On =ul. *4! 1&&3! pri>ate complainants returned to the agenc. to pa. the
processing fees% rs% Re.es 6as not at the agenc. that time! -ut she called appellant
on the telephone to as7 her to recei>e the processing fees% Thereafter! appellant
ad>ised them to 6ait for the contracts to arri>e from the Tai6an emplo.ers%
[#]
T6o months later! nothing happened to their applications% Thus! pri>ate
complainants decided to as7 for the refund of their mone. from appellant
[)]
6ho told
them that the processing fees the. had paid 6ere alread. remitted to rs%
Re.es% <hen the. tal7ed to rs% Re.es! she told them that the mone. she recei>ed
from appellant 6as in pa.ment of the latter?s de-t% Thus! on =anuar. 1*! 1&&&! pri>ate
complainants filed their complaint 6ith the National "ureau of In>estigation
[(]
6hich led to
the arrest and detention of appellant%
On arch 5*! 5444! 6hile the case 6as -efore the trial court! pri>ate complainants
recei>ed the refund of their processing fees from appellant?s sister'in'
la6% ConseBuentl.! the. eCecuted affida>its of desistance
[3]
from participation in the case
against appellant%
For her part! appellant resolutel. denied ha>ing a hand in the illegal recruitment and
claimed that she merel. recei>ed the mone. on -ehalf of rs% Re.es! the
:residentD@eneral anager of 2lga'oher International :lacement Ser>ices
Corporation! 6here she had -een 6or7ing as secretar. for three months prior to =ul. *4!
1&&3% On that da.! rs% Re.es called her on the telephone and told her to recei>e
pri>ate complainants? processing fees% In compliance 6ith the order of her emplo.er
and since the cashier 6as a-sent! she recei>ed the processing fees of pri>ate
complainants! 6hich she thereafter remitted to rs% Re.es% She had no 7no6ledge that
the agenc.?s license 6as suspended -. the :O+2 on =ul. 5&! 1&&3%
[&]
On No>em-er 1)! 5444! the trial court rendered the assailed decision! the
dispositi>e portion of 6hich reads;
6H%/%:+/%, in view of the above observations and findin!s accused %li;abeth
<$eth= Coru; is hereby found !uilty of the offense char!ed in the 'nformation for
violation of .ec4 > ?l@, ?m@ in relation to .ec4 A ?b@ of /4*4 8BC8 without any
miti!atin! nor a!!ravatin! circumstances attendant to its commission, without
alyin! the benefit of the 'ndeterminate .entence &aw, %li;abeth <$eth= Coru; is
hereby sentenced to suffer a life imrisonment and to ay a fine of -DBB,BBB4BB4
Her body is hereby committed to the custody of the )irector of the $ureau of
Correction for 6omen, Mandaluyon! City thru the City Jail 6arden of Manila4 .he
shall be credited with the full e3tent of her reventive imrisonment under *rt4 89 of
the /evised -enal Code4
(o ronouncement of civil liability is hereby made since all the comlainants have
been refunded of the fees4
.+ +/)%/%)4
71B9
In this appeal! appellant raises the follo6ing assignment of errors;
TH% T/'*& C+0/T %//%) '( C+(E'CT'(, TH% *CC0.%) '( TH*T#
*4 TH% -/+.%C0T'+( :*'&%) T+ -/+E% $%5+()
/%*.+(*$&% )+0$T TH*T TH% *CC0.%) /%-/%.%(T%)
H%/.%&: T+ H*E% TH% C*-*C'T5 T+ C+(T/*CT, %(&'.T
*() T/*(.-+/T 6+/F%/. *$/+*), +/ 0(&*6:0&&5
/%C/0'T TH% C+M-&*'(*(T. :+/ * :%%4
$4 TH% -/+.%C0T'+( :*'&%) T+ -/+E% $%5+()
/%*.+(*$&% )+0$T TH*T TH% *CC0.%) H*.
M*(*,%M%(T C+(T/+& +E%/ *&,*-M+H%/Gs
/%C/0'TM%(T $0.'(%..4
7119
The Information charged appellant for Illegal recruitment in large scale under
Section ) 0l1 and 0m1 of R%2% No% 34$5! other6ise 7no6n as8Migrant Workers and
Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995!9 6hich reads;
.%CT'+( >4 Definition4 H :or uroses of this *ct, ille!al recruitment shall mean
any act of canvassin!, enlistin!, contractin!, transortin!, utili;in!, hirin!, or
rocurin! wor"ers and includes referrin!, contract services, romisin! or advertisin!
for emloyment abroad, whether for rofit or not, when underta"en by a non-licensee
or non-holder of authority contemlated under *rticle 1I?f@ of -residential )ecree (o4
CC8, as amended, otherwise "nown as the &abor Code of the -hiliines# -rovided,
That any such non-licensee or non-holder who, in any manner, offers or romises for a
fee emloyment abroad to two or more ersons shall be deemed so en!a!ed4 't shall
li"ewise include the followin! acts, whether committed by any erson, whether a non-
licensee, non-holder, licensee or holder of authority#
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
?l@ :ailure to actually deloy without valid reason as determined by the )eartment
of &abor and %mloymentJ and
?m@ :ailure to reimburse e3enses incurred by the wor"er in connection with his
documentation and rocessin! for uroses of deloyment, in cases where the
deloyment does not actually ta"e lace without the wor"erKs fault4 'lle!al
recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in lar!e scale shall be considered an
offense involvin! economic sabota!e4
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
'lle!al recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a !rou of
three ?I@ or more ersons consirin! or confederatin! with one another4 't is deemed
committed in lar!e scale if committed a!ainst three ?I@ or more ersons individually
or as a !rou4
The ersons criminally liable for the above offenses are the rincials, accomlices
and accessories4 'n case of juridical ersons, the officers havin! control, mana!ement
or direction of their business shall be liable4
2ppellant contends that she is not lia-le for the foregoing illegal recruitment
acti>ities considering that she 6as merel. an emplo.ee ha>ing no control o>er the
recruitment -usiness of the 2lga'oher International :lacement Ser>ices Corporation
and that she did not actuall. recruit the pri>ate complainants% oreo>er! she did not
appropriate for her o6n use the processing fees she recei>ed and she had no
7no6ledge that the agenc.?s license 6as suspended -. the :O+2%
The trial court con>icted appellant -ased on its findings that despite the suspension
of the agenc.?s license! appellant still con>inced the applicants to gi>e their mone. 6ith
the promise to land a Eo- a-road% oreo>er! as the registered secretar. of the agenc.
she had management control of the recruitment -usiness%
It is aCiomatic that findings of facts of the trial court! its cali-ration of the collecti>e
testimonies of 6itnesses and pro-ati>e 6eight thereof and its conclusions culled from
said findings are accorded -. this Court great respect! if not conclusi>e effect! -ecause
of the uniBue ad>antage of the trial court in o-ser>ing and monitoring at close range! the
conduct! deportment and demeanor of the 6itnesses as the. testif. -efore the trial
court%
[15]
Ao6e>er! this principle does not appl. if the trial court ignored! misunderstood or
misconstrued cogent facts and circumstances of su-stance 6hich! if considered! 6ould
alter the outcome of the case%
[1*]
The eCception o-tains in this case%
The records of the case sho6 that 2lga'oher International :lacement Ser>ice
Corporation is a licensed land'-ased recruitment agenc.% Its license 6as >alid until
2ugust 5$! 1&&&%
[1$]
/i7e6ise! appellant 6as its registered secretar. 6hile rs% +>el.n
@loria A% Re.es is its :residentD@eneral anager%
[1#]
:art of its regular -usiness acti>it.
is to accept applicants 6ho desire to 6or7 here or a-road% 2ppellant! as secretar. of
the agenc.! 6as in charge of the custod. and documentation of the o>erseas contracts%
On =ul. *4! 1&&3! appellant recei>ed the processing fees of the pri>ate
complainants since the cashier 6as a-sent that da.% Aer receipt of the mone. 6as in
compliance 6ith the order of her emplo.er! rs% Re.es% She did not con>ince the
applicants to gi>e her their mone. since the. 6ent to the agenc. precisel. to pa. the
processing fees upon the earlier ad>ice of rs% Re.es% :ri>ate complainant "elinda
Ca-antog testified as follo6s;
FISC2/ "2//+N2;
F% :lease tell the Court ho6 did it happen that .ou 6ent to the said agenc.G
2% <hen someone -rought us there and introduced to the o6ner! Sir%
F% 2nd 6ho is this friend or person .ou said .ou 7no6 6ho accompanied .ouG
2% 2ling =osie! Sir%
F% <hat is her full nameG
2% I do not 7no6! Sir%
F% 2nd 6ho is this o6ner to 6hom .ou 6ere introducedG
2% rs% +>el.n T.! Sir%
F% 2nd 6h. do .ou 7no6 this T. 6as the o6nerG
2% "ecause she is the friend of 2ling =osie! Sir%
F% No6! after the introduction to this o6ner 6hat happenedG
2% <e 6ere told to fill up the application form -. rs% +>el.n T.! Sir%
F% 2nd after filling up this application form! 6hat did .ou do 6ith the sameG
2% <e 6ent home and 6e 6ere as7ed to come -ac7! Sir%
F% No6! did .ou come -ac7G
2% Hes! Sir%
F% <hen did .ou come -ac7G
2% =ul. *4! Sir%
COIRT;
F% <hat .earG
2% 1&&3! Hour Aonor%
FISC2/ "2//+N2;
F% <hat happened 6hen .ou come -ac7G
2% <hen 6e came -ac7 6e -rought along the processing fee the. needed! Sir%
F% <h. did .ou -ring this processing feeG
2% <e 6ere reBuired to -ring it for the smooth processing of the papers! Sir%
F% <ho reBuired .ou to -ring this processing feeG
2% rs% +>el.n T.! Sir%
F% No6! 6hen .ou came -ac7 6hat happenedG
2% She 6as not at the office so she called up -. phone and told us to gi>e the mone.!
Sir%
F% 2nd to 6hom did to gi>e the mone.G
2% "eth Corpu,! Sir%
[1)]
From the foregoing testimon.! it is clear that all appellant did 6as recei>e the
processing fees upon instruction of rs% Re.es% She neither con>inced the pri>ate
complainants to gi>e their mone. nor promised them emplo.ment a-road%
oreo>er! as stated in the last sentence of Section ) of R2 34$5! the persons 6ho
ma. -e held lia-le for illegal recruitment are the principals! accomplices and
accessories% In case of Euridical persons! the officers ha>ing control! management or
direction of their -usiness shall -e lia-le%
In the case at -ar! 6e ha>e carefull. re>ie6ed the records of the case and found
that the prosecution failed to esta-lish that appellant! as secretar.! had control!
management or direction of the recruitment agenc.% 2ppellant started her emplo.ment
6ith the agenc. on a. 1! 1&&3 and she 6as tas7ed to hold and document emplo.ment
contracts from the foreign emplo.ers%
[1(]
She did not entertain applicants and she had no
discretion o>er ho6 the -usiness 6as managed%
[13]
The trial court?s finding that appellant!
-eing the secretar. of the agenc.! had control o>er its -usiness! is not onl. non
sequitur -ut has no e>identiar. -asis%
2n emplo.ee of a compan. or corporation engaged in illegal recruitment ma. -e
held lia-le as principal! together 6ith his emplo.er! if it is sho6n that he acti>el. and
consciousl. participated in illegal recruitment% Settled is the rule that the eCistence of
the corporate entit. does not shield from prosecution the corporate agent 6ho
7no6ingl. and intentionall. causes the corporation to commit a crime% The corporation
o->iousl. acts! and can act! onl. -. and through its human agents! and it is their
conduct 6hich the la6 must deter% The emplo.ee or agent of a corporation engaged in
unla6ful -usiness naturall. aids and a-ets in the carr.ing on of such -usiness and 6ill
-e prosecuted as principal if! 6ith 7no6ledge of the -usiness! its purpose and effect! he
consciousl. contri-utes his efforts to its conduct and promotion! ho6e>er slight his
contri-ution ma. -e% The la6 of agenc.! as applied in ci>il cases! has no application in
criminal cases! and no man can escape punishment 6hen he participates in the
commission of a crime upon the ground that he simpl. acted as an agent of an.
part.% The culpa-ilit. of the emplo.ee therefore hinges on his 7no6ledge of the offense
and his acti>e participation in its commission% <here it is sho6n that the emplo.ee 6as
merel. acting under the direction of his superiors and 6as una6are that his acts
constituted a crime! he ma. not -e held criminall. lia-le for an act done for and in -ehalf
of his emplo.er%
[1&]
2nent the issue of 6hether or not appellant 7no6ingl. and intentionall. participated
in the commission of the crime charged! 6e find that she did not%
In the appreciation of e>idence in criminal cases! it is a -asic tenet that the
prosecution has the -urden of proof in esta-lishing the guilt of the accused for the
offense 6ith 6hich he is charged%
[54]
Ei incumbit probation qui dicit non qui negat, ie! 8he
6ho asserts! not he 6ho denies! must pro>e%9
[51]
The con>iction of appellant must rest not
on the 6ea7ness of his defense! -ut on the strength of the prosecution?s e>idence%
[55]
In the case at -ar! the prosecution failed to adduce sufficient e>idence to pro>e
appellant?s acti>e participation in the illegal recruitment acti>ities of the agenc.% 2s
alread. esta-lished! appellant recei>ed the processing fees of the pri>ate complainants
for and in -ehalf of rs% Re.es 6ho ordered her to recei>e the same% She neither ga>e
an impression that she had the a-ilit. to deplo. them a-road nor con>inced them to part
6ith their mone.% ore importantl.! she had no 7no6ledge that the license 6as
suspended the da. -efore she recei>ed the mone.% Their failure to depart for Tai6an
6as due to the suspension of the license! an e>ent 6hich appellant did not ha>e control
of% Aer failure to refund their mone. immediatel. upon their demand 6as -ecause the
mone. had -een remitted to rs% Re.es on the same da. she recei>ed it from them%
<hile 6e strongl. condemn the per>asi>e proliferation of illegal Eo- recruiters and
s.ndicates pre.ing on innocent people anCious to o-tain emplo.ment a-road!
ne>ertheless! 6e find the pieces of e>idence insufficient to pro>e the guilt of appellant
-e.ond reasona-le dou-t% The. do not pass the reBuisite moral certaint.! as the. admit
of the alternati>e inference that other persons! not necessaril. the appellant! ma. ha>e
perpetrated the crime% <here the e>idence admits of t6o interpretations! one of 6hich
is consistent 6ith guilt! and the other 6ith innocence! the accused must -e
acBuitted% Indeed! it 6ould -e -etter to set free ten men 6ho might -e pro-a-l. guilt. of
the crime charged than to con>ict one innocent man for a crime he did not commit%
[5*]
*HEREFORE! in >ie6 of the foregoing! the decision of the Regional Trial Court
Regional Trial Court of anila! "ranch #$! in Criminal Case No% &&'1())*( finding
appellant +li,a-eth Corpu, guilt. -e.ond reasona-le dou-t of Illegal Recruitment in
/arge Scale constituting economic sa-otage under Sec% ) 0l1 and 0m1 in relation to Sec%
(0-1 of R%2% No% 34$5! is R+V+RS+D and S+T 2SID+% 2ppellant +li,a-eth Corpu, is
2CFIITT+D of the offense charged on the ground of reasona-le dou-t% The
Superintendent of the Correctional Institution for <omen is directed to cause the
immediate release of appellant unless she is la6full. held for another offense! and to
inform this Court of the date of her release! or the ground for her continued
confinement! 6ithin ten da.s from notice%
SO OR&ERE&.
!avide, "r, #", $#%airman&, 'itug, and #arpio, "", concur
A(cuna, ", on lea>e%
[1]
Rollo! pp% )#'()J penned -. =udge Romulo 2% /ope,%
[5]
Rollo! p% )%
[*]
2lso 7no6n as rs% T.%
[$]
TSN! a. 3! 5444! pp% *'#%
[#]
TSN! a. 3! 5444! pp% #'3%
[)]
TSN! =une 1)! 5444! pp% ('3%
[(]
TSN! a. 3! 5444! p% &%
[3]
TSN! =une 1)! 5444! pp% )'3%
[&]
TSN! Septem-er )! 5444! pp% *'11%
[14]
Rollo! pp% (#'()%
[11]
Rollo! p% #$%
[15]
:eople >% Santiago! @%R% No% 1**$$#! 5( Fe-ruar. 544*%
[1*]
:eople >% Delos Re.es! @%R% No% 1*#5$1! 55 =anuar. 544*%
[1$]
Folder of +Chi-its! p% 1%
[1#]
Id%
[1)]
TSN! a. 3! 5444! pp% $'#
[1(]
TSN! Septem-er )! 5444! p% 1*%
[13]
TSN! Septem-er )! 5444! p% $%
[1&]
:eople >% Cho6dur.! #35 :hil% $#&! $)&'$(4 054441%
[54]
:eople >% TaEada! @%R% No% 1$(544! 1( Decem-er 5445%
[51]
:eople >% FuiEano! Sr%! @%R% Nos% 1$$#5*'5)! 14 =une 544*%
[55]
:eople >% Ta-oga! @%R% Nos% 1$$43)'3(! ) Fe-ruar. 5445%
[5*]
:eople >% Sarap! @%R% No% 1*51)#! 5) arch 544*%