AURO, IAN DEO A.

LABOR LAW 1 BLOCK A

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee,

vs.
MARCOS GANIGAN, appellant.
G.R. No. 178204
August 20, 2008
[Formerly G.R. No. 156497]

FACTS:
Ruth, Monchito, Eddie, Avelin Sulaiman, and Marcos (appellant), all surnamed Ganigan
allegedly represented themselves as recruitment agents and promised Mario Eusebio, Valentiino
Crisostomo and Leonora Domingo employment abroad the plaintiffs paid monetary
considerations to the accused. The latter even issued acknowledgement rceipts for the said
payments. In relation to the future overseas employment the accused also required the plaintiffs
to attend bible study sessions misrepresenting that their employer was a devout Christian
Catholic. When the date of promised departure came, the plaintiffs were not deployed but was
told that the employer will come to the Philippines on a certain date but when that day came,
they were told that the employer fell off the stairway of the airplane. Again on the scheduled date
of interview with the employer, the latter failed to come, which prompted the plaintiffs to check
with thee POEA and found out that the Ganigans had no license to recruit for overseas
employment. A case was instituted against the Ganigans but only Marcos was arrested so the
case ensued only for Marcos. Based on the documentary and testimonial evidences presented by
the plaintiffs, the RTC found Marcos guilty of the crime illegal recruitment in large scale. The
case forwarded for automatic review to the Supreme Court but the latter resolved to transfer the
case to the Court of Appeals for intermediate review. The CA affirmed the decision of RTC.
Hence, this appeal.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the averment of one of the accused that he did not participate in the
recruitment and that he was also a victim of the recruitment having also paid certain sums in
consideration for employment overseas for himself and his daughter, exempt him from an illegal
recruitment case.
RULING:
The mere averment of the accused that he was also a victim of the recruitment for having
also paid certain amounts in consideration for a promise of overseas employment cannot acquit
him from the crime. His claim that his mere participation was to introduce the private
complainants to Ruth, cannot prevail against the clear, positive, straightforward and corroborated
statements of the complainants that appellant undertook to recruit them for a purported
employment in New Zealand and in the process collected various amounts from them as
assurance fees related thereto. Moreover, the appellant failed to counter the evidence presented
by the prosecution consisting of a receipt of payment signed by him. His flimsy denial that the
signature on the receipt was not his own does not merit consideration in light of the courts
contrary finding. The Court finds the testimonies of the complainants credible and convincing,
enough to support the allegations that the appellant directly participated in the illegal recruitment
and convict him of the crime. Hence the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.