License v AuthorityPEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LUZ GONZALES-FLORES,Accused-Appellant.

D E C I S I O N

MENDOZA,J.:

This is an appeal from the decision 1 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 77, Quezon City, finding accused-appellant Luz Gonzalez-Flores guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale and of three counts of estafa against Felixberto Leongson, Jr., Ronald Frederizo, 2 and Larry Tibor and sentencing her to suffer four prison terms and to pay indemnity and damages to complainants.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

In Criminal Case No. Q-94-59470, the information for estafa against accused-appellant alleged:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

That on or about the month of August, 1994, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring together, confederating with several persons whose true names and true identities have not as yet been ascertained, and helping one another, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud FELIXBERTO LEONGSON, JR. y CASTAEDA in the following manner, to wit: the said accused, by means of false manifestations and fraudulent representation which she made to said complainant to the effect that they had the power and capacity to recruit and employ complainant abroad as [a] seaman and could facilitate the processing of the requirements thereof, and by means of other similar deceits, induced and succeeded in inducing said complainant to give and deliver, as in fact he gave and delivered to said accused the amount of P45,000.00 on the strength of said manifestations and representations, said accused well knowing that the same were false and fraudulent and were made solely to obtain, as in fact they did obtain the amount of P45,000.00, which amount once in possession, with intent to defraud FELIXBERTO LEONGSON, JR. wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously misappropriated, misapplied and converted to their own personal use and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of said complainant in the aforesaid amount of P45,000.00, Philippine Currency.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 3

In Criminal Case No. Q-94-59471, also for estafa, the information charged:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

That on or about the month of August, 1994, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused conspiring together, confederating with several persons whose true names and true identities have not as yet been ascertained and helping one another did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud RONALD F[R]EDERI[Z]O Y HUSENIA in the following manner, to wit: the said accused, by means of false manifestations and fraudulent representations which they made to said complainant to the effect that they had the power and capacity to recruit and employ complainant abroad as [a] seaman and could facilitate the processing of the pertinent papers if given the necessary amount to meet the requirements thereof, and by means of other similar deceits, induced and succeeded in inducing said RONALD F[R]EDERI[Z]O Y HUSENIA to give and deliver, as in fact gave and delivered to said accused the amount of P45,000.00 on the strength of said manifestations and representations, said accused well knowing that the same were false and fraudulent and were made solely to obtain, as in fact they did obtain the amount of P45,000.00 which amount once in possession, with intent to defraud complainant wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously misappropriated, misapplied and converted to their own personal use and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of said RONALD F[RE]DERI[Z]O Y HUSENIA in the aforesaid amount of P45,000.00, Philippine Currency.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 4

In Criminal Case No. Q-94-59472, another case for estafa, the information averred:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

That on or about the month of August, 1994, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring together, confederating with several persons whose true names and whereabouts have not as yet been ascertained and helping one another, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud LARRY TIBOR Y MABILANGAN in the following manner, to wit: the said accused, by means of false manifestations and fraudulent representations which they made to said complainant to the effect that they had the power and capacity to recruit and employ complainant abroad as [a] seaman and could facilitate the processing of the pertinent papers if given the necessary amount to meet the requirements thereof, and by means of other similar deceits, induced and succeeded in inducing said complainant to give and deliver, as in fact gave and delivered to said accused the amount of P38,000.00 on the strength of said manifestations and representations, said accused well knowing that the same were false and fraudulent and were made solely to obtain, as in fact they did obtain the amount of P38,000.00 which amount once in possession, with intent to defraud LARRY TIBOR Y MABILANGAN wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously misappropriated, misapplied and converted to their own personal use and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of said complainant in the amount of P38,000.00, Philippine Currency.cralaw : red

CONTRARY TO LAW. 5

On the other hand, in Criminal Case No. Q-94-59473, the information for illegal recruitment in large scale charged:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

That on or about the month of August, 1994, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring together, confederating with several persons whose true names and whereabouts have not as yet been ascertained and helping one another, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously canvass, enlist, contract and promise employment to the following persons, to wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. RONALD F[R]EDERI[Z]O Y HUSENIA

2. LARRY TIBOR Y MABILANGAN

3. FELIXBERTO LEONGSON, JR. Y CASTAEDA

after requiring them to submit certain documentary requirements and exacting from them the total amount of P128,000.00, Philippine Currency, as recruitment fees, such recruitment activities being done without the required license or authority from the Department of Labor.

That the crime described above is committed in large scale as the same was perpetrated against three (3) or more persons individually or as group as penalized under Articles 38 and 39, as amended by P.D. 2018, of the Labor Code. 6

When arraigned,Accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the criminal charges, whereupon the cases were jointly tried.

The evidence for the prosecution is as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

On August 6, 1994, at around 1:00 p.m., complainant Felixberto Leongson, Jr. chanced upon his neighbors, Cloyd Malgapo, Jojo Bumatay, and accused-appellant, who were talking in front of his house at 68-C East Riverside, Bgy. Paltok, San Francisco del Monte, Quezon City. Complainant was asked by accused-appellant if he was interested to work as a seaman in Miami, Florida, United States of America. He replied that he was interested to work abroad but he had doubts regarding his qualification for the job. Accused-appellant assured him that this was not a problem because she could fix his application. All he had to do was pay P45,000.00 as processing fee. Accused-appellant told him that Jojo and Cloyd were departing soon. Complainant told accused-appellant that he would consider the offer.

That night,Accused-appellant came to see Felixberto and reiterated her proposal. Felixberto said he wanted the job but he only had P10,000.00. Accused-appellant told him the amount would be sufficient as an initial payment.

Accused-appellant came back with Joseph Mendoza, whose brother-in-law, Engr. Leonardo Domingo, according to accused-appellant, was recruiting seamen. Thereafter,Accused-appellant and Mendoza took complainant, Cloyd, and Jojos wife, Clarita, to a house on Second Street, near Camp Crame in Quezon City, where the latter were introduced to Andy Baloran. 7 Complainant and his companions were told that Baloran was an employee of the National Bureau of Investigation and he would take care of processing the applications for employment. Baloran told complainant and the other job applicants that those who would be employed would be paid a monthly salary of US$1,000.00, plus tips, and given vacation leaves of 45 days with pay. Baloran asked complainant to submit his picture, bio-data, and birth certificate, which complainant later did. Accused-appellant then asked complainant to give her the P10,000.00 as initial payment. Complainant handed her the money and asked for a receipt, but accused-appellant told him not to worry and assured him that she would be responsible if anything untoward happened. Complainant, therefore, did not insist on asking accused-appellant for a receipt. Accused-appellant said she gave the money to Baloran.

Two days later, Baloran and Domingo went to the compound where Felixberto and accused-appellant were residing and called Felixberto, Cloyd, and Jojo to a meeting. Domingo told the applicants that he was the chief engineer of the luxury ocean liner where they would embark and repeated to them the salaries and other benefits which they would receive. He told them not to get impatient.

Accused-appellant later saw complainant to collect the balance of P35,000.00. Complainant was told to give the money to accused-appellant at Wendys in Cubao, Quezon City on August 12, 1994.

At the appointed date and place, complainant and his wife delivered the amount to accused-appellant who, in turn, handed it to Baloran. No receipt was, however, issued to Felixberto.

Another meeting was held on August 16, 1994 at the Mandarin Hotel in Makati City by accused-appellant, Domingo, Baloran, Mendoza, the Leongson spouses, the Malgapo spouses, and Jojo Bumatay. The applicants were told by Domingo that they would be employed as waiters and attendants in the luxury liner and asked them again to wait a while.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

On August 18, 1994,Accused-appellant saw complainant again to collect the P25,000.00 balance. Felixberto paid the amount to accused-appellant four days later. As in the case of the first two payments, no receipt was given for the P25,000.00. Accused-appellant told him that she would turn over the amount to Baloran. Although complainant regularly followed up his application with accused-appellant, he was told each time to have patience and to just wait for the call from Domingo or from Baloran. But Felixberto never heard from either one of these two. 8

Felixbertos testimony was corroborated by his wife, Maria Luz, who said that accused-appellant claimed she could help her husband get a job as a seamen despite the latters lack of formal training. She knew of the three payments made to accused-appellant, totalling P45,000.00, and witnessed the last two payments of P10,000.00 at Wendys, Cubao, and P25,000.00 at accused-appellants residence. Maria Luz said she met Baloran, Mendoza, and Domingo and discussed with them the job offered to her husband and the salaries and benefits appurtenant thereto. 9

Complainant Ronald Frederizo, a resident of 68-A East Riverside, San Francisco del Monte, Quezon City, also testified. According to him, in the morning of August 10, 1994, he received a call from his sister, Elsa Cas, at Far East Bank, Binondo Branch, Manila, asking him to go home because accused-appellant, their neighbor, was in his house recruiting seaman for employment abroad. Ronald said that when he arrived home, he was told by accused-appellant that he had to pay P10,000.00 as initial payment for the processing of his application. Ronald withdrew the amount from Elsas account. Then, Ronald went with accused-appellant to a house on Second Street near Camp Crame in Quezon City. On the way to that place,Accused-appellant assured him that he would receive a salary of US$1,000.00. At an apartment on Second Street, Ronald saw his neighbors, complainant Felixberto, Jojo, and Cloyd. Baloran and Mendoza were also there. Accused-appellant introduced Baloran to Ronald, Cloyd, and Jojo. She told them that Baloran was going to take care of their applications and that he could pull strings at the NBI. Ronald paid accused-appellant P10,000.00 for which no receipt was issued. He was assured by accused-appellant that he would be able to leave for his job abroad in one or two weeks. He was told to be ready with the balance of P35,000.00 for the plane ticket on August 12, 1994.

Hence, on August 15, 1994, Ronald mortgaged his land in Batangas just so he could pay the P35,000.00 remaining balance. Accused-appellant went to Ronalds house to meet him. Thereafter, Ronald, Elsa, and accused-appellant took a cab to Mandarin Hotel in Makati City. Accused-appellant told Ronald to have no fear because the persons whom he was dealing with were her relatives. Elsa gave the P35,000.00 toAccused-Appellant. Ronald no longer asked for a receipt because he trustedAccused-Appellant. At the hotel were Felixberto and his wife, Baloran, and Domingo. Domingo showed Ronald and Felixberto his identification card and said that he was the captain of a ship. He told them that they would receive a salary of US$1,000.00 plus other benefits. He also assured them that he would inform them of developments in their applications throughAccused-Appellant. After the meeting, Ronald went to his office and tendered his resignation. Ronald followed up his application almost every week but every time he was told by accused-appellant to be patient 10 because Domingo had not yet called.

Complainant Larry Tibor said that on August 10, 1994, he went to the house of his cousin, Elsa Cas, at 68-A East Riverside, Bgy. Paltok, San Francisco del Monte, Quezon City, because accused-appellant was there recruiting seamen to work abroad. Larry was then looking for a job. Accused-appellant introduced herself and told him that she could get him a job abroad if he had the necessary documents and P45,000.00. Larry said he had only P3,000.00. He was told by accused-appellant to bring the amount the next day for his fare and certification. As instructed, Larry paid the amount in the presence of his sister, Junet. He asked for a receipt, but accused-appellant told him to trust her. Accused-appellant instructed Larry to prepare extra money as his initial payment was insufficient. Larry left for the province to get a loan. He went to accused-appellants house on August 15, 1994 and paid her an additional amount of P35,000.00. Again, no receipt was issued to him. Thereafter,Accused-appellant took him to Mandarin Hotel where he was introduced to Baloran and Domingo. Larry kept waiting for a call, but none came. He was later told by accused-appellant that he could not leave yet because Baloran was sick and he had to postpone his trip. 11

Junet T. Lim, Larrys sister, testified that she was present her when brother paid P3,000.00 to accused-appellant, although no receipt was issued. She stated that she asked accused-appellant questions to make sure she could help Larry get a job abroad as a seaman. Janet said accused-appellant was able to convince her that she could do so. Junet also testified that she accompanied her brother in following up his job application for about three months until November 1994, when they realized they had been defrauded by accused-appellant, Domingo, and Baloran. 12

Realizing that they had been deceived, complainants went to the Baler Police Station 2 in Quezon City on November 11, 1994 to file their complaints for illegal recruitment and estafa against accused-appellant, Baloran, Domingo, and Mendoza. Felixberto executed his sworn statement 13 on the same day, while Ronald and Larry gave their respective statements 14 on November 12, 1994.

On November 14, 1994, complainants went to the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) and discovered that accused-appellant and her companions did not have any license or authority to engage in any recruitment activity.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

Felixberto and Ronald asked the court to order accused-appellant to pay them back the placement fees of P45,000.00 which each of them had paid and moral damages of P200,000.00 for each of them for the shame, anxiety, and loss of jobs they suffered. They also sought the reimbursement for litigation expenses they each incurred, amounting to P20,000.00 as attorneys fees and P500.00 per court appearance. Larry, on the other hand, sought the recovery of the total amount of P150,000.00 for placement fee, travelling expenses from the province to Manila to follow up his application, and the anguish and shame he suffered. 15

In her defense,Accused-appellant Luz Gonzales-Flores, a resident of 68-B East Riverside, San Francisco del Monte, Quezon City, testified that she knew Felixberto Leongson, Jr., who was her neighbor and a nephew of the owner of the house in which they were staying. She came to know Ronald Frederizo and Larry Tibor through Elsa Cas. Accused-appellant denied having promised complainants overseas employment and having collected money from them. According to her, she came to know Andy Baloran and Engr. Leonardo Domingo through Joseph Mendoza, who referred her and her son, Noli, to them in connection with their own applications for overseas employment. She came to know Joseph Mendoza through Elsa Cas and Felixberto Leongson, Jr.

Accused-appellant claimed that she and Noli agreed to pay Baloran, Domingo, and Mendoza the total sum of P90,000.00 for their application fees. Since she did not have enough money to cover the amount, she asked her neighbors and friends to help her get a loan. Felixberto and his wife offered help and introduced her to Jenny Tolentino, from whom she got a loan of P15,000.00 guaranteed by Felixbertos wife. Accused-appellant said she used the amount to pay for her and her sons recruitment fees. Accused-appellant claimed that she paid the total amount of P46,500.00 for her recruitment fee in three installments, i.e., P10,000.00 to Mendoza at her house, P10,000.00, and P16,500.00 to Baloran at the Mandarin Hotel. She alleged that she also gave them several pieces of jewelry worth P10,000.00. According to her, no receipts were issued for the money and jewelry she gave.

Accused-appellant said that because Domingo, Baloran, and Mendoza did not make good their promises,Accused-appellant filed a complaint for illegal recruitment and estafa against them on November 7, 1994 in the NBI, including as her co-complainants Felixberto Leongson, Jr., Ronald Frederizo, Larry Tibor, Eduardo Sibbalucas, Har Taccad, Romeo Gallardo, Joseph Mendoza, and her son, Noli Flores. 16

Accused-appellant was investigated by the Baler Police Station 2 on November 11, 1994 as a result of the complaints filed against her by Felixberto, Ronald and Larry. Thereafter, she was detained. 17

On November 24, 1994, she appeared before the NBI accompanied by a policewoman to comply with the subpoena 18 issued regarding her complaint. According to NBI Agent Jesus Manapat,Accused-appellants complaint was dismissed for lack of merit. 19

Based on the evidence presented, the trial court rendered its assailed decision on November 23, 1998, the dispositive portion of which reads:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

WHEREFORE, the guilt of the accused for illegal recruitment in large scale and estafa in three (3) counts having been proved beyond reasonable doubt, she is hereby convicted of said crimes and is sentenced:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(1) To suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and pay a fine of P100,000 in Criminal Case No. Q-94-59473;

(2) To suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from FOUR (4) YEARS AND THREE (3) MONTHS of prision correccional, as minimum, and up to TEN (10) YEARS of prision mayor, as maximum, and to pay the costs in Criminal Case No. Q-94-59470;

(3) To suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from FOUR (4) YEARS AND THREE (3) MONTHS of prision correccional, as minimum, and up to TEN (10) YEARS of prision mayor, as maximum, and to pay the costs in Criminal Case No. Q-94-59471; and

(4) To suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging FOUR (4) YEARS AND THREE (3) MONTHS of prision correccional, as minimum, and up to NINE (9) YEARS of prision mayor, as maximum, and to pay the costs in Criminal Case No. Q-94-59472.

The accused is also directed to pay: (a) Ronald Federi[z]o, the amount of P45,000.00 as and by way of actual damages; (b) Felixberto Leongson, Jr. P45,000.00 as and by way of actual damages; and (c) Larry Tibor, P38,000.00 as and by way of actual damages.

The accused is further directed to pay to the said private complainants moral damages in the sum of TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (P20,000.00) each.

SO ORDERED.20

Hence, this appeal. Accused-appellant contends that

I. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN RELYING UPON THE JURISPRUDENCE AND AUTHORITIES CITED, I.E., PEOPLE VS. COMIA, PEOPLE VS. MANOZCA, PEOPLE VS. HONRADA, PEOPLE VS. TAN TIONG MENG, PEOPLE VS. VILLAS AND PEOPLE VS. SENDON BECAUSE, WITH DUE RESPECT, THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AVAILING IN SAID CASES ARE DIFFERENT AS IN THE PRESENT CASE; ANDchanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

II. [THE LOWER COURT] ERRED IN HOLDING THE ACCUSED GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT ON THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE PROSECUTION TAKEN IN THE LIGHT OF THE UNREBUTTED EVIDENCE OF THE ACCUSED ON VERY MATERIAL POINTS. 21

The contentions are without merit.

In Criminal Case No. Q-94-59473,Accused-appellant was charged with illegal recruitment in large scale, the essential elements of which are: (1) that the accused engages in acts of recruitment and placement of workers defined under Art. 13 (b) or in any of the prohibited activities under Art. 34 of the Labor Code; (2) that the accused has not complied with the guidelines issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment, particularly with respect to the securing of a license or an authority to recruit and deploy workers, either locally or overseas; and (3) that the accused commits the unlawful acts against three or more persons, individually or as a group. 22

In these cases, according to the certification of the POEA,Accused-appellant had no license or authority to engage in any recruitment activities. 23 In fact, this was stipulated at the trial. 24 Accused-appellant claims, however, that she herself was a victim of illegal recruitment and that she simply told complainants about job opportunities abroad.

The allegation is untenable. Art. 13 (b) of the Labor Code defines "recruitment and placement" as referring to any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not. The same article further states that any person or entity which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement.25cralaw:red

The evidence for the prosecution shows that accused-appellant sought out complainants and promised them overseas employment. Despite their initial reluctance because they lacked the technical skills required of seamen, complainants were led to believe by accused-appellant that she could do something so that their applications would be approved. Thus, because of accused-appellants misrepresentations, complainants gave her their moneys. Accused-appellants companions, Domingo, Baloran, and Mendoza, made her ploy even more plausible.

Accused-appellant contends that all she did was to refer complainants to Domingo, Baloran, and Mendoza. However, under Art. 13 (b) of the Labor Code, recruitment includes "referral," which is defined as the act of passing along or forwarding an applicant for employment after initial interview of a selected applicant for employment to a selected employer, placement officer, or bureau. 26 In these cases,Accused-appellant did more than just make referrals. She actively and directly enlisted complainants for supposed employment abroad, even promising them jobs as seamen, and collected moneys from them.

The failure of complainants to present receipts to evidence payments made to accused-appellant is not fatal to the prosecution case. The presentation of the receipts of payments is not necessary for the conviction ofAccused-Appellant. As long as the prosecution is able to establish through credible testimonies and affidavits that the accused-appellant was involved in the prohibited recruitment, a conviction for the offense can very well be justified. 27 In these cases, complainants could not present receipts for their payment because accused-appellant assured them she would take care of their money.

It must be remembered that the trial courts appreciation of complainants testimonies deserves the highest respect since it was in a better position to assess their credibility. 28 In these cases, complainants testimonies, to the effect that they paid money to accused-appellant and her companions, Domingo and Baloran, because the latter promised them overseas employment, were positive, straightforward, and categorical. They maintained their testimonies despite the lengthy and gruelling cross-examination by the defense counsel. They have not been shown to have any ill motive to falsely testify againstAccused-Appellant. Naive, simple-minded, and even gullible as they may have been, it is precisely for people like complainants that the law was made. Accordingly, their testimonies are entitled to full faith and credit. 29

In contrast,Accused-appellants defense is merely denial. Time and again, this Court has ruled that denial, being negative evidence which is self-serving in nature, cannot prevail over the positive identification of prosecution witnesses. 30 Here, complainants positively identified accused-appellant as one of those who represented that they could be deployed for overseas work upon payment of the fees.

Accused-appellant claims that she herself had to borrow P15,000.00 from Jenny Tolentino, guaranteed by Maria Luz Leongson, to defray her own and her sons application expenses. The claim has no merit. Maria Luz Leongson, who is Felixbertos wife, testified that accused-appellant sought her help to guarantee a loan to pay the tuition fees of her daughter and the rent of the apartment in which she and her family were staying, 31 and not to finance her and her sons overseas job applications.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

Accused-appellant likewise testified that she paid in cash a total of P36,500.00 in three installments, i.e., P10,000.00 to Mendoza at her house, and P10,000.00 and P16,500.00 to Baloran, at the Mandarin Hotel. This testimony cannot be deemed worthy of belief. When cross-examined,Accused-appellant could not remember the dates when she allegedly made these payments. For someone who was jobless 32 and looking for employment, it is very doubtful that she would pay considerable sums of money to strangers without even remembering at least the month or the year when the same were supposed to have been paid.

Accused-appellant further contends that if she was indeed a conspirator in the illegal recruitment transactions with complainants, she would not have filed a complaint 33 in the NBI against Domingo and Baloran. The complaint was, as already stated, dismissed and it is apparent that accused-appellant filed the complaint only to make it appear that she herself had been the victim of swindling and illegal recruitment. First, the complaint shows that it was filed on November 7, 1994, even before she was detained at the Baler Police Station 2 upon the sworn statements of complainants. Complainants were included as complainants in a complaint filed byAccused-Appellant. Yet, the complainants were never told, nor did they ever knew, of the complaint until the trial of these cases. Second,Accused-appellant could have easily told them at least of the complaint because Felixberto Leongson, Jr., Ronald Frederizo and Elsa Cas, a relative of complainant Larry Tibor, were her immediate neighbors. Third, it is also noteworthy that despite her claim that she paid P10,000.00 to Mendoza,Accused-appellant made the latter a co-complainant in the complaint she filed with the NBI.

More importantly,Accused-appellants defense is uncorroborated. Not one of the persons she included in her complaint to the NBI was ever presented in her defense in these cases. Nor did she present Domingo, Baloran, or Mendoza to corroborate her statements. It is probable that had she presented any of these persons, their testimonies would have been adverse toAccused-Appellant. 34

Direct proof of previous agreement to commit a crime is not necessary as it may be deduced from the mode in which the offense was perpetrated, or inferred from the acts of the accused which point to a joint purpose and design. 35 In these cases, the fact is that there was conspiracy among accused-appellant, Domingo, and Baloran in recruiting complainants for employment overseas. The evidence shows that each had a role in that conspiracy. Domingo posed as a representative of the luxury liner in recruiting crew for the vessel. Baloran represented himself as the person who would actually process complainants travel documents, while accused-appellant acted as a scout for job applicants and a collector of their payments. It was only Mendoza who did not misrepresent himself as someone capable of helping complainants go abroad nor collect money from them. 36

In sum, we are of the opinion that the trial court correctly found accused-appellant guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale. The imposition on accused-appellant of the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P100,000.00 is thus justified.

Accused-appellant was likewise found guilty of estafa under Art. 315 (2) (a) of the Revised Penal Code committed

By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(a) By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of other similar deceits.

Both elements of the crime were established in these cases, namely, (a) accused-appellant defrauded complainant by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit and (b) complainant suffered damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation as a result. 37 Complainants parted with their money upon the prodding and enticement of accused-appellant on the false pretense that she had the capacity to deploy them for employment abroad. In the end, complainants were neither able to leave for work overseas nor did they get their money back, thus causing them damage and prejudice. 38

The issues that misappropriation on the part of accused-appellant of the money paid by complainants and their demand for the same were not sufficiently established are immaterial and irrelevant, conversion and demand not being elements of estafa under Art. 315 (2) (a) of the Revised Penal Code.

In Criminal Case Nos. Q-94-59470 and Q-94-59471, the amounts involved are both P45,000.00, as testified to by complainants Felixberto Leongson, Jr. and Ronald Frederizo. Pursuant to Art. 315, par. 1 of the Revised Penal Code, the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and the ruling in People v. Gabres, 39 the trial court correctly meted accused-appellant the maximum penalty of ten (10) years of prision mayor in each case. This is so considering that the maximum penalty prescribed by law for the felony is six (6) years, eight (8) months, and 21 days to eight (8) years of prision mayor. The amounts involved in these cases exceed P22,000.00 by at least P20,000.00, necessitating an increase of one (1) year for every P10,000.00. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum of the sentence is thus from six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional. The trial court can exercise its discretion only within this period. Thus, the minimum penalty imposed by the trial court should be reduced to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional.

In Criminal Case No. Q-94-59472, where the amount involved is P38,000.00, the indeterminate sentence which should be imposed on accused-appellant should range from four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to nine (9) years of prision mayor as maximum.

In accordance with the ruling in People v. Mercado, 40 the fact that no receipts were presented to prove the amounts paid by complainants to accused-appellant does not prevent an award of actual damages in view of the fact that complainants were able to prove by their respective testimonies and affidavits that accused-appellant was involved in the recruitment process and succeeded in inveigling them to give their money to her. The award of moral damages should likewise be upheld as it was shown to have factual basis.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 77, Quezon City, finding accused-appellant guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale and estafa against complainants Felixberto Leongson, Jr., Ronald Frederizo, and Larry Tibor is AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATIONS that, in the cases for estafa,Accused-appellant is sentenced:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(1) In Criminal Case No. Q-94-59470, to suffer a prison term ranging from four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to ten (10) years of prision mayor, as maximum;

(2) In Criminal Case No. Q-94-59471, to suffer a prison term ranging from four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to 10 years of prision mayor, as maximum; and

(3) In Criminal Case No. Q-94-59472, to suffer a prison term ranging from four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to nine (9) years of prision mayor, as maximum.

SO ORDERED.

Bellosillo, Quisumbing, Buena and De Leon, Jr.,JJ., concur.

SECOND DIVISIONG.R. No. 113161 August 29, 1995PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,Plaintiff-Appellee,v.LOMA GOCE y OLALIA, DAN GOCE and NELLY D. AGUSTIN, accused. NELLY D. AGUSTIN,accused-appellant.REGALADO,J.:On January 12, 1988, an information for illegal recruitment committed by a syndicate and in large scale, punishable under Articles 38 and 39 of the Labor Code (Presidential Decree No. 442) as amended by Section 1(b) of Presidential Decree No. 2018, was filed against spouses Dan and Loma Goce and herein accused-appellant Nelly Agustin in the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 5, alleging -That in or about and during the period comprised between May 1986 and June 25, 1987, both dates inclusive, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring and confederating together and helping one another, representing themselves to have the capacity to contract, enlist and transport Filipino workers for employment abroad, did then and there willfully and unlawfully, for a fee, recruit and promise employment/job placement abroad, to (1) Rolando Dalida y Piernas, (2) Ernesto Alvarez y Lubangco, (3) Rogelio Salado y Savillo, (4) Ramona Salado y Alvarez, (5) Dionisio Masaya y de Guzman, (6) Dave Rivera y de Leon, (7) Lorenzo Alvarez y Velayo, and (8) Nelson Trinidad y Santos, without first having secured the required license or authority from the Department of Labor.1chanrobles virtual law libraryOn January 21, 1987, a warrant of arrest was issued against the three accused but not one of them was arrested.2Hence, on February 2, 1989, the trial court ordered the case archived but it issued a standing warrant of arrest against the accused.3Thereafter, on learning of the whereabouts of the accused, one of the offended parties, Rogelio Salado, requested on March 17, 1989 for a copy of the warrant of arrest.4Eventually, at around midday of February 26, 1993, Nelly Agustin was apprehended by the Paraaque police.5On March 8, 1993, her counsel filed a motion to revive the case and requested that it be set for hearing "for purposes of due process and for the accused to immediately have her day in court"6Thus, on April 15, 1993, the trial court reinstated the case and set the arraignment for May 3, 1993,7on which date of Agustin pleaded not guilty8and the case subsequently went to trial.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law libraryFour of the complainants testified for the prosecution. Rogelio Salado was the first to take the witness stand and he declared that sometime in March or April, 1987, he was introduced by Lorenzo Alvarez, his brother-in-law and a co-applicant, to Nelly Agustin in the latter's residence at Factor, Dongalo, Paraaque, Metro Manila. Representing herself as the manager of the Clover Placement Agency, Agustin showed him a job order as proof that he could readily be deployed for overseas employment. Salado learned that he had to pay P5,000.00 as processing fee, which amount he gave sometime in April or May of the same year. He was issued the corresponding receipt.9Also in April or May, 1987, Salado, accompanied by five other applicants who were his relatives, went to the office of the placement agency at Nakpil Street, Ermita, Manila where he saw Agustin and met the spouses Dan and Loma Goce, owners of the agency. He submitted his bio-data and learned from Loma Goce that he had to give P12,000.00, instead of the original amount of P5,000.00 for the placement fee. Although surprised at the new and higher sum, they subsequently agreed as long as there was an assurance that they could leave for abroad.10Thereafter, a receipt was issued in the name of the Clover Placement Agency showing that Salado and his aforesaid co-applicants each paid P2,000.00, instead of the P5,000.00 which each of them actually paid. Several months passed but Salado failed to leave for the promised overseas employment. Hence, in October, 1987, along with the other recruits, he decided to go to the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) to verify the real status of Clover Placement Agency. They discovered that said agency was not duly licensed to recruit job applicants. Later, upon learning that Agustin had been arrested, Salado decided to see her and to demand the return of the money he had paid, but Agustin could only give him P500.00.11Ramona Salado, the wife of Rogelio Salado, came to know through her brother, Lorenzo Alvarez, about Nelly Agustin. Accompanied by her husband, Rogelio, Ramona went to see Agustin at the latter's residence. Agustin persuaded her to apply as a cutter/sewer in Oman so that she could join her husband. Encouraged by Agustin's promise that she and her husband could live together while working in Oman, she instructed her husband to give Agustin P2,000.00 for each of them as placement fee, or the total sum of P4,000.00.12Much later, the Salado couple received a telegram from the placement agency requiring them to report to its office because the "NOC" (visa) had allegedly arrived. Again, around February, or March, 1987, Rogelio gave P2,000.00 as payment for his and his wife's passports. Despite follow-up of their papers twice a week from February to June, 1987, he and his wife failed to leave for abroad.13Complainant Dionisio Masaya, accompanied by his brother-in-law, Aquiles Ortega, applied for a job in Oman with the Clover Placement Agency at Paraaque, the agency's former office address. There, Masaya met Nelly Agustin, who introduced herself as the manager of the agency, and the Goce spouses, Dan and Loma, as well as the latter's daughter. He submitted several pertinent documents, such as his bio-data and school credentials.14In May, 1986, Masaya gave Dan Goce P1,900.00 as an initial downpayment for the placement fee, and in September of that same year, he gave an additional P10,000.00. He was issued receipts for said amounts and was advised to go to the placement office once in a while to follow up his application, which he faithfully did. Much to his dismay and chagrin, he failed to leave for abroad as promised. Accordingly, he was forced to demand that his money be refunded but Loma Goce could give him back only P4,000.00 in installments.15As the prosecution's fourth and last witness, Ernesto Alvarez took the witness stand on June 7, 1993. He testified that in February, 1987, he met appellant Agustin through his cousin, Larry Alvarez, at her residence in Paraaque. She informed him that "madalas siyang nagpapalakad sa Oman" and offered him a job as an ambulance driver at the Royal Hospital in Oman with a monthly salary of about $600.00 to $700.00.16On March 10, 1987, Alvarez gave an initial amount of P3,000.00 as processing fee to Agustin at the latter's residence. In the same month, he gave another P3,000.00, this time in the office of the placement agency. Agustin assured him that he could leave for abroad before the end of 1987. He returned several times to the placement agency's office to follow up his application but to no avail. Frustrated, he demanded the return of the money he had paid, but Agustin could only give back P500.00. Thereafter, he looked for Agustin about eight times, but he could no longer find her.17Only herein appellant Agustin testified for the defense. She asserted that Dan and Loma Goce were her neighbors at Tambo, Paraaque and that they were licensed recruiters and owners of the Clover Placement Agency. Previously, the Goce couple was able to send her son, Reynaldo Agustin, to Saudi Arabia. Agustin met the aforementioned complainants through Lorenzo Alvarez who requested her to introduce them to the Goce couple, to which request she acceded.18Denying any participation in the illegal recruitment and maintaining that the recruitment was perpetrated only by the Goce couple, Agustin denied any knowledge of the receipts presented by the prosecution. She insisted that the complainants included her in the complaint thinking that this would compel her to reveal the whereabouts of the Goce spouses. She failed to do so because in truth, so she claims, she does not know the present address of the couple. All she knew was that they had left their residence in 1987.19Although she admitted having given P500.00 each to Rogelio Salado and Alvarez, she explained that it was entirely for different reasons. Salado had supposedly asked for a loan, while Alvarez needed money because he was sick at that time.20On November 19, 1993, the trial court rendered judgment finding herein appellant guilty as a principal in the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale, and sentencing her to serve the penalty of life imprisonment, as well as to pay a fine of P100,000.00.21In her present appeal, appellant Agustin raises the following arguments: (1) her act of introducing complainants to the Goce couple does not fall within the meaning of illegal recruitment and placement under Article 13(b) in relation to Article 34 of the Labor Code; (2) there is no proof of conspiracy to commit illegal recruitment among appellant and the Goce spouses; and (3) there is no proof that appellant offered or promised overseas employment to the complainants.22These three arguments being interrelated, they will be discussed together.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law libraryHerein appellant is accused of violating Articles 38 and 39 of the Labor Code. Article 38 of the Labor Code, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 2018, provides that any recruitment activity, including the prohibited practices enumerated in Article 34 of said Code, undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of authority shall be deemed illegal and punishable under Article 39 thereof. The same article further provides that illegal recruitment shall be considered an offense involving economic sabotage if any of these qualifying circumstances exist, namely, (a) when illegal recruitment is committed by a syndicate,i.e., if it is carried out by a group of three or more persons conspiring and/or confederating with one another; or (b) when illegal recruitment is committed in large scale,i.e., if it is committed against three or more persons individually or as a group.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law libraryAt the outset, it should be made clear that all the accused in this case were not authorized to engage in any recruitment activity, as evidenced by a certification issued by Cecilia E. Curso, Chief of the Licensing and Regulation Office of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, on November 10, 1987. Said certification states that Dan and Loma Goce and Nelly Agustin are neither licensed nor authorized to recruit workers for overseasemployment.23Appellant does not dispute this. As a matter of fact her counsel agreed to stipulate that she was neither licensed nor authorized to recruit applicants for overseas employment. Appellant, however, denies that she was in any way guilty of illegal recruitment.24It is appellant's defensive theory that all she did was to introduce complainants to the Goce spouses. Being a neighbor of said couple, and owing to the fact that her son's overseas job application was processed and facilitated by them, the complainants asked her to introduce them to said spouses. Allegedly out of the goodness of her heart, she complied with their request. Such an act, appellant argues, does not fall within the meaning of "referral" under the Labor Code to make her liable for illegal recruitment.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law libraryUnder said Code, recruitment and placement refers to any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, and includesreferrals, contract services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not;provided, that any person or entity which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement.25On the other hand, referral is the act of passing along or forwarding of an applicant for employment after an initial interview of a selected applicant for employment to a selected employer, placement officer or bureau.26Hence, the inevitable query is whether or not appellant Agustin merely introduced complainants to the Goce couple or her actions went beyond that. The testimonial evidence hereon show that she indeed further committed acts constitutive of illegal recruitment. All four prosecution witnesses testified that it was Agustin whom they initially approached regarding their plans of working overseas. It was from her that they learned about the fees they had to pay, as well as the papers that they had to submit. It was after they had talked to her that they met the accused spouses who owned the placement agency.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law libraryAs correctly held by the trial court, being an employee of the Goces, it was therefore logical for appellant to introduce the applicants to said spouses, they being the owners of the agency. As such, appellant was actually making referrals to the agency of which she was a part. She was therefore engaging in recruitment activity.27Despite Agustin's pretensions that she was but a neighbor of the Goce couple, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses paint a different picture. Rogelio Salado and Dionisio Masaya testified that appellant represented herself as the manager of the Clover Placement Agency. Ramona Salado was offered a job as a cutter/sewer by Agustin the first time they met, while Ernesto Alvarez remembered that when he first met Agustin, the latter represented herself as "nagpapaalis papunta sa Oman."28Indeed, Agustin played a pivotal role in the operations of the recruitment agency, working together with the Goce couple.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law libraryThere is illegal recruitment when one gives the impression of having the ability to send a worker abroad."29It is undisputed that appellant gave complainants the distinct impression that she had the power or ability to send people abroad for work such that the latter were convinced to give her the money she demanded in order to be so employed.30It cannot be denied that Agustin received from complainants various sums for purpose of their applications. Her act of collecting from each of the complainants payment for their respective passports, training fees, placement fees, medical tests and other sundry expenses unquestionably constitutes an act of recruitment within the meaning of the law. In fact, appellant demanded and received from complainants amounts beyond the allowable limit of P5,000.00under government regulations. It is true that the mere act of a cashier in receiving money far exceeding the amount allowed by law was not consideredper seas "recruitment and placement" in contemplation of law, but that was because the recipient had no other participation in the transactions and did not conspire with her co-accused in defrauding the victims.31That is not the case here.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law libraryAppellant further argues that "there is no evidence of receipts of collections/payments from complainants to appellant." On the contrary, xerox copies of said receipts/vouchers were presented by the prosecution. For instance, a cash voucher marked as Exhibit D,32showing the receipt of P10,000.00 for placement fee and duly signed by appellant, was presented by the prosecution. Another receipt, identified as Exhibit E,33was issued and signed by appellant on February 5, 1987 to acknowledge receipt of P4,000.00 from Rogelio and Ramona Salado for "processing of documents for Oman." Still another receipt dated March 10, 1987 and presented in evidence as Exhibit F, shows that appellant received from Ernesto Alvarez P2,000.00 for "processing of documents for Oman."34Apparently, the original copies of said receipts/vouchers were lost, hence only xerox copies thereof were presented and which, under the circumstances, were admissible in evidence. When the original writing has been lost or destroyed or cannot be produced in court, upon proof of its execution and loss or destruction, or unavailability, its contents may be proved by a copy or a recital of its contents in some authentic document, or by the recollection of witnesses.35Even assumingarguendothat the xerox copies presented by the prosecution as secondary evidence are not allowable in court, still the absence thereof does not warrant the acquittal of appellant. InPeople vs.Comia,36where this particular issue was involved, the Court held that the complainants' failure to ask for receipts for the fees they paid to the accused therein, as well as their consequent failure to present receipts before the trial court as proof of the said payments, is not fatal to their case. The complainants duly proved by their respective testimonies that said accused was involved in the entire recruitment process. Their testimonies in this regard, being clear and positive, were declared sufficient to establish thatfactum probandum.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law libraryIndeed, the trial court was justified and correct in accepting the version of the prosecution witnesses, their statements being positive and affirmative in nature. This is more worthy of credit than the mere uncorroborated and self-serving denials of appellant. The lame defense consisting of such bare denials by appellant cannot overcome the evidence presented by the prosecution proving her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.37The presence of documentary evidence notwithstanding, this case essentially involves the credibility of witnesses which is best left to the judgment of the trial court, in the absence of abuse of discretion therein. The findings of fact of a trial court, arrived at only after a hearing and evaluation of what can usually be expected to be conflicting testimonies of witnesses, certainly deserve respect by an appellate court.38Generally, the findings of fact of the trial court on the matter of credibility of witnesses will not be disturbed on appeal.39In a last-ditch effort to exculpate herself from conviction, appellant argues that there is no proof of conspiracy between her and the Goce couple as to make her liable for illegal recruitment. We do not agree. The evidence presented by the prosecution clearly establish that appellant confabulated with the Goces in their plan to deceive the complainants. Although said accused couple have not been tried and convicted, nonetheless there is sufficient basis for appellant's conviction as discussed above.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law libraryInPeople vs.Sendon,40we held that the non-prosecution of another suspect therein provided no ground for the appellant concerned to fault the decision of the trial court convicting her. The prosecution of other persons, equally or more culpable than herein appellant, may come later after their true identities and addresses shall have been ascertained and said malefactors duly taken into custody. We see no reason why the same doctrinal rule and course of procedure should not apply in this case.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law libraryWHEREFORE, the appealed judgment of the courta quois hereby AFFIRMEDin toto, with costs against accused-appellant Nelly D. Agustin.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law librarySO ORDERED.Narvasa, C.J., Puno, Mendoza and Francisco,JJ., concur.THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 176264 : January 10, 2011

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. TERESITA "TESSIE" LAOGO, APPELLANT.

D E C I S I O N

VILLARAMA, JR.,J.:

This petition assails the July 31, 2006 Decision[1]of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 01664, which affirmed the Decision[2]of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 12, of Malolos, Bulacan in Criminal Case No. 693-M-2001. The RTC found appellant Teresita "Tessie" Laogo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale.

Appellant Teresita "Tessie" Laogo was the proprietor and manager of Laogo Travel Consultancy, a travel agency firm located along Padre Faura Street in Manila. On March 7, 2001, an Information[3]was filed against appellant and a certain Susan Navarro (Susan) in Malolos, Bulacan charging them of the crime of Illegal Recruitment (Large Scale). The information reads:INFORMATION

The undersigned Asst. Provincial Prosecutor accuses Susan Navarro and Tessie [Teresita] Laogo of the crime of illegal recruitment, penalized under Art. 38 in relation to Art[s]. 34 and 39 of the Labor Code of the Philippines, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1412, committed as follows:

That in or about and during the months of May and June 2000, in the municipality of Bulacan, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, knowing that they are non-licensee or non-holder of authority from the Department of Labor to recruit and/or place workers in employment either locally or overseas, conspiring, confederating together and helping each other, did then and there wi[l]lfully, unlawfully and feloniously engage in illegal recruitment, placement or deployment activities for a fee, which they received from complainants Edith Bonifacio-Ulanday, Rogelio Enriquez y Buenavidez, Billy dela Cruz, Jr. y Fernandez, Dante Lopez y Enriquez, Teodulo dela Cruz y Mendoza, Edwin Enriquez y Panganiban and Gary Bustillos y de Guzman by recruiting and promising them job placement abroad, more particularly in Guam, which did not materialize, without first having secured the required license or authority from the Department of Labor and Employment.

That the crime is committed in a large scale tantamount to economic sabotage as the aforementioned seven persons were [recruited] individually or as a group.

Contrary to law.

The charge stemmed from the following set of facts.

Sometime during the second week of March 2000, Susan invited several individuals including six of the seven complainants - namely, Teodulo dela Cruz, Billy dela Cruz, Jr., Dante Lopez, Edwin Enriquez, Rogelio Enriquez, and Gary Bustillos - to her house in Bulacan, Bulacan to celebrate the town fiesta. Appellant was among the several guests in Susan's house during the said occasion.

According to Teodulo dela Cruz, during the fiesta, Gary Bustillos introduced him to Susan as somebody who could help him find work abroad. Since Susan was Gary's aunt, Teodulo immediately trusted Susan. Susan told him he can apply as assistant cook and can work in Guam, USA. Upon Susan's instruction, Teodulo filled up an application form[4]and gave her P3,000.00 after the latter promised to process his application to work abroad.[5] On May 22, 2000, Susan accompanied Teodulo to appellant's travel agency office in Ermita where he paid an additional P15,000.00 for his placement fee.[6] A receipt bearing the logo and name of Laogo Travel Consultancy was issued to him signed by Susan.[7] Months later, when Susan's promise to send him abroad remained unfulfilled, Teodulo, along with several other applicants, went to appellant's office and to Susan's house to follow up their application, but the two always told them that their visas have yet to be released.[8]

Similarly, Billy dela Cruz, Jr. also met Susan through Gary, who himself was seeking help from Susan to work in Guam. At Susan's house, Billy saw Dante Lopez, Edwin Enriquez, and Rogelio Enriquez. Like him, the three were also seeking Susan's help to work abroad.[9] Susan introduced Billy to appellant, who promised him that she will send them abroad within three months.[10]After the meeting, Billy issued to Susan two Metrobank checks, dated March 11 and May 10, 2000, bearing the amounts P23,000.00 and P44,000.00, respectively, as partial payment for his placement fee.[11]On May 19, 2000, Billy also went to appellant's travel agency in Ermita and personally handed an additional cash of P6,000.00 to Susan, who thereafter gave the money to appellant. Appellant issued a corresponding receipt[12]for the P6,000.00 cash bearing her signature and the name and logo of Laogo Travel Consultancy. After several months, no word was heard from either Susan or appellant. Sensing that something was wrong, Billy decided to report the matter to the authorities in Bulacan, Bulacan and filed the complaint against Susan and appellant.[13]

Dante Lopez testified that he was also introduced by Gary Bustillos to appellant and Susan. Susan identified herself as an employee of appellant's travel agency. The two told him that they can send him and his companions to Guam within the span of three months.[14]Lopez paid both accused P6,000.00 to process his papers, covered by a receipt dated May 19, 2000 showing appellant's signature.[15]Appellant's promise, however, turned sour after three months. When he confronted appellant, the latter told him that he would be sent to a different country. Left without a choice, Lopez waited. Again, the promise remained unfulfilled.[16]

According to Rogelio Enriquez, he also met appellant during the town fiesta when Susan invited him to cook for her guests. Susan introduced appellant as someone who could send him to work abroad. Eager about the prospect, Rogelio immediately gave his P3,000.00 cash to Susan for the processing of his visa and employment documents.[17]He saw Susan hand the money to appellant.[18]A week later, Rogelio gave an additional P900.00 to Susan.[19]No receipts were issued on both payments since Rogelio failed to complete the required P6,000.00 placement fee.[20]Months passed but Rogelio heard nothing from either Susan or appellant. Apprehensive, Rogelio verified the status of the Laogo Travel Consultancy with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). From the POEA, Rogelio learned that neither of the accused nor Laogo Travel was licensed to recruit workers for employment abroad. Aggrieved, Rogelio, together with his six companions, filed the complaint against Susan and appellant.

Edwin Enriquez also paid P12,000.00 to Susan as processing fee for his application to work in Guam. According to him, Susan's husband and appellant were present when he gave the money to Susan during the town fiesta.[21]Susan issued a receipt dated May 16, 2000 to Edwin. The receipt contained the logo of Laogo Travel Consultancy and was signed by Susan with a description which says "Payment was for Placement Fee."[22]

Two other persons, namely Edith Bonifacio-Ulanday and Gary Bustillos, Susan's nephew, were among the seven who filed the complaint against Susan and appellant. The two, however, later decided to withdraw their complaints after executing their respective affidavits of desistance.[23]

On March 15, 2001, warrants of arrest[24]were issued against Susan and appellant. When arraigned, appellant pleaded not guilty.[25]Susan, meanwhile, remained at large. An alias warrant of arrest[26]was issued by the trial court against her but to no avail.

During the trial, appellant denied any participation in the illegal activities undertaken by Susan. She insisted that Susan was not in any way connected with her travel agency and that she confronted the latter when she came to know of Susan's recruitment activities. Appellant claimed that she even had to rename her travel agency to Renz Consultancy and Employment Services to avoid being associated with Susan's recruitment activities.[27]

Appellant admitted having met Rogelio at Susan's house during the town fiesta, but denied knowing the other complainants. According to appellant, she came to know Rogelio when Susan specifically identified him as the one who cooked the dishes after some guests prodded Susan.[28]

Unsatisfied with appellant's explanation, the trial court promulgated a Decision[29]finding her guilty of large scale illegal recruitment. Thefalloof the trial court's July 16, 2002 Decision reads:WHEREFORE, finding herein accused Teresita (Tessie) Laogo y Villamor guilty as principal beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale, she is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and pay a fine of P500,000.00 as imposed by law[;] to indemnify the private offended parties x x x actual damages, as follows: Teodulo dela Cruz - P15,000.00, Billy dela Cruz - P73,000.00, Dante Lopez - P6,000.00, Rogelio Enriquez - P3,000.00, and Edwin Enriquez - P12,000.00[;] and to pay the costs of the proceedings.

In the service of her sentence the said accused, a detention prisoner, shall be credited with the full time during which she had undergone preventive imprisonment, pursuant to the provisions of Art. 29 of the Revised Penal Code.

Pending the actual apprehension of the other accused Susan Navarro, [who is] still at-large, on the strength of the warrant of arrest earlier issued, let the record be committed to the archives subject to recall and reinstatement, should circumstances so warrant for due prosecution against her of this case.

SO ORDERED.[30]

Appellant filed an appeal before this Court, but said appeal was transferred to the CA following our pronouncement inPeople v. Mateo.[31]

In her Appellant's Brief[32]before the CA, appellant insisted that she had no hand in the recruitment of the complainants and maintains that the recruitment activities were made solely upon the initiative of accused Susan Navarro.[33]Appellant anchored her defense on the testimonies of the complainants who declared that the transactions and the payments were made not with her but with Susan.[34]Appellant admitted that her consultancy firm was merely engaged in the business of assisting clients in the procurement of passports and visas, and denied that her agency was involved in any recruitment activity as defined under theLabor Code, as amended.[35]

On July 31, 2006, the appellate court rendered the assailed decision affirming appellant's conviction.[36]The CA noted that although at times, it was Susan with whom the complainants transacted, the records nevertheless bear that appellant had a hand in the recruitment of the complainants. The CA pointed out that appellant, together with Susan, repeatedly assured the private complainants that her consultancy firm could deploy them for overseas employment,[37]leading the appellate court to conclude that appellant consciously and actively participated in the recruitment of the complainants.[38]

Aggrieved, appellant brought the case to us on appeal, raising the same arguments she had raised at the CA.

We affirm appellant's conviction.

Recruitment and placement refers to the act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not. When a person or entity, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons, that person or entity shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement.[39]

Article 38(a) of theLabor Code, as amended, specifies that recruitment activities undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of authority are deemed illegal and punishable by law. And when the illegal recruitment is committed against three or more persons, individually or as a group, then it is deemed committed in large scale and carries with it stiffer penalties as the same is deemed a form of economic sabotage.[40]

But to prove illegal recruitment, it must be shown that the accused, without being duly authorized by law, gave complainants the distinct impression that he had the power or ability to send them abroad for work, such that the latter were convinced to part with their money in order to be employed.[41]It is important that there must at least be a promise or offer of an employment from the person posing as a recruiter, whether locally or abroad.[42]

Here, both the trial court and the CA found that all the five complainants were promised to be sent abroad by Susan and herein appellant[43]as cooks and assistant cooks. The follow up transactions between appellant and her victims were done inside the said travel agency. Moreover, all four receipts issued to the victims bear the name and logo of Laogo Travel Consultancy,[44]with two of the said receipts personally signed by appellant herself.[45]Indubitably, appellant and her co-accused acting together made complainants believe that they were transacting with a legitimate recruitment agency and that Laogo Travel Consultancy had the authority to recruit them and send them abroad for work when in truth and in fact it had none as certified by the POEA.[46] Absent any showing that the trial court and the CA overlooked or misappreciated certain significant facts and circumstances, which if properly considered, would change the result, we are bound by said findings.[47]

Appellant's contention that she had to change the name of her travel agency to disassociate herself with Susan's recruitment activities is too lame to deserve serious consideration. In light of the testimonies of the complainants that appellant with her co-accused promised them employment abroad, we find appellant's act of closing Laogo Travel Consultancy and establishing a new one under her husband's name[48]as just an afterthought, a belated decision which cannot undo the damage suffered by the private offended parties. It could indeed hardly be construed as a simple reaction of an innocent person, as it in fact smacks of a desperate attempt of a guilty individual to escape liability or to confuse and dishearten her victims.

WHEREFORE, the appeal isDENIED. The Decision dated July 31, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 01664 isAFFIRMEDin toto.

With costs against the accused-appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Carpio Morales, (Chairperson), Brion, Bersamin,andSereno, JJ., concur.

THIRD DIVISION[G.R. NO. 146964 : August 10, 2006]ROSA C. RODOLFO,Petitioner,v.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,Respondent.D E C I S I O NCARPIO MORALES,J.:Petitioner was charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati for illegal recruitment alleged to have been committed as follows:That in or about and during the period from August to September 1984, in Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused representing herself to have the capacity to contract, enlist and transport Filipino workers for employment abroad, did then and there willfully and unlawfully, for a fee, recruit and promise employment/job placement abroad to VILLAMOR ALCANTARA, NARCISO CORPUZ,1NECITAS R. FERRE, GERARDO H. TAPAWAN and JOVITO L. CAMA, without first securing the required license or authority from the Ministry of Labor and Employment.2After trial on the merits, Branch 61 of the Makati RTC rendered its Judgment on the case,3the decretal portion of which reads:WHEREFORE, PREMISES ABOVE CONSIDERED, the Court finds the accused ROSA C. RODOLFO as GUILTY of the offense of ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT and hereby sentences her [to] apenalty of imprisonment of EIGHT YEARSand to pay the costs.4(Underscoring supplied)cralawlibraryIn so imposing the penalty, the trial court took note of the fact that while the information reflected the commission of illegal recruitment in large scale, only the complaint of the two of the five complainants was proven.On appeal, the Court of Appeals correctly synthesized the evidence presented by the parties as follows:[The evidence for theprosecution] shows that sometime in August and September 1984, accused-appellantapproached private complainantsNecitas Ferre and Narciso Corpus individually andinvited them to apply for overseas employmentin Dubai. The accused-appellant being their neighbor, private complainants agreed and went to the former's office. This office which bore the business name "Bayside Manpower Export Specialist" was in a building situated at Bautista St. Buendia, Makati, Metro Manila. In that office,private complainants gave certain amounts to appellant for processing and other fees. Ferre gaveP1,000.00 as processing fee (Exhibit A) and anotherP4,000.00 (Exhibit B). Likewise, Corpus gave appellantP7,000.00 (Exhibit D). Appellant then told private complainants that they were scheduled to leave for Dubai on September 8, 1984. However, private complainants and all the other applicants were not able to depart on the said date as their employer allegedly did not arrive. Thus, their departure was rescheduled to September 23, but the result was the same. Suspecting that they were being hoodwinked, private complainants demanded of appellant to return their money. Except for the refund ofP1,000.00 to Ferre, appellant was not able to return private complainants' money. Tired of excuses, private complainants filed the present case for illegal recruitment against the accused-appellant.To prove thataccused-appellant had no authority to recruit workers for overseas employment, the prosecution presented Jose Valeriano, a Senior Overseas Employment Officer of the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA), who testified that accused-appellant was neither licensed nor authorized by the then Ministry of Labor and Employment to recruit workers for overseas employment.For herdefense, appellant denied ever approaching private complainants to recruit them for employment in Dubai. On the contrary, it was theprivate complainants who asked her help in securing jobs abroad. As a good neighbor and friend, she brought the private complainants to the Bayside Manpower Export Specialist agency because she knew Florante Hinahon,5the owner of the said agency. While accused-appellant admitted that she received money from the private complainants, she was quick to point out thatshe received the same only in trust for delivery to the agency. She denied being part of the agency either as an owner or employee thereof. To corroborate appellant's testimony, Milagros Cuadra, who was also an applicant and a companion of private complainants, testified that appellant did not recruit them. On the contrary, they were the ones who asked help from appellant. To further bolster the defense, Eriberto C. Tabing, the accountant and cashier of the agency, testified that appellant is not connected with the agency and that he saw appellant received money from the applicants but she turned them over to the agency through either Florantino Hinahon or Luzviminda Marcos.6(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)cralawlibraryIn light thereof, the appellate court affirmed the judgment of the trial court but modified the penalty imposed due to the trial court's failure to apply the Indeterminate Sentence Law.The appellate court thus disposed:WHEREFORE, finding no merit in the appeal, this Court DISMISSES it and AFFIRMS the appealed Decision EXCEPT thepenaltyx x xwhich is hereby changed to five (5) years as minimum to seven (7) years as maximum with perpetual disqualification from engaging in the business of recruitment and placement of workers.7(Underscoring supplied)cralawlibraryPetitioner's Motion for Reconsideration having been denied,8the present petition was filed, faulting the appellate courtIx x xIN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONIES OF THE COMPLAINING WITNESSES, [AND]IIx x xIN FINDING THE PETITIONER-ACCUSED GUILTY WHEN THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO PROVE HER GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.9(Underscoring supplied)cralawlibraryPetitioner bewails the failure of the trial court and the Court of Appeals to credit the testimonies of her witnesses, her companion Milagros Cuadra, and Eriberto C. Tabing who is an accountant-cashier of the agency.Further, petitioner assails the trial court's and the appellate court's failure to consider that the provisional receipts she issued indicated that the amounts she collected from the private complainants were turned over to the agency through Minda Marcos and Florante Hinahon. At any rate, she draws attention toPeople v. Seoron10wherein this Court held that the issuance or signing of receipts for placement fees does not make a case for illegal recruitment.11The petition fails.Articles 38 and 39 of the Labor Code, the legal provisions applicable when the offense charged was committed,12provided:ART. 38. Illegal Recruitment. - (a) Any recruitment activities, including the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of this Code, to be undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of authority shall be deemed illegal and punishable under Article 39 of this Code. x x xArticle 39.Penalties. - x x x x(c)Any person who is neither a licensee nor a holder of authorityunder this Title found violating any provision thereof or its implementing rules and regulations shall, upon conviction thereof, suffer the penalty ofimprisonment of not less than four years nor more than eight years or a fine of not less thanP20,000 nor more thanP100,000 or bothsuch imprisonment and fine, at the discretion of the court;x x x x (Underscoring supplied)cralawlibraryThe elements of the offense of illegal recruitment, which must concur, are: (1) that the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers; and (2) that the offender undertakes any activity within the meaning of recruitment and placement under Article 13(b), or any prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code.13If another element is present that the accused commits the act against three or more persons, individually or as a group, it becomes an illegal recruitment in a large scale.14Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code defines "recruitment and placement" as "[a]ny act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, andincludes referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad,whether for profit or not." (Underscoring supplied)cralawlibraryThat the first element is present in the case at bar, there is no doubt. Jose Valeriano, Senior Overseas Employment Officer of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, testified that the records of the POEA do not show that petitioner is authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment.15A Certification to that effect was in fact issued by Hermogenes C. Mateo, Chief of the Licensing Division of POEA.16Petitioner's disclaimer of having engaged in recruitment activities from the very start does not persuade in light of the evidence for the prosecution. InPeople v. Alvarez, this Court held:Appellant denies that she engaged in acts of recruitment and placement without first complying with the guidelines issued by the Department of Labor and Employment. She contends that she did not possess any license for recruitment, becauseshe never engaged in such activity.We are not persuaded. In weighing contradictory declarations and statements,greater weight must be given to the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses than to the denial of the defendant. Article 38 (a) clearly shows that illegal recruitment isan offense that is essentially committed by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority. Anon-licenseemeans any person, corporation or entity to which the labor secretary has not issued a valid license or authority to engage in recruitment and placement; or whose license or authority has been suspended, revoked or cancelled by the POEA or the labor secretary. A license authorizes a person or an entity to operate a private employment agency, while authority is given to those engaged in recruitment and placement activities.x x xThat appellant in this case had beenneither licensed nor authorizedto recruit workers for overseas employment was certified by Veneranda C. Guerrero, officer-in-charge of the Licensing and Regulation Office; and Ma. Salome S. Mendoza, manager of the Licensing Branch - both of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration. Yet, as complainants convincingly proved, she recruited them for jobs in Taiwan.17(Italics in the original; underscoring supplied)The second element is doubtless also present. The act of referral, which is included in recruitment,18is "the act ofpassing along or forwarding of an applicantfor employment after an initial interview of a selected applicant for employment to a selected employer, placement officer or bureau."19Petitioner's admission that she brought private complainants to the agency whose owner she knows and her acceptance of fees including those for processing betrays her guilt.That petitioner issued provisional receipts indicating that the amounts she received from the private complainants were turned over to Luzviminda Marcos and Florante Hinahon does not free her from liability. For the act of recruitment may be "for profit or not." It is sufficient that the accused "promises or offers for a fee employment" to warrant conviction for illegal recruitment.20As the appellate court stated:x x x Sec. 13(b) of P.D. 442 [The Labor Code] does not require that the recruiter receives and keeps the placement money for himself or herself. For as long as a person who has no license to engage in recruitment of workers for overseas employment offers for a fee an employment to two or more persons, then he or she is guilty of illegal recruitment.21Parenthetically, why petitioner accepted the payment of fees from the private complainants when, in light of her claim that she merely brought them to the agency, she could have advised them to directly pay the same to the agency, she proferred no explanation.On petitioner's reliance onSeoron,22true, this Court held that issuance of receipts for placement fees does not make a case for illegal recruitment. But it went on to state that it is "rather theundertaking of recruitment activities without the necessary license or authority" that makes a case for illegal recruitment.23A word on the penalty. Indeed, the trial court failed to apply the Indeterminate Sentence Law which also applies to offenses punished by special laws.Thus, Section 1 of Act No. 4103 (An Act to Provide for an Indeterminate Sentence and Parole for All Persons Convicted of Certain Crimes by the Courts of the Philippine Islands; To Create A Board of Indeterminate Sentence and to Provide Funds Therefor; and for Other Purposes) provides:SECTION 1. Hereafter, in imposing a prison sentence for an offense punished by the Revised Penal Code, or its amendments, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of the said Code, and the minimum which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense; andif the offense is punished by any other law, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same. (As amended by Act No. 4225) (Underscoring supplied)cralawlibraryWhile the penalty of imprisonment imposed by the appellate court is within the prescribed penalty for the offense, its addition of "perpetual disqualification from engaging in the business of recruitment and placement of workers" is not part thereof. Such additional penalty must thus be stricken off.WHEREFORE, the petition isDENIED. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals areAFFIRMEDwith MODIFICATIONin that the accessory penalty imposed by it consisting of "perpetual disqualification from engaging in the business of recruitment and placement of workers" isDELETED.Costs against petitioner.SO ORDERED.

Simple Illegal RecruitmentFIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 183099 : February 03, 2010]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. RACHELLE BALAGAN AND HERMINIA AVILA, APPELLANTS.

D E C I S I O N

CARPIO MORALES,J.:

From the November 29, 2007 Decision[1]of the Court of Appeals which affirmed with modification the July 19, 2006 Decision[2]of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 118, Pasay City convicting Rachelle Balagan and Herminia Avila (appellants) in Criminal Case Nos. 03-2683 and 03-2684, for syndicated illegal recruitment and estafa, respectively, appellants come to the Court.

The Informations in the cases read:Criminal Case No. 03-2683(For Syndicated Illegal Recruitment)

That on or about the period comprising March 21, 2003 to March 28, 2003, in Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping one another, by falsely representing themselves to have the capacity to contract, enlist, employ, and recruit workers for overseas deployment/employment as Factory Worker in Ireland, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously, for a fee recruit and promise overseas deployment/employment to private complainantMichael O. Fernandezwithout first securing the required license or authority from the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency.

Contrary to law.[3](emphasis in the original)Criminal Case No. 03-2684(For Estafa)

That on or about the period comprising March 21, 2003 to March 28, 2003, in Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping one another, defrauded private complainantMichael O. Fernandezin the following manner to wit: that accused, with deliberate intent to defraud and deceive and pretending to possess the capacity to contract, enlist and employ or deploy private complainant as a Factory Worker in Ireland, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously demand and did actually receive from private complainant the total amount of Php.57,000.00 for and as his supposed work permit, job placement or overseas deployment and POEA processing fees, knowing said manifestation and representation to be false and fraudulent and once in possession of said amount and far from complying with their promise of employment or deployment and despite demands to return the amount paid, accused with intent to defraud, did misappropriate, misapply and convert to their own personal use and benefit private complainant'sPhp. 57,000.00, to the damage and prejudice of the said complainant in the total amount ofPhp. 57,000.00.

Contrary to law.[4](emphasis in the original; underscoring supplied)

As summarized by the trial court which is supported by the records of the cases, the evidence for the prosecution and that for the defense are as follows:EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION

Fernandez testified that sometime in February 2003, he together with a friend who knows Rosabel Balagan, mother of Rachel, went to EGI Building located at Gil Puyat Street, Pasay City purposely to apply for work abroad. Once in the said office, he was able to talk to Rosabel, Rachel Herminia and some other applicants. He knows that Rachelle and Herminia were clerk and secretary, respectively, at the said office and they entice people that they could send workers abroad. The accused asked him if he was really interested in applying for work and when he answered in the affirmative, Rosabel told him to submit his passport, ID pictures and a "bank account" of P500.00. After he had submitted the requirements, Rosabel told him that the amount of P150,000.00 is needed for deployment to Ireland and he will be able to leave by 28 March 2003. Rachel and Herminia affirmed to him the statements of Rosabel.

On 21 March 2003, he gave P37,000.00 to Rosabel and on the following day additional P20,000.00, or a total of P57,000.00 out of the P150,000.00 asked by the accused. He was supposed to give the money personally to Rosabel but the latter told him to hand the same to Herminia who then issued official receipts nos. 263 and 264 to him. The receipts were signed by Rosabel.

He and the other complainants whom he got acquainted with were not able to leave the country on 28 March 2003. He then asked Rosabel to return the money to him but the latter refused to do so. When he later on went to the POEA he learned that the accused are not licensed to recruit workers for abroad. Thereafter, he lodged a complaint before the CIDG where he executed his two (2) affidavits.

On cross-examination, he testified that it was Rosabel who promised to send him abroad; that the family of Rosabel owns the travel agency that recruited him and he has no proof whatsoever that Rachel and Herminia are business partners of the former; and that Herminia and Cristino were more than mere employees of Rosabel because they act as her agents.

On additional cross-examination, he admitted that the receipts issued to him were for documentation purposes only; that he was aware that the office was only a Travel Consultancy; and that if not for his companion, Kim Folgueras, who referred him to the office of the accused, he would not have come to know of Rosabel.

On redirect examination, he identified an application for tenant contractor identification card showing, among others, the names of Rosabel Balagan as General Manager, Herminia Avila as Secretary, Rachelle Balagan as Clerk, and an advertisement in the souvenir program of San Manuel Town Fiesta 2003 showing the greetings from Rosabel Travel Consultancy, with the name of Rosabel as President and General Manager, Herminia as Secretary and Administrative Assistant, and Rachelle as Clerk and other names of the office staff.

He positively identified Rachel and Herminia. He also identified his two (2) affidavits.

When the prosecution called on Bolivar, the defense stipulated that said witness is a Senior Labor and Employment officer at the POEA; that Rachel and Herminia were both not authorized by POEA to engage in the business of recruitment for abroad as evidenced by a certification issued by said office; and that a license for travel agency is different from that of a recruitment agency.

EVIDENCE OF THE DEFENSE

Herminia denied that she has anything to do with the cases filed by Fernandez, much less with receipt for the total amount of P57,000.00 which were signed by Rosabel and that she was connected with Rosabel Travel Consultancy. She alleged that she and her husband Edwin were also applicants at Rosabel Travel Consultancy as evidenced by an official receipt issued by Rosabel which shows that they paid said office for their travel to Australia. To further support her claim, she also presented her passport.

She further testified that she met Fernandez at the boarding house and often saw him when the latter was following up his application at the agency; that she was included as an accused so that Fernandez could use her in going after Rosabel who at that time was not yet arrested; and since she was then living in the boarding house of Rosabel, Fernandez suspected that she might know where Rosabel was hiding.

On cross-examination, she readily identified the name and picture appearing in the advertisement in the souvenir program of San Manuel Town Fiesta 200