Prior to the Court can be an charm from the Decision[1] dated September 31, june 2006 of the Court docket of Speaks (CA) in CA-G. Ur. C. Ur. No . 00244 affirming the Judgment with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch nineteen, Naga Town in Lawbreaker Case No . 98-7182, convicting Antonio Nogra (appellant) of enormous scale illegitimate recruitment beneath Section 6(m) in relation to Section 7(b) of Republic Take action No . 8042 (R. A. No . 8042),[2] otherwise referred to as “Migrant Employees and International Filipinos Take action of 1995. [3] The inculpatory portion of the Information asking one Lorna G.
Orciga and appellant with mass illegal recruitment reads as follows:
That sometimes during the period of March 1997 to November, 1997 in the City of Naga, Thailand, and in the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-named accused, staying the General Administrator and Businesses Manager of LORAN INTERNATIONAL OVERSEAS RECRUITING CO., LIMITED., with workplace at Embarazo Grande, Naga City, conspiring, confederating together and mutually helping each other, representing themselves to have the capacity to contract, recruit, hire and transport Filipino workers pertaining to employment abroad, did then and generally there willfully, criminally and criminally, for a fee, recruit and promise employment/job placement for the herein complaining witnesses RENATO ALDEN, OLIVER SARMIENTO, FE ZABALLA, TEOFILA LUALHATI, PILIPINA MENDOZA and KERWIN DONACAO, but did not actually deploy them with no valid reason, along with reimburse their particular documentation, placement and control expenses pertaining to purposes of deployment despite their repeated demands for the returning of the same, to their damage and prejudice in the amounts as may be tested in courtroom.
CONTRARY TO LEGISLATION.[4]
Only appellant was delivered to the legislation of the trial court as Lorna G. Orciga was then and still is at significant. Arraigned with all the assistance of counsel, appellant entered a plea of “NOT GUILTY to the criminal offense charged. Thereafter, trial of the watch case ensued.
From the six complainants, the criminal prosecution was able to present five of them, namely: Renato Alden, Fe Zaballa, Teofila Lualhati, Filipina Mendoza and Kerwin Donacao. Anaielyn Sarmiento, wife of complainant Oliver Sarmiento, likewise testified to get the criminal prosecution.
The facts, since established by the prosecution, are aptly summarized by the Workplace of the Solicitor General (OSG), as follows:
Appellant held workplace at Loran International Abroad Recruitment
Co., (Loran) in Concepcion Importante, Naga Town (p. 5, TSN, October 19, 1998). A nameplate on his stand prominently exhibited his name and position since operations supervisor (p. 14, TSN, Nov 17, 98; p. 4, TSN, January 12, 99; p. 21, TSN, Nov 19, 1998). The permit of Loran also indicated appellant while the operations manager (p. 5, TSN, February twelve, 1999). The POEA data files also reveal his location as functions manager of Loran (Exhibit L to L-4, pp. 5-9, TSN, November nineteen, 1998).
Sometime in December 1996, Renato Alden went to Loran to apply for employment as hotel worker intended for Saipan. He was interviewed by simply appellant, who required Alden to submit an NBI measurement and medical certificate also to pay the placement fee. Alden paid the quantity of P31, 1000. 00. The additional amount of P4, 500. 00 was going to be paid prior to his departure to Saipan (pp. 5-6, TSN, November 17, 1998). Appellant promised Alden that he’d leave within a period of 3 to 4 months. Following one year of waiting Alden was not capable of leave. Alden filed a complaint with all the NBI if he was not capable to recover the total amount and could no more talk with appellant (p. 6, TSN, Nov 17, 1998).
On The spring 18, 97, Teofila Lualhati applied for work as motel worker to get Saipan with Loran (pp. 1-3, twelve, TSN, The fall of 19, 1998). Appellant required her to publish an NBI clearance and medical qualification and to pay out the processing fee inside the amount of P35, 1000. 00 thus she can leave right away. She paid the amount of P35, 000. 00 to Loran’s secretary inside the presence of appellant. Your woman was promised that within just 120 times or four months she would be able to leave (pp. 11-13, TSN, Nov 19, 1998). Despite repeated follow-ups, Lualhati was struggling to work inSaipan. She demanded the repayment of the digesting fee. If the amount has not been returned with her, she recorded a grievance with the NBI (pp. 14-15, TSN, Nov 19, 1998).
Sometime in April 1998, Filipina Mendoza attended Loran to apply for employment as hotel employee (p. some, TSN, September 12, 1999). She paid out the amount of P35, 000. 00 as location fee. Once she has not been able to operate abroad, your woman went to Loran and searched for the returning of P35, 000. 00 from appellant (p. several, TSN, January 21, 1999).
Sometime in March 1997, Kerwin Donacao visited Loran to obtain employment because purchaser in Saipan (p. 4, TSN, February twelve, 1999). He was required to send NBI distance, police measurement, previous job certificate great passport. He paid the location fee ofP35, 000. 00 (pp. 4-5, TSN, March 10, 1999). After paying the amount, having been told to await for two to 3 months. When he was not in a position to leave intended for Saipan, he demanded the return of the placement charge, which was not really refunded (pp. 6-7, TSN, February 12, 1999).
During the first week of November 1997, Annelyn Sarmiento and her husband, Oliver Sarmiento, applied for overseas work. For the application of Oliver Sarmiento, they submitted his medical certificate and certification of previous job. They were as well made to pay out the amount of P27, 000. 00 as digesting fee. Oliver Sarmiento was promised that within 1 month, he would have the ability to leave. At first, Oliver Sarmientowas told that allegedly his visa was yet to become obtained. If he was not capable to leave and what this individual paid has not been refunded, this individual filed a complaint together with the NBI (pp. 4-6, TSN, April 23, 1999).
Sometime in May 1997, Fe Zaballa applied for abroad employment in Saipan with Loran (p. 4, TSN, May 21, 1999). She was instructed to submit her medical certificate, original backup of her birth certificate, NBI distance and law enforcement officials clearance. She was also required to pay the amount of P35, 000. 00 as positioning fee. When ever she could not be implemented, she sought to recover the amount she paid, which was certainly not returned (pp. 7-8, TSN, May a couple of, 1999).[5]
However, appellant shown the following data:
The defense offered [appellant] Antonio Nogra and the agency’s admin and cashier, Maritess Mesina.
From their testimonies it absolutely was established that LORAN INTERCONTINENTAL OVERSEAS RECRUITMENT CO., LIMITED., (LORAN, pertaining to brevity) was owned by accused Lorna Orciga and Japanese countrywide Kataru Tanaka (TSN, Sept 30, 2150, p. 7). Sometime in Come july 1st 1994, [appellant] Antonio Nogra read coming from outside the agency’s main business office at Salud, Mandaluyong Metropolis that it was needing a liaison officer. This individual applied for the positioning. The part-owner and co-accused, Lorna Orciga, hired him instead because Operations Director as the agency was then continue to in the process of completing checklist of staff to be posted to the POEA. (TSN, January 31, 2001, p. 5).
[Appellant] Nogra started working with LORAN in October 1994. In 1995, he was transferred to Naga Metropolis when the firm opened a branch office thereat. Although he was selected as the Operations Supervisor, [appellant] Nogra was a simply employee from the agency. He was receiving a month to month salary of P5, 500. 00 and additional P2, 1000. 00 month to month meal permitting. He was in-charge of the advertisements of the business. He likewise drove intended for the company. He fetched in the airport the agency’s site visitors and guests and forced them to hotels and other places. (TSN, May possibly 3, 2k, pp. 2-9).
Although part-owner Lorna Orciga was positioned in Manila, she, nevertheless , actually remained in control of the branch business office in Naga City. She conducted the final interview from the applicants and transacted with all the foreign business employers. She also managed the economic matters and assessment service fees of the firm in Naga City (TSN, September 20, 2000, pp. 8-9). The placement and processing fees collected by the organization inNaga Town were most deposited in the bank account of Lorna Orciga and not just one centavo traveled to the benefit of [appellant] Nogra (TSN, January twelve, 2000, pp. 14-22).[6]
In March twenty six, 2003, the RTC rendered Judgment[7] getting appellant guilty beyond sensible doubt with the crime recharged. The resolución of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the The courtroom finds the accused ANTONIO NOGRA guilty beyond fair doubt of the crime of Illegal Recruitment Committed in Large Scale described under Portions 6(m) and 7(b) of RA 8042, otherwise referred to as Migrant Staff and Overseas Filipinos Action of 95 and, appropriately, hereby imposes upon him the fees of lifestyle imprisonment and a fine of 5 hundred thousands of pesos (P500, 000. 00).
SO PURCHASED.[8]
On Apr 10, 2003, appellant filed a Recognize of Appeal.[9] The RTC ordered the transmittal of the entire documents of the case to this Court.
Conformably for the ruling in individuals v. Mateo,[10] the case was referred to the CA pertaining to intermediate review.[11]
On August 31, 2006, the LOS ANGELES rendered a choice[12] affirming the choice of the RTC. The FLORIDA held that being an employee is not a valid defense since employees who have knowledge and effective participation inside the recruitment activities may be criminally liable for unlawful recruitment actions, based upon this kind of Court’s ruling in People versus. Chowdury[13] and individuals v. Corpuz;[14] that appellant had familiarity with and effective participation in the recruitment actions since all of the prosecution witnesses pinpointed appellant as normally the one whom they initially approached regarding their plans of working abroad and having been the one who also told all of them about the fees they had to pay out, as well as the papers that they had to submit; the mere fact that appellant was not issued particular authority to recruit will not exculpate him from any kind of liability but instead strongly implies his guilt; that appellant’s invocation of non-flight cannot be weighed in the favor because there is no established rule that non-flight is, atlanta divorce attorneys instance, an indication of chasteness. A Detect of Appeal[15] having been timely filed by appellant, the CA submitted the information of the case for this Court for further review.
In the Brief, appellant assigns since errors the subsequent:
Appellant states that the agency was underneath the management and control of Orciga, and that he was obviously a mere worker; that he could not always be held personally liable for illegal recruitment inside the absence of any kind of showing that he was validly issued unique authority to recruit staff, which was approved by the Filipino Overseas Employment Administration (POEA); that his non-flight is definitely indicative of his chasteness.
Appellee, throughout the OSG, counter tops that appellant is not only a mere clerk or secretary of Loran, but its Operations Manager whom directly took part in in the recruitment scheme simply by promising non-public complainants job abroad, but failed to deploy them and refused to reimburse the applicants’ position fees the moment demanded.
The appeal does not work out. The LOS ANGELES did not make any problem in affirming the decision from the RTC. R. A. No . 8042 enhanced the concept of illegitimate recruitment beneath the Labor Code[17] and provided stiffer penalties, especially those that constitute monetary sabotage, i. e., Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale and Illegal Recruitment Committed with a Syndicate.
Section 6 of R. A. No . 8042 defined the moment recruitment is definitely illegal:
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION’S. 6. Classification. ” Intended for purposes on this Act, illegal recruitment shall mean virtually any act of canvassing, hiring, contracting, shipping, utilizing, employing, or procuring workers and includes mentioning, contract providers, promising or perhaps advertising to get employment in foreign countries, whether intended for profit or not, the moment undertaken by a non-licensee or perhaps non-holder of authority considered under Content 13(f) of Presidential Rule No . 442, as amended, otherwise known as the Labor Code of the Philippines: Provided, That any such non-licensee or non-holder who, in just about any manner, gives or promises for a cost employment in foreign countries to two or maybe more persons will be deemed thus engaged. It shall also include the pursuing acts, if committed simply by any person, if the non-licensee, non-holder, licensee or holder of authority:
(l) Failure to truly deploy with no valid reason while determined by the Department of Labor and Employment; and (m) Inability to repay expenses sustained by the employees in connection with his documentation and processing pertaining to purposes of deployment, in instances where the deployment does not actually take place with no worker’s wrong doing. Illegal recruiting when dedicated by a syndicate or in large scale will probably be considered as criminal offense involving monetary sabotage.
Unlawful recruitment is definitely deemed dedicated by a ligue carried out by a team of three (3) or more individuals conspiring or perhaps confederating with each other. It is deemed committed in large scale in the event committed against three (3) or more individuals individually or perhaps as a group.
The persons criminally liable for the above mentioned offenses would be the principals, accomplices, and components. In case of juridicalpersons, the officers having control, management or perhaps direction with their business will be liable. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
In the present case, facts for the prosecution showed that Loran International Offshore Recruitment Co., Ltd. is known as a duly licensed recruitment organization with authority to establish a branch office. However , underneath R. A. No . 8042, even a licensee or holder of authority can be placed liable for against the law recruitment, should certainly he commit or leave out to do some of the acts enumerated in Section 6.
Appellant was recharged with against the law recruitment in large scale underneath Section 6th (l) and (m) of R. A. No . 8042. Section 6 (l) identifies the failing to actually deploy without justification, as dependant upon the Office of Labor and Career (DOLE). Section 6 (m) involves the failure to reimburse expenses incurred by the worker regarding the his documentation and control for functions of application, in cases where the deployment does not actually happen without the worker’s fault.
A thorough scrutiny of the prosecution’s proof reveals that it failed to demonstrate appellant’s the liability under Section 6 (l) of 3rd there’s r. A. Number 8042. Legislation requires not just that the inability to deploy be with no valid reason “as determined by the Department of Labor and Employment. The law envisions that presently there be impartial evidence through the DOLE to establish the reason for non-deployment, such as the lack of a proper job order. No document from your DOLE was presented in today’s case to ascertain the reason for the accused’s failure to actually deploy private complainants. Thus, appellant cannot be organised liable under Section six (l) of R. A. No . 8042.
As to Section 6 (m) of Ur. A. No . 8042, the prosecution has proven past reasonable doubt that personal complainants built payments to Loran, and appellant failed to reimburse the amounts paid out by exclusive complainants if they were not deployed. The prosecution presented the receipts granted by Loran to non-public complainants evidencing payment of placement service fees ranging fromP27, 000. 00 to P35, 000. 00. Appellant does not dispute that private complainants were not implemented for international work, and that the placement fees they paid were not went back to these people despite require. However , this individual seeks to exculpate him self on the ground that he is a mere employee of Loran.
The Court is usually unswayed simply by appellant’s the law.
The penultimate paragraph of Section 6 of Ur. A. No . 8042 explicitly states those criminally accountable are the “principals, accomplices, and accessories. In the event of juridical folks, the officers having control, management or direction of their businessshall end up being liable. Contrary to appellant’s claim, the testimonies from the complaining witnesses and the documentary evidence pertaining to the criminal prosecution clearly founded that he was not a simply employee of Loran, nevertheless Operations Manager. The certificate of Loran, the documents of the POEA and the nameplate prominently viewed on his office desk reflected his situation as Operations Manager.
Consequently, he received private complainants’ job applications; and interviewed and educated them of the agency’s requirements prior to their very own deployment, such as NBI measurement, police expulsion, medical qualification, previous job certificate plus the payment of placement fee. He was likewise responsible for radio stations advertisements and leaflets, which in turn enticed worrying witnesses to apply for employment together with the agency. Clearly, as Operations Manager, he was in the forefront of the recruiting activities.
The defense of being a mere employee is not really a shield against his conviction for mass illegal recruitment. In People v. Gasacao[18] and folks v. Sagayaga,[19] the Courtroom reiterated the ruling in People v. Cabais,[20] People v. Chowdury[21] andPeople v. Corpuz[22] that an worker of a organization or corporation engaged in illegitimate recruitment can be held responsible as principal by immediate participation, together with its company, if it is demonstrated that this individual actively and consciously participated in the recruitment process.
In today’s case, it was clearly founded that appellant dealt straight with the private complainants. He interviewed and informed them of the documentary requirements and placement charge. He assured deployment within a three or four month-period upon repayment of the payment, but did not deploy these people and to reimburse, upon require, the placement costs paid.
The Court is definitely not persuaded by appellant’s argument that his non-flight is indicative of his innocence. In contrast to the trip of an offender, which is qualified evidence against him tending to establish his guilt, non-flight is simply repos, which may be due to several elements. It may not end up being construed since an indication of innocence.[23]
Of marked relevance is the absence of any displaying that the non-public complainants had any unwell motive against appellant other than to bring him to the bar of justice to answer intended for the criminal offense of unlawful recruitment. Besides, for other people to conspire and imply another new person of a the majority of serious criminal offenses just to mollify their harm feelings would likely be against human nature and experience.[24] Where there is nothing to show the fact that witnesses to get the prosecution were actuated by incorrect motive, all their positive and categorical declarations on the see stand under the solemnity of an oath are worthy of full hope and credit.[25]
It is a satisfied rule that factual results of the trial courts, which include their evaluation of the witnesses’ credibility, have entitlement to great weight and esteem by the Substantial Court, particularly when the FLORIDA affirmed these kinds of findings.[26] After all, the trial court with the best location to determine the worth and weight of the tales of witnesses.[27] The a shortage of any showing that the trial court plainly overlooked selected facts of substance and value that, if regarded, might affect the result of the truth, or that its examination was irrelavent, impels the Court to defer towards the trial court’s determination in respect credibility to the prosecution proof.
Under the last paragraph of Section six of L. A. No . 8042, illegitimate recruitment shall be considered an offense involving monetary sabotage in the event committed in large scale, viz, committed against three or more persons independently or as a group. In the present case, five complainants testified against appellant’s functions of against the law recruitment, thus rendering his acts tantamount to financial sabotage. Under Section 7 (b) of R. A. No . 8042, the fees of lifestyle imprisonment and a fine of not less than P500, 000. 00 nor even more thanP1, 000. 000. 00 shall be made if against the law recruitment makes up economic sabotage.
Thus, the RTC plus the CA properly found appellant guilty beyond reasonable question of large size illegal recruiting. WHEREFORE, the appeal is usually DISMISSED. The choice dated Aug 31, 2995 of the Court docket of Is of interest affirming the conviction of appellant Antonio Nogra intended for large scale illegitimate recruitment below Sections 6 (m) and 7 (b) of Republic Act Number 8042 isAFFIRMED.
one particular
