AT A GLANCE:

The law does not require that at least three victims testify at the trial to convict an accused for Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale, for so long as there is sufficient evidence proving that the offense was committed against three or more persons.

Sometime in March 2009, Accused-appellant, Mildred Coching Liwanag, met private complainants, spouses Allan and Carol and spouses Christopher and Jennifer Claudel, and promised them employment abroad. Mildred informed them that she had a sister in Japan who knew people who owned noodle factories where they could work as factory workers. Mildred  accompanied Carol and Jennifer to Provider Travel Corporation and introduced them to a certain Agnes, whom she said would take charge in the processing of their application papers. She told them that they would leave for Japan on October 4, 2009.

Mildred  demanded P3,000.00 each for their visa application. On July 23, 2009, she required them to pay P37,500.00 each for their visas and plane tickets. She failed to issue receipts for the amounts received. On the scheduled date of their departure, Mildred informed them that their flight would be cancelled. It turned out that there were no plane tickets, visas, passports, or job orders from the prospective employer in Japan. Mildred did not reimburse any of the amounts given by the private complainants despite demand.

The private complainants thereafter filed a complaint against accused-appellant with the barangay. Mildred admitted her receipt of certain amounts from private complainants and promised to repay the said amounts. The complainants likewise submitted the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) certification dated September 4, 2012, which certifies that accused-appellant is not licensed or authorized by the POEA to recruit workers for overseas employment.

Mildred denied the charges. She denied that she promised to send complainants abroad for work or that she received any money or documents from them for such purpose.

The RTC found Mildred guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale and four counts of Estafa. On appeal, accused-appellant argued that the prosecution failed to prove the elements of the offenses charged, that inconsistencies in Carol’s testimony cast doubt on her credibility, that Jennifer was not presented as a prosecution witness, and that there were no receipts evidencing the alleged payments. The CA denied the appeal and affirmed the RTC’s judgment, with modification only with respect to the penalty for the four counts of Estafa.

The issue in this case is whether Mildred is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged.

The Supreme Court ruled that the appeal is bereft of merit.

As to Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale, the essential elements are that: (1) the person charged undertook any recruitment activity as defined under Section 6 of Republic Act 8042; (2) accused did not have the license or the authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment of workers; and (3) accused committed the same against three or more persons individually or as a group.

After a careful review, the Supreme Court found that all three elements have been established beyond reasonable doubt. Midlred’s acts of offering and promising to deploy the four complainants to Japan on October 4, 2009 to work as factory workers in a noodle factory, as well as collecting money for passports, plane tickets, visa processing, and placement fees, clearly constitute a recruitment activity as defined under Section 6 of RA 8042. Moreover, the POEA certification sufficiently established that Midlred is neither licensed nor authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment.

The absence of receipts to evidence payment does not automatically warrant acquittal of the accused since a person charged with the offense of Illegal Recruitment may be convicted on the strength of the testimonies of the complainants, if found to be credible and convincing. The testimony of the prosecution witnesses was bolstered by the barangay blotter, wherein Mildred admitted having received certain amounts from private complainants and promised to repay the said amounts.

The law does not require that at least three victims testify at the trial to convict an accused for Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale, for so long as there is sufficient evidence proving that the offense was committed against three or more persons. The absence of Jennifer’s testimony is not fatal to the prosecution’s case since the witnesses were privy to Jennifer’s recruitment and payment of fees to accused-appellant, and sufficiently testified on the same. The testimony of the prosecution witnesses was positive and categorical, and corroborated each other on material points.

It is settled that categorical statements of the private complainants prevail over the bare denial of an accused. An affirmative testimony is far stronger than negative testimony especially when the former comes from a credible witness. Denial, if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law. It is considered with suspicion and always received with caution, not only because it is inherently weak and unreliable, but also because it is easily fabricated and concocted.

Finally, it is settled that factual findings of the trial courts, including their assessment of the witnesses’ credibility, are entitled to great weight and respect by the Court, particularly when the CA affirmed such findings. After all, the trial court is in the best position to determine the value and weight of the testimonies of witnesses. The absence of any showing that the trial court overlooked certain facts of substance and value that, if considered, might affect the result of the case, or that its assessment was arbitrary, impels the Court to defer to the trial court’s determination according credibility to the prosecution evidence.

In fine, the Court finds no cogent reason to disturb the finding of the courts a quo that all of the elements for Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale are present in the instant case.

Case: People of the Philippines vs. Mildred Coching Liwanag (G.R. No. 232245 | March 02, 2022)

Read also: Things to Know About Illegal Recruitment

Click here to subscribe to our newsletter

Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 09175772207/ 09778050020.

All rights reserved.