CONTACT: |
Supreme Court of the Philippines Library Services, Padre Faura, Ermita, Manila, Philippines 1000 |
(632) 8524-2706 |
libraryservices.sc@judiciary.gov.ph |
349 Phil. 959
FIRST DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 120353, February 12, 1998 ]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
VS. FLOR N. LAUREL, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
D E C I S I O N
BELLOSILLO, J.:
This is an
appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila finding
accused-appellant Flor N. Laurel guilty
of illegal recruitment in large scale penalized under Art. 38, par. (b), in
relation to Art. 39, par. (a), of the Labor Code.
From 19 October
1991 to 25 May 1992 accused-appellant Flor N. Laurel promised employment abroad
for a fee to complaining witnesses Ricardo San Felipe, Rosauro San Felipe,
Juanito Cudal and Cenen Tambongco, Jr. However, after receiving P12,000.00 from Tambongco, Jr., P11,000.00 from each
of the San Felipe brothers and P6,000.00
from Cudal, Laurel reneged on her promises and went into hiding. Verification with the Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration (POEA) revealed that Laurel was neither licensed nor authorized
to recruit workers for overseas
employment.[1] Consequently, she was haled to
court and charged with large scale illegal recruitment.
Accused Laurel
did not deny the charge against her. Instead, when called to the witness stand, she presented an affidavit of
desistance by Juanito Cudal as well as several receipts, Exhs. "2,"
"3," "4," "5" and "6," signed by the
other private complainants acknowledging payment by her of the amounts taken
from them in "full settlement" of her obligation.[2] Thus, on the basis of these
documents, she moved to dismiss the case. But the court a quo denied her motion on the ground that the elements of large scale illegal
recruitment were established beyond reasonable doubt through the combined
testimonies of the four (4) offended parties. The court a quo noted
that the affidavit of desistance as well as the receipts for payments made were
prepared and signed after the prosecution had already rested its case. Consequently, the trial judge rendered a
decision convicting the accused Flor N. Laurel and sentenced her to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P100,000.00
conformably with Art. 39, par. (a), of the Labor Code. In addition, the accused was ordered to
return the balance of what she had received from each complainant.[3] Hence,
this appeal.
As in the court
below, accused-appellant does not deny the charge against her. She contends however that she should have
been convicted only of simple illegal recruitment and not of large
scale illegal recruitment.
She argues
through counsel that since illegal recruitment in large scale is defined in
Art. 38, par. (b), of the Labor Code immediately following the definition of
illegal recruitment committed by a syndicate, it follows that for illegal
recruitment to be considered committed in large scale it should have been
committed by a syndicate. Hence, an
individual who commits an act of illegal recruitment even if it be against
three (3) or more persons cannot be charged with illegal recruitment in large
scale.
The interpretation is completely erroneous. Article 38, par. (b), of the Labor Code
reads:
Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall be considered an offense involving economic sabotage x x x x
Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring and/or confederating with one another in carrying out any unlawful or illegal transaction, enterprise or scheme defined under the first paragraph hereof.
Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group (underscoring supplied).
The language of
the law is very clear that illegal recruitment is committed in large scale if
done against three or more persons individually or as a group. The number of offenders, whether an individual or a syndicate, is clearly not
considered a factor in the determination of its commission. The rule is well-settled that when the
language of the statute is clear, plain and free from ambiguity, there is no
room for attempted interpretation or extended court rationalization of the law.[4] The duty of the court is to apply it, not to interpret
it.[5] Counsel for accused-appellant was misled by the fact
that illegal recruitment in large scale is defined immediately after illegal
recruitment by a syndicate. However,
the only reason therefor is that they are both considered offenses involving
economic sabotage as the law itself so provides. Besides, we have affirmed time and again the conviction of an
individual for large scale illegal recruitment.[6]
As regards the
alleged desistance by private complaints, we rule that although an affidavit of desistance may be
given due course even if executed only on appeal, it may be given such credit
only when special circumstances exist engendering doubt on the criminal
liability of the accused.[7] Otherwise, without such special
circumstances, courts look with disfavor on affidavits of retraction[8] considering them as exceedingly unreliable.[9]
There is
absolutely nothing in the affidavits of retraction executed by private
complainants which creates doubt on the guilt of accused-appellant. The complainants merely allege that they
made a mistake and "misunderstood the circumstances."[10] However, aside from such sweeping
statement as "misunderstood the circumstances," no detail is given as
to how their mistake or misapprehension of circumstances can indicate absence
of or at least cast doubt on the guilt of accused-appellant. On the
contrary, we have every reason to conclude that the affidavits of retraction
were executed by private complainants only because accused-appellant returned
the money taken from them as evidenced
by the receipts marked as Exhs. "2," "3," "4,"
"5" and "6."[11] As complainant Ricardo San Felipe
testified in court: "I will withdraw, if the payments is (sic) complete, sir."[12] Thus, given the reason for their desistance,
the solemn testimonies given by private complainants shall not be disregarded
for it is a matter of public interest that every crime must be prosecuted and the author thereof penalized.[13]
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial
Court of Manila convicting accused-appellant Flor N. Laurel of illegal
recruitment in large scale penalized under Art. 38, par. (b), in relation to Art. 39, par. (a), of the Labor Code and
sentencing her to life imprisonment is AFFIRMED. However, the portion of
the appealed decision directing accused-appellant to pay the balance of what
she had received from each of private complainants is DELETED in view of the
full settlement of her civil liability as acknowledged by private complainants
themselves.
SO ORDERED.
[1] Certification dated 30 July 1992 by the POEA (Exh. "A"),
Original Records, p. 82.
[2] Envelope of Exhibits.
[3] Decision dated 7 March 1995 penned by Judge Romulo A.
Lopez, RTC-Manila, Br. 34; Rollo, pp. 15-23.
[4] Basbacio v. Office of the Secretary,
Department of Justice, G.R. No. 109445, 7 November 1994, 238 SCRA 5, 10;
Libanan v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 112386, 14 June 1994, 233 SCRA 163,
167; Victoria v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 109005, 10 January 1994, 229 SCRA
269, 273.
[5] Casela v. Court of Appeals, No. L-26754, 16 October 1970, 35 SCRA
279; Quijano v. Development Bank of the Philippines, No. L-26419, 16
October 1970, 35 SCRA 270; Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Limpan
Investment Corporation, No. L-28571, 31 July 1970, 34 SCRA 148; Hidalgo v.
Hidalgo, No. L-25326, 29 May 1970, 33 SCRA 105.
[6] People v. Melgar, G.R. No. 118815, 18 August 1997; People v.
Villas, G. R. No. 112180, 15 August 1997; People v. Pantaleon, G. R. No.
108107, 19 June 1997; People v. Ferrer, G. R. No. 121907, 27 May 1997;
People v. Tan Tiong Meng, G. R. Nos. 120835-40, 10 April 1997; People v.
Mañozca, G. R. No. 109779, 13 March
1997; People v. de Leon, G. R. No. 110391, 7 February 1997; People v.
Gabres, G. R. Nos. 118950-54, 6 February 1997; People v. Bautista, G. R.
No. 113547, 9 February 1995, 241 SCRA 216.
[7] See People v. Pimentel, No. L-38423, 25 November 1982, 118 SCRA
695; Gomez v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 63202, 9 April
1985, 135 SCRA 620; Alonzo v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G. R. No.
68624, 30 June 1987, 151 SCRA 552; Barqueros v. Court of Appeals, G.
R. No. 77571, 27 November 1987, 155 SCRA 719.
[8] People v. Joya, G.R. No. 790790, 1 October 1993, 227 SCRA 9,
26-27.
[9] People v. De Leon, G.R. No. 110558, 3 July 1995, 245 SCRA 538,
546; People v. Liwag, G.R. No. 89112, 3 August 1993, 225 SCRA 46, 54;
Castillo v. Calanog, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-90-447, 12 July 1991, 199 SCRA
75, 81-82; Reano v. Court of
Appeals, G. R. No. 80992, 21 September 1988, 165 SCRA 525, 530; People v. Galicia, No. L-39235, 25 July 1983, 123 SCRA 550, 556; People v.
Pasilan, No. L-18770, 30 July 1965, 14 SCRA 694, 701.
[10] See "Affidavit of Desistance" by Juanito Cudal, Original Records, p. 109, and the "Pinagsamang
Sinumpaang Salaysay" by Ricardo San Felipe, Rosauro San Felipe and Cenen
Tambongco, Jr., Rollo, p. 93.
[11] See Note 2.
[12] TSN, 12 December 1994, pp. 2-3.
[13] Re: Report on the Judicial Audit and Physical Inventory of the Record of
Cases in RTC-Br. 43, Roxas, Mindoro Occidental, A. M. No. 93-91249-RTC, 22
September 1994, 236 SCRA 631, 639-640, citing U. S. v. Leano, 6 Phil. 368 (1906) and Ching v. Gerona, A. M. No. RTJ-88-252, 24 November
1988, En Banc Minute Resolution.