Professional Documents
Culture Documents
01 People v. Sagayaga (2004)
01 People v. Sagayaga (2004)
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 143726 February 23, 2004
PEOPLE OF THE PHLPPNES, appellee,
vs.
LETC! S!G!"!G!, !LM! SO, #CENTE SO "!N H!N a$% ORL!N&O
'URGOS, accused.
LETC! S!G!"!G!, appellant.
D E C I S I O N
C!LLE(O, SR., J.)
This is an appeal fo! the Decision
"
of the Re#ional Tial Cout of Manila, $anch %&,
convictin# the appellant 'eticia Sa#a(a#a of la#e scale ille#al ecuit!ent as defined in
Section ), Republic *ct No. +,-. and sentencin# he to suffe life i!pison!ent.
T*e $%+,-.e$-
The appellant /as cha#ed /ith la#e scale ille#al ecuit!ent in an Info!ation, the
accusato( potion of /hich eads0
That duin# the peiod fo! Octobe "112 to Dece!be "112 and so!eti!e
pio o subse3uent theeto, in the Cit( of Manila, Philippines, and /ithin the
4uisdiction of this 5onoable Cout, above6na!ed accused, conspiin#,
confedeatin# and helpin# each othe and epesentin# the!selves to have the
po/e, capacit( and la/ful authoit( to deplo( co!plainants as facto( /o7es
in Tai/an, did then and thee /illfull(, unla/full( and feloniousl( ecuit and
po!ise e!plo(!ent to E'MER 8*NER, ERIC 9*RO' and E'MER R*MOS
fo and in consideation of a!ounts an#in# fo! P2,,,,,.,, to P2&,,,,.,,
/hich the( paid to said accused, /ithout the latte havin# deplo(ed and:o
ei!bused co!plainants of thei pa(!ents despite de!ands, to the da!a#e
and pe4udice of said co!plainants.
CONTR*R; TO '*<.
.
Onl( the appellant /as aested, dul( aai#ned, and, /ith the assistance of counsel,
pleaded not #uilt( to the ci!e cha#ed. The othe accused e!ained at la#e.
T*e Ca/e 0or -*e Pro/e,u-+o$
*s culled b( the Office of the Solicito =eneal, the facts /hich ti##eed the case in the
tial cout ae as follo/s0
Re) E1.er (a$er
So!eti!e in the last /ee7 of Octobe "112, El!e 8ane /ent to the office of
*lvis Place!ent Sevice Copoation located at *P $uildin# "&)% 9. *#oncillo
St., cone Pedo =il St., E!ita, Manila, to appl( fo oveseas e!plo(!ent as
facto( /o7e in Tai/an >pp. -, & and "-, TSN, Septe!be 2, "111?. *ppellant
'eticia Sa#a(a#a, afte pesonall( eceivin# El!e@s application, e3uied hi!
to sub!it the necessa( docu!ents >p. &, TSN, Septe!be 2, "111?.
*ppellant futhe as7ed El!e to pa( sevent(6five thousand pesos
>P2&,,,,.,,? as place!ent fee >Id.?. El!e paid the said fee to appellant in
thee >%? install!ents, the fist, on Nove!be &, "112, in the a!ount of t/ent(6
five thousand pesos >P.&,,,,.,,?A the second, on Nove!be "%, "112, in the
a!ount of five thousand pesos >P&,,,,.,,?A and the thid, on Nove!be "1,
"112, in the a!ount of fot(6five thousand pesos >P-&,,,,.,,?. *ll the
pa(!ents /ee !ade inside *lvis Place!ent *#enc( >p. ), id.?.
*s e3uied, El!e also had his !edical eBa!ination at the *n#eles Medical
Clinic, the esult of /hich confi!ed that he /as fit to /o7 >p. 1, Ibid.?.
Theeafte, he /as told to /ait fo the aival of the e!plo(e. *fte seven >2?
!onths, no e!plo(e aived. Tied of /aitin#, El!e de!anded that he be
efunded of his !one( >Id.?. Despite appellant@s po!ises to pa(, El!e /as
not efunded of his !one(.
EBaspeated, El!e as7ed appellant fo a po!isso( note, /hich appellant
eBecuted, po!isin# to pa( El!e sevent(6five thousand >P2&,,,,.,,? on Ma(
), "11+ >pp. ", and "", TSN, Septe!be 2, "111?. In said po!isso( note,
appellant desi#nated heself as the assistant #eneal !ana#e of the
place!ent a#enc( >Id.?. <hen appellant failed to efund the a!ount to El!e
on the date stated in the po!isso( note, the latte /ent to the Philippine
Oveseas E!plo(!ent *d!inistation >POE*? and filed a s/on co!plaint
a#ainst appellant >p. "", TSN, Septe!be 2, "111?.
Re) Te/-+.o$y o0 Er+, Faro1
1
On Nove!be .,, "112, Eic 9aol fist !et appellant at *lvis Place!ent
Sevice Copoation /hen he applied fo an oveseas 4ob in Tai/an as a plastic
facto( /o7e >pp. %6-, TSN, Septe!be .,, "111?. *ppellant and he co6
accused Vicente So ;an 5an discussed /ith Eic about the latte@s 4ob
application >Id.?. The( e3uied Eic to sub!it to the! his passpot, National
$ueau of Investi#ation >N$I? cleaance, !edical cleaance and to pa(
sevent(6five thousand pesos >P2&,,,,.,,? as place!ent fee >Id.?. Eic
sub!itted all the afoestated e3uie!ents and paid the sevent(6five thousand
pesos to appellant in t/o >.? install!ents, fo /hich the latte issued eceipts
affiBin# he si#natue theeon >pp. &61, TSN, Septe!be .,, "111?. *ppellant
then po!ised Eic that he /ill be leavin# fo Tai/an befoe Chist!as of "112.
9ailin# to fulfill he po!ise, appellant and Vicente So ;an 5an told Eic to /ait
up to the !onth of 8anua( "11+ >pp. ", and "", Ibid.?. <hen appellant failed
to co!pl( /ith he co!!it!ent to send Eic to Tai/an in 8anua( "11+, Eic
de!anded fo! appellant the efund of his !one( >pp. "" and "., Ibid.?.
*ppellant then issued to hi! a chec7 dated 9ebua( &, "11+, affiBin# he
si#natue theeon, fo the a!ount of sevent(6t/o thousand five hunded pesos
>P2.,&,,.,,?. $ut /hen Eic pesented the chec7 to the da/ee ban7 fo
pa(!ent, the sa!e /as dishonoed b( eason0 C*CCODNT C'OSEDC >pp. ""6
"-, TSN, Septe!be .,, "111?.
Insistent that he be efunded of his !one(, Vicente So ;an 5an #ave hi! cash
a!ounts on diffeent dates0 9ebua( ), "11+ 6 6 five thousand pesosA 9ebua(
2, "11+ 6 6 five thousand pesosA and 9ebua( "2, "11+ 6 6 one thousand pesos
>pp. "-6"+, TSN, Septe!be .,, "111?. Eic /as told to etun on *pil -, "11+
fo the full pa(!ent of the efund. 5o/eve, /hen Eic /ent bac7 on the fist
/ee7 of *pil, appellant #ave hi! a lette that the full efund of his !one(
/ould be #iven on *pil %,, "11+ >p. "1, Ibid?. Eic etuned to appellant on
*pil %,, "11+, but still, appellant failed to efund the !one( >p. .,, Id.?.
On Ma( +, "11+, Eic filed a co!plaint a#ainst appellant and Vicente So ;an
5an at the POE* >pp. .,6.", TSN, Septe!be .,, "111?.
Re) E1.er Ra.o/
O! Septe!be .2, "112, El!e Ra!os /ent to the office of *lvis Place!ent
Sevices Copoation to appl( fo oveseas e!plo(!ent as facto( /o7e in
Tai/an >pp. + and 1, TSN, Septe!be .2, "111?. Initiall(, he too7 up his
application /ith Vicente So ;an 5an /ho e3uied hi! to sub!it his passpot,
N$I and !edical cleaances and to pa( sevent( thousand pesos >P2,,,,,.,,?
as place!ent fee >pp. ", and "", TSN, Septe!be .2, "111?. El!e sub!itted
the afoestated e3uie!ents and paid the place!ent fee in t/o >.?
install!ents0 t/ent( thousand pesos >P.,,,,,.,,? 6 6 paid to appellant and
Vicente So ;an 5an on Octobe .., "112A and fift( thousand pesos
>P&,,,,,.,,? 6 6 paid to Vicente So ;an 5an on Nove!be "., "112 >pp. ""6"&,
TSN, Septe!be .2, "111?. Vicente So ;an 5an then assued El!e that he
/ould be included fo deplo(!ent in the fist batch on the fist /ee7 of
Dece!be "112 /hich, ho/eve, did not !ateialiEe >pp. "1 and .,, TSN,
Septe!be .2, "112?. El!e decided to /ithda/ his application. The
docu!ents sub!itted /ee etuned to El!e but not the place!ent fee he
paid >pp. ." and .., TSN, Septe!be .2, "111?. Instead, appellant issued a
chec7 dated 9ebua( &, "11+ fo the a!ount of sevent( thousand pesos
>P2,,,,,.,,? >p. .., Id.?. <hen El!e encashed the chec7 /ith the ban7, it
/as dishonoed b( eason0 Cclosed accountC >p. .%, Ibid.?.
On Ma( ), "11+, El!e /ent bac7 to the office of *lvis Place!ent Sevice
Copoation to de!and the efund of his !one(. El!e discussed the !atte
/ith appellant, but the latte failed to etun El!e@s !one(. The neBt da( >Ma(
2, "11+?, El!e /ent to the POE* and filed a s/on co!plaint a#ainst
appellant and Vicente So ;an 5an >pp. .& and .), TSN, Septe!be .2, "111?.
On Ma( 1, "11+, El!e a#ain tied to #et a efund fo! appellant, but the latte
onl( issued a po!isso( note assuin# El!e pa(!ent of the sevent(
thousand pesos on Ma( "- and "&, "11+ at %0,, o@cloc7 in the aftenoon >pp.
.2 and .+, Ibid.?. On Ma( "&, "11+, appellant #ave El!e the a!ount of onl(
five thousand pesos >P&,,,,.,,? >p. .1, Ibid.?.
%
T*e Ca/e 0or -*e !22e11a$-
The appellant estates he case as follo/s0
On diffeent dates in "112, the thee >%? co!plainin# /itnesses in this case
>El!e Ra!os, El!e 8ane and Eic 9aol? filed sepaate applications fo 4ob
place!ent as facto( /o7es in Tai/an /ith *'vis Place!ent Sevices
Copoation, /ith business addess at R!. &,2, *P $ld#., "&)% 9. *#oncillo
co. Pedo =il Sts., E!ita, ManilaF,G /hee the appellant 'eticia Sa#a(a#a /as
then /o7in# as copoate teasue.
El!e Ra!os filed his application so!eti!e in Septe!be "112 /ith the
copoation, thou#h accused6at6la#e Vicente So ;an 5an. It /as the sa!e
Vicente So ;an 5an /ho as7ed hi! to sub!it the e3uied docu!ents >N$I
and !edical cleaances, etc.?, and to pa( the a!ount of P2,,,,,.,, as
place!ent fee. 5e sub!itted the e3uied docu!ents, and paid the place!ent
fee in t/o >.? install!ents as follo/s0 P.,,,,,.,, /as paid b( hi! on ..
Octobe "112 to appellant 'etecia Sa#a(a#a and Vicente So ;an 5an on the
office of the copoationA and P&,,,,,.,, /as paid b( hi! on ". Nove!be
"112 to Vicente So ;an 5an. Then So ;an 5an info!ed hi! that he /ould be
2
deplo(ed in Tai/an in the fist /ee7 of Dece!be "112. The po!ised
deplo(!ent o 4ob place!ent neve ca!e. 5e then decided to /ithda/ his
application and #et bac7 the docu!ents he sub!itted and the !one( he had
paid. 5e /as issued a chec7 fo the fee he had paid but the chec7 /as
dishonoed b( the ban7 fo the eason Caccount closed.C 9ailin# to #et his
!one( baFcG7, he filed a co!plaint /ith the Philippine Oveseas E!plo(!ent
*d!inistation /hee he eBecuted a CSinu!paan# Sala(sa(C on 2 Ma( "11+.
El!e 8ane filed his 4ob place!ent application /ith *lvis Place!ent Sevices
Copoation in the last /ee7 of Octobe "112. Si!ilal(, he /as e3uied to
sub!it the necessa( docu!ents and to pa( the a!ount of P2&,,,,.,, as
place!ent fee. 5e sub!itted the e3uisite docu!ents and paid the place!ent
in thee >%? install!ents, as follo/s0 5e paid P.&,,,,.,, on & Nove!be "112A
P&,,,,.,, on "% Nove!be "112A and P-&,,,,.,, on "1 Nove!be "112.
Theeafte, he /as as7ed to /ait fo 2 !onths fo his e!plo(e to aive. No
e!plo(e aiveFdG. 5e decided to /ithda/ his application and as7ed to be
ei!bused the !one( he had paid. *ppellant 'eticia Sa#a(a#a #ave hi!
instead a C2ro.+//ory $o-eC indicatin# that the a!ount of P2&,,,,.,, /ill be
paid to El!e 8ane on ) Ma( "11+. <hen no pa(!ent /as !ade to hi! as
po!ised, he filed a co!plaint /ith the Philippine Oveseas E!plo(!ent
*d!inistation and /hee he eBecuted a CSinu!paan# Sala(sa(C on "% Ma(
"11+.
Eic 9aol filed his 4ob place!ent application /ith *lvis Place!ent Sevices
Copoation on ., Nove!be "112. *fte sub!ittin# the e3uied docu!ents,
he paid the place!ent fee of P2&,,,,.,, in t/o >.? install!ents as follo/s0 5e
paid the fist install!ent of P"&,,,,.,, on ". Dece!be "112A and the balance
of P),,,,,.,, /as paid b( hi! on ") Dece!be "112. The appellant 'eticia
Sa#a(a#a po!ised that he /ould be able to leave fo Tai/an befoe
Chist!as of "112. <hen he /as not able to leave fo Tai/an befoe the end
of "112, he /as as7ed to /ait until 8anua( "11+. <hen he failed to leave as
po!ised, he decided to /ithda/ his application and as7ed that he be
efunded the a!ount of P2&,,,,.,, he had paid as place!ent fee. The chec7
#iven to hi! b( the appellant bounced fo the eason Caccount closed.C
9oth/ith, Vicente So ;an 5an paid hi! on diffeent dates the a!ounts of
P&,,,,.,, on ) 9ebua( "11+, anothe P&,,,,.,, on 2 9ebua( "11+, and
P",,,,.,, on "2 9ebua( "11+. *nd as he /as not efunded the full a!ount
of the fee paid b( hi!, he filed a co!plaint /ith the Philippine Oveseas
E!plo(!ent *d!inistation and eBecuted a CSinu!paan# Sala(sa(C on 2 Ma(
"11+.
*s supplied b( the unebutted testi!on( of the appellant, the pesons /ho had
effective and actual contol, !ana#e!ent and diection of the business and
tansactions of *lvis Place!ent Sevices Copoation /ee the accused6
spouses Vicente So ;an 5an and *l!a So. *s Teasue of the copoation,
he duties /ee li!ited to eceivin# !one( o fees paid to the a#enc( b(
applicants and to deposit the sa!e in the ban7 in the na!e and fo the account
of the copoation. *lthou#h she >appellant? eceived !one( fo! the
co!plainants El!e 8ane and Eic 9aol, the sa!e /as deposited b( he /ith
the ban7 unde the account of the copoation. *nd if eve she si#ned
po!isso( notes in behalf of the copoation and issued chec7s to the
co!plainants, she did so upon the instuction and assuance of accused6
spouses So ;an 5an and *l!a So that said notes and chec7s /ould have
sufficient funds on thei due dates. *nd said chec7s and notes /ee neve paid
because the accused6spouses disappeaed and left fo un7no/n addesses.
-
*fte tial, the tial cout endeed 4ud#!ent convictin# the appellant of the ci!e
cha#ed, the dispositive potion of /hich eads0
<5ERE9ORE, 4ud#!ent is endeed ponouncin# accused 'ETICI*
S*=*;*=* #uilt( be(ond easonable doubt of ille#al ecuit!ent in la#e scale
and sentencin# said accused to suffe the penalt( of 'I9E IMPRISONMENT
and to pa( a fine of P2&,,,,,.,,, and the costs.
The accused is futhe odeed to efund to El!e 8ane the su! of
P2&,,,,.,,A to Eic V. 9aol the a!ount of P)",&,,.,,A and to El!e Ra!os
the a!ount of P)&,,,,.,,.
SO ORDERED.
&
The appellant assails the decision of the tial cout contendin# that0
6 I 6
T5E 'O<ER CODRT SERIODS'; ERRED IN 5O'DIN= T5*T CNO <EI=5T
C*N $E =IVEN TO T5E CONTENTION O9 T5E *CCDSED T5*T S5E IS
NOT CRIMIN*''; 'I*$'E $EC*DSE S5E 5*D NO P*RTICIP*TION IN T5E
OPER*TION O9 T5E *'VIS P'*CEMENT SERVICE CORPOR*TION, *ND
S5E 5*D NO HNO<'ED=E *$ODT ITS RECRDITMENT *CTIVITIES.C
6 II 6
T5E 'O<ER CODRT SERIODS'; ERRED IN 5O'DIN= T5*T *S
TRE*SDRER O9 *'VIS P'*CEMENT SERVICE CORPOFRG*TION, T5E
*CCDSED6*PPE''*NT C<*S IN C5*R=E >O9? T5E M*N*=EMENT *ND
3
CONTRO' O9 T5E 9IN*NCI*' *99*IRS *ND RESODRCES O9 T5E
CORPOR*TION.C
6 III 6
T5E 'O<ER CODRT SERIODS'; ERRED IN 5O'DIN= T5*T *S T5E
VICE6PRESIDENT:TRE*SDRER *ND *SSIST*NT =ENER*' M*N*=ER O9
*'VIS P'*CEMENT SERVICE CORPOR*TION, T5E *CCDSED6
*PPE''*NT <*S * TOP R*NHIN= O99ICER O9 S*ID CORPOR*TION,
<IT5 *DT5ORIT; TO P*RTICIP*TE DIRECT'; IN T5E CONTRO',
M*N*=EMENT OR DIRECTION O9 ITS $DSINESS *99*IRS.
6 IV 6
T5E 'O<ER CODRT SERIODS'; ERRED IN 5O'DIN= T5*T *CCDSED6
*PPE''*NT <*S =DI'T; O9 I''E=*' RECRDITMENT CIN '*R=E SC*'EC
*ND IN SENTENCIN= 5ER TO SD99ER T5E PEN*'T; O9 C'I9E
IMPRISONMENT.C
)
The appellant aves that she is not ci!inall( liable fo the ci!e cha#ed because the
posecution failed to pove that she had a diect o actual contol, !ana#e!ent o
diection of the business and ecuit!ent activities of the *lvis Place!ent Sevices
Copoation >*PSC?. She assets that she had no 7no/led#e of the ecuit!ent
activities of *PSC and had no paticipation /hatsoeve in its opeation. In dealin# /ith
the pivate co!plainants, she /as !eel( pefo!in# outina( office /o7 as a !ee
e!plo(ee. 5e paticipation as an e!plo(ee of *PSC /ith espect to the e!plo(!ent
application of El!e Ra!os fo Tai/an /as to eceive his place!ent fee of P.,,,,,.,,.
5ence, the appellant aves, she cannot be held ci!inall( liable fo ille#al ecuit!ent in
la#e scale. If, at all, she can be held liable onl( /ith espect to the e!plo(!ent
applications of 8ane and 9aol. Thus, accodin# to the appellant, the tial cout eed in
sentencin# he to life i!pison!ent.
The appeal has no !eit.
Dnde Section ) >!? of Rep. *ct No. +,-.,
2
ille#al ecuit!ent !a( be co!!itted b( an(
peson, /hethe a non6licensee, non6holde of authoit(, licensee o holde of authoit(,
thus0
>!? 9ailue to ei!buse eBpenses incued b( the /o7e in connection /ith
his docu!entation and pocessin# fo puposes of deplo(!ent, in cases /hee
the deplo(!ent does not actuall( ta7e place /ithout the /o7e@s fault....
+
Dnde the last paa#aph of the said section, those ci!inall( liable ae the pincipals,
acco!plices and accessoies. In case of a 4uidical peson, the offices havin# contol,
!ana#e!ent o diection of the business shall be ci!inall( liable.
In this case, the appellant, as sho/n b( the ecods of the POE*, /as both the *PSC
Vice6Pesident6Teasue and the *ssistant =eneal Mana#e. She /as a hi#h copoate
office /ho had diect paticipation in the !ana#e!ent, ad!inistation, diection and
contol of the business of the copoation. *s the tial cout aptl( declaed in its decision0
*#ain, no /ei#ht can be #iven to the contention of the accused. The te!s
Ccontol, !ana#e!ent o diectionC used in the last paa#aph of Section ) of
Republic *ct No. +,-. boadl( cove all phases of business opeation. The(
include the aspects of ad!inistation, !a7etin# and finances, a!on# othes.
9o! the ecods of the POE*, the accused appeas as the Vice Pesident
>V.P.?:Teasue of the *lvis Place!ent Sevice Copoation >EBhibit *?.
Moeove, in the po!isso( note dated *pil %,, "11+ >EBhibit H?, /hich the
accused issued to El!e 8ane, she desi#nated he position in the said
copoation as its C*sst. =eneal Mana#eC >EBhibit H6"?. Dndoubtedl(, the
positions of vice6pesident, teasue, and assistant #eneal !ana#e ae hi#h
an7in# copoate positions in an( copoate bod(. These positions invest on
the incu!bent the authoit( of !ana#in#, contollin# and diectin# the
copoate affais.
The clai! of the accused that he desi#nation in the cetification of the POE*
>EBhibit *? as the vice6pesident of *lvis Place!ent Sevice Copoation has
supised he because, accodin# to he, the vice6pesident /as Vicente So
;an 5an >TSN, Ma. "%, .,,,, pp. ")6"2?, hadl( inspies belief. If this /ee
tue, she /ould have no difficult( in secuin# fo! the POE* an authenticated
cop( of the list of all officials of the copoation /hich the( /ee e3uied to file
/ith the said Office. 9o no stated eason, ho/eve, the defense o!itted to
secue such list and sub!it it to this Cout.
*t an( ate, the accused has eBpessl( ad!itted in the couse of he testi!on(
that she /as at the ti!e the Teasue of thei ecuit!ent a#enc(. *s such she
/as in cha#e of the !ana#e!ent and contol of the financial affais and
esouces of the copoation. She /as in cha#e of collectin# all its eceivables,
safel( 7eepin# the!, and disbusin# the!. She testified that it /as pat of he
duties to eceive and collect the !onies paid b( applicants >TSN, Ma. "%,
.,,,, p. &?. 5e disbusin# authoit( has been cleal( de!onstated b( he co6
si#nin# the chec7s EBhibits D6. and =.
1
4
The appellant is #uilt( of ille#al ecuit!ent as a pincipal b( diect paticipation, havin#
dealt diectl( /ith the pivate co!plainants. In fact, she eceived thei place!ent fees
and even si#ned, in he capacit( as the *ssistant =eneal Mana#e of the *PSC, the
po!isso( note on Ma( ), "11+ in favo of pivate co!plainant El!e 8ane, obli#in#
the *PSC to pa( to hi! the a!ount of P2&,,,,.,,. 5o/eve, despite the pivate
co!plainants@ de!ands, thei place!ent fees /ee not ei!bused in full. In People vs.
Cabais,
",
/e held thus0
*ccused6appellant contends that she /as not involved in ecuit!ent but /as
!eel( an e!plo(ee of a ecuit!ent a#enc(. *n e!plo(ee of a co!pan( o
copoation en#a#ed in ille#al ecuit!ent !a( be held liable as pincipal,
to#ethe /ith his e!plo(e, if it is sho/n that he activel( and consciousl(
paticipated in ille#al ecuit!ent. Recuit!ent is Can( act of canvassin#,
enlistin#, contactin#, tanspotin#, utiliEin#, hiin# o pocuin# /o7es, and
includes efeals, contact sevices, po!isin# o advetisin# fo e!plo(!ent,
locall( o aboad, /hethe fo pofit o not0 Povided, That an( peson o entit(
/hich, in an( !anne, offes o po!ises fo a fee e!plo(!ent to t/o o !oe
pesons shall be dee!ed en#a#ed in ecuit!ent and place!entI
""
In this case, the ove/hel!in# evidence on ecod indubitabl( sho/s that the appellant
en#a#ed in ille#al ecuit!ent. *s aptl( uled b( the tial cout0
The fist line of defense invo7ed b( the accused to eBoneate heself of the
ci!inal cha#e is cleal( and conclusivel( /ithout !eit. Thee is no dispute
about the fact that the thee co!plainants en#a#ed >sic? the *lvis Place!ent
Sevice Copoation, a ecuit!ent a#enc( dul( authoiEed b( the POE*
/heein the accused /as one of its top offices, to deplo( the! as facto(
/o7es in Tai/an. *d!ittedl(, the( incued eBpenses, desi#nated as
place!ent fees, in connection /ith thei docu!entation and pocessin# fo
puposes of thei deFplGo(!ent. El!e 8ane paid to the accused, /ho eceived
the pa(!ent, the total a!ount of P2&,,,,.,, fo his place!ent fee >EBhibit 8A
TSN, Sept. 2, "111, pp. )6+?. Eic 9aol paid also to the accused a si!ila
a!ount fo the sa!e pupose >EBhibit EA TSN, Sept. .,, "111, pp. &6+?. El!e
Ra!os paid to the a#enc( the su! of P2,,,,,.,, of /hich P.,,,,,.,, /as
eceived b( the accused, and the balance of P&,,,,,.,, /as eceived b(
Vicente So ;an 5an >EBhibit 9A TSN, Sept. .2, "111, pp. ",6"+?. In the couse
of he testi!on(, the accused ad!itted that she eceived these pa(!ents b(
the co!plainants of thei place!ent fees.
5o/eve, the eBpected deplo(!ent of the co!plainants as facto( /o7es in
Tai/an, o even else/hee, did not ta7e place, /ithout an( fault on thei pat.
Thee is absolutel( no evidence eflectin# that the failue to deplo( the! /as
i!putable to thei faults.
The evidence has satisfactoil( established that the co!plainants have not been
ei!bused the full a!ount of thei place!ent fees, not/ithstandin# thei pesistent
de!ands. Not a sin#le peso of his place!ent fee /as etuned to El!e 8ane. Instead,
on *pil %,, "11+, the accused eBecuted a po!isso( note >EBhibit H? in behalf of the
*lvis Place!ent Sevice Copoation, undeta7in# to pa( El!e 8ane the a!ount of
P2&,,,,.,, on Ma( ), "11+. 5o/eve, the a!ount coveed b( the po!isso( note /as
not paid >TSN, Sept. 2, "111, p. ""?.
On the othe hand, althou#h Eic 9aol and El!e Ra!os /ee ei!bused of
P"",,,,.,, and P&,,,,.,, in cash, espectivel(, and the balance of thei place!ent
fees /ee coveed b( chec7s >EBhibits D6. and =?, these tansactions did not elieve
the accused of he ci!inal liabilit(. The ei!buse!ent conte!plated b( paa#aph >!?
of Section ) of Republic *ct No. +,-. is full ei!buse!ent of the eBpenses incued b(
the /o7e in connection /ith the docu!entation and pocessin# of his deplo(!ent. To
ule othe/ise /ould be offensive to the ad!inistation of 4ustice, as ille#al ecuites
could easil( escape ci!inal liabilit( /ith i!punit( b( si!pl( etunin# an insi#nificant
potion of the a!ount the( collected fo! the /o7e. The chec7s da/n and issued b(
the accused to these t/o co!plainants, ho/eve, did not poduce the effect of pa(!ent,
fo the( /ee both dishonoed b( the da/ee ban7 on the #ound of closed account.
Pusuant to the second paa#aph of *ticle ".-1 of the Civil Code, C>t?he delive( of
po!isso( notes pa(able to ode, o bills of eBchan#e o othe !ecantile docu!ents
shall poduce the effect of pa(!ent onl( /hen the( have been cashed, o /hen thou#h
the fault of the cedito the( have been i!paied.C
".
The appellant@s bae denial of he involve!ent in the !ana#e!ent, ad!inistation,
contol and opeation of *PSC cannot pevail ove he 4udicial ad!issions, the positive
testi!onies of the pivate co!plainants and the docu!enta( evidence adduced b( the
posecution.
Section ) of Rep. *ct No. +,-. povides that ille#al ecuit!ent shall be consideed an
offense involvin# econo!ic sabota#e if co!!itted in la#e scale, viz, co!!itted a#ainst
thee >%? o !oe pesons individuall( o as a #oup, the i!posable penalt( fo /hich is
life i!pison!ent and a fine of not less than P&,,,,,,.,, no !oe than
P",,,,,,,,.,,.
"%
In this case, thee ae thee pivate co!plainants, na!el(, El!e
8ane, Eic 9aol and El!e Ra!os. The tial cout, thus, coectl( convicted the
appellant of la#e scale ille#al ecuit!ent and sentenced he to suffe life i!pison!ent.
N LGHT OF !LL THE FOREGONG, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision of the
Re#ional Tial Cout of Manila, $anch %&, is *99IRMED. Costs a#ainst the appellant.
SO OR&ERE&.
5
6