SECOND DIVISION conclusion.

The Court of Appeals ruled that the CBA did not intend
to foreclose the application of prorated payments of leave benefits to
[G.R. NO. 170734 : May 14, 2008] covered employees. The appellate court found that petitioner,
however, had an existing voluntary practice of paying the aforesaid
ARCO METAL PRODUCTS, CO., INC., and MRS. benefits in full to its employees, thereby rejecting the claim that
SALVADOR UY, Petitioners, v. SAMAHAN NG MGA petitioner erred in paying full benefits to its seven employees. The
MANGGAGAWA SA ARCO METAL-NAFLU (SAMARM- appellate court noted that aside from the affidavit of petitioner's
NAFLU), Respondent. officer, it has not presented any evidence in support of its position
that it has no voluntary practice of granting the contested benefits in
full and without regard to the service actually rendered within the
DECISION year. It also questioned why it took petitioner eleven (11) years
before it was able to discover the alleged error. The dispositive
TINGA, J.: portion of the court's decision reads:

This treats of the Petition for Review1 of the Resolution2 and WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is
Decision3 of the Court of Appeals dated 9 December 2005 and 29 hereby GRANTED and the Decision of Accredited Voluntary
September 2005, respectively in CA-G.R. SP No. 85089 entitled Arbiter Apron M. Mangabat in NCMB-NCR Case No. PM-12-345-
03, dated June 18, 2004 is hereby AFFIRMED WITH
Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Arco Metal-NAFLU (SAMARM- MODIFICATION in that the 13th month pay, bonus, vacation leave
NAFLU) v. Arco Metal Products Co., Inc. and/or Mr. Salvador and sick leave conversions to cash shall be paid to the employees in
Uy/Accredited Voluntary Arbitrator Apron M. Mangabat,4 which full, irrespective of the actual service rendered within a year.7
ruled that the 13th month pay, vacation leave and sick leave
conversion to cash shall be paid in full to the employees of petitioner Petitioner moved for the reconsideration of the decision but its
regardless of the actual service they rendered within a year. motion was denied, hence this petition.

Petitioner is a company engaged in the manufacture of metal Petitioner submits that the Court of Appeals erred when it ruled that
products, whereas respondent is the labor union of petitioner's rank the grant of 13th month pay, bonus, and leave encashment in full
and file employees. Sometime in December 2003, petitioner paid the regardless of actual service rendered constitutes voluntary employer
13th month pay, bonus, and leave encashment of three union members practice and, consequently, the prorated payment of the said benefits
in amounts proportional to the service they actually rendered in a does not constitute diminution of benefits under Article 100 of the
year, which is less than a full twelve (12) months. The employees Labor Code.8
were:
The petition ultimately fails.
1. Rante Lamadrid Sickness 27 August 2003 to 27 February
2004 First, we determine whether the intent of the CBA provisions is to
2. Alberto Suspension 10 June 2003 to 1 July 2003 grant full benefits regardless of service actually rendered by an
Gamban employee to the company. According to petitioner, there is a one-year
cutoff in the entitlement to the benefits provided in the CBA which is
3. Rodelio Sickness August 2003 to February 2004 evident from the wording of its pertinent provisions as well as of the
Collantes existing law.

Respondent protested the prorated scheme, claiming that on several We agree with petitioner on the first issue. The applicable CBA
occasions petitioner did not prorate the payment of the same benefits provisions read:
to seven (7) employees who had not served for the full 12 months.
The payments were made in 1992, 1993, 1994, 1996, 1999, 2003, and ARTICLE XIV-VACATION LEAVE
2004. According to respondent, the prorated payment violates the rule
against diminution of benefits under Article 100 of the Labor Code.
Section 1. Employees/workers covered by this agreement who have
Thus, they filed a complaint before the National Conciliation and
rendered at least one (1) year of service shall be entitled to sixteen
Mediation Board (NCMB). The parties submitted the case for
(16) days vacation leave with pay for each year of service. Unused
voluntary arbitration.
leaves shall not be cumulative but shall be converted into its cash
equivalent and shall become due and payable every 1 st Saturday of
The voluntary arbitrator, Apron M. Mangabat, ruled in favor of December of each year.
petitioner and found that the giving of the contested benefits in full,
irrespective of the actual service rendered within one year has not
However, if the 1st Saturday of December falls in December 1,
ripened into a practice. He noted the affidavit of Joselito Baingan,
November 30 (Friday) being a holiday, the management will give the
manufacturing group head of petitioner, which states that the giving
cash conversion of leaves in November 29.
in full of the benefit was a mere error. He also interpreted the phrase
"for each year of service" found in the pertinent CBA provisions to
mean that an employee must have rendered one year of service in Section 2. In case of resignation or retirement of an employee, his
order to be entitled to the full benefits provided in the CBA.5 vacation leave shall be paid proportionately to his days of service
rendered during the year.
Unsatisfied, respondent filed a Petition for Review6 under Rule 43
before the Court of Appeals, imputing serious error to Mangabat's ARTICLE XV-SICK LEAVE
Section 1. Employees/workers covered by this agreement who have As a general rule, in petitions for review under Rule 45, the Court,
rendered at least one (1) year of service shall be entitled to sixteen
not being a trier of facts, does not normally embark on a re-
(16) days of sick leave with pay for each year of service. Unused sick
examination of the evidence presented by the contending parties
leave shall not be cumulative but shall be converted into its cash during the trial of the case considering that the findings of facts of the
equivalent and shall become due and payable every 1 st Saturday of Court of Appeals are conclusive and binding on the Court.10 The rule,
December of each year. however, admits of several exceptions, one of which is when the
findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to that of the lower
Section 2. Sick Leave will only be granted to actual sickness duly tribunals. Such is the case here, as the factual conclusions of the
certified by the Company physician or by a licensed physician. Court of Appeals differ from that of the voluntary arbitrator.

Section 3. All commutable earned leaves will be paid proportionately Petitioner granted, in several instances, full benefits to employees
upon retirement or separation. who have not served a full year, thus:

ARTICLE XVI - EMERGENCY LEAVE, ETC. Name Reason Duration

1. Percival Bernas Sickness July 1992 to November 1992
Section 1. The Company shall grant six (6) days emergency leave to
employees covered by this agreement and if unused shall be 2. Cezar Montero Sickness 21 Dec. 1992 to February 1993
converted into cash and become due and payable on the 1 st Saturday 3. Wilson Sayod Sickness May 1994 to July 1994
of December each year.
4. Nomer Becina Suspension 1 Sept. 1996 to 5 Oct. 1996

Section 2. Employees/workers covered by this agreement who have 5. Ronnie Licuan Sickness 8 Nov. 1999 to 9 Dec. 1999
rendered at least one (1) year of service shall be entitled to seven (7) 6. Guilbert Sickness 23 Aug. 2002 to 4 Feb. 2003
days of Paternity Leave with pay in case the married employee's Villaruel
legitimate spouse gave birth. Said benefit shall be non-cumulative
7. Melandro Sickness 29 Aug. 2003 to 30 Sept. 200311
and non-commutative and shall be deemed in compliance with the
Moque
law on the same.

Section 3. Maternity leaves for married female employees shall be in Petitioner claims that its full payment of benefits regardless of the
accordance with the SSS Law plus a cash grant of P1,500.00 per length of service to the company does not constitute voluntary
month. employer practice. It points out that the payments had been
erroneously made and they occurred in isolated cases in the years
1992, 1993, 1994, 1999, 2002 and 2003. According to petitioner, it
xxx
was only in 2003 that the accounting department discovered the error
"when there were already three (3) employees involved with
ARTICLE XVIII - 13TH MONTH PAY & BONUS prolonged absences and the error was corrected by implementing the
pro-rata payment of benefits pursuant to law and their existing
Section 1. The Company shall grant 13th Month Pay to all employees CBA."12 It adds that the seven earlier cases of full payment of benefits
covered by this agreement. The basis of computing such pay shall be went unnoticed considering the proportion of one employee
the basic salary per day of the employee multiplied by 30 and shall concerned (per year) vis à vis the 170 employees of the company.
become due and payable every 1st Saturday of December. Petitioner describes the situation as a "clear oversight" which should
not be taken against it.13 To further bolster its case, petitioner argues
Section 2. The Company shall grant a bonus to all employees as that for a grant of a benefit to be considered a practice, it should have
practiced which shall be distributed on the 2nd Saturday of December. been practiced over a long period of time and must be shown to be
consistent, deliberate and intentional, which is not what happened in
Section 3. That the Company further grants the amount of Two this case. Petitioner tries to make a case out of the fact that the CBA
Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P2,500.00) as signing bonus plus a has not been modified to incorporate the giving of full benefits
free CBA Booklet.9 (Underscoring ours) regardless of the length of service, proof that the grant has not ripened
into company practice.
There is no doubt that in order to be entitled to the full monetization
of sixteen (16) days of vacation and sick leave, one must have We disagree.
rendered at least one year of service. The clear wording of the
provisions does not allow any other interpretation. Anent the Any benefit and supplement being enjoyed by employees cannot be
13th month pay and bonus, we agree with the findings of Mangabat reduced, diminished, discontinued or eliminated by the
that the CBA provisions did not give any meaning different from that employer.14 The principle of non-diminution of benefits is founded on
given by the law, thus it should be computed at 1/12 of the total the Constitutional mandate to "protect the rights of workers and
compensation which an employee receives for the whole calendar promote their welfare,"15 and "to afford labor full protection."16 Said
year. The bonus is also equivalent to the amount of the 13th month mandate in turn is the basis of Article 4 of the Labor Code which
pay given, or in proportion to the actual service rendered by an states that "all doubts in the implementation and interpretation of this
employee within the year. Code, including its implementing rules and regulations shall be
rendered in favor of labor." Jurisprudence is replete with cases which
On the second issue, however, petitioner founders. recognize the right of employees to benefits which were voluntarily
given by the employer and which ripened into company practice.
Thus in Davao Fruits Corporation v. Associated Labor Unions, et
al.17 where an employer had freely and continuously included in the is and its Resolution dated 9 December 2005 are
computation of the 13th month pay those items that were expressly hereby AFFIRMED.
excluded by the law, we held that the act which was favorable to the
employees though not conforming to law had thus ripened into a SO ORDERED.
practice and could not be withdrawn, reduced, diminished,
discontinued or eliminated. In Sevilla Trading Company v.
Semana,18 we ruled that the employer's act of including non-basic
benefits in the computation of the 13th month pay was a voluntary act
and had ripened into a company practice which cannot be
peremptorily withdrawn. Meanwhile in Davao Integrated Port
Stevedoring Services v. Abarquez,19 the Court ordered the payment of
the cash equivalent of the unenjoyed sick leave benefits to its
intermittent workers after finding that said workers had received these
benefits for almost four years until the grant was stopped due to a
different interpretation of the CBA provisions. We held that the
employer cannot unilaterally withdraw the existing privilege of
commutation or conversion to cash given to said workers, and as also
noted that the employer had in fact granted and paid said cash
equivalent of the unenjoyed portion of the sick leave benefits to some
intermittent workers.

In the years 1992, 1993, 1994, 1999, 2002 and 2003, petitioner had
adopted a policy of freely, voluntarily and consistently granting full
benefits to its employees regardless of the length of service rendered.
True, there were only a total of seven employees who benefited from
such a practice, but it was an established practice nonetheless.
Jurisprudence has not laid down any rule specifying a minimum
number of years within which a company practice must be exercised
in order to constitute voluntary company practice.20 Thus, it can be
six (6) years,21 three (3) years,22 or even as short as two (2)
years.23 Petitioner cannot shirk away from its responsibility by merely
claiming that it was a mistake or an error, supported only by an
affidavit of its manufacturing group head portions of which read:

5. 13th month pay, bonus, and cash conversion of unused/earned

vacation leave, sick leave and emergency leave are computed and
paid in full to employees who rendered services to the company for
the entire year and proportionately to those employees who rendered
service to the company for a period less than one (1) year or twelve
(12) months in accordance with the CBA provision relative thereto.

6. It was never the intention much less the policy of the management
to grant the aforesaid benefits to the employees in full regardless of
whether or not the employee has rendered services to the company for
the entire year, otherwise, it would be unjust and inequitable not only
to the company but to other employees as well.24

In cases involving money claims of employees, the employer has the

burden of proving that the employees did receive the wages and
benefits and that the same were paid in accordance with law.25

Indeed, if petitioner wants to prove that it merely erred in giving full

benefits, it could have easily presented other proofs, such as the
names of other employees who did not fully serve for one year and
thus were given prorated benefits. Experientially, a perfect attendance
in the workplace is always the goal but it is seldom achieved. There
must have been other employees who had reported for work less than
a full year and who, as a consequence received only prorated benefits.
This could have easily bolstered petitioner's theory of mistake/error,
but sadly, no evidence to that effect was presented.

IN VIEW HEREOF, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the

Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 85089 dated 29 September 2005
THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 174809               June 27, 2012

DUTY FREE PHILIPPINES SERVICES, INC., Petitioner, cause and for loss of trust and confidence, with forfeiture of all rights
vs. and privileges due them from the company, except earned salaries
MANOLITO Q. TRIA, Respondent. and leave credits."

DECISION On September 18, 1998, Petitioner sent [respondent] a memorandum

PERALTA, J.:
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court are the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision1 dated May
31, 2006 and Resolution2 dated September 21, 2006 in CA-G.R. SP
No. 70839. The assailed decision affirmed the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC) Resolution3 dated March 15, 2002 in
NLRC NCR Case No. 00-12-009965-98, while the assailed resolution
denied petitioner Duty Free Philippines Services, Inc.’s (DFPSI’s)
motion for reconsideration.
terminating his employment with Petitioner and his secondment to
DFP "on the basis of the findings and recommendation of the (DFP’s)
Discipline Committee."
Aggrieved, [respondent] filed a Complaint against Petitioner for
Illegal Dismissal and for payment of backwages, attorney’s fees and
damages.4
On May 31, 1999, the Labor Arbiter (LA) rendered a
Decision5 finding respondent to have been illegally dismissed from
employment. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:

The facts, as found by the CA, are as follows: WHEREFORE, all the foregoing premises being considered,
judgment is hereby rendered ordering the respondent company to
Petitioner Duty Free Philippines Services, Inc. is a manpower agency reinstate complainant to his former position with all the rights,
that provides personnel to Duty Free Philippines (DFP). privileges, and benefits appertaining thereto, including seniority, plus
full backwages which as of May 31, 1999 already amount to
On March 16, 1989, [respondent] Manolo Tria was employed by ₱172,672.50. Further, the respondent is ordered to pay complainant
Petitioner and was seconded to DFP as a Warehouse Supervisor. the equivalent of ten percent (10%) of the total backwages as and for
attorney’s fees.
In an Audit Report, dated January 16, 1998, it was revealed that 1,020
packs of Marlboro bearing Merchandise Code No. 020101 under The claim for damages is denied for lack of merit.
WRR No. 36-04032 were not included in the condemnation
proceedings held on December 27, 1996 and that there were "glaring SO ORDERED.6
discrepancies" in the related documents which "indicate a malicious
attempt to conceal an anomalous irregularity." The relevant Request On appeal, the NLRC affirmed 7 the LA decision, but deleted the
for Condemnation was found to have been fabricated and all award of attorney’s fees. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was
signatories therein, namely, Ed Garcia, Stockkeeper; Catherino A. also denied8 on March 15, 2002.
Bero, DIU Supervisor; and Constantino L. Cruz, were held
"accountable for the irregular loss of the unaccounted Marlboro KS When petitioner elevated the case to the CA, it denied for the first
Pack of 5…" time the existence of employer-employee relationship and pointed to
DFP as respondent’s real employer. The appellate court, however,
After further investigation, it was discovered that the subject considered said defense barred by estoppel for its failure to raise the
merchandise was illegally brought out of the warehouse and it was defense before the LA and the NLRC.9 It nonetheless ruled that
made to appear that in all the documents prepared said goods were although DFPDC conducted the investigation, petitioner’s dismissal
legally condemned on December 27, 1996. Ed Garcia, one of the letter effected respondent’s termination from employment.10 On the
respondents in the Audit Review, implicated [respondent] and [two] validity of respondent’s dismissal from employment, the CA
others. Garcia claimed that he was unaware of the illegality of the respected the LA and NLRC findings and reached the same
transaction as he was only obeying the orders of his superiors who conclusion that respondent was indeed illegally dismissed from
included [respondent]. Garcia disclosed that it was [respondent] who employment.11 Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was likewise
ordered him to look for a van for the supposed "direct condemnation" denied in a Resolution12 dated September 21, 2006.
of the subject merchandise.
Undaunted, petitioner elevates the case before the Court in this
Consequently, the Discipline Committee requested [respondent] to petition for review on certiorari based on the following grounds:
submit a written reply/explanation regarding the findings in the Audit
Report and the allegations of Garcia. THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT
RULED THAT PETITIONER DFPSI IS LIABLE FOR ILLEGAL
[Respondent] denied his participation in the illegal transaction. DISMISSAL AND DECLARE THAT:
Although he admitted that he instructed Garcia to look for a van, it
was for the purpose of transferring the damaged merchandise from A. DFPSI IS THE DIRECT EMPLOYER OF
the main warehouse to the proper warehouse for damaged goods. RESPONDENT INSTEAD OF DUTY FREE PHILIPPINES
("DFP"); AND
On August 27, 1998, the DFP Discipline Committee [DFPDC] issued
a Joint Resolution holding [respondent] "GUILTY OF B. THE ISSUE AS TO WHO TERMINATED
DISHONESTY for (his) direct participation in the fake RESPONDENT WAS RAISED ONLY FOR THE FIRST
condemnation" and pilferage of the missing 1,020 Marlboro Pack of TIME ON APPEAL.
5’s cigarettes … and orders (his) DISMISSAL from the service for
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED AND RULED theory, which it could have done had it been aware earlier of the new
CONTRARY TO LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE WHEN IT theory before the LA and the NLRC.23 More so in this case as the
FAILED TO RULE ON THE LIABILITY OF DFP, AS AN supposed employer of respondent which is DFP was not and is not a
INDISPENSABLE PARTY TO THE COMPLAINT FOR ILLEGAL party to the present case.
DISMISSAL.
In Pamplona Plantation Company v. Acosta, 24 petitioner therein raised
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED AND RULED for the first time in its appeal to the NLRC that respondents therein
CONTRARY TO LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE WHEN IT HELD were not its employees but of another company. In brushing aside this
THAT RESPONDENT’S EMPLOYMENT WAS ILLEGALLY defense, the Court held:
TERMINATED.13
x x x Petitioner is estopped from denying that respondents worked for
Petitioner insists that the CA erred in not considering its argument it. In the first place, it never raised this defense in the proceedings
that it is not the employer of respondent. It likewise faults the CA in before the Labor Arbiter. Notably, the defense it raised pertained to
not ruling on the liability of DFP as an indispensable party. the nature of respondents’ employment, i.e., whether they are
seasonal employees, contractors, or worked under the pakyaw system.
We cannot sustain petitioner’s contention. In its Position Thus, in its Position Paper, petitioner alleged that some of the
Paper,14 petitioner highlighted respondent’s complicity and respondents are coconut filers and copra hookers or sakadors; some
involvement in the alleged "fake condemnation" of damaged are seasonal employees who worked as scoopers or lugiteros; some
cigarettes as found by the DFPDC. This, according to petitioner, was are contractors; and some worked under the pakyaw system. In
a just cause for terminating an employee. support of these allegations, petitioner even presented the company’s
payroll which will allegedly prove its allegations.
In its Motion for Reconsideration and/or Appeal,15 petitioner insisted
that there was basis for the termination of respondent’s employment. By setting forth these defenses, petitioner, in effect, admitted that
Even in its Supplemental Appeal16 with the NLRC, petitioner respondents worked for it, albeit in different capacities. Such
reiterated its stand that respondent was terminated for a just and valid allegations are negative pregnant – denials pregnant with the
cause and due process was strictly observed in his dismissal. It further admission of the substantial facts in the pleading responded to which
questioned the reinstatement aspect of the LA decision allegedly are not squarely denied, and amounts to an acknowledgment that
because of strained relations between them. respondents were indeed employed by petitioner. 25 (Emphasis
supplied.)
With the aforesaid pleadings submitted by petitioner, together with
the corresponding pleadings filed by respondent, the LA and the Also in Telephone Engineering & Service Co., Inc. v. WCC, et
NLRC declared the dismissal of respondent illegal. These decisions al.,26 the Court held that the lack of employer-employee relationship is
were premised on the finding that there was an employer-employee a matter of defense that the employer should properly raise in the
relationship. 17 Nowhere in said pleadings did petitioner deny the proceedings below. The determination of this relationship involves a
existence of said relationship. Rather, the line of its defense impliedly finding of fact, which is conclusive and binding and not subject to
admitted said relationship. The issue of illegal dismissal would have review by this Court.27
been irrelevant had there been no employer-employee relationship in
the first place. In this case, petitioner insisted that respondent was dismissed from
employment for cause and after the observance of the proper
It was only in petitioner’s Petition for Certiorari before the CA did it procedure for termination. Consequently, petitioner cannot now deny
impute liability on DFP as respondent’s direct employer and as the that respondent is its employee. While indeed, jurisdiction cannot be
entity who conducted the investigation and initiated respondent’s conferred by acts or omission of the parties, petitioner’s belated
termination proceedings. Obviously, petitioner changed its theory denial that it is the employer of respondent is obviously an
when it elevated the NLRC decision to the CA. The appellate court, afterthought, a devise to defeat the law and evade its obligations.28
therefore, aptly refused to consider the new theory offered by
petitioner in its petition. As the object of the pleadings is to draw the It is a fundamental rule of procedure that higher courts are precluded
lines of battle, so to speak, between the litigants, and to indicate fairly from entertaining matters neither alleged in the pleadings nor raised
the nature of the claims or defenses of both parties, a party cannot during the proceedings below, but ventilated for the first time only in
subsequently take a position contrary to, or inconsistent, with its a motion for reconsideration or on appeal.29 Petitioner is bound by its
pleadings.18 It is a matter of law that when a party adopts a particular submissions that respondent is its employee and it should not be
theory and the case is tried and decided upon that theory in the court permitted to change its theory. Such change of theory cannot be
below, he will not be permitted to change his theory on appeal. The tolerated on appeal, not due to the strict application of procedural
case will be reviewed and decided on that theory and not approached rules, but as a matter of fairness.30
and resolved from a different point of view.19
As to the legality of respondent’s dismissal, it is well settled that
The review of labor cases is confined to questions of jurisdiction or under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law may be
grave abuse of discretion.20 The alleged absence of employer- raised, the reason being that this Court is not a trier of facts, and it is
employee relationship cannot be raised for the first time on not for this Court to reexamine and reevaluate the evidence on
appeal.21 The resolution of this issue requires the admission and record.31 Findings of fact and conclusions of the Labor Arbiter as well
calibration of evidence and the LA and the NLRC did not pass upon it as those of the NLRC or, for that matter, any other adjudicative body
in their decisions.22 We cannot permit petitioner to change its theory which can be considered as a trier of facts on specific matters within
on appeal. It would be unfair to the adverse party who would have no its field of expertise, should be considered as binding and conclusive
more opportunity to present further evidence, material to the new upon the appellate courts.32
Petitioner dismissed respondent from employment based on the
recommendation of the DFPDC holding respondent guilty of
dishonesty for his direct participation in the "fake condemnation" and
"pilferage" of the missing 1,020 Marlboro Pack of 5
cigarettes.33 Respondent was implicated in the anomalous transaction
by his co-employees who pointed to the former as the one who
ordered the other suspects to look for a vehicle that would be used to
transport the subject cigarettes. This, according to the DFPDC, was
odd and strange. With this act alone and by reason of his position, the
DFPDC concluded, and affirmed by petitioner, that respondent
definitely had knowledge of the "fake condemnation." From these
circumstances, petitioner sustained the findings of dishonesty and
dismissed respondent from employment.

Again, we agree with the appellate court that DFPDC’s conclusions

are not supported by clear and convincing evidence to warrant the
dismissal of respondent. In illegal dismissal cases, the employer is
burdened to prove just cause for terminating the employment of its
employee with clear and convincing evidence. This principle is
designed to give flesh and blood to the guaranty of security of tenure
granted by the Constitution to employees under the Labor Code.34 In
this case, petitioner failed to submit clear and convincing evidence of
respondent’s direct participation in the alleged fake condemnation
proceedings. To be sure, unsubstantiated suspicions, accusations, and
conclusions of employers do not provide for legal justification for
dismissing employees. In case of doubt, such cases should be
resolved in favor of labor, pursuant to the social justice policy of
labor laws and the Constitution.35

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED for lack

of merit. The Court of Appeals Decision dated May 31, 2006 and
Resolution dated September 21, 2006, in CA-G.R. SP No. 70839, are
AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.
FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 141221-36      March 7, 2002

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (at large), KARL REICHL, and
YOLANDA GUTIERREZ DE REICHL, accused,
KARL REICHL and YOLANDA GUTIERREZ DE
REICHL, accused-appellants
PUNO, J.:
This is an appeal from the Joint Decision of the Regional Trial Court,
Batangas City in Criminal Case Nos. 6428, 6429, 6430, 6431, 6432,
6433, 6434, 6435, 6436, 6437, 6438, 6439, 6528, 6529, 6530 and
6531 finding accused-appellants, Spouses Karl Reichl and Yolanda
Gutierrez de Reichl guilty of five (5) counts of estafa and one (1)
count of syndicated and large scale illegal recruitment.1
In April 1993, eight (8) informations for syndicated and large scale
illegal recruitment and eight (8) informations for estafa were filed
against accused-appellants, spouses Karl and Yolanda Reichl,
together with Francisco Hernandez. Only the Reichl spouses were
tried and convicted by the trial court as Francisco Hernandez
remained at large.1âwphi1.nêt
The evidence for the prosecution consisted of the testimonies of
private complainants; a certification from the Philippine Overseas
Employment Administration (POEA) that Francisco Hernandez, Karl
Reichl and Yolanda Gutierrez Reichl in their personal capacities were
neither licensed nor authorized by the POEA to recruit workers for
overseas employment;2 the receipts for the payment made by private
complainants; and two documents signed by the Reichl spouses
where they admitted that they promised to secure Austrian tourist
visas for private complainants and that they would return all the
expenses incurred by them if they are not able to leave by March 24,
1993,3 and where Karl Reichl pledged to refund to private
complainants the total sum of P1,388,924.00 representing the
amounts they paid for the processing of their papers.4
Private complainant Narcisa Hernandez, a teacher, was first to testify
for the prosecution. She stated that Francisco Hernandez introduced
her to the spouses Karl and Yolanda Reichl at the residence of a
certain Hilarion Matira at Kumintang Ibaba, Batangas City. At the
time, she also saw the other applicants Melanie Bautista, Estela
Manalo, Edwin Coleng, Anicel Umahon, Analiza Perez and Maricel
Matira. Karl and Yolanda Reichl told Narcisa that they could find her
a job as domestic helper in Italy. They, however, required her to pay
the amount of P150,000.00 for the processing of her papers and travel
documents. She paid the fee in three installments. She paid the first
installment of P50,000.00 on July 14, 1992, the second installment
of P25,000.00 on August 6, 1992 and the third in the amount
of P75,000.00 on December 27, 1992. She gave the money to
Francisco Hernandez in the presence of the Reichl spouses at Matira's
residence. Francisco Hernandez issued a receipt for the first and
second installment5 but not for the third. Narcisa was scheduled to
leave on December 17, 1992 but was not able to do so. Karl Reichl
explained that she would get her transit visa to Italy in Austria, but
she could not yet leave for Austria because the hotels were fully
booked at that time because of the Christmas season. Narcisa's
departure was again scheduled on January 5, 1993, but it still did not
push through. Narcisa stated that they went to Manila several times
supposedly to obtain a visa from the Austrian Embassy and Karl
Reichl assured her that she would be able to leave once she gets her
visa. The accused set the departure of Narcisa and that of the other
applicants several times but these proved to be empty promises. In
March 1993, the applicants met with the three accused at the
residence of private complainant Charito Balmes and asked them to
refund the payment if they could not send them abroad. The meeting
resulted in an agreement which was reduced into writing and signed
by Karl Reichl. Mr. Reichl promised to ensure private complainants'
departure by April, otherwise, they would return their payment.6
Private complainant Leonora Perez also gave the following
testimony: In July 1992, her sister, Analiza Perez, introduced her to
Francisco Hernandez at their residence in Dolor Subdivision,
Batangas City. Francisco Hernandez convinced her to apply for a job
in Italy. When she accepted the offer, Francisco Hernandez told her to
prepare P150,000.00 for the processing of her papers. In August
1992, Leonora, together with her sister and Francisco Hernandez,
went to Ramada Hotel in Manila to meet with Karl and Yolanda
Reichl. At said meeting, Leonora handed her payment of P50,000.00
to Yolanda Reichl. Yolanda assured her that she would be able to
work in Italy. Francisco Hernandez and the Reichl spouses told
Leonora to wait for about three weeks before she could leave. After
three weeks, Francisco Hernandez invited Leonora and the other
applicants to the house of Hilarion Matira in Batangas City to discuss
some matters. Francisco Hernandez informed the applicants that their
departure would be postponed to December 17, 1992. December 17
came and the applicants were still unable to leave as it was allegedly
a holiday. Yolanda and Karl Reichl nonetheless assured Leonora of
employment as domestic helper in Italy with a monthly salary of
$1,000.00. Francisco Hernandez and the Reichl spouses promised the
applicants that they would leave for Italy on January 5, 1993. Some
time in January 1993, Francisco Hernandez went to the residence of
Leonora and collected the sum of P50,000.00 purportedly for the
plane fare. Francisco issued a receipt for the payment. When the
applicants were not able to leave on the designated date, Francisco
Hernandez and the spouses again made another promise. Tired of the
recruiters' unfulfilled promises, the applicants decided to withdraw
their application. However, Karl Reichl constantly assured them that
they would land a job in Italy because he had connections in Vienna.
The promised employment, however, never materialized. Thus, Karl
Reichl signed a document stating that he would refund the payment
made by the applicants plus interest and other expenses. The
document was executed and signed at the house of one of the
applicants, Charito Balmes, at P. Zamora St., Batangas City.7
Janet Perez, Leonora's sister, corroborated the latter's testimony that
she paid a total amount of P100,000.00 to the three accused.8
Private complainant Charito Balmes told a similar story when she
testified before the court. She said that Francisco Hernandez
convinced her to apply for the job of domestic helper in Italy and
required her to pay a fee of P150,000.00. He also asked her to prepare
her passport and other papers to be used to secure a visa. On
November 25, 1992, she gave P25,000.00 to Francisco Hernandez.
They proceeded to Kumintang Ibaba, Batangas City and Francisco
Hernandez introduced her to his business partners, spouses Karl and
Yolanda Reichl. Francisco Hernandez turned over the payment to the
spouses so that they could secure a visa for her. The Reichl spouses
promised her an overseas job. They said she and the other applicants
would leave on December 17, 1992. On December 11, 1992, Charito
paid the amount of P70,300.00 to Francisco Hernandez in the
presence of the Reichls. Francisco Hernandez again handed the
money to the spouses. On February 16, 1993, Charito
paid P20,000.00 to Francisco Hernandez who delivered the same to
the spouses. Francisco Hernandez did not issue a receipt for the
payment made by Charito because he told her that he would not
betray her trust. Like the other applicants, Charito was not able to
leave the country despite the numerous promises made by the
accused. They gave various excuses for their failure to depart, until
finally the Reichls told the applicants that Karl Reichl had so many
business transactions in the Philippines that they would not be able to
send them abroad and that they would refund their payment instead.
Hence, they executed an agreement which was signed by Karl Reichl
and stating that they would return the amounts paid by the applicants. would also bring some of his relatives with him and he would
The accused, however, did not comply with their obligation.9 introduce him to them. There he met Narcisa Hernandez and Leonora
Perez. Leonora Perez, together with Francisco Hernandez, later went
Mrs. Elemenita Bautista, the mother of private complainant Melanie to see Mr. Reichl at the house of his in-laws at No. 4 Buenafe Road,
Bautista, also took the witness stand. She stated that in May 1992, Batangas City and asked him if he could help her obtain an Austrian
18
Melanie applied for an overseas job through Francisco Hernandez. visa. Karl Reichl, however, was firm on his refusal.
Francisco Hernandez told her to prepare P150,000.00 to be used for
the processing of her papers and plane ticket. On June 26, 1992, In his testimony before the trial court, Karl Reichl denied any
Melanie made the initial payment of P50,000.00 to Francisco knowledge about Francisco Hernandez's recruitment activities. He
Hernandez who was then accompanied by Karl and Yolanda said that Francisco Hernandez merely told him that he wanted to help
Reichl.10 Upon receipt of the payment, Francisco Hernandez gave the his relatives go to Europe. He further denied that he promised private
money to Yolanda Reichl. Melanie made two other payments: one on complainants that he would give them overseas employment.19 As
August 6, 1992 in the amount of P25,000.00,11 and another on regards the document where Mr. Reichl undertook to
January 3, 1993 in the amount of P51,000.00.12 Three receipts were pay P1,388,924.00 to private complainants, he claimed that he signed
issued for the payments.13 said document under duress. Francisco Hernandez allegedly told him
that private complainants would harm him and his family if he
Rustico Manalo, the husband of private complainant Estela Abel de refused to sign it. He signed the document as he felt he had no other
20
Manalo, testified that his wife applied for the job of domestic helper option.
abroad. In June 1992, Francisco Hernandez introduced them to Karl
and Yolanda Reichl who were allegedly sending workers to Italy. Yolanda Gutierrez de Reichl corroborated the testimony of her
Rustico and his wife prepared all the relevant documents, i.e., husband and denied the charges against her. She claimed that she was
passport, police clearance and marriage contract, and paid a total in Manila on the dates alleged in the various informations, thus, she
placement fee of P130,000.00.14 They paid P50,000.00 on June 5, could not have committed the acts charged therein. Yolanda Reichl
1992, P25,000.00 on August 8, 1992, and P55,000.00 on January 3, further stated that she did not know of any reason why private
1993. The payments were made at the house of Hilarion Matira and complainants filed these cases against her and her husband. She said
were received by Francisco Hernandez who, in turn, remitted them to that several persons were harassing her and pressuring her to pay
the Reichl spouses. Francisco Hernandez issued a receipt for the private complainants the sum of at least P50,000.00.21
payment. The Reichls promised to take care of Estela's papers and to
secure a job for her abroad. The Reichls vowed to return the payment After assessing the evidence presented by the parties, the trial court
if they fail on their promise. As with the other applicants, Estela was rendered a decision convicting accused-appellants of one (1) count of
also not able to leave the country.15 illegal recruitment in large scale and six (6) counts of estafa. The
dispositive portion of the decision reads:
The defense interposed denial and alibi.
"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding the
Accused-appellant Karl Reichl, an Austrian citizen, claimed that he accused spouses KARL REICHL and YOLANDA
entered the Philippines on July 29, 1992. Prior to this date, he was in GUTIERREZ REICHL -
various places in Europe. He came to the country on July 29, 1992 to
explore business opportunities in connection with the import and 1. NOT GUILTY of the crime of syndicated and
export of beer and sugar. He also planned to establish a tourist spot large-scale illegal recruitment as charged in the
somewhere in Batangas. Upon his arrival, he and his wife, Yolanda above-mentioned Criminal Cases Nos. 6435, 6437
Reichl, stayed at the Manila Intercontinental Hotel. On August 3, and 6529;
1992, they moved to Manila Midtown Hotel. They stayed there until
August 26, 1992. After they left Manila Midtown Hotel, they went to 2. NOT GUILTY of the crime of estafa as charged
another hotel in Quezon City. Karl Reichl returned to Vienna on in the above-mentioned Criminal Cases Nos. 6434,
September 19, 1992.16 6436 and 6528;

Mr. Reichl stated that he first met Francisco Hernandez through a
certain Jimmy Pineda around August 1992 at Manila Midtown Hotel.
Francisco Hernandez was allegedly looking for a European
equipment to be used for the quarrying operation of his friend. Before
accepting the deal, he made some research on the background of the
intended business. Realizing that said business would not be viable,
Karl Reichl advised Francisco Hernandez to instead look for a
second-hand equipment from Taiwan or Japan. He never saw
Francisco Hernandez again until he left for Vienna in September
1992.17
3. GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of syndicated and large-scale illegal recruitment, as
charged, in the above-mentioned Criminal Cases
Nos. 6429, 6431, 6433, 6439 and 6531;
4. GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of estafa, as charged, in the above-mentioned
Criminal Cases Nos. 6428, 6430, 6432, 6438 and
6530.

Karl Reichl returned to the Philippines on October 21, 1992. The Court hereby imposes upon the accused-spouses KARL REICHL
Francisco Hernandez allegedly approached him and sought his help in and YOLANDA GUTIERREZ REICHL the following sentences:
securing Austrian visas purportedly for his relatives. Karl Reichl
refused and told him that he was planning to stay permanently in the 1. For the 5 offenses, collectively, of syndicated and large-
Philippines. On one occasion, Francisco Hernandez invited him to an scale illegal recruitment in Criminal Cases Nos. 6429, 6431,
excursion at Sombrero Island. Francisco Hernandez told him that he 6433, 6438 and 6531, to suffer the penalty of life
 imprisonment, and to pay a fine of One Hundred Thousand The appeal is bereft of merit.
Pesos (P100,000.00);
Article 38 of the Labor Code defines illegal recruitment as "any
2. In Criminal Case No. 6428, there being no mitigating or recruitment activities, including the prohibited practices enumerated
aggravating circumstance, to suffer the indeterminate under Article 34 of (the Labor Code), to be undertaken by non-
sentence of Six (6) Years of prision correctional, as licensees or non-holders of authority." The term "recruitment and
minimum to Sixteen (16) Years of reclusion temporal, as placement" refers to any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting,
maximum, and to indemnify the complainant Narcisa transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, including
Hernandez in the amount of P150,000.00; referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for employment,
locally or abroad, whether for profit or not, provided that any person
3. In Criminal Case No. 6430, there being no mitigating or or entity which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee
aggravating circumstance, to suffer the indeterminate employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in
23
sentence of six (6) years of prision correctional as minimum recruitment and placement.  The law imposes a higher penalty when
to eleven (11) years of prision mayor, as maximum and to the illegal recruitment is committed by a syndicate or in large scale as
indemnify the complainant Leonora Perez in the amount they are considered an offense involving economic sabotage. Illegal
of P100,000.00; recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a
group of three (3) or more persons conspiring and/or confederating
4. In Criminal Case No. 6432, there being no mitigating or with one another in carrying out any unlawful or illegal transaction,
aggravating circumstance, to suffer the indeterminate enterprise or scheme. It is deemed committed in large scale if
sentence of six (6) years of prision correctional as minimum committed
24
against three (3) or more persons individually or as a
to sixteen (16) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum and group.
to indemnify the complainant Melanie Bautista in the
amount of P150,000.00; In the case at bar, the prosecution was able to prove beyond
reasonable doubt that accused-appellants engaged in activities that
5. In Criminal Case No. 6438, there being no mitigating or fall within the definition of recruitment and placement under the
aggravating circumstance, to suffer the indeterminate Labor Code. The evidence on record shows that they promised
sentence of six (6) years of prision correctional as minimum overseas employment to private complainants and required them to
to fourteen (14) years of reclusion temporal as maximum prepare the necessary documents and to pay the placement fee,
and to indemnify the complainant Estela Abel de Manalo in although they did not have any license to do so. There is illegal
the amount of P130,000.00; recruitment when one who does not possess the necessary authority
or license gives the impression of having the ability to send a worker
abroad.25
6. In Criminal Case No. 6530, there being no mitigating or
aggravating circumstance, to suffer the indeterminate
sentence of six (6) years or prision correctional as minimum Accused-appellants assert that they merely undertook to secure
to thirteen (13) years of reclusion temporal as maximum and Austrian visas for private complainants, which act did not constitute
to indemnify the complainant Charito Balmes in the amount illegal recruitment. They cite the document marked at Exhibit "J"
of P121,300.00; and stating that they promised to obtain Austrian tourist visas for private
complainants. We are not convinced. Private complainants Narcisa
Hernandez, Leonora Perez and Charito Balmes categorically stated
7. To pay the costs. that Karl and Yolanda Reichl told them that they would provide them
overseas employment and promised them that they would be able to
SO ORDERED." leave the country on a specified date. We do not see any reason to
doubt the truthfulness of their testimony. The defense has not shown
Accused-appellants appealed from the decision of the trial court. any ill motive for these witnesses to falsely testify against accused-
They raise the following errors: appellants if it were not true that they met with the Reichl spouses
and the latter represented themselves to have the capacity to secure
"1. The trial court erred in finding accused-appellant Karl gainful employment for them abroad. The minor lapses in the
Reichl guilty of the crimes of estafa and illegal recruitment testimony of these witnesses pointed out by accused-appellants in
committed by syndicate and in large scale based on the their brief do not impair their credibility, especially since they
evidence presented by the prosecution which miserably corroborate each other on the material points, i.e., that they met with
failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. the three accused several times, that the three accused promised to
give them overseas employment, and that they paid the corresponding
placement fee but were not able to leave the country. It has been held
2. The trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellant
that truth-telling witnesses are not always expected to give error-free
of the crime of illegal recruitment on a large scale by
testimonies considering the lapse of time and the treachery of human
cummulating five separate cases of illegal recruitment each
memory.26 Moreover, it was shown that Karl Reichl signed a
filed by a single private complainant.
document marked as Exhibit "C" where he promised to refund the
payments given by private complainants for the processing of their
3. The trial court erred in rendering as a matter of course an papers. We are not inclined to believe Mr. Reichl's claim that he was
automatic guilty verdict against accused-appellant for the forced by Francisco Hernandez to sign said document. There is no
crime of estafa after a guilty verdict in a separate crime for showing, whether in his testimony or in that of his wife, that private
illegal recruitment. It is submitted that conviction in the complainants threatened to harm them if he did not sign the
latter crime does not ipso facto result in conviction in the document. Mr. Reichl is an educated man and it cannot be said that he
former."22 did not understand the contents of the paper he was signing. When he
affixed his signature thereon, he in effect acknowledged his
obligation to ensure the departure of private complainants and to
provide them gainful employment abroad. Such obligation arose from Criminal Case No. 6431
the promise of overseas placement made by him and his co-accused
to private complainants. The admission made by accused-appellants
in Exhibit "J" that they promised to obtain Austrian visas for private
complainants does not negate the fact that they also promised to
procure for them overseas employment. In fact, in Exhibit "J",
accused-appellants admitted that each of the private complainants
paid the amount of P50,000.00. However, in Exhibit "C", which was
executed on a later date, accused-appellants promised to refund to
each complainant an amount exceeding P150,000.00. This is an
acknowledgment that accused-appellants received payments from the
complainants not only for securing visas but also for their placement
abroad.
Accused-appellants' defense of denial and alibi fail to impress us. The
acts of recruitment were committed from June 1992 until January
1993 in Batangas City. Karl Reichl was in Manila from July 29, 1992
until September 19, 1992, and then he returned to the Philippines and
stayed in Batangas from October 21, 1992. Yolanda Reichl, on the
other hand, claimed that he was in Manila on the dates alleged in the
various informations. It is of judicial notice that Batangas City is only
a few hours' drive from Manila. Thus, even if the spouses were
staying in Manila, it does not prevent them from going to Batangas to
engage in their recruitment business. Furthermore, it appears that the Criminal Case No. 6433
three accused worked as a team and they conspired and cooperated
with each other in recruiting domestic helpers purportedly to be sent
to Italy. Francisco Hernandez introduced Karl and Yolanda Reichl to
the job applicants as his business partners. Karl and Yolanda Reichl
themselves gave assurances to private complainants that they would
seek employment for them in Italy. Francisco Hernandez remitted the
payments given by the applicants to the Reichl spouses and the latter
undertook to process the applicants' papers. There being conspiracy,
each of the accused shall be equally liable for the acts of his co-
accused even if he himself did not personally take part in its
execution.
Accused-appellants argue that the trial court erred in convicting
accused-appellants of illegal recruitment in large scale by
cummulating the individual informations filed by private
complainants. The eight informations for illegal recruitment are
worded as follows:
Criminal Case No. 6429
"That on or about July 14, 1992 and sometime prior and
subsequent thereto at Hilltop, Brgy. Kumintang Ibaba, Criminal Case No. 6435
Batangas City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, knowing fully
well that they are non-licensees nor holders of authority
from the Department of Labor and Employment or any other
authorized government entity, conspiring and confederating
together, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously engage in syndicated and large scale recruitment
and placement activities by enlisting, contracting, procuring, authorized government entity, conspiring and confederating
offering and promising for a fee to one Narcisa Autor de
Hernandez and to more than three other persons, job
placement abroad, by reason of which said Narcisa Autor de
Hernandez relying on these misrepresentations, paid and/or
gave the amount of ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND
(P150,000.00) PESOS, Philippine Currency, to said accused,
which acts constitute a violation of the said law.
Contrary to Law."
"That on or about July 1992 and sometime prior and
subsequent thereto at Dolor Subdivision, Batangas City,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, knowing fully well that
they are non-licensees nor holders of authority from the
Department of Labor and Employment or any other
authorized government entity, conspiring and confederating
together, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously engage in syndicated and large scale recruitment
and placement activities by enlisting, contracting, procuring,
offering and promising for a fee to one Leonora Perez y
Atienza and to more than three other persons, job placement
abroad, by reason of which said Leonora Perez y Atienza
relying on these misrepresentations, paid and/or gave the
amount of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P100,000.00)
PESOS, Philippine Currency, to said accused, which acts
constitute a violation of the said law.
Contrary to Law."
"That on or about June 26, 1992 and sometime prior and
subsequent thereto at Hilltop, Brgy. Kumintang Ibaba,
Batangas City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, knowing fully
well that they are non-licensees nor holders of authority
from the Department of Labor and Employment or any other
authorized government entity, conspiring and confederating
together, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously engage in syndicated and large scale recruitment
and placement activities by enlisting, contracting, procuring,
offering and promising for a fee to one Melanie Bautista y
Dolor and to more than three other persons, job placement
abroad, by reason of which said Melanie Bautista y Dolor
relying on these misrepresentations, paid and/or gave the
amount of ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND
(P150,000.00) PESOS, Philippine Currency, to said accused,
which acts constitute a violation of the said law.1âwphi1.nêt
Contrary to Law."
"That on or about July 12, 1992 and sometime prior and
subsequent thereto at Hilltop, Brgy. Kumintang Ibaba,
Batangas City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, knowing fully
well that they are non-licensees nor holders of authority
from the Department of Labor and Employment or any other
together, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously engage in syndicated and large scale recruitment
and placement activities by enlisting, contracting, procuring,
offering and promising for a fee to one Annaliza Perez y
Atienza and to more than three other persons, job placement
abroad, by reason of which said Annaliza Perez y Atienza
relying on these misrepresentations, paid and/or gave the
amount of ONE HUNDRED SIXTY THOUSAND
 (P160,000.00) PESOS, Philippine Currency, to said accused,
which acts constitute a violation of the said law.
Contrary to Law.
Criminal Case No. 6437
"That on or about August 15, 1992 and sometime prior and
subsequent thereto at Hilltop, Brgy. Kumintang Ibaba,
Batangas City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Criminal Case No. 6531
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, knowing fully
well that they are non-licensees nor holders of authority
from the Department of Labor and Employment or any other
authorized government entity, conspiring and confederating
together, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously engage in syndicated and large scale recruitment
and placement activities by enlisting, contracting, procuring,
offering and promising for a fee to one Edwin Coling y
Coling and to more than three other persons, job placement
abroad, by reason of which said Edwin Coling y Coling
relying on these misrepresentations, paid and/or gave the
amount of ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND
(P150,000.00) PESOS, Philippine Currency, to said accused,
which acts constitute a violation of the said law.
Contrary to Law."
Criminal Case No. 6439
"That on or about June 5, 1992 and sometime prior and
subsequent thereto at Hilltop, Brgy. Kumintang Ibaba,
Batangas City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, knowing fully
well that they are non-licensees nor holders of authority
from the Department of Labor and Employment or any other
authorized government entity, conspiring and confederating
together, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously engage in syndicated and large scale recruitment
and placement activities by enlisting, contracting, procuring,
offering and promising for a fee to one Estela Abel de
Manalo and to more than three other persons, job placement
abroad, by reason of which said Estela Abel de Manalo
relying on these misrepresentations, paid and/or gave the
amount of ONE HUNDRED THIRTY THOUSAND
(P130,000.00) PESOS, Philippine Currency, to said accused,
which acts constitute a violation of the said law.
Contrary to Law."
Criminal Case No. 6529
"That on or about July 1992 and sometime prior and
subsequent thereto at Brgy. Sta. Rita Karsada, Batangas
City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, knowing fully
well that they are non-licensees nor holders of authority
from the Department of Labor and Employment or any other
authorized government entity, conspiring and confederating
together, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously engage in syndicated and large scale recruitment
and placement activities by enlisting, contracting, procuring,
offering and promising for a fee to one Anicel Umahon y
Delgado and to more than three other persons, job placement
abroad, by reason of which said Anicel Umahon y Delgado
relying on these misrepresentations, paid and/or gave the
amount of ONE HUNDRED THIRTY THOUSAND
(P130,000.00) PESOS, Philippine Currency, to said accused,
which acts constitute a violation of the said law.
Contrary to Law."
"That on or about November 25, 1992 and sometime prior
and subsequent thereto at No. 40 P. Zamora Street, Batangas
City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, knowing fully
well that they are non-licensees nor holders of authority
from the Department of Labor and Employment or any other
authorized government entity, conspiring and confederating
together, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously engage in syndicated and large scale recruitment
and placement activities by enlisting, contracting, procuring,
offering and promising for a fee to one Charito Balmes y
Cantos and to more than three other persons, job placement
abroad, by reason of which said Charito Balmes y Cantos
relying on these misrepresentations, paid and/or gave the
amount of ONE HUNDRED TWENTY ONE THOUSAND
THREE HUNDRED PESOS (P121,300.00), Philippine
Currency, to said accused, which acts constitute a violation
of the said law.
Contrary to Law."
We note that each information was filed by only one complainant.
We agree with accused-appellants that they could not be convicted
for illegal recruitment committed in large scale based on several
informations filed by only one complainant. The Court held in People
vs. Reyes:27
"x x x When the Labor Code speaks of illegal recruitment
'committed against three (3) or more persons individually or
as a group,' it must be understood as referring to the number
of complainants in each case who are complainants therein,
otherwise, prosecutions for single crimes of illegal
recruitment can be cummulated to make out a case of large
scale illegal recruitment. In other words, a conviction for
large scale illegal recruitment must be based on a finding in
each case of illegal recruitment of three or more persons
whether individually or as a group."28
This, however, does not serve to lower the penalty imposed upon
accused-appellants. The charge was not only for illegal recruitment
committed in large scale but also for illegal recruitment committed by
a syndicate. 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 of
Article 38 of the Labor Code. It has been shown that Karl Reichl,
Yolanda Reichl and Francisco Hernandez conspired with each other
in convincing private complainants to apply for an overseas job and
giving them the guaranty that they would be hired as domestic helpers
in Italy although they were not licensed to do so. Thus, we hold that
accused-appellants should be held liable for illegal recruitment
committed by a syndicate which is also punishable by life
imprisonment and a fine of one hundred thousand pesos
(P100,000.00) under Article 39 of the Labor Code.

Finally, we hold that the prosecution also proved the guilt of accused-
appellants for the crime of estafa. A person who is convicted of
illegal recruitment may, in addition, be convicted of estafa under Art.
315 (2) of the Revised Penal Code provided the elements of estafa are
present. Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal
Code is committed by any person who defrauds another by using a
fictitious name, or falsely pretends to possess power, influence,
qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary
transactions, or by means of similar deceits executed prior to or
simultaneously with the commission of the fraud. The offended party
must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent
means of the accused-appellant and as a result thereof, the offended
party suffered damages.29 It has been proved in this case that accused-
appellants represented themselves to private complainants to have the
capacity to send domestic helpers to Italy, although they did not have
any authority or license. It is by this representation that they induced
private complainants to pay a placement fee of P150,000.00. Such act
clearly constitutes estafa under Article 315 (2) of the Revised Penal
Code.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision

appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED.

Cost against appellants.

SO ORDERED.

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 195419               October 12, 2011

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
HADJA JARMA LALLI y PURIH, RONNIE
ARINGOY y MASION, and NESTOR RELAMPAGOS (at
large), Accused.
HADJA JARMA LALLI y PURIH and RONNIE
ARINGOY Accused-Appellants.

DECISION

CARPIO, J.:

The Case

This is a consolidated criminal case filed against the accused-

appellants for the crimes of Illegal Recruitment (Criminal Case No.
21930) and Trafficking in Persons (Criminal Case No. 21908).

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Zamboanga City, in its Decision

dated 29 November 2005 (RTC Decision), 1 found accused-appellants
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of Illegal Recruitment
and Trafficking in Persons committed by a syndicate, and sentenced
each of the accused to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment plus
payment of fines and damages. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA)
in Cagayan de Oro, in its Decision dated 26 February 2010 (CA
Decision),2 affirmed in toto the RTC Decision. The accused-
appellants appealed to this Court by filing a Notice of Appeal3 in
accordance with Section 3(c), Rule 122 of the Rules of Court.
The Facts Honey and Michele. Ronnie gave to Lolita her boat ticket for the
vessel M/V Mary Joy bound for Sandakan, Malaysia; a passport in
The findings of fact of the RTC, which were affirmed in toto by the the name of Marife Plando but with Lolita’s picture on it, and
CA, are as follows: ₱1,000.00 in cash. Hadja Jarma, Lolita, Honey, Michele and two
other women boarded the boat M/V Mary Joy bound for Sandakan.
In the evening of June 3, 2005, while Lolita Sagadsad Plando, 23 Ronnie Aringoy did not go with them. He did not board the boat. x x
years old, single, was in Tumaga, Zamboanga City on her way to the x After the boat sailed, Hadja Jarma Lalli and Nestor Relampagos
house of her grandfather, she met Ronnie Masion Aringoy and Rachel approached Lolita and her companions. Nestor told them that they
Aringoy Cañete. Ronnie greeted Lolita, "Oy, it’s good you are here" will have a good job in Malaysia as restaurant entertainers. They will
("oy, maayo kay dia ka"). Rachel asked Lolita if she is interested to serve food to customers. They will not be harmed.
work in Malaysia. x x x Lolita was interested so she gave her
cellphone number to Ronnie. After their conversation, Lolita M/V Mary Joy arrived at the port of Sandakan, Malaysia at 10:00
proceeded to her grandfather’s house. o’clock in the morning of June 7, 2005. After passing through the
immigration office, Hadja Jarma Lalli, Nestor Relampagos, Lolita,
xxx Honey, Michele and two other women boarded a van for Kota
Kinabalu. x x x At the hotel, Nestor Relampagos introduced to Lolita
and her companions a Chinese Malay called "Boss" as their
On June 4, 2005, at about 7:00 o’clock in the morning, Lolita employer. After looking at the women, "Boss" brought Lolita, Honey,
received a text message from Ronnie Aringoy inviting her to go to the Diane and Lorraine to a restaurant near the hotel. Diane and Lorraine
latter’s house. At 7:30 in the morning, they met at Tumaga on the were also on baord M/V Mary Joy when it left the port of Zamboanga
road near the place where they had a conversation the night before. for Sandakan on June 6, 2005. When they were already at the
Ronnie brought Lolita to the house of his sister in Tumaga. Lolita restaurant, a Filipina woman working there said that the place is a
inquired what job is available in Malaysia. Ronnie told her that she prostitution den and the women there are used as prostitutes. Lolita
will work as a restaurant entertainer. All that is needed is a passport. and her companions went back to the hotel. They told Hadja Jarma
She will be paid 500 Malaysian ringgits which is equivalent to and Nestor that they do not like to work as prostitutes. x x x After
₱7,000.00 pesos in Philippine currency. Lolita told Ronnie that she about five minutes, another person called "boss" arrived. x x x [T]hey
does not have a passport. Ronnie said that they will look for a were fetched by a van at about 7:00 o’clock in the evening and
passport so she could leave immediately. Lolita informed him that her brought to Pipen Club owned by "Boss Awa", a Malaysian. At the
younger sister, Marife Plando, has a passport. Ronnie chided her for club, they were told that they owe the club 2,000 ringgits each as
not telling him immediately. He told Lolita that she will leave for payment for the amount given by the club to Hadja Jarma Lalli and
Malaysia on June 6, 2005 and they will go to Hadja Jarma Lalli who Nestor Relampagos. They will pay for the said amount by
will bring her to Malaysia. Ronnie sent a text message to Lalli but the entertaining customers. The customers will pay 300 ringgits for short
latter replied that she was not in her house. She was at the city proper. time services of which 50 ringgits will go to the entertainer, and 500
ringgits for over night service of which 100 ringgits will be given to
On June 5, 2005, at about 6:00 o’clock in the evening, Ronnie the entertainer. Pipen Club is a big club in a two-storey building.
Aringoy and Rachel Aringoy Cañete arrived on board a tricycle There were about 100 women working in the club, many of them
driven by Ronnie at the house where Lolita was staying at Southcom were Filipina women.
Village. Ronnie asked if Lolita already had a passport. Lolita said that
she will borrow her sister’s passport. Ronnie, Rachel and Lolita went Lolita Plando was forced to work as entertainer at Pipen Club. She
to Buenavista where Lolita’s other sister, Gina Plando was staying. started working at 8:30 in the evening of June 14, 2005. She was
Her sister Marife Plando was there at that time. Lolita asked Marife to given the number 60 which was pinned on her. That night, she had
let her use Marife’s passport. Marife refused but Lolita got the her first customer who selected her among the other women at the
passport. Marife cried. Ronnie, Rachel and Lolita proceeded to club. He was a very big man, about 32 years old, a Chinese-Malay
Tumaga. Ronnie, Rachel and Lolita went to the house of Hadja Jarma who looked like a wrestler. The man paid for short time service at the
Lalli just two hundred meters away from the house of Ronnie in counter. Lolita was given by the cashier a small pink paper. She was
Tumaga. Ronnie introduced Lolita to Hadja Jarma, saying "Ji, she is instructed to keep it. A small yellow paper is given to the entertainer
also interested in going to Malaysia." Lolita handed a passport to for overnight services. The customer brought Lolita to a hotel. She
Hadja Jarma telling her that it belongs to her sister Marife Plando. did not like to go with him but a "boss" at the club told her that she
Hadja Jarma told her it is not a problem because they have a could not do anything. At the hotel, the man poked a gun at Lolita
connection with the DFA (Department of Foreign Affairs) and and instructed her to undress. She refused. The man boxed her on the
Marife’s picture in the passport will be substituted with Lolita’s side of her body. She could not bear the pain. The man undressed her
picture. Nestor Relampagos arrived driving an owner-type jeep. and had sexual intercourse with her. He had sexual intercourse with
Hadja Jarma introduced Nestor to Lolita as their financier who will her every fifteen minutes or four times in one hour. When the
accompany them to Malaysia. x x x Lolita noticed three other women customer went inside the comfort room, Lolita put on her clothes and
in Hadja Jarma’s house. They were Honey, about 20 years old; left. The customer followed her and wanted to bring her back to the
Michele, 19 years old, and another woman who is about 28 years old. hotel but Lolita refused. At about 1:00 o’clock in the morning of June
The women said that they are from Ipil, Sibugay Province. Ronnie 15, 2005, Lolita was chosen by another customer, a tall dark man,
told Lolita that she will have many companions going to Malaysia to about 40 years old. The customer paid for an overnight service at the
work. They will leave the next day, June 6, and will meet at the wharf counter and brought Lolita to Mariner Hotel which is far from Pipen
at 2:30 in the afternoon. Club. At the hotel, the man told Lolita to undress. When she refused,
the man brought her to the comfort room and bumped her head on the
On June 6, 2005, Lolita went to Zamboanga City wharf at 2:00 wall. Lolita felt dizzy. The man opened the shower and said that both
o’clock in the afternoon bringing a bag containing her make-up and of them will take a bath. Lolita’s clothes got wet. She was crying. The
powder. She met at the wharf Hadja Jarma Lalli, Ronnie Aringoy, man undressed her and had sexual intercourse with her. They stayed
at the hotel until 11:00 o’clock in the morning of June 15, 2005. The Marife "as she purports it to appear." Sometime in the first week of
customer used Lolita many times. He had sexual intercourse with her June 2005, Lolita borrowed ₱1,000.00 from Ronnie because she
every hour. wanted to go to Malaysia to work as a guest relation officer (GRO).
Ronnie lent her ₱1,000.00. He told her that he knows "a certain Hadja
Lolita worked at Pipen Club from June 14 to July 8, 2005. Every Jarma Lalli, distant neighbor, who frequents to Malaysia and with
night, a customer used her. She had at least one customer or more a whom she can ask pertinent information on job opportunities." The
night, and at most, she had around five customers a night. They all entries in Philippine Passport No. MM401136 issued to Hadja Jarma
had sexual intercourse with her. On July 9, 2005, Lolita was able to Lalli on January 29, 2004 (Exh. "2"; "2-A" to "2-Q") showed that she
contact by cellphone at about 10:00 o’clock in the morning her sister traveled to Malaysia no less than nine (9) times within the period
Janet Plando who is staying at Sipangkot Felda x x x. Janet is married from March 2004 to June 2005.
to Said Abubakar, an Indonesian national who is working as a driver
in the factory. x x x Lolita told Janet that she is in Labuan, Malaysia x x x
and beg Janet to save her because she was sold as a prostitute. Janet
told Lolita to wait because her husband will go to Pipen Club to fetch Nora Mae Adling, ticketing clerk of Aleson Shipping Lines, owner of
Lolita at 9:00 o’clock that evening of that day. x x x She told Janet to the vessel M/V Mary Joy 2 plying Zamboanga City to Sandakan,
instruct her husband to ask for No. 60 at Pipen Club. x x x At 9:00 Malaysia route and of M/V Kristel Jane 3, testified that Hadja Jarma
o’clock in the evening, Lolita was told by Daddy Richard, one of the Lalli bought passenger tickets for her travel to Sandakan, not only for
bosses at the club, that a customer requested for No. 60. The man was herself but also for other women passengers.
seated at one of the tables. Lolita approached the man and said, "good
evening." The man asked her is she is the sister of Janet Plando. x x x
Lolita replied that she is, and asked the man if he is the husband of
her sister. He said, "yes." The man had already paid at the counter. He
stood up and left the place. Lolita got her wallet and followed him. x Ronnie Aringoy submitted the Affidavit of his witness Rachel Cañete
x x Lolita told her sister about her ordeal. She stayed at her sister’s (Exh. "2") and the Joint Affidavits of witnesses Mercedita Salazar
house until July 22, 2005. On July 21, 2005 at 7:00 o’clock in the and Estrella Galgan. Rachel Canete declared that Lolita Plando whom
evening, a policeman went to her sisters house and asked if there is a she knows as Cristine Plando worked as a GRO (guest relation
woman staying in the house without a passport. Her sister told the officer) and massage attendant at Magic 2 Videoke and Massage
policeman that she will send Lolita home on July 22. At dawn on July Parlor, that Lolita Plando has four children sired by different men;
22, Lolita and her brother-in-law took a taxi from Sipangkot Felda to and that she knows for a fact that Lolita Plando has been going to and
Mananamblas where Lolita will board a speedboat to Sibuto, Tawi- from Malaysia to work in bars. When she testified in court, Rachel
Tawi. x x x did not present other evidence to substantiate her allegations.
Mercedita Salazar and Estrella Galgan declared in their Joint
Affidavit that Lolita Plando who is known to them as Marife Plando
Upon arrival in Zamboanga City on July 24, 2005, Lolita went was their co-worker as massage attendant and GRO (guest relation
directly to the house of her eldest sister Alejandra Plando Maywila at officer) at Magic 2 Massage Parlor and Karaoke bar where she used
Sta. Catalina, Zamboanga City. She left her things at her sister’s the names Gina Plando and Cristine Plando. She worked in the said
house and immediately went to the sister of Ronnie Aringoy in establishment for nine months from February to October 2002. She
Tumaga. Ronnie was not there. She asked Russel, niece of Ronnie, to has four children from four different men. No other evidence was
call for the latter. Ronnie arrived and said to her, "so you are here, submitted in court to prove their assertions.4
you arrived already." He said he is not involved in what happened to
her. Lolita asked Ronnie to accompany her to the house of Nestor
Relampagos because she has something to get from him. Ronnie The Decision of the Trial Court
refused. He told Lolita not to let them know that she had already
arrived from Malaysia. The Regional Trial Court rendered its Decision on 29 November
2005, with its dispositive portion declaring:
Lolita was advised to file a complaint with the police regarding her
ordeal in Malaysia. On August 2, 2005, at past 9:00 o’clock in the WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused HADJA JARMA LALLI y
morning, Lolita Plando went to Zamboanga Police Office at Gov. PURIH and RONNIE ARINGOY y MASION GUILTY beyond
Lim Avenue to file her complaint. x x x reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. 21908 of the Crime of
Trafficking in Persons defined in Section 3(a) and penalized under
In her Counter-Affidavit (Exh. "1"; "1-A"-Lalli), Hadja Jarma Lalli Section 10(c) in relation to Sections 4(a) and 6(c) of Republic Act
admitted that she met Lolita Plando on June 6, 2005 on board M/V No. 9208 known as the "Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003"
Mary Joy while the said vessel was at sea on its way to Sandakan, and in Criminal Case No. 21930 of the crime of Illegal Recruitment
Malaysia. The meeting was purely coincidental. By coincidence also, defined in Section 6 and penalized under Section 7(b) of Republic
Hadja Jarma, Nestor Relampagos and Lolita Plando boarded the same Act No. 8042 known as the "Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos
van for Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia. Upon arrival, they parted ways. Act of 1995" and SENTENCES each of said accused:
They did not see each other anymore at Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia. She
did not know what happened to them. She went to Kota Kinabalu to 1. In Criminal Case No. 21908, to suffer the penalty of LIFE
visit his son-in-law. She denied having recruited Lolita Plando for IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of ₱2,000,000.00 pesos;
employment abroad (Exh. "1"; "1-A"). x x x
2. In Criminal Case No. 21930, to suffer the penalty of LIFE
In his Counter-Affidavit (Exh. "1"-Aringoy), Ronnie Aringoy IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of ₱500,000.00 pesos;
affirmed that he personally knows Lolita Plando since she was a
teenager and he knows for a fact that her name is Cristine and not
 3. To pay the offended party Lolita Plando y Sagadsad, Aringoy assailed the credibility of Lolita’s testimony because of
jointly and severally, the sum of ₱50,000.00 as moral inconsistencies with regard to: (1) Lolita’s grandfather’s status and
damages, and ₱50,000.00 as exemplary damages; and name; (2) the persons (Ronnie and Rachel) who approached Lolita to
talk about the job opportunity in Malaysia; (3) certain statements in
4. To pay the costs. Lolita’s testimony that were not alleged in her Sworn Statement; (4)
payment of placement fee of ₱ 28,000; and (5) names of the other
SO ORDERED. 5 female recruits who were with Lolita in the boat going to Sandakan
and Kota Kinabalu.12 Aringoy likewise claims that he was never
included in the initial complaint filed by Lolita, and Lolita’s
The trial court did not find credible the denials of the accused- statements about her meetings with him, Lalli and Relampagos on 3,
appellants over the candid, positive and convincing testimony of 4, 5 and 6 June 2005 were not corroborated by any witness.13
complainant Lolita Plando (Lolita). The accused, likewise, tried to
prove that Lolita was a Guest Relations Officer (GRO) in the 14
Philippines with four children fathered by four different men. On the other hand, in her Appeal Brief,  Lalli claims that she simply
However, the trial court found these allegations irrelevant and met Lolita on 6 June 2005 on board the ship M/V Mary Joy bound for
15
immaterial to the criminal prosecution. These circumstances, even if Sandakan, Malaysia.  Lalli denies having met Lolita prior to their
16
true, would not exempt or mitigate the criminal liability of the meeting on board M/V Mary Joy.  Lalli claims she was going to
accused. The trial court found that the accused, without a POEA Malaysia to visit her daughter and son-in-law who was a Malaysian
17
license, conspired in recruiting Lolita and trafficking her as a national.  Lalli further claims that she only spoke to Lolita aboard the
6
prostitute, resulting in crimes committed by a syndicate.  The trial ship for idle conversation to pass away the time.18 In this
court did not pronounce the liability of accused-at-large Nestor conversation, she learned that Lolita was with a party of girls
Relampagos (Relampagos) because jurisdiction was not acquired over accompanied by Relampagos, and the 19latter was bringing them to
his person. Malaysia to work as sales ladies.  Lalli admits that Lolita,
Relampagos and the other girls rode in Lalli’s van in Sandakan,
driven by a friend of Lalli’s son-in-law.20 They all rode together
The Decision of the Court of Appeals because Relampagos talked to the van driver, requesting if he and his
party of girls could board the van and pay their fare when they reach
On 26 February 2010, the Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the RTC the city proper of Kota Kinabalu. 21 Lalli boarded the van with Lolita,
Decision and found accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable Relampagos and their companions.22 Upon reaching her destination,
doubt of the crimes of Illegal Recruitment and Trafficking in Persons. Lalli got off the van, leaving Lolita, Relampagos and their other
companions to continue their journey towards the city proper of Kota
The Issue Kinabalu.23 After spending several days in Malaysia with her
daughter and son-in-law, Lalli went to Brunei to visit a cousin on 12
24
The only issue in this case is whether the Court of Appeals committed June 2005, and headed back to Malaysia on 14 June 2005.
a reversible error in affirming in toto the RTC Decision.
Lalli assails the credibility of Lolita due to inconsistencies in her
The Ruling of this Court testimony with regard to: (1) Lolita not being in Southcom Village on
5 June 2005 at 6:00 p.m., as she claimed, but in Buenavista Village;
and (2) Lolita’s claim that Lalli and Relampagos on 12 June 2005
We dismiss the appeal for lack of merit.
brought the girls to Labuan, when in fact, Lalli was already in Brunei
on 12 June 2005, as evidenced by the stamp in her passport.25
We modify and increase the payment of damages in the crime of
Trafficking in Persons from ₱50,000 to ₱500,000 for moral damages
Credibility of Testimonies
and ₱50,000 to ₱100,000 for exemplary damages.
Both Aringoy and Lalli, in their respective Appeal Briefs, assail the
Grounds for Appeal
testimony of Lolita due to its alleged inconsistency on immaterial
facts, such as the status of Lolita’s grandfather, the name of the
In his Appeal Brief,7 Ronnie Aringoy (Aringoy) admits that he village she was in, the date she was brought to Labuan, Malaysia, and
referred Lolita to a certain Hadja Jarma Lalli (Lalli), Aringoy’s the like. In a long line of cases, the Court has ruled that
neighbor who frequents Malaysia and from whom Lolita could ask inconsistencies pointed out by the accused in the testimony of
pertinent information on job opportunities.8 Aringoy claims that he prosecution witnesses relating to minor details do not destroy the
learned later that Lolita left for Malaysia.9 He denies knowing credibility of witnesses.26 On the contrary, they indicate that the
Relampagos to whom Lolita paid ₱28,000 as placement fee for witnesses were telling the truth and not previously rehearsed.27
finding her work in Malaysia.10
The clear material inconsistency in this case, however, lies in the
Aringoy presented three witnesses: his niece Rachel Aringoy Cañete testimonies of accused Aringoy and Lalli. Aringoy admitted that he
(Rachel), Mercedita Salazar (Mercedita), and Estrella Galgan referred Lolita to a certain Hadja Jarma Lalli, his neighbor who
(Estrella). In her testimony, Rachel declared that: (1) Lolita is a GRO frequents Malaysia and with whom Lolita could ask pertinent
and Massage Attendant at Magic 2 Videoke and Massage Parlor; (2) information on job opportunities.28 Lalli, on the other hand, denies
Lolita has four children sired by different men; and (3) Lolita has having met Lolita prior to their meeting on board M/V Mary Joy on 6
been travelling to Malaysia to work in bars. Mercedita and Estrella, June 2005,29 and claims that her meeting with Lolita was purely
on the other hand, declared in their testimonies that Lolita was their coincidental.30 Lalli admits that, even if she met Relampagos, Lolita
co-worker as Massage Attendant and GRO in Magic 2 Massage and their companions only on that day on board M/V Mary Joy, she
Parlor and Karaoke Bar from February to October 2002.11 allowed these people to ride with her in Malaysia using the van
driven by the friend of Lalli’s son-in-law.31 Lastly, Lalli claims that
she often goes to Malaysia to visit her daughter and son-in-
law.32 However, this does not explain why Lalli purchased boat
tickets, not only for herself, but for the other women passengers going
to Malaysia.33 From March 2004 to June 2005, Lalli traveled to
Malaysia no less than nine (9) times.34 Nora Mae Adling, ticketing
clerk of Aleson Shipping Lines, owner of the vessel M/V Mary Joy 2
plying Zamboanga City to Sandakan, Malaysia route and of M/V
Kristel Jane 3, testified in open court that "Hadja Jarma Lalli bought
passenger tickets for her travel to Sandakan, not only for herself but
also for other women passengers."35 Clearly, it is not Lolita’s
testimony that is materially inconsistent, but the testimonies of Lalli
and Aringoy.
Aringoy presented his witnesses Rachel, Mercedita and Estrella to
impeach the credibility of Lolita by alleging that Lolita was a
Massage Attendant and GRO in a massage parlor and videoke bar.
His witness Rachel further declared that Lolita, at the young age of 23
years, already had four children sired by four different men, and had
been previously travelling to Malaysia to work in bars. These bare
allegations were not supported by any other evidence. Assuming, for
the sake of argument, that Lolita previously worked in a Karaoke Bar
and Massage Parlor and that she had four children from different
men, such facts cannot constitute exempting or mitigating
circumstances to relieve the accused from their criminal liabilities. It
does not change the fact that the accused recruited Lolita to work in
Malaysia without the requisite POEA license, thus constituting the
crime of illegal recruitment. Worse, the accused deceived her by
saying that her work in Malaysia would be as restaurant entertainer,
when in fact, Lolita would be working as a prostitute, thus,
constituting the crime of trafficking.
The facts found by the trial court, as affirmed in toto by the Court of
Appeals, are, as a general rule, conclusive upon this Court, in the
absence of any showing of grave abuse of discretion.36 The Court,
however, may determine the factual milieu of cases or controversies
under specific circumstances, such as:
(1) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or
impossible;
(2) when there is a grave abuse of discretion;
(3) when the finding is grounded entirely on speculations,
surmises or conjectures;
(4) when the judgment of the Court of Appeals is based on
misapprehension of facts;
(5) when the findings of fact are conflicting;
(6) when the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went
beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the
admissions of both appellant and appellee;
(7) when the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to
those of the trial court;
(8) when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of
specific evidence on which they are based;
(9) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain
relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which, if
properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; and
(10) when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are
premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by
the evidence on record.37
In this case, none of these exceptions to the general rule on
conclusiveness of facts are applicable. The Court gives weight and
respect to the trial court’s findings in criminal prosecution because
the latter is in a better position to decide the question, having heard
the witnesses in person and observed their deportment and manner of
testifying during the trial.38 For this reason, the Court adopts the
findings of fact of the trial court, as affirmed in toto by the Court of
Appeals, there being no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
lower courts.
Criminal Case No. 21930 (Illegal Recruitment)
Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042 (RA 8042) defines illegal
recruitment, as follows:
[I]llegal recruitment shall mean any act of canvassing, enlisting,
contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers and
includes referring, contact services, promising or advertising for
employment abroad, whether for profit or not, when undertaken
by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority contemplated under
Article 13(f) of Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, otherwise
known as the Labor Code of the Philippines.
xxx
Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large scale
shall be considered an offense involving economic sabotage.
xxx
Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out
by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring or confederating
with one another. (Emphasis supplied)
Article 13(f) of Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, otherwise
known as the Labor Code of the Philippines, defines "authority" as
follows:
"Authority" means a document issued by the Department of Labor
authorizing a person or association to engage in recruitment and
placement activities as a private recruitment entity.
Section 7 of RA 8042 provides for the penalty of illegal recruitment
committed by a syndicate (which constitutes economic sabotage), as
follows:
(b) The penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of not less than Five
hundred thousand pesos (₱500,000.00) nor more than One million
pesos (₱1,000,000.00) shall be imposed if illegal recruitment
constitutes economic sabotage as defined therein.
It is clear that a person or entity engaged in recruitment and
placement activities without the requisite authority from the
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), whether for profit or
not, is engaged in illegal recruitment. 39 The Philippine Overseas
Employment Administration (POEA), an agency under DOLE
created by Executive Order No. 797 to take over the duties of the
Overseas Employment Development Board, issues the authority to
recruit under the Labor Code. The commission of illegal recruitment
by three or more persons conspiring or confederating with one
another is deemed committed by a syndicate and constitutes
economic sabotage,40 for which the penalty of life imprisonment and
a fine of not less than ₱ 500,000 but not more than ₱ 1,000,000 shall Lalli, on the other hand, completely denies any involvement in the
be imposed.41 recruitment and placement of Lolita to Malaysia, and claims she only
met Lolita for the first time by coincidence on board the ship M/V
The penalties in Section 7 of RA 8042 have already been amended by Mary Joy. Lalli’s denial does not deserve credence because it
Section 6 of Republic Act No. 10022, and have been increased to a completely conflicts with the testimony of Aringoy who claims he
fine of not less than ₱ 2,000,000 but not more than ₱ 5,000,000. referred Lolita to Lalli who had knowledge of the job opportunities in
However, since the crime was committed in 2005, we shall apply the Malaysia.
penalties in the old law, RA 8042.
The conflicting testimonies of Lalli and Aringoy on material facts
In People v. Gallo,42 the Court enumerated the elements of syndicated give doubt to the truth and veracity of their stories, and strengthens
illegal recruitment, to wit: the credibility of the testimony of Lolita, despite allegations of
irrelevant inconsistencies.
1. the offender undertakes either any activity within the
meaning of "recruitment and placement" defined under No improper motive could be imputed to Lolita to show that she
Article 13(b), or any of the prohibited practices enumerated would falsely testify against the accused. The absence of evidence as
under Art. 34 of the Labor Code; to an improper motive entitles Lolita’s testimony to full faith and
credit.45
2. he has no valid license or authority required by law to
enable one to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement Aringoy claims that no conspiracy existed in illegal recruitment, as he
of workers; and denies even knowing Relampagos, who is currently at-large. Lalli
denies any involvement in the illegal recruitment, and claims that she
3. the illegal recruitment is committed by a group of three only met Relampagos through Lolita on board the ship M/V Mary Joy
(3) or more persons conspiring or confederating with one on 6 June 2005, and learned that Relampagos was bringing Lolita and
another.43 their other girl companions to Malaysia to work as sales ladies.

Article 13(b) of the Labor Code of the Philippines defines recruitment
and placement as "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, 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."
Clearly, given the broad definition of recruitment and placement,
even the mere act of referring someone for placement abroad can be
considered recruitment. Such act of referral, in connivance with
someone without the requisite authority or POEA license, constitutes
illegal recruitment. In its simplest terms, illegal recruitment is
committed by persons who, without authority from the government,
give the impression that they have the power to send workers abroad
for employment purposes.44
In this case, the trial court, as affirmed by the appellate court, found
Lalli, Aringoy and Relampagos to have conspired and confederated
with one another to recruit and place Lolita for work in Malaysia,
without a POEA license. The three elements of syndicated illegal
recruitment are present in this case, in particular: (1) the accused have
no valid license or authority required by law to enable them to
lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers; (2) the
accused engaged in this activity of recruitment and placement by
actually recruiting, deploying and transporting Lolita to Malaysia;
and (3) illegal recruitment was committed by three persons (Aringoy,
Lalli and Relampagos), conspiring and confederating with one
another.
Aringoy claims and admits that he only referred Lolita to Lalli for job
opportunities to Malaysia. Such act of referring, whether for profit or
not, in connivance with someone without a POEA license, is already
considered illegal recruitment, given the broad definition of
recruitment and placement in the Labor Code.
Under Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code, there is conspiracy "when
two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit it."
In People v. Lago,46 the Court discussed conspiracy in this wise:
The elements of conspiracy are the following: (1) two or more
persons came to an agreement, (2) the agreement concerned the
commission of a felony, and (3) the execution of the felony was
decided upon. Proof of the conspiracy need not be based on direct
evidence, because it may be inferred from the parties’ conduct
indicating a common understanding among themselves with respect
to the commission of the crime. Neither is it necessary to show that
two or more persons met together and entered into an explicit
agreement setting out the details of an unlawful scheme or objective
to be carried out. The conspiracy may be deduced from the mode or
manner in which the crime was perpetrated; it may also be inferred
from the acts of the accused evincing a joint or common purpose and
design, concerted action and community of interest. 47
In this case, Lolita would not have been able to go to Malaysia if not
for the concerted efforts of Aringoy, Lalli and Relampagos. First, it
was Aringoy who knew Lolita, since Aringoy was a neighbor of
Lolita’s grandfather. It was Aringoy who referred Lolita to Lalli, a
fact clearly admitted by Aringoy. Second, Lolita would not have been
able to go to Malaysia if Lalli had not purchased Lolita’s boat ticket
to Malaysia. This fact can be deduced from the testimony of Nora
Mae Adling (Nora), ticketing clerk of Aleson Shipping Lines, owner
of the vessel M/V Mary Joy 2 plying Zamboanga City to Sandakan,
Malaysia route and of M/V Kristel Jane 3. Nora testified in open
court that "Hadja Jarma Lalli bought passenger tickets for her travel
to Sandakan, not only for herself but also for other women
passengers." Lalli’s claim that she only goes to Malaysia to visit her
daughter and son-in-law does not explain the fact why she bought the
boat tickets of the other women passengers going to Malaysia. In fact,
it appears strange that Lalli visited Malaysia nine (9) times in a span
of one year and three months (March 2004 to June 2005) just to visit
her daughter and son-in-law. In Malaysia, it was Relampagos who
introduced Lolita and her companions to a Chinese Malay called The crime of Trafficking in Persons is qualified when committed by a
"Boss" as their first employer. When Lolita and her companions went syndicate, as provided in Section 6(c) of RA 9208:
back to the hotel to tell Relampagos and Lalli that they did not want
to work as prostitutes, Relampagos brought Lolita and the girls on (c) When the crime is committed by a syndicate, or in large scale.
board a van to Sangawan China Labuan, where they stayed in a room Trafficking is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a
for one night. The next day, they were picked up by a van and group of three (3) or more persons conspiring or confederating with
brought to Pipen Club, where Lolita and her companions worked as one another. It is deemed committed in large scale if committed
prostitutes. To date, accused Relampagos is at large and has not been against three (3) or more persons, individually or as a group.
brought under the jurisdiction of the courts for his crimes.
Section 10(c) of RA 9208 provides for the penalty of qualified
Flight in criminal law is the evading of the course of justice by trafficking:
voluntarily withdrawing oneself in order to avoid arrest or detention
or the institution or continuance of criminal proceedings. 48 The (c) Any person found guilty of qualified trafficking under Section 6
unexplained flight of an accused person may as a general rule be shall suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of not less
taken into consideration as evidence having a tendency to establish than Two million pesos (₱2,000,000.00) but not more than Five
his guilt.49 Clearly, in this case, the flight of accused Relampagos, million pesos (₱5,000,000.00).
who is still at-large, shows an indication of guilt in the crimes he has
been charged.
The Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act is a new law passed last 26 May
2003, designed to criminalize the act of trafficking in persons for
It is clear that through the concerted efforts of Aringoy, Lalli and prostitution, sexual exploitation, foced labor and slavery, among
Relampagos, Lolita was recruited and deployed to Malaysia to work others.
as a prostitute. Such conspiracy among Aringoy, Lalli and
Relampagos could be deduced from the manner in which the crime
was perpetrated – each of the accused played a pivotal role in In this case, Aringoy claims that he cannot be convicted of the crime
perpetrating the crime of illegal recruitment, and evinced a joint of Trafficking in Persons because he was not part of the group that
common purpose and design, concerted action and community of transported Lolita from the Philippines to Malaysia on board the ship
interest. M/V Mary Joy. In addition, he presented his niece, Rachel, as witness
to testify that Lolita had been travelling to Malaysia to work in bars.
On the other hand, Lalli denies any involvement in the recruitment
For these reasons, this Court affirms the CA Decision, affirming the and trafficking of Lolita, claiming she only met Lolita for the first
RTC Decision, declaring accused Ronnie Aringoy y Masion and time on board M/V Mary Joy going to Malaysia.
Hadja Jarma Lalli y Purih guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of illegal recruitment committed by a syndicate in Criminal
Case No. 21930, with a penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of ₱ The testimony of Aringoy’s niece, Rachel, that Lolita had been
500,000 imposed on each of the accused. travelling to Malaysia to work in bars cannot be given credence.
Lolita did not even have a passport to go to Malaysia and had to use
her sister’s passport when Aringoy, Lalli and Relampagos first
Criminal Case No. 21908 (Trafficking in Persons) recruited her. It is questionable how she could have been travelling to
Malaysia previously without a passport, as Rachel claims. Moreover,
Section 3(a) of Republic Act No. 9208 (RA 9208), otherwise known even if it is true that Lolita had been travelling to Malaysia to work in
as the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003, defines Trafficking in bars, the crime of Trafficking in Persons can exist even with the
Persons, as follows: victim’s consent or knowledge under Section 3(a) of RA 9208.

Trafficking in Persons – refers to the recruitment, transportation, Trafficking in Persons under Sections 3(a) and 4 of RA 9208 is not
transfer or harboring, or receipt of persons with or without the only limited to transportation of victims, but also includes the act of
victim’s consent or knowledge, within or across national borders by recruitment of victims for trafficking. In this case, since it has been
means of threat or use of force, or other forms of coercion, abduction, sufficiently proven beyond reasonable doubt, as discussed in Criminal
fraud, deception, abuse of power or of position, taking advantage of Case No. 21930, that all the three accused (Aringoy, Lalli and
the vulnerability of the person, or, the giving or receiving of Relampagos) conspired and confederated with one another to illegally
payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having recruit Lolita to become a prostitute in Malaysia, it follows that they
control over another person for the purpose of exploitation which are also guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Qualified
includes at a minimum, the exploitation or the prostitution of others Trafficking in Persons committed by a syndicate under RA 9208
or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or services, because the crime of recruitment for prostitution also constitutes
slavery, servitude or the removal or sale of organs. x x x (Emphasis trafficking.
supplied)
When an act or acts violate two or more different laws and constitute
Section 4 of RA 9208 enumerates the prohibited acts of Trafficking in two different offenses, a prosecution under one will not bar a
Persons, one of which is: prosecution under the other.50 The constitutional right against double
jeopardy only applies to risk of punishment twice for the same
(a) To recruit, transport, transfer, harbor, provide, or receive a person offense, or for an act punished by a law and an ordinance. 51 The
by any means, including those done under the pretext of domestic or prohibition on double jeopardy does not apply to an act or series of
overseas employment or training or apprenticeship, for the purpose of acts constituting different offenses.
prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery,
involuntary servitude or debt bondage. DAMAGES
Lolita claimed actual damages of ₱ 28,000, which she allegedly paid
to the accused as placement fee for the work of restaurant entertainer
in Malaysia. The trial court did not award this amount to Lolita. We
agree and affirm the trial court’s non-award due to Lolita’s
inconsistent statements on the payment of placement fee. In her
sworn statement, Lolita alleged that she paid ₱ 28,000 as placement
fee to Lalli.52 On cross-examination, however, she admitted that she
never paid ₱ 28,000 to the accused.53
(10) Acts and actions referred to in Articles 21, 26, 27, 28,
29, 30, 32, 34, and 35.
The parents of the female seduced, abducted, raped, or abused,
referred to in No. 3 of this article, may also recover moral damages.
The spouse, descendants, ascendants, and brothers and sisters may
bring the action mentioned in No. 9 of this article, in the order named.

We, however, modify and increase the payment of damages in the The criminal case of Trafficking in Persons as a Prostitute is an
crime of Trafficking in Persons from ₱ 50,000 to ₱ 500,000 as moral analogous case to the crimes of seduction, abduction, rape, or other
damages and ₱ 50,000 to ₱ 100,000 as exemplary damages. lascivious acts. In fact, it is worse. To be trafficked as a prostitute
without one’s consent and to be sexually violated four to five times a
The Civil Code describes moral damages in Article 2217: day by different strangers is horrendous and atrocious. There is no
doubt that Lolita experienced physical suffering, mental anguish,
Art. 2217. Moral damages include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings,
fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, and social humiliation when she was trafficked as a
moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury. Though incapable prostitute in Malaysia. Since the crime of Trafficking in Persons was
of pecuniary computation, moral damages may be recovered if they aggravated, being committed by a syndicate, the award of exemplary
are the proximate result of the defendant’s wrongful act for damages is likewise justified.
omission.1avvphi1
WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM the Decision of the Court of Appeals
Exemplary damages, on the other hand, are awarded in addition to the dated 26 February 2010, affirming the Decision of the Regional Trial
payment of moral damages, by way of example or correction for the Court of Zamboanga City dated 29 November 2005, finding accused
public good, as stated in the Civil Code: Lalli and Aringoy guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of
Illegal Recruitment and Trafficking in Persons committed by a
Art. 2229. Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by way of syndicate, with the following MODIFICATIONS:
example or correction for the public good, in addition to the moral,
temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages. 1. In Criminal Case No. 21908, each of the accused is
sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE
Art. 2230. In criminal offenses, exemplary damages as a part of the IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of ₱ 2,000,000;
civil liability may be imposed when the crime was committed with
one or more aggravating circumstances. Such damages are separate 2. In Criminal Case No. 21930, each of the accused is
and distinct from fines and shall be paid to the offended party. sentenced to suffer the penalty of
LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of ₱ 500,000;
The payment of ₱ 500,000 as moral damages and ₱ 100,000 as
exemplary damages for the crime of Trafficking in Persons as a 3. Each of the accused is ordered to pay the offended party
Prostitute finds basis in Article 2219 of the Civil Code, which states: Lolita Plando y Sagadsad, jointly and severally, the sum of ₱
500,000 as moral damages, and ₱ 100,000 as
Art. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and exemplary damages for the crime of Trafficking in Persons;
analogous cases: and to pay the costs.

(1) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries;
(2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries;
(3) Seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts;
The Court cannot pronounce the liability of accused-at-large Nestor
Relampagos as jurisdiction over his person has not been acquired.
SO ORDERED.

(4) Adultery or concubinage;

(5) Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest;

(6) Illegal search;

(7) Libel, slander or any other form of defamation;

(8) Malicious prosecution;

(9) Acts mentioned in Article 309;