Republic of the Philippines

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