G.R. No. 195668
June 25, 2014
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MA. HARLETA VELASO ! "RIONES, MARIAR ". INOVERO, MARISSA #IALA, $n% "ERNA M. PA&LINO, Accused, Accused, MARIAR ". INOVERO, Accused-Appellant. INOVERO, Accused-Appellant.
Accused-appellant Maricar Maricar B. Inovero Inovero seeks the review and reversal of the the decision promulgated promulgated on ! August 26, 2!, 2!, where"# the $ourt of Appeals %$A& affirmed her conviction for illegal recruitment committed in large scale amounting to economic sa"otage under the 'udgment rendered on (anuar# !), 2* "# the +egional rial rial $ourt %+$&, Branch !, in Makati $it#. $it#.2 FATS' n March !/, 2), the ffice of the $it# Prosecutor of Makati $it# filed in the +$ two informations charging Inovero, Ma. 0arleta 1elasco # Briones, Marissa iala and Berna Paulino with illegal recruitment as defined and penali3ed under 4ection 6 of +epu"lic Act 5o. *)2 %Migrant orker7s Act of !889&, and and !! informations)charging the same accused with estafa as defined and penali3ed under Article!9, paragraph paragraph 2%a& of the +evised Penal $ode. $ode. nl# Inovero was was arrested and prosecuted, prosecuted, the other accused having remained at large. he prosecution presented the five %9& p rivate complainants as witnesses to prove the crime of Illegal +ecruitment, namel#: 5ovesa Baful %;Baful;&, anilo Bri3uela %;Bri3uela;&, +osanna Aguirre %;Aguirre;&, Annali3a Amo#o Amo#o %;Amo#o;&, and eresa eresa Mar"ella %;Mar"ella;&, %;Mar"ella;&, and Mildred Mildred 1erso3a 1erso3a %;1erso3a;& %;1erso3a;& from the Philippine verseas
;& upon learning that recruitment for caregivers to (apan was on-going there. 4he allegedl# met Inovero? 1elasco, 1elasco, and iala, and saw Inovero conducting a "riefing on the applicants. 4he also testified that iala, the alleged talent manager, directed her to su"mit certain documents, and to pa# P2,9. as training fee, as well as P,. P,. as placement and processing processing fees. iala iala also advised advised her to undergo undergo ph#sical e@amination. After compl#ing with the aforesaid reuirements and after pa#ing iala the amounts of P!*,. and P!,., Baful was promised deplo#ment within 2 to months. 4he likewise testified that Inovero "riefed her and her co-applicants on what to wear on the da# of their departure. 0owever, she was never deplo#ed. inall#, inall#, she testified that she found out that 0A+1<> was not licensed to deplo# workers for overseas emplo#ment. 2. "*+ue)$, "*+ue)$, another complainant, testified that he went to 0A+1<>7s 0A+1<>7s office to inuire on the reuirements and hiring procedure for a caregiver in (apan. here, iala told him the amount reuired as processing fee and the documents to "e su"mitted. And when he su"mitted the reuired documents and pa#ments, it was, was, this this time, time, Paulin Paulino o who receiv received ed them. them. 0e claim claimed ed that that he underw underwent ent train training ing and medic medical al e@amin e@aminati ation? on? he likew likewise ise attend attended ed an orient orientati ation on conduc conducted ted "# Inover Inovero o at which which time, time, he and his "atchm "atchmate ates s were were advise advised d what what clothe clothes s to wear wear on the da# of their their depart departure ure?? he was was assure assured d of deplo# deplo#men mentt on the first first week week of (une (une 2, 2, howeve however, r, on the eve of his suppos supposed ed ;pre-d ;pre-depa epart rture ure orientation seminar,; Paulino te@ted him that the seminar was cancelled "ecause Inovero, who had the applicants7 mone#, did not show up. 0e testified that he was not deplo#ed. 5either was his mone# returned, as promised. Bri3uela testified that Inovero was the one who conducted the orientation, and
represented to all the applicants that most of the time, she was in the (apanese to appl# as caregiver in (apan? there, iala informed her that Inovero was one of the owners of 0A+1<> and 1elasco was its President? she paid P9,., and su"mitted her do cuments, receipt of which was acknowledged "# iala? despite her undergoing medical e@amination and several training seminars, she was however not deplo#ed to (apan. orse, she found out that 0A+1<> was not licensed to recruit workers. 4. A/o!o, the fourth complainant, testified that she went to 0A+1<>7s office to appl# as caregiver in (apan, and iala reuired her to su"mit certain documents, to undergo training and medical e@amination, and to pa# P9,. as placement and processing fees. 0owever, after compl#ing with said reuirements, she was never deplo#ed as promised. 5. M$*e))$ was the last complainant to testif#. 4he alleged that she applied for the position of 'anitress at 0A+1<>? 'ust like the rest of the complainants, she was reuired to su"mit certain documents and to pa# a total amount of went# housand pesos %P2,.& as processing fee? after pa#ing said fee, iala and Inovero promised her and the other applicants that the# will "e deplo#ed in three %& months or in (une 2? however, the promised deplo#ment never materiali3ed? she later found out that 0A+1<> was not even licensed to recruit workers. 6. Ve*o$, on the other hand, is a >a"or and icensing Branch. 4he testified that she prepared a $ertification certif#ing that neither 0A+1<> nor Inovero was authori3ed to recruit workers for overseas emplo#ment as per records at their office. In her defense, Inovero denied the allegations hurled against her. 4he claimed that she is the niece of accused 1elasco, the owner of 0A+1<>, "ut denied working there. 4he alleged that she worked for her uncle, 1elasco7s hus"and, as an office assistant, hence, for at least two or three times a week, she had to go to 0A+1<> on alleged errands for her uncle. 4he also testified that her alleged errands mainl# consisted of serving food and refreshments during orientations at 0A+1<>. ISS&E' C5 Maricar Inovero is lia"le for the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale. R&LING' D<4. he 4upreme $ourt concurred with the +$ and the $A that Inovero was criminall# lia"le for the illegal recruitment charged against her. 4trong and positive evidence demonstrated "e#ond reasona"le dou"t her having conspired with her co-accused in the recruitment of the complainants. Ender the law, there is a conspirac# when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felon#, and decide to commit it. 0<+<+<, the $ourt AI+M4 the decision promulgated on August 26, 2!. RATIONALE' he essential elements of illegal recruitment committed in large scale are: %!& that the accused en$e% +n $3 o( *e*u+3/en3 $n% )$e/en3 o( o*e* as defined under Article !%"& of the >a"or $ode, or in an# prohi"ited activities under Article ) of the same $ode? %2& that the accused had no3 o/)+e% with the guidelines issued "# the 4ecretar# of >a"or and
government, give the impression that the# have the power to send workers a"road for emplo#ment purposes. he following circumstances convinced the 4$ that she was into illegal recruitment. irst, private complainants Baful and Bri3uela commonl# testified that Inovero was the one who conducted orientationsC"riefings on them? informed them, among others, on how much their salar# would "e as caregivers in (apan? and what to wear when the# finall# will "e deplo#ed. 4econd, when iala introduced her %Inovero& to private complainant Amo#o as one of the owners of 0A+1<>, Inovero did not "other to correct said representation. Inovero7s silence is clearl# an implied acuiescence to said representation. hird, Inovero, while conducting orientation on private complainant Bri3uela, represented herself as the one e@pediting the release of applicants7 working visa for (apan. ourth, in a $ertification issued and attested to "# P
