SECOND DIVISION
THE PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
G.
R.
No. 119594
January 18, 2000
-versus-
BENZON ONG Y SATE
ALIAS "BENZ ONG",
Accused-Appellant.
D E C I S I
O N
MENDOZA,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
This is an appeal from
the decision[1]
of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 5, Baguio City, finding
accused-appellant
Benzon Ong y Sate, alias Benz Ong, guilty of (1) illegal recruitment
committed
in large scale and sentencing him to suffer life imprisonment, pay a
fine
of P100,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency,
and pay the costs; and (2) seven counts of estafa for which he was
sentenced
to suffer, on each count, an indeterminate prison term ranging from
four
years and two months of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight
years
of prision mayor, as maximum, in two cases, and to nine years of
prision
mayor, as maximum, in five cases, and to indemnify the eight private
complainants
in the aggregate amount of P277,500.00 with interest at the legal rate
counted from July 25, 1994, until fully paid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In Criminal Case No.
13146-R, the information for illegal recruitment in large scale[2]
alleged -
That
sometime
during and between the period from November, 1993 to January, 1994, in
the City of Baguio, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, representing himself to have the
capacity
to contract, enlist, hire and transport Filipino workers for employment
abroad, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, for a
fee, recruit and promise employment/job placement to the following
persons:
1.
Noel
Bacasnot y Baldivino;
2.
Ruth
A. Eliw;
3.
Samuel
Bagni;
4.
Francisca
Cayaya;
5.
Teofilo
S. Gallao, Jr.;
6.
Sally
Kamura;
7.
Paul
G. Esteban;
8.
David
Joaquin; and
9.
Solidad
M. Malinias
in Taiwan, without
first
obtaining or securing license or authority from the proper governmental
agency.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
In Criminal Case Nos.
13147-R
to 13154-R, eight informations for estafa were filed. Save for the
dates
of commission of the crime, the names of the complainant and the
amounts
involved, the informations uniformly alleged -
That
sometime
in [date],[3]
in the City of Baguio, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully
and feloniously defraud one [name][4]
by way of false pretenses, which are executed prior to or
simultaneously
with the commission of the fraud, as follows, to wit: the accused
knowing
fully well that he/she/they is/are not authorized job recruiters for
persons
intending to secure work abroad convinced said [name] and pretended
that
he/she/they could secure a job for him/her abroad, for and in
consideration
of the sum of [amount],[5]
when in truth and in fact they could not; the said [name], deceived and
convinced by the false pretenses employed by the accused, parted away
the
total sum of [amount], in favor of the accused, to the damage and
prejudice
of the said [name] in the aforementioned amount of [amount in words][6]
[amount], Philippine Currency.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
CONTRARY TO LAW.
All indictments being
based
on the same facts, the cases were tried jointly. Accused-appellant
entered
a plea of not guilty to each of the charges, whereupon trial commenced.
The evidence for the
prosecution established the following facts:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Complainant Noel B.
Bacasnot is an optometrist by profession. In September 1993, he met
accused-appellant
at the insurance office of Zaldy Galos at Laperal Building in Session
Road,
Baguio City. Accused-appellant represented to Bacasnot that he had
contacts
in Taiwan, Republic of China, who were looking for workers. Factory
workers
would be paid P15,000.00 a month, while construction workers would be
paid
P1,200.00 a day. According to him, his mother was in Taiwan and could
help
Bacasnot get a job as an optometrist with a salary of as much as
P50,000.00
to P80,000.00 a month. A week later, accused-appellant told Bacasnot
that,
after talking to his mother, he thought it would be better if he
(Bacasnot)
worked initially as a factory worker for six months. Bacasnot agreed.
He
was charged P30,000.00 for placement fee, of which P15,000.00 was to be
paid at once and the balance of P15,000.00 to be deducted from his
salary
once he got a job in Taiwan. As Bacasnot did not have enough money, he
was allowed to pay P10,000.00 as downpayment for his placement and
processing
fee which accused-appellant received on January 31, 1994 (Exh. A)[7]
at the Kimsam Eatery on Session Road. Bacasnot was assured by
accused-appellant
that upon completion of his papers, he would leave for Taiwan within
three
to four months thereafter.[8]
On the other hand, upon
learning of job opportunities abroad, complainants Ruth A. Eliw, Sally
Kamura and Solidad Malinias also sought the assistance of
accused-appellant.
They were charged a higher placement fee of P40,000.00 each, and
payments
were made to accused-appellant at the Gallao's Optical Clinic, where
Bacasnot
treated patients, at 159 Magsaysay Avenue, Baguio City.
Accused-appellant
later accompanied complainants to Manila purportedly for interview and
medical examination at the Steadfast Recruitment Agency with which
accused-appellant
claimed to be connected. However, instead of taking them to a
recruitment
agency, accused-appellant took them to an office in United Nations
Avenue
where three men, allegedly Taiwanese nationals, interviewed them and
later
took them to a clinic where they were examined.[9]
Eliw, Kamura and Malinias
each paid accused-appellant the amount of P25,000.00 on January 21,
February
13 and March 30, 1994 (Exhs. D-1 and K),[10]
respectively. On May 30, 1994, each of them paid the balance of
P15,000.00
(Exh. D).[11]
In a handwritten agreement (Exh. D) prepared by Almi G. Bacasnot (wife
of Noel B. Bacasnot), accused-appellant acknowledged payment of
P45,000.00,
representing the balance of P15,000.00 from each of complainants and
promised
them that they would leave for Taiwan in three weeks. The agreement
reads:
AGREEMENT
I, BENSON ONG, OF
LEGAL
AGE, RECEIVED THE AMOUNT OF FORTY FIVE THOUSAND PESOS ONLY (P45,000.00)
AS RECRUITMENT FULL PAYMENT ADDITIONAL TO SEVENTY FIVE THOUSAND PESOS
(P75,000.00)
WHICH WAS FIRST GIVEN TO ME FROMchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
1. SALLY KAMURA
2.
RUTH
ELIW
3.
SOLIDAD
MALINIAS
IN A CONDITION THAT I
SHOULD
LET THEM SIGN THE ABOVE NAMES THE CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT FOR TAIWAN NOT
MORE THAN THREE WEEKS (JUNE 3 TO JUNE 24, 1994).
HEREBY, IF I COULD
NOT
LET THEM HAVE THE CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT FOR TAIWAN, I WILL RETURN THE
MONEY WITHIN ONE MONTH THE AMOUNT OF (P120,000.00) ONE HUNDRED TWENTY
THOUSAND
PESOS ONLY AFTER THE CONDITION ON THE DATE OF JULY 24, '94.
SIGNED ON THE
MONTH
OF MAY IN THE 30th DAY OF THE YEAR 1994.
APPLICANT'S NAME
AND
SIGNATURE
SOLIDAD M.
MALINIAS
(Sgd.)
RUTH ELIW
(Sgd.)..RECEIVED
AND AGREED BY:
SALLY KAMURA (Sgd.)
(Sgd.)
BENSON ONG
RECEIVER
WITNESSES:
(Sgd.)
ALMI G. BACASNOT
(Sgd.)
NOEL B. BACASNOT
Accused-appellant
never fulfilled his promise. When complainants sought to inquire about
their application, they discovered that accused-appellant no longer
held
office at the place in the upper story of Mario's Restaurant on Session
Road. Apparently, accused-appellant was already into hiding.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A week before June 27,
1994, Eliw chanced upon accused-appellant and she was told that Kamura
and Malinias had passed the interview and medical examination in
Manila.
Accused-appellant then asked Eliw to pay an additional amount of
P5,000.00
for processing. Instead of paying, Eliw denounced accused-appellant's
recruitment
activities to the local office of the National Bureau of Investigation.
On June 25, 1994, the NBI confirmed from the Philippine Overseas
Employment
Administration-Regional Extension Unit (POEA-REU) in the Cordillera
Autonomous
Region that accused-appellant had not been licensed to recruit for
overseas
employment. On June 27, 1994, a team composed of an NBI agent and three
special investigators conducted an entrapment operation. Eliw handed
the
P1,500.00 marked money to accused-appellant, promising to pay the
balance
of P3,500.00 later. At that instance, the NBI group nabbed
accused-appellant
and placed him under arrest. He was subjected to paraffin test and
found
positive for the presence of fluorescent powder.[12]
Complainants Samuel
Bagni, Teofilo Gallao, Jr., Paul Esteban and David Joaquin were
likewise
swindled. Accused-appellant collected P25,000.00 from Bagni on January
17, 1994 (Exh. M)[13]
and P15,000.00 on May 9, 1994 (Exh. M-1).[14]
From Gallao he collected P25,000.00 on January 31, 1994 (Exh. I)[15]
and P15,000.00 on May 9, 1994 (Exh. I-1).[16]
He collected various amounts from the others, as follows: from Esteban,
P7,500.00 on November 30, 1993 (Exh. E)[17]
and P30,000.00 on March 7, 1994 (Exh. F);[18]
from Joaquin, P7,500.00 on November 30, 1993 (Exh. E),[19]
P7,500.00 on December 28, 1993 (Exh. E-1),[20]
and P15,000.00 on March 6, 1994 (Exh. E-2).[21]
Joaquin was with Esteban when he was introduced to accused-appellant
through
Alice Sabala on November 15, 1993, at the Laperal Building on Session
Road,
Baguio City where they made their first and second payments. Joaquin's
third payment was made at the Bombay Bazaar on Magsaysay Avenue and he,
together with Esteban, was supposed to leave in March 1994. On the
other
hand, Gallao was a technician at the Gallao's Optical Clinic. He came
to
know accused-appellant through Bacasnot who is the husband of Gallao's
cousin, Almi Gallao Bacasnot. Bagni, meanwhile, met accused-appellant
through
Bacasnot, Bagni's brother-in-law. Gallao and Bagni were scheduled to
leave
by June 15, 1994. As with Eliw, Kamura and Malinias, both Gallao and
Bagni
gave the downpayment of their fees to accused-appellant at Gallao's
Optical
Clinic. The balance of their fees was paid at the house of
accused-appellant
at 83 Happy Homes, Baguio City.cralaw:red
Accused-appellant failed
to comply with his commitment to send complainants Bacasnot, Eliw,
Kamura,
Malinias, Bagni, Gallao, Esteban and Joaquin to Taiwan as he could no
longer
be located after collecting placement fees from them.[22]
Earlier, at the instance
of complainant Bacasnot, Atty. Justinian O. Licnachan, POEA-REU Legal
Officer
of the Cordillera Autonomous Region, issued a certification dated June
24, 1994 (Exh. C)[23]
which read:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
This is to certify that
BENZ ONG a.k.a. "BENZON ONG SATE & JOHNSON ONG SATE", per existing
and available records from this office, is not licensed nor authorized
to recruit workers for overseas employment in the City of Baguio or any
part of the region. He is neither in possession of the required
Provincial
Recruitment Authority.cralaw:red
Complainant Francisca
Cayaya failed to testify despite due notice to her. Her complaint for
estafa
was, therefore, dismissed.[24]
On the other hand, the complaint for estafa of complainant Bacasnot,
which
should have been filed with the Municipal Trial Court in view of the
amount
(P10,000.00) involved, was nonetheless allowed because it arose out of
the same facts as the case for illegal recruitment.cralaw:red
For his defense, accused-appellant
Benzon Ong y Sate admitted having met complainant Bacasnot through
Zaldy
Galos. He got to know the other complainants through Bacasnot and one
Patring
Esteban (sister of complainant Paul Esteban), his partner in the video
rental business. He introduced himself to Bacasnot as one from Taiwan
and
told Bacasnot that his mother and brother were based in Taiwan.
Accused-appellant
testified that when complainants sought his help, he advised them to go
to the POEA but complainants claimed that they do not know anyone at
said
office. He then offered to scout for a recruitment agency in Manila.
Accused-appellant
accompanied complainants to Steadfast Recruitment Agency in Manila and
introduced them to a certain Marilyn Pagsibigan, Marketing Manager of
the
agency. He came to know about the agency through a friend in Manila,
one
Ernesto Sy. He denied collecting placement fees from the complainants
and
claimed that his signatures on the receipts had been forged. He also
claimed
that on June 27, 1994, he was at the Gallao's Optical Clinic to collect
the payment for the betamax player which Bacasnot had previously
ordered
and which accused-appellant had delivered a week earlier. Bacasnot told
accused-appellant that Eliw wanted to buy the betamax player for
P10,000.00.
As Eliw had only P1,500.00, accused-appellant at first refused to
accept
the payment. When Eliw assured him she would pay the balance,
accused-appellant
finally agreed to receive the payment. As accused-appellant received
the
money, he was nabbed by NBI agents who identified themselves and asked
accused-appellant to go with them to the NBI office. He was later
charged
with illegal recruitment.[25]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On November 23, 1994,
the trial court rendered its decision convicting accused-appellant of
illegal
recruitment committed in large scale and of seven counts of estafa. The
dispositive portion of its decision reads:[26]
WHEREFORE, the Court
finds and declares the accused BENZON ONG y SATE alias Benz Ong, guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal recruitment in large
scale
as charged in Crim. Case No. 13146-R and hereby sentences him to suffer
life imprisonment, to pay a fine of P100,000.00, without subsidiary
imprisonment
in case of insolvency; and to pay the costs.cralaw:red
The Court also finds
and declares the same accused BENZON ONG y SATE, alias Benz Ong, guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of estafa on seven counts and
hereby
sentences him:
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(a) In
Crim. Case No. 13147-R, to suffer an indeterminate penalty of FOUR (4)
YEARS and TWO (2) MONTHS of prision correccional, as minimum, to NINE
(9)
YEARS of prision mayor, as maximum; and to pay the costs;
(b) In
Crim. Case No. 13148-R, to suffer an indeterminate penalty of FOUR (4)
YEARS and TWO (2) MONTHS of prision correccional, as minimum, to NINE
(9)
YEARS of prision mayor, as maximum; and to pay the costs;
(c) In
Crim. Case No. 13150-R, to suffer an indeterminate penalty of FOUR (4)
YEARS and TWO (2) MONTHS of prision correccional, as minimum, to NINE
(9)
YEARS of prision mayor, as maximum; and to pay the costs;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(d) In
Crim. Case No. 13151-R, to suffer an indeterminate penalty of FOUR (4)
YEARS and TWO (2) MONTHS of prision correccional, as minimum, to NINE
(9)
YEARS of prision mayor, as maximum; and to pay the costs;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(e) In
Crim. Case No. 13152-R, to suffer an indeterminate penalty of FOUR (4)
YEARS and TWO (2) MONTHS of prision correccional, as minimum, to EIGHT
(8) YEARS of prision mayor, as maximum; and to pay the costs;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(f) In
Crim. Case No. 13153-R, to suffer an indeterminate penalty of FOUR (4)
YEARS and TWO (2) MONTHS of prision correccional, as minimum, to EIGHT
(8) YEARS of prision mayor, as maximum; and to pay the costs; and
(g) In
Crim. Case No. 13154-R, to suffer an indeterminate penalty of FOUR (4)
YEARS and TWO (2) MONTHS of prision correccional, as minimum, to NINE
(9)
YEARS of prision mayor, as maximum; and to pay the costs.cralaw:red
In the service of his
sentence, the accused shall be credited with his preventive
imprisonment
under the terms and conditions prescribed in Article 29 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended.cralaw:red
The said accused BENZON
ONG y SATE, alias Benz Ong, shall furthermore indemnify the below-named
persons the amounts indicated opposite their names, to wit:
1.Noel
Bacasnot - - - - - -..P10,000.00
2.Ruth
Eliw - - - - - -40,000.00
3.Samuel
Bagni - - - - - -40,000.00
4.Teofilo
Gallao, Jr. - - -40,000.00
5.Sally
Kamura - - - - - -40,000.00
6.Paul
Esteban - - - - - -37,500.00
7.David
Joaquin - - - - - -30,000.00
8.Solidad
Malinias - - - - -..40,000.00
all amounts to bear
interest at the legal rate from July 25, 1994, the date of the filing
of
the indictments, until fully paid.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Hence, this appeal.
Accused-appellant contends that -
I.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED
IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONIES OF THE COMPLAINING WITNESSES.
II.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED
IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY WHEN THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO
PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
First. Accused-appellant
claims that when complainants filled out their respective bio-data,
application
forms and other documents for employment in Taiwan, they knew that they
were applying for employment abroad through the Steadfast Recruitment
Agency.
He claims that he merely suggested to them the opportunity to work
overseas
but that he never advertised himself as a recruiter.cralaw:red
The contention has no
merit
Accused-appellant is
charged with violation of Art. 38 of the Labor Code, as amended by
Presidential
Decree No. 2018, which provides that any recruitment activity,
including
the prohibited practices enumerated in Art. 34 of said Code, undertaken
by persons who have no license or authority to engage in recruitment
for
overseas employment is illegal and punishable under Art. 39. Under Art.
13(b) of the Labor Code, "recruitment and placement" refer to 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, is considered
engaged
in recruitment and placement. On the other hand, "referral" is defined
as the act of passing along or forwarding of an applicant for
employment
after an initial interview of a selected applicant for employment to a
selected employer, placement officer or bureau.[27]
On the other hand, illegal
recruitment is considered an offense involving economic sabotage if any
of these qualifying circumstances exist, namely, (a) when illegal
recruitment
is committed by a syndicate, i.e., if it is carried out by a group of
three
or more persons conspiring and/or confederating with one another; or,
(b)
when illegal recruitment is committed in large scale, i.e., if it is
committed
against three or more persons individually or as a group. The essential
elements of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale are: (1)
the
accused engages in acts of recruitment and placement of workers defined
under Art. 13(b) or in any prohibited activities under Art. 34 of the
Labor
Code; (2) the accused has not complied with the guidelines issued by
the
Secretary of Labor and Employment, particularly with respect to the
securing
of a license or an authority to recruit and deploy workers, either
locally
or overseas; and (3) the accused commits the unlawful acts against
three
or more persons, individually or as a group. As defined, a "license" is
that which is issued by the Department of Labor and Employment
authorizing
a person or entity to operate a private employment agency, while an
"authority"
is that issued by the DOLE entitling a person or association to so
engage
in recruitment and placement activities as a private recruitment
agency.
It is the lack of the necessary license or authority that renders the
recruitment
unlawful or criminal.[28]
To prove illegal recruitment,
it must be shown that the accused-appellant gave complainants the
distinct
impression that he had the power or ability to send complainants abroad
for work such that the latter were convinced to part with their money
in
order to be employed.[29]
Accused-appellant represented himself to complainants as one capable of
deploying workers abroad and even quoted the alleged salary rates of
factory
and construction workers in Taiwan. He advised Bacasnot to accept a job
as a factory worker first because it would be then easier for him to
transfer
jobs once he got to Taiwan. Accused-appellant said his mother, who was
based in Taiwan, could help Bacasnot. Bacasnot paid accused-appellant
an
initial placement fee agreeing to pay the balance through salary
deductions
once he was employed. Accused-appellant also promised jobs to Eliw and
the other complainants. He accompanied them to Manila so that they
could
be interviewed and physically examined at the Steadfast Recruitment
Agency
with which accused-appellant represented he was connected. These acts
of
accused-appellant created the distinct impression on the eight
complainants
that he was a recruiter for overseas employment.[30]
There is no question that he was neither licensed nor authorized to
recruit
workers for overseas employment. Nor is there any question that he
dealt
with complainants. What he claims is that he merely "suggested" to
complainants
to apply at the Steadfast Recruitment Agency, which is a recruitment
agency.cralaw:red
Even if accused-appellant
did no more than "suggest" to complainants where they could apply for
overseas
employment, his act constituted "referral" within the meaning of Art.
13(b)
of the Labor Code. Indeed, the testimonial and documentary evidence in
the record shows that accused-appellant did more than just make
referrals.
The evidence shows that he made misrepresentations to them concerning
his
authority to recruit for overseas employment and collected various
amounts
from them for placement fees. Clearly, accused-appellant committed acts
constitutive of large scale illegal recruitment.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Second. Accused-appellant
denies that the signatures in the receipts of payments are his. To be
sure,
the presentation of the receipts acknowledging payments is not
necessary
for the successful prosecution of accused-appellant. We have already
ruled
that the absence of receipts in a case for illegal recruitment does not
warrant the acquittal of the accused-appellant and is not fatal to the
case of the prosecution. As long as the prosecution is able to
establish
through credible testimonial evidence that the accused-appellant has
engaged
in illegal recruitment, a conviction for the offense can very well be
justified.[31]
The prosecution evidence
proves beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant was engaged in
illegal
recruitment committed in large scale. He was positively identified by
complainants
as the person who had recruited them for employment in Taiwan. He
succeeded
in inveigling them into paying various amounts to him for their
placement
fees. Their testimonies dovetail with each other in material points.
There
is no showing that any of complainants had any ill-motives to testify
against
accused-appellant. Their testimonies were straightforward, credible and
convincing.[32]
In contrast, accused-appellant failed to present evidence to rebut the
evidence of the prosecution. He failed to present the person allegedly
responsible for the recruitment of the complainants. As a result of his
failure to do so, he risked the adverse inference and legal presumption
that he did not present such witnesses because their testimonies would
actually be adverse if produced.[33]
For, indeed, accused-appellant could have adduced evidence to prove
that
he was an employee of the Steadfast Recruitment Agency, a duly
authorized
agency. He could have presented the manager of the agency to
corroborate
his claim that complainants actually applied to the agency and not
through
him. Instead, he merely interposed denials in his defense.cralaw:red
As against the positive
and categorical testimonies of the complainants, accused-appellant's
mere
denials cannot prevail.[34]
He was aptly meted out the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay the
fine of P100,000.00 under Art. 39(a) of the Labor Code.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Third. Accused-appellant
contends that the elements of estafa have not been proven by the
prosecution,
specifically, the requirement that complainants must have relied on the
false pretenses of accused-appellant, because complainants knew that he
was not a licensed recruiter.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The contention has no
merit. The following elements of estafa are present in these cases, to
wit: (1) the accused has defrauded the offended party by means of abuse
of confidence or by deceit; and (2) as a result, damage or prejudice,
which
is capable of pecuniary estimation, is caused to the offended party or
third person. Accused-appellant misrepresented himself to complainants
as one who can make arrangements for job placements in Taiwan, and by
reason
of his misrepresentations, false assurances and deceit, complainants
were
induced to part with their money, thus causing them damage and
prejudice.cralaw:red
Moreover, it is settled
that a person who is convicted of illegal recruitment may, in addition,
be convicted of estafa under Art. 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code.
There is no problem of double jeopardy because illegal recruitment is
malum
prohibitum, in which the criminal intent is not necessary, whereas
estafa
is malum in se in which the criminal intent of the accused is necessary.[35]
WHEREFORE, the decision
appealed from is AFFIRMED.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Bellosillo, J., (Chairman),
Quisumbing, Buena, and De Leon, Jr., JJ.,
concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Per Judge Salvador J. Valdez, Jr., now Associate Justice of the Court
of
Appeals.
[2]
Rollo, p. 8.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
1) January, 1994. ; 2) January, 1994. ; 3) May 10, 1994. ; 4) January,
1994. ; 5) January, 1994. ; 6) March 7, 1994. ; 7) November 30, 1993. ;
8) January, 1994.
[4]
1) Ruth Eliw y Adais (Crim. Case No. 13147-R) ; 2) Samuel Bagni (Crim.
Case No. 13148-R) ; 3) Francisca Cayaya (Crim. Case No. 13149-R) ; 4)
Teofilo
S. Gallao, Jr. (Crim. Case No. 13150-R) ; 5) Sally Kamura (Crim. Case
No.
13151-R) ; 6) Paul G. Esteban (Crim. Case No. 13152-R) ; 7) David
Joaquin
(Crim. Case No. 13153-R) ; 8) Solidad M. Malinias (Crim. Case No.
13154-R)
[5]
1) P40,000.00 (Forty thousand pesos) ; 2) P40,000.00 (Forty thousand
pesos)
; 3) P20,000.00 (Twenty thousand pesos) ; 4) P40,000.00 (Forty thousand
pesos) ; 5) P40,000.00 (Forty thousand pesos) ; 6) P30,000.00 (Thirty
thousand
pesos) ; 7) P30,000.00 (Thirty thousand pesos) ; 8) P40,000.00 (Forty
thousand
pesos)] when in truth and in fact they could not; the said [name],
deceived
and convinced by the false pretenses employed by the accused, parted
away
the total sum of [amount], in favor of the accused, to the damage and
prejudice
of the said [name] in the aforementioned amount of [amount in words
[6]
See footnote 5.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
RTC Records, p. 70.
[8]
TSN (Noel B. Bacasnot), pp. 2-17, Sept. 28, 1994; See Sworn statement
of
Noel B. Bacasnot dated June 28, 1994 (Exh. B), RTC Records, pp. 71-72.
[9]
TSN (Solidad Malinias), pp. 2-17, Oct. 4, 1994; TSN (Ruth A. Eliw), pp.
2-15, Oct. 5, 1994; pp. 2-8, Oct. 10, 1994; TSN (Sally Kamura), pp.
24-33,
Oct. 11, 1994.
[10]
RTC Records, pp. 77 & 87.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Id., p. 76.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
TSN (Ruth A. Eliw), supra.; See Sworn statement of Ruth A. Eliw dated
June
30, 1994 (Crim. Case No. 13147-R), Records, p. 3; See Joint affidavit
of
arrest of NBI Senior Agent Dave D. Alunan, Spec. Invs. III Darwin A.
Lising,
Roy D. De Guzman and Ferdie H. dela Cruz dated June 28, 1994, RTC
Records,
p. 3; See Affidavits of Ruth A. Eliw, Sally Kamura and Solidad Malinias
all dated June 27, 1994, RTC Records, pp. 7, 11 and 14.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
RTC Records, p. 89.
[14]
Id., p. 90.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
Id., p. 84.
[16]
Id., p. 85. He collected various amounts from the others, as follows:
from
Esteban, P7,500.00 on November 30, 1993 (Exh. E)
[17]
Id., p. 78.
[18]
Id., p. 81.
[19]
See footnote 17.
[20]
Id., p. 79.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]
Id., p. 80.
[22]
TSN (Noel B. Bacasnot), p. 6, Sept. 28, 1994; TSN (David Joaquin), pp.
2-12, Oct. 3, 1994; TSN (Paul Esteban), pp. 12-17, Oct. 3, 1994; TSN
(Teofilo
Gallao, Jr.), pp. 9-24, Oct. 10, 1994; TSN (Samuel Bagni), pp. 33-42,
Oct.
11, 1994; See Affidavits of Samuel Bagni, Teofilo Gallao, Jr., Paul
Esteban
and David Joaquin all dated June 27, 1994, RTC Records, pp. 8, 10, 12
and
13.
[23]
RTC Records, p. 73.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[24]
Crim. Case No. 13149-R.
[25]
TSN (Benzon Ong y Sate), pp. 2-15, Oct. 17, 1994.2
[26]
Rollo, pp. 38-39.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[27]
People v. Goce, 247 SCRA 780 (1995)
[28]
People v. Sanchez, 291 SCRA 333 (1998)
[29]
People v. Goce, supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[30]
People v. Peralta, 347 Phil. 379 (1997)
[31]
People v. Saley, 291 SCRA 715 (1998)
[32]
People v. Gharbia, G.R. No. 123010, July 20, 1999.
[33]
See People v. Enriquez, G.R. No. 127159, May 5, 1999.
[34]
People v. Mercado, G.R. Nos. 108440-42, March 11, 1999.
[35]
People v. Saley, supra; People v. Sadiosa, 290 SCRA 92 (1998); People
v.
Guiang, 285 SCRA 404 (1998) |