People v. Abat (GR No. 168651, March 11, 2011)

-junj
G.R. No. 168651 : March 16, 2011
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDITH RAMOS ABAT,

Accused-Appellant.
TOPIC: Denial and Alibi as Defense.
FACTS:
Accused Abat was convicted by the RTC of illegal recruitment in large scale of nine
individuals, by recruiting them to a supposed job in Taiwan for a fee, without the proper
authority. The CA affirmed her conviction.
Sometime in the months of November and December 2000 in the Municipality of

Calasiao, Province of Pangasinan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused not being a licensee or holder of authority,
did then and there, willfully (sic), unlawfully and feloniously undertake and perform
recruitment activities in large scale by recruiting MARIA GARCIA, JOCELYN
FLORES, SONNY YABOT, BALTAZAR ARGEL, LETECIA MARCELO, PABLITO
S. GALUMAN, TARCILA M. UMAGAT, CAROLINE U. CALIX, PERCY C.
FUERTES, to a supposed job abroad, particularly in Taiwan, for a fee, without first
securing the necessary license or permit to do the same.
In her appeal, the accused denies having any participation in the recruitment of the nine
named complainants for employment in Taiwan, asserting that the CA erred in thus
affirming her conviction despite the totality of evidence pointing to no other conclusion
than her innocence. She urges the review of the CA’s ruling on the credibility of the
witnesses in view of the two opposing versions of the facts involved.
In support of her appeal, she argues that the sums she exacted and received from the
complainants represented only the reimbursement of the expenses incurred during her
trips upon the advice of Sister Araceli, a faith healer, that took her and the complainants
to Cebu City, Iligan City, Ozamis City and Cagayan de Oro City, not in consideration of
the employment in Taiwan supposedly offered to the complainants; that for her not to be
reimbursed would be most unfair because she had defrayed the expenses for the trips with
the complainants with her husband’s money; that the failure of the complainants to
produce receipts showing that she had collected money from them in connection with her
assurances of their employment in Taiwan was fatal to the State’s case against her; and
that although only four of the nine named complainants had appeared and testified in
court, the Prosecution did not explain why the five other complainants had desisted from
testifying against her.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the defense of the accused, that she was merely seeking
reimbursements, is credible
2. Whether or not the absence of a receipt negates a finding of illegal recruitment
HELD:
The petition is denied.
First issue: In accordance with Article 38 of the Labor Code, it is the lack of the
necessary license or authority to recruit and deploy workers, either locally or overseas,
that renders the recruitment activity unlawful or criminal.To prove illegal recruitment,
therefore, the State must show that the accused gave the complainants the distinct
impression that she had the power or ability to deploy the complainants abroad in a
manner that they were convinced to part with their money for that end.
In addition to her admission that she did not have any license or authority from the
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) to recruit and deploy workers, either
locally or overseas, the explicit certification issued on January 10, 200. Atty. Adonis
Peralta, the DOLE District Officer in Dagupan City, attesting that the accused did not
possess any permit to recruit workers for overseas employment in Pangasinan, including
the cities of Dagupan, San Carlos, Urdaneta and Alaminos, confirmed her lack of the
license or authority required by law.
The State competently established that the accused, despite having no license or authority
to recruit and deploy workers, either locally or overseas, had represented to the
complainants that she could secure their employment in Taiwan either as factory workers
or as computer operators at a monthly salary of NT$45,000.00 each; and that the
complainants had relied on her representation and given her the amounts she had
demanded in the expectation of their placement. She had also told the complainants about
her being related to the Philippine Ambassador toTaiwan, as well as to President Ramos
and President Estrada.
Second issue: The Court has ruled that the absence of receipts evidencing payment does
not defeat a criminal prosecution for illegal recruitment.According to People v. Pabalan,
the absence of receipts in a criminal case for illegal recruitment does not warrant the
acquittal of the accused and is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. As long as the
witnesses had positively shown through their respective testimonies that the accused is
the one involved in the prohibited recruitment, he may be convicted of the offense despite
the want of receipts. Consequently, as long as the State established through credible
testimonial evidence that the accused had engaged in illegal recruitment, her conviction
was justified, as it is herein.
Petition is DENIED, and the CA decision is AFFIRMED.

People v. Abat (GR No. 168651, March 11, 2011)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People v. Abat (GR No. 168651, March 11, 2011)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People v. Abat (GR No. 168651, March 11, 2011)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

-junj

G.R. No. 168651 : March 16, 2011

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDITH RAMOS ABAT,

TOPIC: Denial and Alibi as Defense.

Sometime in the months of November and December 2000 in the Municipality of

2. Whether or not the absence of a receipt negates a finding of illegal recruitment

The petition is denied.

Petition is DENIED, and the CA decision is AFFIRMED.

You might also like