People of the Philippines (petitioner) v Jamilosa (repondent)

GR No. 169076 January 23, 2007

Callejo, Sr.,:

TOPIC : Absence of Receipt or Proof of Payment.

FACTS:
Sometime in the months of January to February, 1996, representing to have the
capacity, authority or license to contract, enlist and deploy or transport workers for
overseas employment, Jamilosa did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and criminally
recruit, contract and promise to deploy, for a fee the herein complainants, namely,
Imelda D. Bamba, Geraldine M. Lagman and Alma E. Singh, for work or employment in
Los Angeles, California, U.S.A. in Nursing Home and Care Center.
Prosecution presented three witnesses, namely Imelda Bamba, Geraldine
Lagman and Alma Singh.
According to Bamba, she met the appellant on a bus. She was on her way to SM
North Edsa where she was a company nurse. Appellant introduced himself as a
recruiter of workers for employment abroad. Appellant told her he could help her get
employed as nurse. Jamilosa gave his pager number and instructed her to contact him is
she’s interested. Sometime in January 1996, appellant fetched her at her office, went to
her house and gave him the necessary documents and handed to appellant the amount
of US$300.00 and the latter showed her a photocopy of her supposed US visa. However,
the appellant did not issue a receipt for the said money. Thereafter, appellant told her
to resign from her work because she was booked with Northwest Airlines and to leave
for USA on Feb, 1996. On the scheduled departure, appellant failed to show up. Instead,
called and informed her that he failed to give the passport and US visa because she had
to go to province because his wife died. Trying to contact him to the supposed residence
and hotel where he temporarily resided, but to no avail.
Witness Lagman for her part, testified that she is a registered nurse. In January
1996, she went to SM North Edsa to visit her cousin Bamba. At that time Bamba
informed her that she was going to meet to appellant. Bamba invited Lagman to go with
her. The appellant convinced them of his ability to send them abroad. On their next
meeting, Lagman handed to the latter the necessary documents and an amount of
US$300.00 and 2 bottles of black label without any receipt issued by the appellant. Four
days after their meeting, a telephone company called her because her number was
appearing in appellants cell phone documents. Four days after their last meeting,
Extelcom, a telephone company, called her because her number was appearing in the
appellant’s cellphone documents. The caller asked if she knew him because they were
trying to locate him, as he was a swindler who failed to pay his telephone bills in the
amount of P100,000.00. She became suspicious and told Bamba about the matter. One
week before her scheduled flight, appellant told her he could not meet them because
his mother passed away.
Lastly, Alma Singh, who is also a registered nurse, declared that she first met the
appellant at SM North Edsa when Imelda Bamba introduced the latter to her. Appellant
told her that he is an undercover agent of FBI and he could fix her US visa. On their next
meeting, she gave all the pertinent documents. Thereafter, she gave P10,000 to the
appellant covering half price of her plane ticket. They paged the appellant through his
beeper to set up another appointment but the appellant avoided them as he had many
things to do.
The accused Jamilosa testified on direct examination that he never told Bamba
that he could get her a job in USA, the truth being that she wanted to leave SM as
company nurse because she was having a problem thereat. Bamba called him several
times, seeking advices from him. He started courting Bamba and went out dating until
latter became his girlfriend. He met Lagman and Singh thru Bamba. As complainants
seeking advice on how to apply for jobs abroad, lest he be charged as a recruiter, he
made Bamba, Lagman and Singh sign separate certifications, all to effect that he never
recruited them and no money was involved. Bamba filed an illegal recruitment case
against him because they quarreled and separated.
 To counter the version of the prosecution, accused claims that he did not recruit
the complainants for work abroad but that it was they who sought his advice relative to
their desire to apply for jobs in Los Angeles, California, USA and thinking that he might
be charged as a recruiter, he made them sign three certifications, Exh. "2," "3" and "4,"
which in essence state that accused never recruited them and that there was no money
involved.

ISSUE: WON want of receipts counter the validity of the decision of the CA in charging
Jamilosa with Illegal Recruitment?

HELD:

Accused’s contention simply does not hold water. Admittedly, he executed and
submitted a counter-affidavit during the preliminary investigation at the Department of
Justice, and that he never mentioned the aforesaid certifications, Exhibits 2, 3 and 4 in
said counter-affidavit. These certifications were allegedly executed before charges were
filed against him. Knowing that he was already being charged for prohibited
recruitment, why did he not bring out these certifications which were definitely
favorable to him, if the same were authentic. It is so contrary to human nature that one
would suppress evidence which would belie the charge against him.

Denials of the accused cannot stand against the positive and categorical narration of
each complainant as to how they were recruited by accused who had received some
amounts from them for the processing of their papers. Want of receipts is not fatal to
the prosecution’s case, for as long as it has been shown, as in this case, that accused had
engaged in prohibited recruitment. (People v. Pabalan, 262 SCRA 574).

The failure of the prosecution to adduce in evidence any receipt or document signed by
appellant where he acknowledged to have received money and liquor does not free him
from criminal liability. Even in the absence of money or other valuables given as
consideration for the "services" of appellant, the latter is considered as being engaged in
recruitment activities.

It can be gleaned from the language of Article 13(b) of the Labor Code that the act of
recruitment may be for profit or not. It is sufficient that the accused promises or offers
for a fee employment to warrant conviction for illegal recruitment.17 As the Court held
in People v. Sagaydo:

Such is the case before us. The complainants parted with their money upon the
prodding and enticement of accused-appellant on the false pretense that she had the
capacity to deploy them for employment abroad. In the end, complainants were neither
able to leave for work abroad nor get their money back.

The fact that private complainants Rogelio Tibeb and Jessie Bolinao failed to produce
receipts as proof of their payment to accused-appellant does not free the latter from
liability. The absence of receipts cannot defeat a criminal prosecution for illegal
recruitment. As long as the witnesses can positively show through their respective
testimonies that the accused is the one involved in prohibited recruitment, he may be
convicted of the offense despite the absence of receipts.19