GR 109779; (March, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 109779 March 13, 1997
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. NESTOR MANOZCA y ALMARIO, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Nestor Manozca was charged with Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale and two counts of Estafa. The prosecution evidence established that from February to March 1989, in Quezon City, Manozca, using the alias “Nesty Santiago” or “Manolito Santiago,” recruited complainants Ferdinand Tuazon, Arnulfo Caampued, and Norlito Hular for jobs in Singapore. He promised them employment as a janitor, security guard, and bartender, respectively, and instructed them to submit various documents like passports and NBI clearances. He represented himself as connected to a Singapore-based agency and claimed to have the capacity to secure their visas and employment.
During the recruitment process, Manozca solicited and received money from the complainants for alleged processing fees and other expenses. Norlito Hular gave P12,636.00, and Arnulfo Caampued gave P14,500.00. However, no employment materialized, and the promised overseas jobs did not come to fruition. The prosecution presented all three complainants as witnesses, who consistently identified Manozca as the person who recruited them and collected their money. The defense presented alibi, claiming Manozca was in Batangas at the time.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused-appellant for the crimes of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale and Estafa.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. For Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale, the prosecution successfully proved all elements: (1) the accused undertook recruitment activities; (2) he did not have the required license or authority from the Department of Labor and Employment; and (3) he committed the same against three or more persons individually or as a group. The testimonies of the three complainants were credible, consistent, and sufficient to establish these elements. The Court found the defense of alibi weak and unsubstantiated, especially when weighed against the positive identification by the witnesses.
Regarding the Estafa charges, the Court ruled that all elements were present: (1) the accused defrauded the complainants through deceit by falsely pretending to possess the power and capacity to secure overseas employment; and (2) this caused damage capable of pecuniary estimation, as evidenced by the specific amounts of money the complainants delivered and lost. The accused’s use of a fictitious name and false promises to obtain money constituted deceit. The trial court’s findings on the credibility of witnesses are accorded great respect, and the Supreme Court found no reason to deviate from them. The appealed judgment was affirmed in its entirety.