GR 118815; (August, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 118815 August 18, 1997
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ANITA MELGAR-MERCADER Y TONGCO, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Anita Melgar-Mercader was charged with Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale for recruiting eight individuals for overseas employment without the required license from the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) between January 1993 and April 1994. The prosecution presented four complainants: Lilia Manlolo, Adela Domingo (wife of complainant Samuel Domingo), Guy Forte, and Ofelia Petrache-Germono. Their testimonies established a consistent pattern. Manlolo paid P10,000.00 for a promised job in Malaysia, Domingo gave P11,000.00 in cash and rice for her husband’s deployment, Forte paid P10,000.00 for a job in Taiwan, and Germono paid P6,000.00. All transactions were supported by receipts signed by the appellant. Despite follow-ups, none of the complainants were deployed abroad, and the appellant eventually became unreachable.
The defense consisted solely of the appellant’s denial. She claimed she did not know the complainants, had no transactions with them, and asserted that the signatures on the receipts were not hers. To support this, she compared her signature on the receipts with her signature in the court records, stating they were different. The trial court convicted her of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale, sentencing her to life imprisonment and ordering restitution to the complainants.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused-appellant is guilty of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court held that all essential elements of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale were established. First, the appellant engaged in recruitment and placement activities by promising overseas employment to the complainants in exchange for fees. Second, a certification from the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) confirmed she had no license or authority to recruit. Third, the offense was committed against three or more persons, constituting large scale illegal recruitment, which is economic sabotage.
The Court found the positive, categorical, and consistent testimonies of the four complainants credible and sufficient to prove the appellant’s criminal acts. Their detailed accounts of handing over money and documents to the appellant, supported by receipts, constituted strong evidence. In contrast, the appellant’s defense of bare denial was deemed inherently weak and a self-serving negative assertion that could not prevail over the positive identification by the witnesses. The Court also noted the trial court’s failure to impose the mandatory fine of P100,000.00 for large scale illegal recruitment under Article 39 of the Labor Code. However, as this omission was not raised on appeal, the Court limited itself to affirming the judgment, including the orders for indemnity. The conviction was thus upheld.