G.R. Nos. 91711-15 March 3, 1993
The People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Dino Alforte y Jabagat, Jane Doe, John Doe, Peter Doe and Merry (sic) Doe, accused. Dino Alforte y Jabagat, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Dino Alforte, along with several unidentified co-accused (Jane Doe, John Doe, Peter Doe, and Merry Doe), was charged in five separate Informations before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. One Information (Criminal Case No. Q-89-2114) charged them with Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale under P.D. No. 442, as amended, for recruiting and promising employment abroad to Leonora Hapatinga, Natividad Henson, Alfredo Dela Rosa, and Fe Lozano without the required license from the Department of Labor and Employment. Four other Informations (Criminal Case Nos. Q-89-2115 to Q-89-2118) charged them with Estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code for defrauding Fe Lozano, Leonora Hapatinga, Alfredo Dela Rosa, and Natividad Henson, respectively, by falsely representing they could secure overseas employment and thereby inducing them to deliver various sums of money totaling P15,255.00, P29,100.00, P20,500.00, and P10,850.00.
The cases were jointly tried. The prosecution evidence established that accused-appellant, through intermediaries Brigida de Guzman and others, offered overseas jobs to complainants Fe Lozano and her sister Leonora Hapatinga. Accused-appellant promised them employment as food server and waitress in Saipan/Guam, requiring payments for passport, processing, reservation, and placement fees. Leonora Hapatinga introduced Alfredo Dela Rosa to the group, who also made payments for promised overseas employment. The complainants made installment payments, sometimes receiving receipts from accused-appellant’s cohorts. Accused-appellant was the one who usually received the money. The promises of employment were not fulfilled, and the complainants discovered the recruitment was illegal. Accused-appellant denied the charges, claiming he only met the complainants after his arrest and that he merely acted as a driver for Brigida de Guzman.
The trial court convicted accused-appellant Dino Alforte in Criminal Case Nos. Q-89-2114 (Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale), Q-89-2115 (Estafa vs. Fe Lozano), Q-89-2116 (Estafa vs. Leonora Hapatinga), and Q-89-2117 (Estafa vs. Alfredo Dela Rosa). He was acquitted in Criminal Case No. Q-89-2118 (Estafa vs. Natividad Henson) for insufficient evidence. He was sentenced to reclusion perpetua and a fine for illegal recruitment, and various prison terms for estafa, and ordered to pay actual, moral, and corrective damages to the complainants. Accused-appellant appealed the decision.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant Dino Alforte of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale and multiple counts of Estafa based on the evidence presented.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the trial court’s decision in toto. The Court found no reversible error in the trial court’s factual findings and conclusions. It upheld the trial court’s assessment of the credibility of the prosecution witnesses (Fe Lozano, Leonora Hapatinga, and Alfredo Dela Rosa), whose testimonies were consistent, straightforward, and corroborated on material points. The minor inconsistencies in their testimonies were deemed to enhance their veracity rather than detract from it. The Court rejected accused-appellant’s denial and his claim of being a mere driver, finding it not credible in light of the positive and categorical identification by the complainants that he was the one who received their payments and made promises of employment. The Court deferred to the trial court’s superior position to evaluate witness credibility and found no reason to overturn its judgment. The penalties and awards of damages imposed by the trial court were sustained.