This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-08-09 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| All three private complainants testified in a categorical and straightforward manner; hence, the trial court properly accorded full faith and credence to their declarations on the witness stand. The well-settled rule is that the credibility of witnesses is best left to the judgment of the trial judge whose findings are generally not disturbed on appeal, absent any showing that substantial errors were committed or that determinative facts were overlooked which, if appreciated, would call for a different conclusion.[42] The trial court has the advantage, not available to the appellate courts, of observing the deportment of witnesses and their manner of testifying during trial. Thus, the appellate courts confer highest respect to such findings and conclusions of the lower courts.[43] | |||||
|
2008-10-06 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Aptly, the bare denials of Hu have no probative value when ranged against the affirmative declarations of Garcia, even if the latter failed to present receipts for the payments she had made. In People v. Villas,[35] this Court affirmed the conviction of the appellant for illegal recruitment even if private complaints were not able to present any receipt that they paid appellant anything, thus:Neither is there merit in the contention of the defense that appellant should be exonerated for failure of the prosecution to present any receipt proving that private complainants paid her anything. The defense argues that a receipt is the best evidence to prove delivery of money and the absence thereof shows that no payment was made. | |||||
|
2000-02-08 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| On several occasions, this Court has held that there is illegal recruitment when one purports to have the ability to send a worker abroad although without the authority or license to do so. He may merely give such an impression in order to induce an applicant to tender payment for fees.[37] Although accused-appellant initially might not have done anything to encourage individuals to apply to him for employment abroad, such fact does not in any way blot out his liability for illegal recruitment. Recruitment is a legal term; its meaning must be understood in the light of what the law contemplates and not of common parlance.[38] Thus, even if Rogelio did not purposely seek out the complainants to apply as workers in Japan, his subsequent false misrepresentations that he had the capacity to procure employment for them, without authority from the POEA, made him liable for illegal recruitment. | |||||