This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2015-07-01 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| 3. He committed the same against three or more persons, individually or as a group.[11] RA 8042,[12] otherwise known as the "Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995," established a higher standard of protection and promotion of the welfare of the migrant workers, their families and overseas Filipinos in distress. RA 8042 also broadened the concept of illegal recruitment for overseas employment and increased the penalties, especially for Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale and Illegal Recruitment Committed by a Syndicate, which are considered offenses involving economic sabotage.[13] Part II of RA 8042 defines and penalizes illegal recruitment for employment abroad, whether undertaken by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority or by a licensee or holder of authority. | |||||
|
2014-11-24 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Petitioner argues that she could not be held liable because she was not privy nor was she aware of the recruitment activities done by her co-accused. Petitioner avers that when her co-accused received several amounts of money from the private complainants, she acted in her personal capacity and for her own benefit without the knowledge and consent of petitioner. The Court is not persuaded. As owner and general manager, petitioner was at the forefront of the recruitment activities of Suliman International. Undoubtedly, she has control, management or direction of the business of the said company. Petitioner's denial is an intrinsically weak defense, especially in the face of positive assertions made by the private complainants who had no ill motive to falsely testify against her. Indeed, of marked relevance is the absence of any showing that the private complainants had any ill motive against petitioner other than to bring her to the bar of justice to answer for the crime of illegal recruitment. Besides, for strangers to conspire and accuse another stranger of a most serious crime just to mollify their hurt feelings would certainly be against human nature and experience.[26] Where there is nothing to show that the witnesses for the prosecution were actuated by improper motive, their positive and categorical declarations on the witness stand under the solemnity of an oath deserve full faith and credence.[27] In any case, petitioner cannot deny participation in the recruitment of the private complainants because the prosecution has established that petitioner was the one who offered the private complainants an alleged alternative employment in Ireland when their original deployment did not materialize. | |||||
|
2013-10-09 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| We also consider in this case that no ill motive was found on the part of the witnesses that could have impelled them to testify against Galicia. In People v. Nogra,[22] we ruled that where there is nothing to show that the witnesses for the prosecution were actuated by improper motive, their positive and categorical declarations on the witness stand, under the solemnity of an oath, deserve full faith and credence. It necessarily prevails over alibi and denial, especially when neither alibi nor denial is substantiated by clear and convincing evidence. | |||||
|
2011-11-23 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| It is a settled rule that factual findings of the trial courts, including their assessment of the witnesses' credibility, are entitled to great weight and respect by the Supreme Court, particularly when the CA affirmed such findings.[12] After all, the trial court is in the best position to determine the value and weight of the testimonies of witnesses.[13] | |||||
|
2011-08-31 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| There is no reason for us to disturb the weight and credence accorded by the RTC to the evidence of the prosecution, over that of the defense. As is well-settled in this jurisdiction, greater weight is given to the positive identification of the accused by the prosecution witnesses than the accused's denial and explanation concerning the commission of the crime.[51] Likewise, factual findings of the trial courts, including their assessment of the witnesses' credibility, are entitled to great weight and respect by the Supreme Court, particularly when the Court of Appeals affirmed such findings. After all, the trial court is in the best position to determine the value and weight of the testimonies of witnesses. The absence of any showing that the trial court plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and value that, if considered, might affect the result of the case, or that its assessment was arbitrary, impels the Court to defer to the trial court's determination according credibility to the prosecution evidence.[52] Moreover, in the absence of any evidence that the prosecution witnesses were motivated by improper motives, the trial court's assessment of the credibility of the witnesses shall not be interfered with by this Court.[53] | |||||
|
2011-06-01 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Moreover, in the absence of any evidence that the prosecution witnesses were motivated by improper motives, the trial court's assessment of the credibility of the witnesses shall not be interfered with by this Court.[26] It is a settled rule that factual findings of the trial courts, including their assessment of the witnesses' credibility, are entitled to great weight and respect by the Supreme Court, particularly when the Court of Appeals affirmed such findings. After all, the trial court is in the best position to determine the value and weight of the testimonies of witnesses. The absence of any showing that the trial court plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and value that, if considered, might affect the result of the case, or that its assessment was arbitrary, impels the Court to defer to the trial court's determination according credibility to the prosecution evidence.[27] | |||||
|
2010-08-09 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The records disclose nothing that would indicate any motive on the part of Jericho Capanas to testify falsely against appellant. Absent any showing that a witness for the prosecution was actuated by improper motive, his positive and categorical declarations on the witness stand, under the solemnity of an oath, deserve full faith and credence.[20] | |||||
|
2010-03-18 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Moreover, there is no showing that the private complainants were impelled by any ill motive that could have affected their credibility. Where there is nothing to show that the witnesses for the prosecution were actuated by improper motive, their positive and categorical declarations on the witness stand, under the solemnity of an oath, deserve full faith and credence.[55] | |||||
|
2010-03-10 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Even if appellant were a mere temporary cashier of Golden Gate, that did not make her any less an employee to be held liable for illegal recruitment as principal by direct participation, together with the employer, as it was shown that she actively and consciously participated in the recruitment process. [11] | |||||