This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2008-12-17 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| An employee of a company or corporation engaged in illegal recruitment may be held liable as principal, together with his employer, if it is shown that he actively and consciously participated in illegal recruitment.[9] Appellant actively took part in the illegal recruitment of private complainants. Rogelio Legaspi testified that after introducing herself as the General Manager of ATTC, appellant persuaded him to apply as a technician in Singapore and assured him that there was a job market therefor. In addition to the placement fee of P35,000.00 which he paid to accused Bernadette Miranda, he also handed the amount of P10,000.00 to appellant who, in turn, issued him a receipt for the total amount of P45,000.00. Upon the other hand, Soledad Atle and Luz Minkay, who applied as factory workers in Hongkong through co-accused, Emily Salagonos, declared that it was appellant who briefed them on the requirements for the processing of their application, and assured them and Dennis Dimaano of immediate deployment for jobs abroad. For her part, Evelyn Estacio testified that aside from the placement fee of P40,000.00 that she paid to co-accused "Baby" Robles in connection with her purported overseas employment, she also gave appellant P10,000.00 for which she was issued a receipt for the amount of P5,000.00. | |||||
|
2005-11-11 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Even assuming that appellant was a mere employee, such fact is not a shield against his conviction for large scale illegal recruitment. In the case of People v. Cabais,[11] we have held that an employee of a company or corporation engaged in illegal recruitment may be held liable as principal, together with his employer, if it is shown that he actively and consciously participated in the recruitment process. We further stated that:In this case, evidence showed that accused-appellant was the one who informed complainant of job prospects in Korea and the requirements for deployment. She also received money from them as placement fees. All of the complainants testified that they personally met the accused-appellant and transacted with her regarding the overseas job placement offers. Complainants parted with their money, evidenced by receipts signed by accused Cabais and accused Forneas. Thus, accused-appellant actively participated in the recruitment of the complainants.[12] | |||||
|
2004-05-18 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, we find no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the trial court, which is in the best position to make an assessment of the witnesses' credibility and to appreciate complainants' truthfulness, honesty and candor.[26] Factual findings of trial courts, as well as their assessment of the credibility of witnesses, are entitled to great weight and respect by this Court more so when these are affirmed by the Court of Appeals.[27] As against the positive and categorical testimonies of the complainant, petitioner's mere denial cannot prevail. | |||||
|
2002-08-06 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Private Complainants to Japan. This is so because, as the Receipts indubitably show, the Accused received, from Cecilia Legarbes Zabala, the said amounts of P4,500.00 and P2,000.00 as his commission for the recruitment of Santiago Ricamonte and Arnel Viloria. Indeed, the evidence of the Prosecution shows that Cecilia Legarbes Zabala received, from Santiago Ricamonte, the amount of P30,000.00 on December 3, 1992 (Exhibit "B"). Arnel Viloria paid to Cecilia Legarbes Zabala, on December 7, 1992, the amount of P10,000.00 (Exhibit "M"). The payments were made in the presence of the Accused. It was precisely on December 3, 1992 when the Accused received P4,500.00 from Cecilia Legarbes Zabala as his commission and on December 7, 1992, when the Accused received, from Cecilia Legarbes Zabala, the amount of P2,000.00 as his commission. The only logical conclusion is that the amounts given to the Accused by Cecilia Legarbes Zabala on those dates must have come from the amounts paid by Santiago Ricamonte and Arnel Viloria on those dates respectively. The Accused has not adduced a morsel of evidence that the Accused transacted business with third persons as agent of Cecilia Legarbes Zabala for which he was entitled to said amounts as commissions from her."[25] We find no reason to disturb the findings of the trial court, which is in the best position to appreciate complainants' truthfulness, honesty and candor.[26] As against the positive and categorical testimonies of the complainants, appellant's mere denial | |||||