Case Digest: People v. Taguinay

G.R. No. 186132 : February 27, 2012

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. NESTOR TUGUINAY, Appellant.

BRION, J.:

FACTS:


The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Baguio City, convicted the appellant of illegal recruitment in large scale and four counts of estafa. It gave full credence to the straightforward testimonies of complainants Ferdinand Aguilar y Pontino, Sakio Balicdang, Lim U. Tany and Jordan B. Bangcawayan, pointing to the appellant and his co-accused, Nida Bermudez, as the persons who recruited and promised them overseas employment in exchange for sums of money. It found that the appellant was not licensed to recruit workers for overseas employment.

On intermediate appellate review, the CA affirmed the RTC's decision, giving full respect to the RTC's assessment of the testimonies and credibility of the complainants.

Hence, this final review.

ISSUE: Whether or not the accused-appellant is guilty of the crimes charged.

HELD: The CA's decision was sustained.

LABOR LAW

The three elements of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale, to wit: a) the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable him to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers; b) the offender undertakes any of the activities within the meaning of "recruitment and placement" under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code, or any of the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of the said Code (now Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042); and c) the offender committed the same against three or more persons, individually or as a group, are present in this case.

The prosecution adduced proof beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant enlisted the four complainants for overseas employment without any license to do so. The four complainants adequately testified on the demand for placement fees made by the appellant, and the payments they made.

CRIMINAL LAW

The Supreme Court likewise affirm the appellants conviction for the crime of estafa. The two elements ofestafa (a) that the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit, and (b) that damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party or third person are also present in this case. The prosecution evidence duly proved that due to the appellants false representations of overseas jobs, the complainants paid placement fees to the appellant who failed to secure the promised overseas jobs.

DENIED

Popular Posts