People vs. Reyes

Illegal recruitment is committed on a large scale only when committed against three or more persons in the same case; complainants from other pending cases cannot be cumulated to satisfy the three-person threshold. Where the information alleges only two complainants, the accused may be convicted only of simple illegal recruitment even if other persons were allegedly recruited, provided the additional persons were not charged in the same information.

Thelma Reyes and her husband Nick Reyes were charged with illegal recruitment for promising overseas employment to job applicants and collecting placement fees without being licensed by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). Nick Reyes remained at large, so trial proceeded only against Thelma Reyes. The case arose under Article 38 of the Labor Code (P.D. No. 442), which defines illegal recruitment and prescribes enhanced penalties when committed by a syndicate or on a large scale, classifying such offenses as economic sabotage punishable by life imprisonment and a fine of ₱100,000.

Sometime in 1985, Rosalino Bitang and five companions — Lorenzo Blanza, Fabian Baradas, Edgardo Garcia, Ramon Mendoza, and Dionisio de Castro — went to the house of Thelma Reyes and her husband Nick Reyes in Los Baños, Laguna, to apply for overseas employment. Bitang gave ₱5,000 to Nick Reyes as a downpayment for recruitment fees; Nick handed the money to Thelma, who counted it, and then Nick issued a receipt dated September 19, 1985. On January 14, 1986, Bitang and his companions paid an additional ₱34,000 through Dionisio de Castro, of which ₱8,500 was for Bitang's placement fee and the balance for his companions' fees. Again Nick received the money, gave it to Thelma who counted it, and issued a receipt listing the names of the applicants.

Fabian Baradas testified that he was introduced to Thelma Reyes in September 1985 at Lemery, Batangas, while she was recruiting workers for deployment to Saudi Arabia. Between September and December 1985, he and others visited the spouses' house in Los Baños, submitted travel documents such as passports, birth certificates, and NBI clearances, and paid various amounts. On January 9, 1986, Baradas gave ₱6,000 to Nick and Thelma through Dionisio de Castro, and on January 14, 1986, he paid an additional ₱12,000, both evidenced by receipts signed by Nick Reyes. Nick promised to notify them once they were accepted for employment, but no job materialized.

Both complainants checked with the POEA and discovered that the spouses were not licensed recruiters, as confirmed by a POEA certification. They demanded the return of their money; when the spouses refused, they filed the complaint. Thelma Reyes testified in her defense, claiming she met Bitang and Baradas only between March and May 1986 when they came looking for her husband. She denied involvement in his activities, stating they had been estranged since March 1986 because she disapproved of his illegal recruitment operations, and that she lived separately in Singalong, Manila. She admitted the receipts were signed by her husband but denied any participation. On cross-examination, she acknowledged fourteen other illegal recruitment cases pending against her and her husband in various Manila courts.

On rebuttal, Bitang testified that it was Thelma Reyes herself who gave the job applicants the address and sketch of their Los Baños house and that she represented to him she was negotiating for job placements abroad. He reiterated that money paid to Nick was handed to Thelma, who counted it before Nick issued receipts. The trial court credited the complainants' testimonies over Thelma's denial, finding that she was present and counted the money, and convicted her of illegal recruitment on a large scale.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: Appellant contended that the testimonies of Bitang and Baradas were insufficient to sustain conviction, arguing that Dionisio de Castro, who allegedly advanced ₱34,000 for the complainants, should have been presented to corroborate their claims.
• Best Evidence Rule: Appellant argued that the receipts, signed only by Nick Reyes, constituted the best evidence that only he received the amounts, proving that Thelma had nothing to do with the transactions. She also claimed she and her husband separated in 1985 because she disapproved of his illegal activities.
• Jurisdiction: Appellant pointed out that the receipts bore "Manila" as the place of issuance rather than Los Baños, arguing that if the illegal recruitment occurred in Manila, the RTC of Laguna lacked jurisdiction.
• Scale of Offense: Appellant contended that with only two complainants named in the information, she could not be convicted of illegal recruitment on a large scale, which requires three or more persons, nor penalized with life imprisonment.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: Whether the testimonies of two complainants, without the testimony of Dionisio de Castro, are sufficient to sustain a conviction for illegal recruitment.
• Credibility and Conspiracy: Whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the complainants' verbal testimonies over the documentary evidence (receipts) and in finding conspiracy between the spouses despite the receipts bearing only Nick Reyes's signature.
• Large-Scale Illegal Recruitment: Whether the appellant can be convicted of illegal recruitment on a large scale when the information names only two complainants, and whether complainants from other pending cases can be cumulated to satisfy the three-person threshold under Article 38(b) of the Labor Code.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: Yes. The testimony of a single credible witness suffices for conviction; the complainants' testimonies were positive and credible, and de Castro's testimony was unnecessary since there was no dispute that the ₱34,000 he advanced was received by Nick Reyes.
• Credibility and Conspiracy: No error. The receipts bearing only Nick's signature did not negate conspiracy; the evidence showed that after receiving payments, Nick handed the money to Thelma, who counted it before the receipts were issued, making the acts of the husband also her acts.
• Large-Scale Illegal Recruitment: No. The appellant could not be convicted of illegal recruitment on a large scale because only two complainants were named in the information, and the three-or-more-persons requirement cannot be satisfied by cumulating complainants from separate pending cases; accordingly, she was convicted of simple illegal recruitment on two counts.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: The Court reaffirmed the doctrine that an accused may be convicted on the strength of a single witness's testimony if credible and positive, producing conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The fact that the witness is also the complainant does not diminish credibility where the court is convinced of truthfulness. The trial court's assessment of witness credibility is generally binding on appellate courts, which did not hear the testimony or observe the witnesses' deportment. No corroboration from de Castro was needed because there was no dispute that the amount he advanced was received by Nick Reyes; the receipts themselves confirmed this.

• Credibility and Conspiracy: The receipts signed only by Nick Reyes did not exonerate Thelma, because the complainants' testimony established that she actively participated — she counted the money after Nick received it, gave job applicants the address and sketch of their house, and represented that she was negotiating for job placements abroad. The trial court found her denial lame and insufficient to overcome the complainants' positive identification. Her claim of estrangement from her husband was deemed a convenient but uncorroborated attempt to dissociate herself. The discrepancies in the receipts (absence of stated purpose, "Manila" as place of issuance) were attributable to the spouses' deviousness, not to the complainants' lack of credibility, given the complainants' elementary education. Appellate courts defer to the trial court's credibility findings absent overlooked or misapplied facts of weight.

• Large-Scale Illegal Recruitment: Article 38(b) of the Labor Code defines illegal recruitment on a large scale as committed against three or more persons, individually or as a group. The information named only two complainants — Baradas and Bitang. The trial court improperly considered four other persons (Blanza, Garcia, Mendoza, and de Castro) to justify the large-scale designation. However, Blanza and Garcia had actually obtained overseas employment, and de Castro merely advanced money without being shown to have been recruited. Even if all had been illegally recruited, they were not alleged in the information, and under Rule 120, §4, the accused could only be convicted of the offense charged or one necessarily included therein. The Court further held that the three-or-more-persons requirement must be satisfied within each case — complainants from fourteen other pending cases cannot be cumulated to convert simple illegal recruitment into large-scale recruitment. Accordingly, appellant was convicted of simple illegal recruitment on two counts under Article 39(c), penalized by imprisonment of not less than four years nor more than eight years, or a fine of ₱20,000 to ₱100,000, or both.

• Sufficiency of Single Witness Testimony — An accused may be convicted on the basis of the testimony of a single witness, provided such testimony is credible, positive, and produces a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The fact that the witness is also the complainant does not affect this rule. Witnesses are to be weighed, not counted. The Court applied this doctrine to sustain the conviction despite the non-presentation of Dionisio de Castro, whose testimony was deemed unnecessary.

• Deference to Trial Court on Witness Credibility — Appellate courts will generally not disturb the trial court's findings on the credibility of witnesses, having had the opportunity to observe their deportment and manner of testifying, unless facts or circumstances of weight were overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied. The Court applied this principle to uphold the trial court's crediting of the complainants' testimonies over Thelma Reyes's denial.

• Three-or-More-Persons Requirement for Large-Scale Illegal Recruitment — Illegal recruitment is committed on a large scale when committed against three or more persons, individually or as a group, in the same case. The three-person threshold must be satisfied by complainants named in the information; complainants from separate pending cases cannot be cumulated to elevate simple illegal recruitment to large-scale recruitment (economic sabotage). The Court applied this doctrine to reduce the conviction from large-scale to simple illegal recruitment.

• Conviction Limited to Offense Charged (Rule 120, §4) — An accused may be convicted of the offense charged or an offense necessarily included therein, but not of a more serious offense not alleged in the information. The Court applied this rule to hold that even if additional persons had been illegally recruited, the absence of such allegations in the information precluded a conviction for the more serious large-scale offense.

• "When the Labor Code speaks of illegal recruitment 'committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group,' it must be understood as referring to the number of complainants in each case who are complainants therein, otherwise, prosecutions for single crimes of illegal recruitment can be cummulated to make out a case of large scale illegal recruitment." — This passage articulates the controlling rule that the three-person threshold for large-scale illegal recruitment must be satisfied within a single prosecution, not by aggregating complainants across separate cases.

• "The conviction of an accused may be on the basis of the testimony of a single witness. In determining the value and credibility of evidence, witnesses are to be weighed, not counted." — This formulation, drawn from cited jurisprudence and applied in the decision, states the canonical rule on sufficiency of single-witness testimony in Philippine criminal law.

• "That the receipts were signed by Nick Reyes alone only proves that it was to him that the amounts were paid. What, on the other hand, complainants are saying is that appellant is guilty because she and her husband, conspiring together, acted and made them believe that they were licensed recruiters. If so, the acts of the husband were likewise those of her." — This passage explains why documentary evidence bearing only one spouse's signature does not negate criminal liability of the other spouse where conspiracy is established by the totality of conduct.

• People vs. Mendoza, 223 SCRA 108 (1993) — Cited for the proposition that an accused can be convicted on the strength of a single credible witness.
• Hernandez vs. Court of Appeals, 228 SCRA 429 (1993) — Cited extensively for the distinction between self-serving statements (inadmissible out-of-court declarations) and party testimony in court (admissible, subject to cross-examination), and for the rule that conviction may rest on a single witness's testimony.
• People vs. Rumeral, 200 SCRA 194 (1991) — Cited for the rule that conviction may be based on the testimony of a single witness.
• People vs. Villalobos, 209 SCRA 304 (1992) — Cited for the principle that witnesses are to be weighed, not counted.
• People vs. Hangad, 227 SCRA 244 (1993) — Cited for the doctrine of appellate deference to trial court findings on witness credibility.

• Article 38(b), Labor Code (P.D. No. 442) — Defines illegal recruitment committed by a syndicate or on a large scale as an offense involving economic sabotage. Applied to determine whether the three-or-more-persons threshold was met; the Court held it was not, because only two complainants were named in the information.
• Article 39(a), Labor Code — Prescribes the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of ₱100,000 for illegal recruitment constituting economic sabotage. The Court held this provision inapplicable and instead applied Article 39(c).
• Article 39(c), Labor Code — Prescribes imprisonment of not less than four years nor more than eight years, or a fine of ₱20,000 to ₱100,000, or both, for any person who is neither a licensee nor a holder of authority violating the Labor Code's recruitment provisions. Applied to sentence the appellant for two counts of simple illegal recruitment.
• Rule 120, §4, Rules of Court — Provides that an accused may be convicted of the offense charged or one necessarily included therein. Applied to hold that the appellant could not be convicted of the more serious large-scale offense not alleged in the information.

Narvasa, C.J., Bidin, Regalado, and Puno, JJ., concurred.