People vs Benemerito : 120389 : November 21, 1996 : J Davide Jr : Th... 4 of 10 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/120389.htm conductor in his hometown, Binaga, Gonzaga, Cagayan. In December, 1992, his sister Precy visited their place and convinced him to work abroad. On January 7, 1993, he went to the apartment at 150-A Scout Fernandez, Kamuning, Quezon City, which Precy was sharing with the owner, Mrs. Susie Mana and the latters son and four maids. He applied for a janitorial work in Brunei and submitted the required documents to Precy, who offered to shoulder the expenses. Precy likewise told him to stay in said apartment while his papers were being processed and he helped in the household chores and in the store of Susie Mana located at Agham Road, Quezon City, for which he was paid P50.00 a day by the latter. He admitted having seen Benjamin Quitoriano, Carlito Gumarang and Fernando Arcal in said apartment when they talked to Precy in connection with their application for overseas employment and that he accompanied Benjamin Quitoriano to the clinic upon the latters request. However, he denied having participated in the transaction of Precy with the three complainants or having issued the receipt in favor of Fernando Arcal (Exh. G) as he was outside the apartment cleaning the vehicle of Susie Mana or watering the plants while they talked with Precy. He further claimed that the complainants admitted before the NBI agents who arrested him that he had nothing to do with their transaction with Precy Benemerito, who left for Brunei in August, 1993, and that it was only before the Inquest Fiscal that the complainants pointed to him as the one who received the money, which he denied. Jaime Roblegado claimed to have gone to the house of Precy Benemerito in Fedruary, March and April, 1993 in connection with his application for employment as computer programmer in Brunei, that it was only Precy who entertained him and the other applicants, including Fernando Arcal, whom he saw in the house and although Alex Benemerito was also in said place, he did not see the latter entertain any applicants as Alex was either cleaning a car or the living room of the house; and that he had a chance to ask Alex why he was in said place and the latter told him that Precy is his sister and that he was also an applicant and following up his papers. [9] [10] In its Joint Decision dated 2 May 1995 and promulgated the following day, the trial court declared that the testimonies of the complainants were positive and credible, and found that accused Alex Benemerito, together with his sister Precy Benemerito, [was] positively identified by Benjamin Quitoriano, Carlito Gumarang and Fernando Arcal as having promised them employment abroad for a fee [and that] [a]s shown by a Certification of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, both Alex and Precy Benemerito are neither licensed nor authorized by said office to recruit workers for overseas employment (exhibits B and B-1). The trial court further observed that accused Alex Benemerito has not denied that he is a townmate of both Benjamin Quitoriano and Carlito Gumarang and it is difficult to believe that said complainants would fabricate a story that would result in the imprisonment for life of the accused. With respect to Fernando Arcal, while he did not know the accused personally, it was against human nature and experience for a stranger to accuse another stranger of a most [11] serious crime merely to mollify his hurt feelings. The trial court debunked the accused-appellantss testimony as inherently weak for being a mere denial and that Susie Mana did not corroborate his claim that he worked as her houseboy [12] and stayed in her apartment. The trial court then concluded that the evidence for the prosecution established all the elements of the crimes charged, thus: Thus, the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale is committed when a person (a) undertakes any recruitment activity defined under Article 13(b) or any prohibited practice enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code; (b) does not have a license or authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers; and (c) commits the same against three or more persons, individually or as a group. (People vs. Coronacion, 237 SCRA 227, 239). [13] 1/20/2016 4:10 PM