People vs Luto : 113344 : July 28, 1997 : J. Vitug : First Division 3 of 6 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jul1997/113344.htm approve, receive money from applicants and issue receipts to applicants." Luto left the restaurant ahead of the two. He could not tell whether the agreement between Santos and Convucar materialized because he had nothing to do with it. He, however, would "dropped (sic) by" the office-residence of Convucar "very often" to check his "incoming communications." He had previously asked permission from Convucar to use her office-residence to be his "Manila contact office" in connection with his "local buy and sell" business and bookkeeping services. On 27 September 1993, the trial court convicted Luto and Santos; it concluded: "WHEREFORE, finding the prosecution's evidence sufficient to sustain the conviction beyond moral certainty, both accused having engaged in illegally recruiting herein complainants hence in accordance with the provisions of Article 38 and 39 of PD. 2018 that amended the New Labor Code, both accused Francisco Santos y Sta. Maria and Atanacio Luto y Limboy are hereby sentenced to each suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and for each one to pay P100,000.00 fine. Both accused shall be credited with the full extent of their preventive imprisonment. "Both accused are hereby ordered to jointly and severally indemnify the victims the following sum: "1. Marina Parto -the sum of P15,000.00 "2. Rebecca Estrella -the sum of P 5,000.00 "3. Teodora Gutierrez-the sum of P12,000.00 "4. Laurence Maao -the sum of P 3,000.00 "Both accused are hereby committed to the custody of the Director of Prison, National Penitentiary, Muntinlupa, Metro Manila through the City Jail Warden of Manila."[8] Santos did not interpose an appeal. In his case, Luto has come up to this Court to contend that the trial court has erred (a) in finding conspiracy among appellant Santos and Convucar in illegal recruitment despite an insufficiency of evidence, (b) in giving full faith and credence to the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and in discarding his evidence, (c) in ordering him to indemnify the complainants, and (d) in convicting him notwithstanding the prosecution's failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Prefatorily, it might be stated that while this case has been heard and tried by Judge Procoro J. Donato and the decision has been handed down by Judge Romulo A. Lopez, no justifiable reason, nevertheless, is shown that would warrant the disregard of the findings and conclusions of the incumbent Judge nor render per se his decision a nullity.[9] The crime of illegal recruitment in large scale requires the concurrence of three elements; viz: That (1) the accused engages in the recruitment and placement of workers, defined under Article 13, or in any prohibited activities under Article 34, of the Labor Code; (2) the accused has not complied with the guidelines issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment, particularly with respect to having a license or an authority to recruit and deploy workers, either locally or overseas, and (3) the accused commits the offense against three or more persons, individually or as a group.[10] The stipulation, signed by appellant and Santos, along with their counsel, to the effect that the accused never did have a license to recruit workers, satisfies the second element of the crime.[11] All that needs then to be established is the existence of the first and third elements. Article 13(b) of the Labor Code defines "recruitment and placement" to be "any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, 1/24/2016 9:43 PM