People vs Ortiz-Miyake : 115338-39 : September 16, 1997 : J. Regalado... 6 of 9 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/sep1997/115338_39.htm basis for conviction in a subsequent case would constitute a violation of the right of the accused to confront the witnesses against him. As earlier stated, the Makati courts utilization of and reliance on the previous decision of the Paraaque court must be rejected. Every conviction must be based on the findings of fact made by a trial court according to its appreciation of the evidence before it. A conviction may not be based merely on the findings of fact of another court, especially where what is presented is only its decision sans the transcript of the testimony of the witnesses who testified therein and upon which the decision is based. Furthermore, this is not the only reason why appellant may not be held liable for illegal recruitment in large scale. An evaluation of the evidence presented before the trial court shows us that, apart from the adopted decision in the previous estafa case, there was no other basis for said trial courts conclusion that illegal recruitment in large scale was committed against all three complainants. The distinction between simple illegal recruitment and illegal recruitment in large scale are emphasized by jurisprudence. Simple illegal recruitment is committed where a person: (a) undertakes any recruitment activity defined under Article 13(b) or any prohibited practice enumerated under Articles 34 and 38 of the Labor Code; and (b) does not have a license or authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers. [31] On the other hand, illegal recruitment in large scale further requires a third element, that is, the offense is committed against three or more persons, individually or as a group. [32] In illegal recruitment in large scale, while the law does not require that at least three victims testify at the trial, it is necessary that there is sufficient evidence proving that the offense was committed against three or more persons. This Court agrees with the trial court that the evidence presented sufficiently proves that illegal recruitment was committed by appellant against Marasigan, but the same conclusion cannot be made as regards Generillo and Del Rosario as well. The testimonies of Generillos mother, Lilia Generillo, and Del Rosarios sister, Victoria Amin, reveal that these witnesses had no personal knowledge of the actual circumstances surrounding the charges filed by Generillo and Del Rosario for illegal recruitment in large scale. Neither of these witnesses was privy to the transactions between appellant and each of the two complainants. The witnesses claimed that appellant illegally recruited Generillo and Del Rosario. Nonetheless, we find their averments to be unfounded as they were not even present when Generillo and Del Rosario negotiated with and made payments to appellant. For insufficiency of evidence and in the absence of the third element of illegal recruitment in large scale, particularly, that the offense is committed against three or more persons, we cannot affirm the conviction for illegal recruitment in large scale. Nonetheless, we agree with the finding of the trial court that appellant illegally recruited Marasigan, for which she must be held liable for the lesser offense of simple illegal recruitment. Appellants defense that she did not recruit Marasigan but merely purchased a plane ticket for her is belied by the evidence as it is undeniable that she represented to Marasigan that she had the ability to send people to work as factory workers in Taiwan. Her pretext that the fees paid to her were merely payments for a plane ticket is a desperate attempt to exonerate herself from the charges and cannot be sustained. Furthermore, no improper motive may be attributed to Marasigan in charging appellant. The fact that Marasigan was poor does not make her so heartless as to contrive a criminal charge against appellant. She was a simple woman with big dreams and it was appellants duplicity which reduced those dreams to naught. Marasigan had no motive to testify falsely against appellant except to tell the truth. [33] 1/24/2016 11:39 PM