4/9/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
683 Phil. 73
SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 186132, February 27, 2012 ]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. NESTOR TUGUINAY,
APPELLANT.
DECISION
BRION, J.:
We resolve the appeal, filed by accused Nestor Tuguinay (appellant), from the July 21,
2008 decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. H.C. CR- No. 02206.[1]
The RTC Ruling
In its October 29, 2003 decision,[2] the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Baguio City,
Branch 60, convicted the appellant of illegal recruitment in large scale[3] and four
counts of estafa.[4] 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,[5] 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, per the June 6, 2001 Certification of the Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration. It noted that the appellant defrauded Aguilar, Balicdang, Tany and
Bangcawayan in the amounts of P63,500.00, P75,000.00, P70,000.00 and P70,000.00,
respectively. It rejected the appellant’s bare and uncorroborated denial.
For the crime of illegal recruitment in Criminal Case No. 19287-R, the RTC sentenced
the appellant to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and ordered him to pay a
P100,000.00 fine. For each count of estafa committed against Aguilar, Tany and
Bangcawayan in Criminal Case Nos. 19288-R, 19290-R and 19291-R, it sentenced the
appellant to suffer an indeterminate penalty of 4 years and 2 months of prision
correccional, as minimum, to 12 years of prision mayor, as maximum. For the crime of
estafa committed against Balicdang in Criminal Case No. 19289-R, the RTC sentenced
the appellant to suffer an indeterminate penalty of 4 years and 2 months of prision
correccional, as minimum, to 13 years of reclusion temporal, as maximum. It did not
impose any civil liability on the appellant, noting that he had already settled his civil
obligations to the complainants.
The CA Ruling
On intermediate appellate review,[6] the CA affirmed the RTC's decision, giving full
respect to the RTC's assessment of the testimonies and credibility of the complainants.
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/33155
1/4