SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 132311. September 28, 2000]
PEOPLE
OF
THE
PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
LIBRERO, accused-appellant.
vs. MINA
DECISION
BELLOSILLO, J.:
MINA LIBRERO appeals from the Decision of the Regional Trial Court[1]convicting
her of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale in Crim. Case No. 97-593 and eight (8) counts
of Estafa in Crim. Cases Nos. 97-594, 97-597, 97-598, 97-599, 97-560, 97-561, 97-562
and 97-563.
The Information for Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale charged that in October 1996
in Makati City accused-appellant Mina Librero, representing herself as having the
capacity to deploy complainants Liza Peclaro, Elizalde Capillo, Elenor Gramonte,
Ramonito Bautista, Allan Joseph Nones, Arthur Osias, Edgar Amparo, Leonardo Fortun,
John William Green and Andres Apatas to either Taiwan or Brunei as factory workers,
salesladies or domestic helpers, in conspiracy with one Ana Laurente, feloniously
recruited them and collected from them as placement fees various amounts ranging
from P20,000.00 to P75,000.00 which complainants paid to the two (2) recruiters who
did not possess any license or authority from the Philippine Overseas
Employment Administration (POEA) as required by law and and who were unable to
reimburse the amounts despite demands therefor.[2]
The eight (8) Informations for Estafa under Art. 315, par. 2, subpar. (a), of the
Revised Penal Code charged that on or about October 7 and 25, 1996, November 6,
18, 21 and 27, 1996, and January 9 and 24 1997, in Makati City, accused-appellant
Mina Librero together with Ana Laurente feloniously recruited John William Green,
Leonardo Fortun, Elizalde Caspillo, Edgar Amparo, Arthur Osias, Allan Joseph Nones,
Ramonito Bautista as factory workers in Taiwan for a consideration ranging
from P38,000.00 to P75,000.00, Andres Apatas as a metal worker in Taiwan
for P75,000.00, Liza Peclaro as saleslady in Brunei for P50,000.00 as well as Elenor
Gramonte as domestic helper in Taiwan forP20,000.00 knowing fully well that they
(Mina Librero and Ana Laurente) had no power or lawful authority whatsoever to do so
and succeeded in exacting the aforesaid amounts from complainants to the latter's
damage and prejudice.[3]
Of the ten (10) original complaining witnesses eight (8) testified for the
prosecution. Criminal Cases Nos. 97-595 and 97-596 were provisionally dismissed with