Meanwhile, sometime in the first week of June 1992, Genteroy introduced the accused to private complainant Tersina Onza, a seamstress, at the office
of Kingly Commodities.20 The accused asked Onza if she was interested in managing a dress shop that the accused was to put up in California. 21 For a
fee of P10,000.00, the accused would process Onza’s passport and other papers.22 Onza accepted the accused’s offer.23
On 16 June 1992, Onza received a phone call from the accused telling her that he needed the P10,000.00 because he "will catch up the time" so she
could leave with them for the US on the 23rd of July. 24 That evening, at about 8:30, Onza gave P10,000.00 to the accused in front of Jollibee, at the
corner of Avenida and Tayuman Streets, Manila.25 Just like with the other private complainants, the accused, despite demand, did not issue Onza a
receipt.26 He assured her that it was not necessary since they would be leaving together with him on 23 July 1992. 27
Thereafter, the accused instructed the three private complainants, Genteroy, Durano and Onza, to meet him on 23 July 1992 at the airport, where he
would bring them their travel papers.28 The three private complainants, including others also allegedly recruited by the accused, did as they were told
and waited at the airport on the date specified.29 The accused, however, failed to show up at the airport.30
On 25 July 1992, Durano chanced upon the accused at the canteen of Emilio Aguinaldo College in Manila. 31 A commotion ensued when Durano tried
to stop the accused from leaving the canteen.32 A police officer who happened to be taking a snack at the canteen brought both Durano and the
accused to the United Nations Station of the Western Police District (WPD) for investigation. 33
The prosecution also offered in evidence a Certification,34 dated 28 July 1992, from the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) stating
that the accused was not licensed or authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment.
The accused, the sole witness for the defense, is a resident of Honolulu, Hawaii.35 He described himself as a part-time travel agent36 who came to the
Philippines to put up a travel agency.37 He failed in that venture, however, because he did not have any money.38
The accused denied receiving any money from private complainants,39 who were merely his acquaintances.40 He said that he did not receive any
money from private complainant Tersina Onza, who purportedly handed her payment to private complainant Raul Durano. 41 Durano allegedly misled
Onza into believing that he (Durano) turned over the money to the accused.42 The accused further claimed that Durano asked his (Durano’s) common
law-wife, private complainant Genteroy, to talk to Onza so the latter would file a case against him (the accused).43
Many times before, Durano allegedly had tried to extort money from the accused without success. 44 Durano even offered to drop the case against him
in exchange for money.45
The claims of frame-up and extortion notwithstanding, the trial court gave credence to the testimonies of private complainants, which it found "highly
credible." On 24 February 1994, the trial court rendered a decision convicting the accused of the crimes charged, as follows:
WHEREFORE, in Criminal Case No. 92-108577, this Court finds the accused, Crispin Billaber y Matbanua, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of illegal recruitment in large scale and sentences him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P100,000.00, plus the costs.
The accused is further ordered to pay actual damages to the complainants, Raul Durano, Elizabeth Genteroy and Tesina Onza the sums
of P18,000.00,P10,000.00 and P10,000.00, respectively, with interest thereon at the legal rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing these criminal
cases, July 27, 1992, until the amount shall have been fully paid.
In Criminal Case No. 92-108578, this Court also finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of estafa under Article 315, subdivision
Nos. 2 and 3, of the Penal Code (as regards Complainant Raul Durano), and sentences him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of one (1) year, eight
(8) months and twenty-one (21) days of prision correccional as minimum to five (5) years, five (5) months and eleven (11) days of prision correccional
as maximum and to pay the costs.
SO ORDERED.46
The accused, now appellant, assigns the following errors:
1. In not taking into consideration that Accused-appellant was picked-up on July 25, 1992, "invited" by police operatives without any warrant at the
instance of complainant Tresina Onza, 45 years old, who did not even state the amount allegedly taken or paid by her to Accused-appellant left blank
in her statement made before the WPD operatives who stole his watch and wallet containing $350.00 in cash and P5,250.00 in Philippine currency.
2. Failure to take into consideration the various pleas made by Accused-appellant in asking for WPD police officers that he be afforded the assistance
of counsel which was turned down and detained for seventy (70) days when arraigned on October 6, 1992, before the Metropolitan Trial Court, Br. 24,
City of Manila, by City Court Judge Aida Rangel Roque.
3. Failure to take into consideration the unnecessary delays in scheduling the pre-trial of a detained American tourist when Judge Aida Roque
scheduled the pre-trial on November 12, 1992, exactly 106 days of detention, when the scheduled pre-trial was again moved to December 15, 1992,
when all was again reset for December 22, 1992 over the vehement objection of defense counsels for dismissal of the cases for failure to prosecute
when the trial was again reset for the fourth time on January 19, 1993, "for lack of material time" over the objection of defense de-oficio counsel as
Accused was scheduled to fly back to Hawaii since December 22, 1992, on time for Christmas season.
4. Failure to take into consideration the plight of Accused who had already served sentence and was ordered discharged by RTC Judge David G.
Nitafan of Branch 52, Manila, in appealed Crim. Case Nos. 93-125980 and 125981 with complaining witnesses Elizabeth Genteroy and Teresiana
Onza, respectively, when the same Judge Nitafan directed the Prison Officer thru the City Jail Warden to discharge from custody Accused Billaber on
March 20, 1994, after taking note in his seven-page Order that —