5/28/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
737 Phil. 116
FIRST DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 195668, June 25, 2014 ]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MA.
HARLETA VELASCO Y BRIONES, MARICAR B. INOVERO, MARISSA
DIALA, AND BERNA M. PAULINO, ACCUSED,
MARICAR B. INOVERO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
DECISION
CONTINUED, J.:
The several accused in illegal recruitment committed in large scale against whom the
State establishes a conspiracy are each equally criminally and civilly liable. It follows,
therefore, that as far as civil liability is concerned each is solidarily liable to the victims
of the illegal recruitment for the reimbursement of the sums collected from them,
regardless of the extent of the participation of the accused in the illegal recruitment.
The Case
Accused-appellant Maricar B. Inovero seeks the review and reversal of the decision
promulgated on August 26, 2010,[1] whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed her
conviction for illegal recruitment committed in large scale amounting to economic
sabotage under the judgment rendered on January 14, 2008 by the Regional Trial Court
(RTC), Branch 133, in Makati City.[2]
Antecedents
On March 17, 2004, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati City filed in the RTC two
informations[3] charging Inovero, Ma. Harleta Velasco y Briones, Marissa Diala and
Berna Paulino with illegal recruitment as defined and penalized under Section 6 of
Republic Act No. 8042 (Migrant Worker’s Act of 1995), and 11 informations[4] charging
the same accused with estafa as defined and penalized under Article 315, paragraph
2(a) of the Revised Penal Code. Only Inovero was arrested and prosecuted, the other
accused having remained at large.
Six cases charging estafa (Criminal Case No. 04-1565, Criminal Case No. 1568,
Criminal Case No. 1570, Criminal Case No. 1571 and Criminal Case No. 1572 and
Criminal Case No. 1573) and one of the two charging illegal recruitment (Criminal Case
No. 04-1563) were provisionally dismissed because of the failure of the complainants to
prosecute.[5] The seven cases were later permanently dismissed after the complainants
did not revive them within two years, as provided in Section 8,[6] Rule 117 of the Rules
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/57144
1/12