People vs Luto : 113344 : July 28, 1997 : J. Vitug : First Division 5 of 6 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jul1997/113344.htm appellant should only be held responsible for simple illegal recruitment under Article 38, in relation to Article 39, of the Labor Code. The prosecution was able to convincingly establish conspiracy among appellant, Santos and Convucar in inveigling workers to apply for jobs abroad.[17] The act of each of them in conspiracy was the act of the other.[18] Sufficiently shown was that the conspirators recruited definitely more than three persons, some thirty applicants altogether, purportedly for foreign employment. Appellant himself testified that he had signed as a witness to at least ten recruitment papers. Thirteen of the applicants filed the case for illegal recruitment against the two accused.[19] Four of them testified at the trial although witness Laurence Maao[20] did not come back for cross-examination, and his testimony was thus expunged from the record upon motion of the defense.[21] Appellant insinuates that Convucar has gotten away too easily from culpability. By the records, and even by her own admission, she does appear to be as guilty as appellant and Santos. It is unfortunate that the Court has not been accorded in this appeal the opportunity to properly allow it to look into this matter.[22] WHEREFORE, the questioned judgment finding appellant Atanacio Luto y Limboy guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal recruitment in a large scale is AFFIRMED, except for that portion ordering the payment of indemnity in favor of Lawrence Maao which is DELETED. Costs against appellant. SO ORDERED. Padilla, (Chairman), Bellosillo, and Kapunan, JJ., concur. Hermosisima, Jr., J., on leave. [1] Penned by Hon. Judge Romulo A. Lopez. [2] Record, pp. 33 & 24. [3] Record, p. 46. [4] Rollo, pp. 224-228. [5] Record, p. 167. [6] TSN, 19 December 1990, pp. 2-4. [7] TSN, 23 January 1991, p. 2. [8] Rollo, pp. 36-37. [9] See People vs. Rayray, 241 SCRA 1. [10] People vs. Bautista, 241 SCRA 216. [11] See Sec. 4, Rule 118, Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. [12] TSN, 09 May 1990, pp. 20-21. [13] TSN, 22 May 1990, pp. 7-8. [14] TSN, 09 May 1990, pp. 5, 16. [15] See Batiquin vs. Court of Appeals, 258 SCRA 334; Vda. de Ramos vs. Court of Appeals, 81 SCRA 393. [16] Rollo, pp. 243-244. [17] People vs. Turda, 233 SCRA 702. [18] See People vs. Tahum, Sr., 250 SCRA 313. [19] Information; Records, pp. 1-2. 1/24/2016 9:43 PM