7/7/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Accordingly, pursuant to Sec. 7(b) of R.A. 8042, "Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995", accused Oliver Imperio y Antonio is sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php500,000.00). He is likewise ordered to pay the private complainants the following amounts as actual damages, to wit: 1) Shane Llave - Php 7,000.00; 2) Edralin Sta. Maria - Php7,000.00; and 3) Magellan Concrenio III - Php10,000.00 Let a mittimus order be issued to transfer custody of the accused to National Bilibid Prisons, Muntinlupa City. SO ORDERED.[13] Aggrieved, appellant appealed the Judgment to the CA. Ruling of the Court of Appeals: On February 10, 2017, the CA rendered its assailed Decision[14] affirming with modifications the Judgment of the RTC. The dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED. The March 16, 2016 Judgment of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 166, Pasig City in Criminal Case No. 146959 is hereby AFFIRMED. In addition, accused--­ appellant is obliged to pay the interest of 6% per annum on the respective sums due to each of the complainants, to be reckoned from the finality of this decision until fully paid considering the amount to be restituted became determinate only through this adjudication. SO ORDERED.[15] The CA held that the appellant's testimony is self-serving and uncorroborated, and that his denial of any illegal recruitment activity "cannot stand against the prosecution witnesses' positive identification of appellant as the person who induced them to part with their money upon the misrepresentation and false promise of deployment abroad." [16] The appellate court also gave respect to the RTC's factual findings and assessment of the credibility of the prosecution's witnesses. It noted that the prosecution witnesses corroborated each others testimonies-that appellant represented to the private complainants of his resources and ability to send them abroad for employment. The CA also found that appellant was, in no manner, authorized by law to engage in the recruitment and placement of workers, as evidenced by a Certification[17] issued by the POEA. It also held that there were at least three (3) victims in this case who all testified before the RTC in support of their respective complaints, which therefore made appellant liable for Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale. Proceedings before this Court: Appellant now seeks affirmative relief from this Court and pleads for his acquittal. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66798 4/12