PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES VS DELA PIEDRA
FACTS:
Accused-appellant
Carol M. dela Piedra questions her conviction for illegal recruitment in large
scale and assails, as well, the constitutionality of the law defining and
penalizing said crime.
The Court affirms
the constitutionality of the law and the conviction of the accused, but reduces
the penalty imposed upon her.
That on or about January 30, 1994, in the City of Zamboanga,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, without having previously obtained from the Philippine Overseas
Employment Administration, a license or authority to engage in recruitment and
overseas placement of workers, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, offer and promise for a fee employment abroad particularly in
Singapore thus causing Maria Lourdes Modesto [y] Gadrino, Nancy Araneta y
Aliwanag and Jennelyn Baez y Timbol, all qualified to apply, in fact said Maria
Lourdes Modesto had already advanced the amount of P2,000.00 to the accused for
and in consideration of the promised employment which did not materialized
[sic] thus causing damage and prejudice to the latter in the said sum;
furthermore, the acts complained of herein tantamount [sic] to economic sabotage
in that the same were committed in large scale.
On February
2, 1994, at around 8:00 p.m., Col. Almonte directed the case to SPO2 Erwin
Manalopilar, a member of the Philippine National Police who was assigned as an
investigator of the CIS, to conduct a surveillance of the area to confirm the
report of illegal recruitment. Accordingly, he, along with Eileen Fermindoza,
immediately proceeded to Tetuan Highway. The two did not enter the house where
the recruitment was supposedly being conducted, but Fermindoza interviewed two
people who informed them that some people do go inside the house. Upon
returning to their office at around 8:30 a.m., the two reported to Capt.
Mendoza who organized a team to conduct the raid.
The raiding
team, which included Capt. Mendoza, SPO2 Manalopilar, Fermindoza and a certain
Oscar Bucol, quickly set off and arrived at the reported scene at 9:30 that
morning. There they met up with Erlie Ramos of the POEA. Fermindoza then
proceeded to enter the house while the rest of the team posted themselves
outside to secure the area. Fermindoza was instructed to come out after she was
given a bio-data form, which will serve as the team's cue to enter the house.4
The CIS team then brought Figueroa, a certain Jasmine Alejandro, and the
three women suspected to be applicants, to the office for investigation.
The CIS likewise interviewed the supposed applicants, Lourdes Modesto,
Nancy Araneta and Jennelyn Baez, all registered nurses working at the Cabato
Medical Hospital, who executed their respective written statements.
Carol dela
Piedra, 37, is a housewife and a resident of Cebu City. Her husband is a
businessman from Cebu, the manager of the Region 7 Branch of the Grollier
International Encyclopedia. They own an apartment in Cebu City, providing lodging
to students.
On May 5,
1995, the trial court rendered a decision convicting the accused, thus:
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing consideration[s][,] this Court
finds the accused Carol dela Piedra alias Carol Llena and Carol Figueroa guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Recruitment committed in a large scale and
hereby sentences her to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a
fine of P100,000.00, and also to pay the costs.
In the
first assigned error, appellant maintains that the law defining
"recruitment and placement" violates due process. Appellant also
avers, as part of her sixth assigned error, that she was denied the equal
protection of the laws.
ART. 13. Definitions.—(a) x x x.
(b) "Recruitment and placement" refers to any act of
canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or
procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract services, promising or
advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not:
Provided, That any person or entity which, in any manner, offers or promises
for a fee employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in
recruitment and placement.
When
undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of authority, recruitment activities
are punishable as follows:
ART. 38. Illegal Recruitment. — (a) Any recruitment activities,
including the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of this Code, to
be undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of authority shall be deemed
illegal and punishable under Article 39 of this Code. The Ministry of Labor and
Employment or any law enforcement officer may initiate complaints under this
Article.
(b) Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large scale
shall be considered an offense involving economic sabotage and shall be
penalized in accordance with Article 39 hereof.
Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by
a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring and/or confederating with one
another in carrying out any unlawful or illegal transaction, enterprise or
scheme defined under the first paragraph hereof. Illegal recruitment is deemed
committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons
individually or as a group.
Appellant also invokes the equal protection clause28 in her defense. She points out that
although the evidence purportedly shows that Jasmine Alejandro handed out
application forms and even received Lourdes Modesto's payment, appellant was
the only one criminally charged. Alejandro, on the other hand, remained
scot-free. From this, appellant concludes that the prosecution discriminated
against her on grounds of regional origins. Appellant is a Cebuana while
Alejandro is a Zamboangueña, and the alleged crime took place in Zamboanga
City.
ISSUE: Whether or
not there is a violation of Equal protection of laws.
RULING:
The argument has no merit.
The
prosecution of one guilty person while others equally guilty are not
prosecuted, however, is not, by itself, a denial of the equal protection of the
laws.31 Where the
official action purports to be in conformity to the statutory classification,
an erroneous or mistaken performance of the statutory duty, although a
violation of the statute, is not without
more a denial of the equal
protection of the laws.32 The
unlawful administration by officers of a statute fair on its face, resulting in
its unequal application to those who are entitled to be treated alike, is not a
denial of equal protection unless there is shown to be present in it an element
of intentional or purposeful discrimination. This may appear on
the face of the action taken with respect to a particular class or person, or
it may only be shown by extrinsic evidence showing a discriminatory design over another not to be inferred from
the action itself.But a discriminatory purpose is not presumed, there must
be a showing of "clear and intentional discrimination."33 Appellant has failed to show that, in
charging appellant in court, that there was a "clear and intentional
discrimination" on the part of the prosecuting officials.
The
discretion of who to prosecute depends on the prosecution's sound assessment
whether the evidence before it can justify a reasonable belief that a person
has committed an offense.34 The presumption is that the prosecuting officers
regularly performed their duties,35 and this presumption can be overcome
only by proof to the contrary, not by mere speculation. Indeed, appellant has
not presented any evidence to overcome this presumption. The mere allegation
that appellant, a Cebuana, was charged with the commission of a crime, while a
Zamboangueña, the guilty party in appellant's eyes, was not, is insufficient to
support a conclusion that the prosecution officers denied appellant equal
protection of the laws.
There is
also common sense practicality in sustaining appellant's prosecution.
While all
persons accused of crime are to be treated on a basis of equality before the
law, it does not follow that they are to be protected in the commission of
crime. It would be unconscionable, for instance, to excuse a defendant guilty
of murder because others have murdered with impunity. The remedy for unequal
enforcement of the law in such instances does not lie in the exoneration of the
guilty at the expense of society x x x. Protection of the law will be extended
to all persons equally in the pursuit of their lawful occupations, but no
person has the right to demand protection of the law in the commission of a
crime.36
A
conviction for large scale illegal recruitment must be based on a finding in each case of illegal recruitment of three or
more persons whether individually or as a group.45 In this case, only two persons,
Araneta and Modesto, were proven to have been recruited by appellant. The third
person named in the complaint as having been promised employment for a fee,
Jennelyn Baez, was not presented in court to testify.
It is true
that law does not require that at least three victims testify at the trial;
nevertheless, it is necessary that there is sufficient evidence proving that
the offense was committed against three or more persons.46 In this case, evidence that appellant
likewise promised her employment for a fee is sketchy. The only evidence that
tends to prove this fact is the testimony of Nancy Araneta, who said that she
and her friends, Baez and Sandra Aquino, came to the briefing and that they
(she and her "friends") filled up application forms.
The
affidavit47 Baez
executed jointly with Araneta cannot support Araneta's testimony. The affidavit
was neither identified, nor its contents affirmed, by Baez. Insofar as it
purports to prove that appellant recruited Baez, therefore, the affidavit is
hearsay and inadmissible.48 In
any case, hearsay evidence, such as the said affidavit, has little probative
value.49
WHEREFORE, the decision of the regional trial court is MODIFIED. Appellant is
hereby declared guilty of illegal recruitment on two (2) counts and is
sentenced, for each count, to suffer the penalty of four (4) to six (6) years
of imprisonment and to pay a fine of P30,000.00.1âwphi1.nêt
SO ORDERED.
