Darvin V CA

G.R. No.
125044 July 13, 1998

IMELDA DARVIN, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
ROMERO, J.:
FACTS: Macaria Toledo met petitioner Darvin and the latter allegedly convinced Toledo that by giving her
P150K, Macaria can immediately leave for the United States without any appearance before the U.S.
embassy. Thus, Toledo gave Darvin the amount of P150K as evidenced by a receipt stating that the "amount of
P150K was for U.S. Visa and Air fare." After receiving the money, Darvin assured Toledo that she can leave within
one week. However, when after a week, there was no word from Darvin, Toledo went to her residence to inquire
about any development, but could not find Darvin. Thereafter, Toledo filed a complaint with the Bacoor Police Station
against Darvin. Upon further investigation, a certification was issued by the POEA stating that Darvin is neither
licensed nor authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment. Petitioner was then charged for estafa and illegal
recruitment by the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Cavite.
On the other hand, petitioner testified that she used to be connected with Dale Travel Agency and that she
assists individuals in securing passports, visa, and airline tickets. She came to know Toledo through some friends,
alleging that Toledo sought her help to secure a passport, US visa and airline tickets to the States. She
claims that she did not promise any employment in the U.S. to Toledo. She, however, admits receiving the
amount of P150K from the latter but contends that it was used for necessary expenses of an intended trip to the
United States of Toledo and her friend. She likewise testified that she was able to secure Toledo's passport and even
set up a date for an interview with the US embassy. Petitioner alleged that she was not engaged in illegal
recruitment but merely acted as a travel agent in assisting individuals to secure passports and visa.
The RTC found petitioner guilty of the crime of simple illegal recruitment pursuant to par.b, Art.34 and
punished by par.c, Art. 39, LC, as amended, but acquitted her of the crime of estafa. On appeal, the CA affirmed the
decision of the trial court in toto, hence this petition.
ISSUE: WON Darvin is engaged in illegal recreuitment.
RULING: The Court ruled in the negative.
Art. 13 and 38 of the Labor Code if applied to the present case in order to uphold the conviction of petitioner,
two elements need to be shown: (1) the person charged with the crime must have undertaken recruitment activities;
and (2) the said person does not have a license or authority to do so. To prove that petitioner was engaged in
recruitment activities as to commit the crime of illegal recruitment, it must be shown that the accused appellant gave
private respondent the distinct impression that she had the power or ability to send the private respondent
abroad for work such that the latter was convinced to part with her money in order to be so employed.
In this case, we find no sufficient evidence to prove that petitioner offered a job to private respondent. It is
not clear that accused gave the impression that she was capable of providing the private respondent work abroad.
What is established, however, is that the private respondent gave petitioner P150K. The claim of the petitioner that
the P150K was for payment of private respondent's air fare and US visa and other expenses cannot be ignored
because the receipt for such amount which was presented by both parties during the trial of the case, stated that it
was "for Air Fare and Visa to USA." Had the amount been for something else in addition to air fare and visa expenses,
such as work placement abroad, the receipt should have so stated.
By themselves, procuring a passport, airline tickets and foreign visa for another individual, without more, can
hardly qualify as recruitment activities. Aside from the testimony of private respondent, that petitioner convinced her
that by means of P150K, she will be able to leave immediately without any appearance to any embassy, which meant
without working personally for her papers but through petitioner’ efforts, there is nothing to show that petitioner is
engaged in recruitment activities. No sufficient evidence was shown to sustain the conviction, as the burden of proof
lies with the prosecution to establish that accused-appellant indeed engaged in recruitment activities, thus committing
the crime of illegal recruitment.
In criminal cases, the burden is on the prosecution to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, the essential elements
of the offense with which the accused is charged; and if the proof fails to establish any of the essential elements
necessary to constitute a crime, the defendant is entitled to an acquittal. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not
mean such a degree of proof as, excluding the possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is
required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. 14
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby GRANTED.

Darvin V CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Darvin V CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Darvin V CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

125044 July 13, 1998

WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby GRANTED.

You might also like