11/18/21, 3:50 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 247

780 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Goce

*
G.R. No. 113161. August 29, 1995.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

LOMA GOCE y OLALIA, DAN GOCE and NELLY D.
AGUSTIN, accused. NELLY D. AGUSTIN, accused-
appellant.

Labor Law; Criminal Law; Illegal Recruitment;

Circumstances that qualify illegal recruitment as an offense
involving economic sabotage.—Herein appellant is accused of
violating Articles 38 and 39 of the Labor Code. Article 38 of the
Labor Code, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 2018,
provides that any recruitment activity, including the prohibited
practices enumerated in Article 34 of said Code, undertaken by
non-licensees or non-holders of authority shall be deemed illegal
and punishable under Article 39 thereof. The same article further
provides that illegal recruitment shall be considered an offense
involving economic sabotage if any of these qualifying
circumstances exist, namely, (a) when illegal recruitment is
committed by a syndicate, i.e., if it is carried out by a group of
three or more persons conspiring and/or confederating with one
another; or (b) when illegal recruitment is committed in large
scale, i.e., if it is committed against three or more persons
individually or as a group.
Same; Same; Same; Words and Phrases; “Recruitment and
Placement” and “Referral,” Defined.—Under said Code,
recruitment and placement refer 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. On the
other hand, referral is the act of passing along or forwarding of an
applicant for employment after an initial interview of a selected
applicant for employment to a selected employer, placement
officer or bureau.
Same; Same; Same; An employee who actually makes referrals
to the agency of which she is a part is engaged in recruitment
activity.—Hence, the inevitable query is whether or not appellant

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017d3214fe8779689f2e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 1/14
11/18/21, 3:50 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 247

Agustin merely introduced complainants to the Goce couple or her

actions went beyond that. The testimonial evidence hereon show
that

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

781

VOL. 247, AUGUST 29, 1995 781

People vs. Goce

she indeed further committed acts constitutive of illegal

recruitment. All four prosecution witnesses testified that it was
Agustin whom they initially approached regarding their plans of
working overseas. It was from her that they learned about the
fees they had to pay, as well as the papers that they had to
submit. It was after they had talked to her that they met the
accused spouses who owned the placement agency. As correctly
held by the trial court, being an employee of the Goces, it was
therefore logical for appellant to introduce the applicants to said
spouses, they being the owners of the agency. As such, appellant
was actually making referrals to the agency of which she was a
part. She was therefore engaging in recruitment activity.
Same; Same; Same; There is illegal recruitment when one
gives the impression of having the ability to send a worker abroad.
—There is illegal recruitment when one gives the impression of
having the ability to send a worker abroad. It is undisputed that
appellant gave complainants the distinct impression that she had
the power or ability to send people abroad for work such that the
latter were convinced to give her the money she demanded in
order to be so employed.
Same; Same; Same; The act of collecting from each of the
complainants payment for their respective passports, training fees,
placement fees, medical tests and other sundry expenses
unquestionably constitutes an act of recruitment within the
meaning of the law.—It cannot be denied that Agustin received
from complainants various sums for purpose of their applications.
Her act of collecting from each of the complainants payment for
their respective passports, training fees, placement fees, medical
tests and other sundry expenses unquestionably constitutes an
act of recruitment within the meaning of the law. In fact,
appellant demanded and received from complainants amounts
beyond the allowable limit of P5,000.00 under government
regulations. It is true that the mere act of a cashier in receiving
money far exceeding the amount allowed by law was not

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017d3214fe8779689f2e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 2/14
11/18/21, 3:50 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 247

considered per se as “recruitment and placement” in

contemplation of law, but that was because the recipient had no
other participation in the transactions and did not conspire with
her co-accused in defrauding the victims. That is not the case
here.
Same; Same; Same; Evidence; Documentary Evidence; Xerox
Copies; Where original copies of the receipts/vouchers were lost,
xerox copies thereof may be presented and admitted.—Apparently,
the original copies of said receipts/vouchers were lost, hence only
xerox copies thereof were presented and which, under the
circumstances, were admissible in evidence. When the original
writing has been lost or

782

782 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Goce

destroyed or cannot be produced in court, upon proof of its

execution and loss or destruction, or unavailability, its contents
may be proved by a copy or a recital of its contents in some
authentic document, or by the recollection of witnesses.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Witnesses; Even in the
absence of receipts, the testimonies of complainants that the
accused was involved in recruitment may suffice to establish the
factum probandum.—Even assuming arguendo that the xerox
copies presented by the prosecution as secondary evidence are not
allowable in court, still the absence thereof does not warrant the
acquittal of appellant. In People vs. Comia, where this particular
issue was involved, the Court held that the complainants’ failure
to ask for receipts for the fees they paid to the accused therein, as
well as their consequent failure to present receipts before the trial
court as proof of the said payments, is not fatal to their case. The
complainants duly proved by their respective testimonies that
said accused was involved in the entire recruitment process. Their
testimonies in this regard, being clear and positive, were declared
sufficient to establish that factum probandum.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Denials; The positive
and affirmative statements of the prosecution witnesses is more
worthy of credit than the mere uncorroborated and self-serving
denials of the accused.—Indeed, the trial court was justified and
correct in accepting the version of the prosecution witnesses, their
statements being positive and affirmative in nature. This is more
worthy of credit than the mere uncorroborated and self-serving
denials of appellant. The lame defense consisting of such bare
denials by appellant cannot overcome the evidence presented by
the prosecution proving her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017d3214fe8779689f2e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 3/14
11/18/21, 3:50 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 247

Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Where the issue

essentially involves the credibility of witnesses, this is best left to
the judgment of the trial court.—The presence of documentary
evidence notwithstanding, this case essentially involves the
credibility of witnesses which is best left to the judgment of the
trial court, in the absence of abuse of discretion therein. The
findings of fact of a trial court, arrived at only after a hearing and
evaluation of what can usually be expected to be conflicting
testimonies of witnesses, certainly deserve respect by an appellate
court. Generally, the findings of fact of the trial court on the
matter of credibility of witnesses will not be disturbed on appeal.
Constitutional Law; Equal Protection; Criminal Law;
Criminal Procedure; The non-prosecution of another suspect
provides no ground for the accused to fault the decision of the trial
court convicting him.—In

783

VOL. 247, AUGUST 29, 1995 783

People vs. Goce

People vs. Sendon, we held that the non-prosecution of another

suspect therein provided no ground for the appellant concerned to
fault the decision of the trial court convicting her. The prosecution
of other persons, equally or more culpable than herein appellant,
may come later after their true identities and addresses shall
have been ascertained and said malefactors duly taken into
custody. We see no reason why the same doctrinal rule and course
of procedure should not apply in this case.

APPEAL from a decision of the Regional Trial Court of

Manila, Br. 5.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
     Pablo Baltazar for accused-appellant.

REGALADO, J.:

On January 12, 1988, an information for illegal

recruitment committed by a syndicate and in large scale,
punishable under Articles 38 and 39 of the Labor Code
(Presidential Decree No. 442) as amended by Section 1(b) of
Presidential Decree No. 2018, was filed against spouses
Dan and Loma Goce and herein accused-appellant Nelly
Agustin in the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 5,
alleging—

“That in or about and during the period comprised between May

1986 and June 25, 1987, both dates inclusive, in the City of
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017d3214fe8779689f2e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 4/14
11/18/21, 3:50 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 247

Manila, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring and

confederating together and helping one another, representing
themselves to have the capacity to contract, enlist and transport
Filipino workers for employment abroad, did then and there
willfully and unlawfully, for a fee, recruit and promise
employment/job placement abroad, to (1) Rolando Dalida y
Piernas, (2) Ernesto Alvarez y Lubangco, (3) Rogelio Salado y
Savillo, (4) Ramona Salado y Alvarez, (5) Dionisio Masaya y de
Guzman, (6) Dave Rivera y de Leon, (7) Lorenzo Alvarez y Velayo,
and (8) Nelson Trinidad y Santos, without first having secured 1
the required license or authority from the Department of Labor.”

_____________

1 Original Record, 1.

784

784 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Goce

On January 21, 1987, a warrant of arrest was issued

against 2the three accused but not one of them was
arrested. Hence, on February 2, 1989, the trial court
ordered the case archived but3 it issued a standing warrant
of arrest against the accused.
Thereafter, on learning of the whereabouts of the
accused, one of the offended parties, Rogelio Salado,
requested
4
on March 17, 1989 for a copy of the warrant of
arrest. Eventually, at around midday of February 26,
1993, 5Nelly Agustin was apprehended by the Parañaque
police. On March 8, 1993, her counsel filed a motion to
revive the case and requested that it be set for hearing “for
purposes of due process6and for the accused to immediately
have her day in court.” Thus, on April 15, 1993, the trial
court reinstated
7
the case and set the arraignment8 for May
3, 1993, on which date Agustin pleaded not guilty and the
case subsequently went to trial.
Four of the complainants testified for the prosecution.
Rogelio Salado was the first to take the witness stand and
he declared that sometime in March or April, 1987, he was
introduced by Lorenzo Alvarez, his brother-in-law and a co-
applicant, to Nelly Agustin in the latter’s residence at
Factor, Dongalo, Parañaque, Metro Manila. Representing
herself as the manager of the Clover Placement Agency,
Agustin showed him a job order as proof that he could
readily be deployed for overseas employment. Salado
learned that he had to pay P5,000.00 as processing fee,
which amount he gave sometime in April or May9 of the
same year. He was issued the corresponding receipt.

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017d3214fe8779689f2e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 5/14
11/18/21, 3:50 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 247

Also in April or May, 1987, Salado, accompanied by five

other applicants who were his relatives, went to the office
of the placement agency at Nakpil Street, Ermita, Manila
where he saw Agustin and met the spouses Dan and Loma
Goce, owners of the agency. He submitted his bio-data and
learned from Loma

____________

2 Ibid., 8-9.
3 Ibid., 17.
4 Ibid., 24.
5 Ibid., 27.
6 Ibid., 30.
7 Ibid., 33.
8 Ibid., 44.
9 TSN, May 12, 1993, 2-3, 8, 12.

785

VOL. 247, AUGUST 29, 1995 785

People vs. Goce

Goce that he had to give P12,000.00, instead of the original

amount of P5,000.00 for the placement fee. Although
surprised at the new and higher sum, they subsequently
agreed as long as 10
there was an assurance that they could
leave for abroad.
Thereafter, a receipt was issued in the name of the
Clover Placement Agency showing that Salado and his
aforesaid coapplicants each paid P2,000.00, instead of the
P5,000.00 which each of them actually paid. Several
months passed but Salado failed to leave for the promised
overseas employment. Hence, in October, 1987, along with
the other recruits, he decided to go to the Philippine
Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) to verify the
real status of Clover Placement Agency. They discovered
that said agency was not duly licensed to recruit job
applicants. Later, upon learning that Agustin had been
arrested, Salado decided to see her and to demand the
return of the money 11
he had paid, but Agustin could only
give him P500.00.
Ramona Salado, the wife of Rogelio Salado, came to
know through her brother, Lorenzo Alvarez, about Nelly
Agustin. Accompanied by her husband, Rogelio, Ramona
went to see Agustin at the latter’s residence. Agustin
persuaded her to apply as a cutter/sewer in Oman so that
she could join her husband. Encouraged by Agustin’s
promise that she and her husband could live together while
working in Oman, she instructed her husband to give

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017d3214fe8779689f2e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 6/14
11/18/21, 3:50 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 247

Agustin P2,000.00 for each

12
of them as placement fee, or the
total sum of P4,000.00.
Much later, the Salado couple received a telegram from
the placement agency requiring them to report to its office
because the “NOC” (visa) had allegedly arrived. Again,
around February, or March, 1987, Rogelio gave P2,000.00
as payment for his and his wife’s passports. Despite follow-
up of their papers twice a week from February 13
to June,
1987, he and his wife failed to leave for abroad.
Complainant Dionisio Masaya, accompanied by his
brother-in-law, Aquiles Ortega, applied for a job in Oman
with the Clover

______________

10 Ibid., id., 3-5, 10, 13.

11 Ibid., id., 7-8, 12-16.
12 Ibid., May 25, 1993, 15-17.
13 Ibid., id., 18-20.

786

786 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Goce

Placement Agency at Parañaque, the agency’s former office

address. There, Masaya met Nelly Agustin, who introduced
herself as the manager of the agency, and the Goce
spouses, Dan and Loma, as well as the latter’s daughter.
He submitted several pertinent
14
documents, such as his bio-
data and school credentials.
In May, 1986, Masaya gave Dan Goce P1,900.00 as an
initial down payment for the placement fee, and in
September of that same year, he gave an additional
P10,000.00. He was issued receipts for said amounts and
was advised to go to the placement office once in a while to
follow up his application, which he faithfully did. Much to
his dismay and chagrin, he failed to leave for abroad as
promised. Accordingly, he was forced to demand that his
money be refunded but Loma15 Goce could give him back
only P4,000.00 in installments.
As the prosecution’s fourth and last witness, Ernesto
Alvarez took the witness stand on June 7, 1993. He
testified that in February, 1987, he met appellant Agustin
through his cousin, Larry Alvarez, at her residence in
Parañaque. She informed him that “madalas siyang
nagpapalakad sa Oman” and offered him a job as an
ambulance driver at the Royal Hospital in16 Oman with a
monthly salary of about $600.00 to $700.00.
On March 10, 1987, Alvarez gave an initial amount of
P3,000.00 as processing fee to Agustin at the latter’s
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017d3214fe8779689f2e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 7/14
11/18/21, 3:50 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 247

residence. In the same month, he gave another P3,000.00,

this time in the office of the placement agency. Agustin
assured him that he could leave for abroad before the end
of 1987. He returned several times to the placement
agency’s office to follow up his application but to no avail.
Frustrated, he demanded the return of the money he had
paid, but Agustin could only give back P500.00. Thereafter,
he looked for Agustin
17
about eight times, but he could no
longer find her.
Only herein appellant Agustin testified for the defense.
She asserted that Dan and Loma Goce were her neighbors
at Tambo,

_______________

14 Ibid., id., 3-5, 11-12.

15 Ibid., id., 5-9.
16 Ibid., June 7, 1993, 2-5.
17 Ibid., id., 4-10.

787

VOL. 247, AUGUST 29, 1995 787

People vs. Goce

Parañaque and that they were licensed recruiters and

owners of the Clover Placement Agency. Previously, the
Goce couple was able to send her son, Reynaldo Agustin, to
Saudi Arabia. Agustin met the aforementioned
complainants through Lorenzo Alvarez who requested her
to introduce
18
them to the Goce couple, to which request she
acceded.
Denying any participation in the illegal recruitment and
maintaining that the recruitment was perpetrated only by
the Goce couple, Agustin denied any knowledge of the
receipts presented by the prosecution. She insisted that the
complainants included her in the complaint thinking that
this would compel her to reveal the whereabouts of the
Goce spouses. She failed to do so because in truth, so she
claims, she does not know the present address of the
couple. All
19
she knew was that they had left their residence
in 1987.
Although she admitted having given P500.00 each to
Rogelio Salado and Alvarez, she explained that it was
entirely for different reasons. Salado had supposedly asked
for a loan, while
20
Alvarez needed money because he was sick
at that time.
On November 19, 1993, the trial court rendered
judgment finding herein appellant guilty as a principal in
the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale, and

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017d3214fe8779689f2e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 8/14
11/18/21, 3:50 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 247

sentencing her to serve the penalty 21of life imprisonment, as

well as to pay a fine of P100,000.00.
In her present appeal, appellant Agustin raises the
following arguments: (1) her act of introducing
complainants to the Goce couple does not fall within the
meaning of illegal recruitment and placement under Article
13(b) in relation to Article 34 of the Labor Code; 2) there is
no proof of conspiracy to commit illegal recruitment among
appellant and the Goce spouses; and (3) there is no proof
that appellant offered
22
or promised overseas employment to
the complainants. These three arguments being
interrelated, they will be discussed together.

______________

18 Ibid., June 30, 2-3.

19 Ibid., id., 5.
20 Ibid., id., 6-7.
21 Penned by Presiding Judge Cesar J. Mindaro.
22 Appellant’s Brief, 10; Rollo, 194.

788

788 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Goce

Herein appellant is accused of violating Articles 38 and 39

of the Labor Code. Article 38 of the Labor Code, as
amended by Presidential Decree No. 2018, provides that
any recruitment activity, including the prohibited practices
enumerated in Article 34 of said Code, undertaken by non-
licensees or non-holders of authority shall be deemed
illegal and punishable under Article 39 thereof. The same
article further provides that illegal recruitment shall be
considered an offense involving economic sabotage if any of
these qualifying circumstances exist, namely, (a) when
illegal recruitment is committed by a syndicate, i.e., if it is
carried out by a group of three or more persons conspiring
and/or confederating with one another; or (b) when illegal
recruitment is committed in large scale, i.e., if it is
committed against three or more persons individually or as
a group.
At the outset, it should be made clear that all the
accused in this case were not authorized to engage in any
recruitment activity, as evidenced by a certification issued
by Cecilia E. Curso, Chief of the Licensing and Regulation
Office of the Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration, on November 10, 1987. Said certification
states that Dan and Loma Goce and Nelly Agustin are
neither licensed nor 23authorized to recruit workers for
overseas employment. Appellant does not dispute this. As
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017d3214fe8779689f2e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 9/14
11/18/21, 3:50 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 247

a matter of fact her counsel agreed to stipulate that she

was neither licensed nor authorized to recruit applicants
for overseas employment. Appellant, however, denies
24
that
she was in any way guilty of illegal recruitment.
It is appellant’s defensive theory that all she did was to
introduce complainants to the Goce spouses. Being a
neighbor of said couple, and owing to the fact that her son’s
overseas job application was processed and facilitated by
them, the complainants asked her to introduce them to said
spouses. Allegedly out of the goodness of her heart, she
complied with their request. Such an act, appellant argues,
does not fall within the meaning of ”referral” under the
Labor Code to make her liable for illegal recruitment.
Under said Code, recruitment and placement refer to
any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting,
utilizing, hir-

______________

23 Original Record, 153.

24 TSN, June 11, 1993, 8.

789

VOL. 247, AUGUST 29, 1995 789

People vs. Goce

ing 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 25shall be
deemed engaged in recruitment and placement. On the
other hand, referral is the act of passing along or
forwarding of an applicant for employment after an initial
interview of a selected applicant for employment 26
to a
selected employer, placement officer or bureau.
Hence, the inevitable query is whether or not appellant
Agustin merely introduced complainants to the Goce couple
or her actions went beyond that. The testimonial evidence
hereon show that she indeed further committed acts
constitutive of illegal recruitment. All four prosecution
witnesses testified that it was Agustin whom they initially
approached regarding their plans of working overseas. It
was from her that they learned about the fees they had to
pay, as well as the papers that they had to submit. It was
after they had talked to her that they met the accused
spouses who owned the placement agency.
As correctly held by the trial court, being an employee of
the Goces, it was therefore logical for appellant to introduce
the applicants to said spouses, they being the owners of the
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017d3214fe8779689f2e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 10/14
11/18/21, 3:50 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 247

agency. As such, appellant was actually making referrals to

the agency of which she was a27 part. She was therefore
engaging in recruitment activity.
Despite Agustin’s pretensions that she was but a
neighbor of the Goce couple, the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses paint a different picture. Rogelio
Salado and Dionisio Masaya testified that appellant
represented herself as the manager of the Clover
Placement Agency. Ramona Salado was offered a job as a
cutter/sewer by Agustin the first time they met, while
Ernesto Alvarez remembered that when he first met
Agustin, the latter28 represented herself as “nagpapaalis
papunta sa Oman.” In-

____________

25 Article 13(b), Labor Code.

26 Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, 1986 Ed., 1908.
27 Decision, 7; Original Record, 172.
28 TSN., June 7, 1993, 3.

790

790 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Goce

deed, Agustin played a pivotal role in the operations of the

recruitment agency, working together with the Goce
couple.
There is illegal recruitment when one gives the
impression of having the ability to send a worker abroad.29
It is undisputed that appellant gave complainants the
distinct impression that she had the power or ability to
send people abroad for work such that the latter were
convinced to give
30
her the money she demanded in order to
be so employed.
It cannot be denied that Agustin received from
complainants various sums for purpose of their
applications. Her act of collecting from each of the
complainants payment for their respective passports,
training fees, placement fees, medical tests and other
sundry expenses unquestionably constitutes an act of
recruitment within the meaning of the law. In fact,
appellant demanded and received from complainants
amounts beyond the allowable limit of P5,000.00 under
government regulations. It is true that the mere act of a
cashier in receiving money far exceeding the amount
allowed by law was not considered per se as “recruitment
and placement” in contemplation of law, but that was
because the recipient had no other participation in the

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017d3214fe8779689f2e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 11/14
11/18/21, 3:50 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 247

transactions and did not31

conspire with her co-accused in
defrauding the victims. That is not the case here.
Appellant further argues that “there is no evidence of
receipts of collections/payments from complainants to
appellant.” On the contrary, xerox copies of said
receipts/vouchers were presented by the prosecution.
32
For
instance, a cash voucher marked as Exhibit D, showing
the receipt of P10,000.00 for placement fee and duly signed
by appellant, was presented by 33
the prosecution. Another
receipt, identified as Exhibit E, was issued and signed by
appellant on February 5, 1987 to acknowledge receipt of
P4,000.00 from Rogelio and Ramona Salado for “processing
of

______________

27 People vs. Manungas, Jr., G.R. Nos. 91552-55, March 10, 1994, 231
SCRA 1.
30 People vs. Villafuerte, G.R. Nos. 93723-27, May 6, 1994, 232 SCRA
225.
31 People vs. Gaoat, G.R. No. 97028, May 21, 1993, 222 SCRA 385.
32 Original Record, 155.
33 Ibid., 156.

791

VOL. 247, AUGUST 29, 1995 791

People vs. Goce

documents for Oman.” Still another receipt dated March

10, 1987 and presented in evidence as Exhibit F, shows
that appellant received from Ernesto34 Alvarez P2,000.00 for
“processing of documents for Oman.”
Apparently, the original copies of said receipts/vouchers
were lost, hence only xerox copies thereof were presented
and which, under the circumstances, were admissible in
evidence. When the original writing has been lost or
destroyed or cannot be produced in court, upon proof of its
execution and loss or destruction, or unavailability, its
contents may be proved by a copy or a recital of its contents
in some authentic
35
document, or by the recollection of
witnesses.
Even assuming arguendo that the xerox copies
presented by the prosecution as secondary evidence are not
allowable in court, still the absence thereof does not 36
warrant the acquittal of appellant. In People vs. Comia,
where this particular issue was involved, the Court held
that the complainants’ failure to ask for receipts for the
fees they paid to the accused therein, as well as their
consequent failure to present receipts before the trial court
as proof of the said payments, is not fatal to their case. The
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017d3214fe8779689f2e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 12/14
11/18/21, 3:50 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 247

complainants duly proved by their respective testimonies

that said accused was involved in the entire recruitment
process. Their testimonies in this regard, being clear and
positive, were declared sufficient to establish that factum
probandum.
Indeed, the trial court was justified and correct in
accepting the version of the prosecution witnesses, their
statements being positive and affirmative in nature. This is
more worthy of credit than the mere uncorroborated and
self-serving denials of appellant. The lame defense
consisting of such bare denials by appellant cannot
overcome the evidence presented by 37 the prosecution
proving her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The presence of documentary evidence notwithstanding,
this case essentially involves the credibility of witnesses
which is best left to the judgment of the trial court, in the
absence of abuse of

_______________

34 Ibid., 157.
35 Section 4, Rule 130, Rules of Court.
36 G.R. No. 109761, September 1, 1994, 236 SCRA 185.
37 People vs. Resuma, G.R. Nos. 106640-42, June 15, 1994.

792

792 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Goce

discretion therein. The findings of fact of a trial court,

arrived at only after a hearing and evaluation of what can
usually be expected to be conflicting testimonies of 38
witnesses, certainly deserve respect by an appellate court.
Generally, the findings of fact of the trial court on the
matter 39of credibility of witnesses will not be disturbed on
appeal.
In a last-ditch effort to exculpate herself from conviction,
appellant argues that there is no proof of conspiracy
between her and the Goce couple as to make her liable for
illegal recruitment. We do not agree. The evidence
presented by the prosecution clearly establish that
appellant confabulated with the Goces in their plan to
deceive the complainants. Although said accused couple
have not been tried and convicted, nonetheless there is
sufficient basis for appellant’s conviction as discussed
above. 40
In People vs. Sendon, we held that the non-prosecution
of another suspect therein provided no ground for the
appellant concerned to fault the decision of the trial court
convicting her. The prosecution of other persons, equally or
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017d3214fe8779689f2e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 13/14
11/18/21, 3:50 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 247

more culpable than herein appellant, may come later after

their true identities and addresses shall have been
ascertained and said malefactors duly taken into custody.
We see no reason why the same doctrinal rule and course of
procedure should not apply in this case.
WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment of the court a
quo is hereby AFFIRMED in toto, with costs against
accused-appellant Nelly D. Agustin.
SO ORDERED.

          Narvasa (C.J., Chairman), Puno, Mendoza and

Francisco, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed in toto.

Notes.—A person who, for a consideration, promises job

placement abroad to another when he is neither duly
licensed nor

______________

38 People vs. Jumao-as, G.R. No. 101334, February 14, 1994, 230 SCRA
70.
39 People vs. Yap, G.R. No. 103517, February 9, 1994, 229 SCRA 787.
40 G.R. Nos. 101579-89, December 15, 1993, 228 SCRA 489.

793

VOL. 247, AUGUST 31, 1995 793

People vs. Ronquillo

authorized to engage in recruitment agency is criminally

liable for illegal recruitment. (People vs. Alforte, 219 SCRA
458 [1993])
Not all acts which constitute estafa necessarily establish
illegal recruitment, for estafa is wider in scope and covers
deceits whether or not related to recruitment activities.
(People vs. Turda, 233 SCRA 702 [1994])

——o0o——

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017d3214fe8779689f2e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 14/14