G.R. Nos. 108440-42 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. VICENTE MERCADO Y MERCADO ALIAS VICENTE TAN, ACCUSED-. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Wherefore, judgment is hereby rendered as follows - a) In Criminal Case No. 92-105275, finding the accused Vicente Mercado y Mercado alias Vicente Tan guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of Illegal Recruitment committed in large scale and hereby sentences the said accused to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P100,000.00 and to indemnify the complainants (1) Danilo Rivera the sum of P50,000.00; (2) Antonio Peralta the sum of P40,000.00; (3) Domingo Baetiong the sum of P50,000.00; and (4) Ignacio Rivera the sum of P50,000.00, as and by way of actual damage. b) In Criminal Case No. 92-105276, finding the accused Vicente Mercado y Mercado alias Vicente Tan guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of Estafa and hereby sentences the said accused to suffer an indeterminate sentence ranging from six (6) years and two (2) months of prision mayor as minimum to ten (10) years also of prision mayor as maximum and for the said accused to indemnify Nelson Tamares the sum of P45,000.00 as and by way of actual damage. c) For lack of evidence, accused is hereby acquitted of the crime charged in Criminal case No. 92-105277. Accused-appellant contends that ¾ I. THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN BELIEVING THE NARRATION OF THE PROSECUTION'S WITNESSES IN SPITE OF THE ABSENCE OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT THEREOF. II. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN GIVING CREDIBILITY TO PROSECUTION'S WITNESSES IN SPITE OF THE INCREDIBILITY OF THEIR TESTIMONIES. III. THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN RULING THAT THERE IS ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CONVICTION OF THE ACCUSED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. [14] Accused-appellant concedes that complainants were victims of illegal recruitment, but he claims that the evidence against him is purely testimonial and not documentary and that it is insufficient to convict. He argues that based on the evidence of the prosecution, the culprit is his wife, Baby Tan, who is at present abroad, but he had no participation in the illegal activities of his wife and his sister-in-law. He also claims the acts imputed to him in the affidavits of Antonio Peralta and Nelson Tamares do not constitute illegal recruitment. He assails the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses as incredible and inconsistent and asserts that the prosecution witnesses failed to identify him. Finally, he argues that the trial court failed to give evidentiary value to the waivers executed by Danilo Rivera and Nelson Tamares, which amount to affidavits of desistance. Accused-appellant's contentions are without merit. First . In Criminal Case No. 92-105275, accused-appellant was charged with illegal recruitment committed in large scale under Art. 38(a) and (b) of the Labor Code in relation to Art. 13(b) and (c) of the said Code. These provisions state: Art. 38. Illegal Recruitment. ¾ (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 authorit