View full case

PEOPLE v. MA. HARLETA VELASCO Y BRIONES

FACTS:

Accused-appellant Maricar B. Inovero was convicted for illegal recruitment committed in large scale. The case was filed against Inovero and three other accused for illegal recruitment and estafa. The complainants testified about their interactions with Inovero at Harvel International Talent Management and Promotion (HARVEL). They claimed that Inovero conducted briefings, instructed them to submit documents and pay fees, and promised deployment to Japan. However, they were never deployed and found out that HARVEL was not licensed for overseas employment. Inovero denied the allegations and claimed that she was only an office assistant for her uncle's husband and had no involvement in the recruitment process. The RTC acquitted her of estafa but convicted her of illegal recruitment committed in large scale. The CA affirmed her conviction. Inovero appealed, arguing that she was not an employee of HARVEL and should only be faulted for her association with the illegal recruiters.

ISSUES:

  1. Did the CA err in affirming the conviction of the accused for illegal recruitment?

  2. Is the certification from the POEA a positive proof of the accused's engagement in illegal recruitment?

  3. Whether the court erred in not adjudicating the personal liability of the accused for the placement, training, and processing fees paid by the complainants.

  4. Whether the omission of the court to include the civil liability in its judgment can be corrected by the Court, even if the complainants did not appeal.

  5. Whether Inovero's liability towards the victims of their illegal recruitment is solidary.

  6. Whether Inovero should pay interest on the sums paid by the complainants.

RULING:

  1. The appeal lacks merit. The CA affirmed the entire findings of fact of the RTC, which determined that the accused committed illegal recruitment. The court considered the testimonies of the complainants as credible, as they described and affirmed the accused's specific acts during the commission of the crime. Denial, without clear and convincing evidence to support it, is considered weak and unreliable. Therefore, the accused's denial did not prevail over the positive assertions of the complainants. The court upheld the CA's affirmance of the factual findings by the trial court.

  2. The certification from the POEA, which stated that the accused had no license or authority to recruit for overseas employment, was considered by the court as evidence that the accused engaged in illegal recruitment. While the certification alone may not be conclusive proof, it was one of the circumstances that convinced the court that the accused was involved in illegal recruitment.

  3. The court erred in not adjudicating the personal liability of the accused for the fees paid by the complainants. Every person criminally liable is also civilly liable, and the civil liability includes restitution, reparation of the damage caused, and indemnification for consequential damages. In cases of illegal recruitment, civil liability should include the return of the amounts paid as placement, training, and processing fees.

  4. The omission of the court to include the civil liability in its judgment can be corrected by the Court. As the ultimate reviewing tribunal, the Court has not only the authority but also the duty to correct any matter of law and justice. The omission of the court is unjust and contrary to law, and the Court must correct it to enforce the civil liability.

  5. Inovero's liability towards the victims of their illegal recruitment is solidary. Joint tortfeasors are jointly and severally liable for the whole amount of damages, regardless of their individual participation in the wrong.

  6. Inovero should pay interest of 6% per annum on the sums paid by the complainants, to be reckoned from the finality of the judgment until full payment.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The essential elements of illegal recruitment committed in large scale are: (1) engagement in acts of recruitment and placement of workers without the necessary license or authority; (2) failure to comply with guidelines issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment; and (3) commission of the unlawful acts against three or more persons.

  • Denial, without clear and convincing evidence, does not prevail over positive assertions of the fact.

  • Certification from the POEA stating the absence of a license or authority to recruit for overseas employment can be considered as evidence of illegal recruitment, although not conclusive proof.

  • Conspiracy in the commission of a felony requires an agreement and decision to commit the offense.

  • Every person criminally liable is also civilly liable.

  • The civil liability in criminal cases includes restitution, reparation of damage, and indemnification for consequential damages.

  • The court must include the determination of civil liability in its judgment, unless the enforcement of civil liability has been reserved or waived.

  • Courts must avoid omitting reliefs that the parties are entitled to by law or in equity. Their judgments should fully determine the rights and obligations of the litigants.

  • The civil liability of co-conspirators in the commission of a crime is solidary, similar to joint tortfeasors' liability under the Civil Code.

  • Joint tortfeasors are solidarily liable for the resulting damage and are each liable as principals to the same extent as if they had performed the wrongful act themselves.

Joint tortfeasors are jointly and severally liable for the whole amount of damages, and damages cannot be apportioned among them.