G.R. No. 108027 - People vs. Herdez

The accused-appellant, Cristina M. Hernandez, along with Alexander Gaerlan, Engineer Rizalino Mendez, Engineer Pangilinan, and Annie Bernardino, was charged with the crime of illegal recruitment committed on a large scale.
The offense is defined under Article 38 (a) and (b) in relation to Article 39 (a) and Article 13 (b) and (c) of the Labor Code (PD. 442 as amended).
The recruitment activities allegedly occurred during the period from January 1986 to March 1986 in the City of Manila, Philippines.

The accused, through a scheme of conspiracy and confederation, purportedly represented herself and her cohorts as having the authority to contract, enlist, and transport Filipino workers for overseas employment.
Without securing the necessary license or authority from the Department of Labor and Employment, the accused recruited job applicants in exchange for placement and processing fees.
The scheme involved promising employment or job placements abroad—specifically with ARAMCO in Saudi Arabia—in various capacities (e.g., general foreman, general skilled worker, laborer).

Calara recounted meeting the accused through Annie Bernardino, who introduced him to Min-Asia Management Services where the accused was portrayed as the owner.
He testified that he, along with other recruits, was required to pay placement and agent’s fees and submit various documents (e.g., medical certificate, AIDS test, photos, passport, employment certificate, NBI and police clearances).
Calara was promised deployment abroad within a specified period ranging from one week to one month.

Bonifacio stated that he met the accused through his neighbor, who had also previously met Calara.
Initially promised a position as a waiter, his offered post was later changed to a general skilled worker at ARAMCO.
He complied with the fee payment and the submission of required documents.

Cruz was introduced to the accused by her agent, Bernardino, while preparing his application at Min-Asia.
He, along with other applicants, was made to pay processing fees as part of the recruitment process.

MariAas met the accused through Diwang Tolentino at Min-Asia.
Promised employment abroad as a laborer, he paid a portion of the processing fees in cash but did not receive any receipt.
When his promised employment did not materialize, his withdrawal attempt led to a bounced check due to insufficient funds.

Receipts and vouchers evidencing payments made by the complainants were submitted before the trial court.
Additional documentary evidence, such as bouncing checks and copies of submitted requirements, further corroborated the prosecution’s case.

The accused-appellant testified as her sole witness in defense.
She claimed that her only connection with Min-Asia was as a sub-lessor of office space in the same building (Don Santiago Building, Taft Avenue).
She denied being an officer, stockholder, or having any managerial control over Min-Asia.
The defense contested the authenticity of signatures on several cash vouchers and receipts, attributing her presence at Min-Asia to the sub-leasing arrangement rather than active recruitment.
She argued that her mere proximity and presence in the vicinity should not implicate her in the recruitment scheme, further emphasizing her age and portraying herself as a “hapless” elderly woman unlikely to risk incarceration.

Arraignment occurred on March 31, 1989, with both Hernandez and Mendez pleading not guilty.
The trial court heard the testimonies of four prosecution witnesses and the sole testimony of the accused-appellant.
The trial judge rejected the defense of mere denial in favor of the positive and credible testimonies presented by the prosecution witnesses and the documentary evidence.
Based on the evidence, the trial court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt for illegal recruitment in large scale.
The imposition of penalties included life imprisonment (reclusion perpetua), fines, accessory penalties, and orders for restitution to the aggrieved parties.

The accused sought reversal of the judgment on the ground that the lower court erred in its appraisal of the evidence and overly relied on her denial.
Her argument emphasized her lack of direct connection to the management or ownership of Min-Asia, contending that her role was merely as a sub-lessor.
She also contested the authenticity of certain documentary evidence and the credibility of the testimonies linking her to the illegal recruitment scheme.

Whether the defense of mere denial, as presented by the accused, sufficiently rebutted the positive and affirmative evidences (both testimonial and documentary) presented by the prosecution.
Whether the accused-appellant’s connection with Min-Asia, as merely a sub-lessor who rented office space, could legally attribute to her direct involvement in the illegal recruitment activities.
Whether the trial court correctly appreciated the credibility of the prosecution witnesses over the uncorroborated denial of the accused.
Whether the imposition of the penalty of life imprisonment (clarified as distinct from reclusion perpetua) along with associated fines and accessory penalties was legally appropriate and properly imposed.