G.R. No. 163331 - Novicio vs. People

Joseph Jamilosa was charged with large scale illegal recruitment under Sections 6 and 7 of Republic Act No. 8042.
The charges arose from his alleged recruitment of several individuals for employment in Los Angeles, California, without the required license or authority from the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA).
The Information was filed on August 29, 1997, and the allegations covered recruitment activities purportedly carried out between January and February 1996 in Quezon City, Metro Manila.

Complainants (Imelda D. Bamba, Geraldine M. Lagman, and Alma E. Singh) testified that Jamilosa enticed them with promises of overseas employment as nurses, citing his supposed connections—including claims of having a sister in the United States and even alleging to be an FBI agent on mission in the Philippines.
Each complainant recounted separate encounters:

Imelda D. Bamba met Jamilosa on an air-conditioned bus, where he introduced himself as a recruiter and mentioned that she could secure a nursing job in Los Angeles with a monthly salary of US$2,000.
After further meetings, Bamba transferred US$300 and, in one instance, pieces of jewelry; however, no receipt was issued.
Geraldine Lagman and Alma Singh similarly described being approached at SM North EDSA, where Jamilosa secured documents (such as transcripts, diplomas, and PRC licenses) and demanded fees and additional items (including bottles of liquor) in exchange for processing their supposed US visas.
In all accounts, the complainants later discovered that Jamilosa’s promises were fraudulent, as he failed to facilitate proper visa issuance or secure travel arrangements, and his whereabouts became inexplicable.

Testimonies of the three complainants detailing their encounters, payments, and subsequent failure of Jamilosa to deliver on his promises.
Documentary exhibits such as a certification issued by the POEA indicating that Jamilosa was neither licensed nor authorized to recruit for overseas employment.

Despite the absence of receipts for payments made, the cumulative oral testimonies were taken as strong evidence of the recruitment activity.

Jamilosa claimed that he merely provided advice on overseas employment, maintaining that the complainants approached him independently.
To counter the prosecution’s narrative, he produced certifications allegedly signed by each complainant stating that no recruitment took place and that no money was exchanged.
These certifications, however, were not submitted during the preliminary investigation – only raised during the trial – which led the trial court to regard them as an afterthought and of scant probative value.
He argued that the absence of receipts should cast doubt on the complainants’ evidence; however, the court found that the collective testimonies sufficiently established the elements of illegal recruitment.

At trial, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City found Jamilosa guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to life imprisonment, imposed a fine of P500,000.00, and ordered him to refund each complainant US$300.00.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s decision, albeit with a modification regarding the payment refund (refunding the peso equivalent of US$300.00 instead of the literal dollar amount).
Ultimately, the Supreme Court also dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction with the modification.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Jamilosa engaged in illegal recruitment despite the absence of receipts evidencing the alleged fee payments.
Whether the corroborative oral testimonies of the complainants could compensate for the lack of documentary proof (receipts).

Whether Jamilosa’s later-presented certifications—stating that no recruitment took place and no fee was received—should be given credence given that:

They were not submitted at the preliminary investigation stage.
Their timing raised questions regarding the credibility and motive behind their production.

Whether the reliance on Section 3(y) of the Rules on Evidence and the presumption of ordinary care in keeping documents (or receipts) could invalidate the collective testimonies of the complainants.
Whether Jamilosa’s failure to produce the certifications earlier constituted suppression of potentially exculpatory evidence.