fact in securing one's examination, appointment, or registration.12 Dishonesty is a serious offense which reflects a person's character and exposes the moral decay which virtually destroys honor, virtue,, and integrity.13 It is a malevolent act that has no place in the judiciary, as no other office in the government service exacts a greater demand for moral righteousness from an employee than a position in the judiciary. 14

No doubt, court officials occupy an exalted position in society. They enjoy authoritative influence, which leaves the innocent public unlikely to raise any objection. Unfortunately, this is also the reasons why they have more opportunities to commit dishonest acts. But dishonesty has no place in the judiciary and the Court will not hesitate to remove from among its ranks those found to be dishonest.

Under Section 52, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 and Other Pertinent Civil Service Laws, dishonesty and falsification of a public document are considered grave offenses punishable by dismissal for the first offense.

Dishonestly, in order to warrant dismissal, need not be committed in the course of the performance of official duties.15 If a government officer is dishonest, even if the conduct is not connected with the official function, it affects the discipline and morale of the service.16 The government cannot tolerate in its service a dishonest employee, even if official duties are performed well. Respondent cannot separate her private life as a registrant of the child's false birth certificate from her public life as a court official. She is subject to discipline the moment she commits a dishonest act,

12 OCA v. Bermejo, A.M. No. P-05-2004, 14 March 2008, 548 SCRA 219.

14 Re: Spurious Certificate of Eligibility of Tessie G. Quires, Regional Trial Court, Office of the Clerk of Court, Quezon City, A.M. No. 05-5-268-RTC, 4 May 2006, 489 SCRA 349.

Palabrica, A.M. No. P-06-2251, 20 January 2009, 576 SCRA 392.

16 Corpuz v. Ramiterre, A.M. No. P-04-1779, 25 November 2005, 476 SCRA 108; Alabastro v. Moncada, Sr., 488 Phil. 43 (2004).

whether in her private life or in her public life.

However, the extreme penalty of dismissal is not automatically imposed, especially where mitigating circumstances exist. Although under the schedule of penalties adopted by the Civil Service, dishonesty and falsification of a public document are classified as grave offenses punishable by dismissal, the fact that this is respondent's first offense may be favor. The law requires that the mitigating considered a mitigating circumstance in her circumstance must first be pleaded by the proper party.17 But in the interest of substantial justice, we may appreciate the mitigating circumstance in the imposition of penalty, even if not raised by repondent.18

We thus impose on respondent the penalty next lower in degree, which is suspension for six months and one day without pay with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.

WHEREFORE, respondent

Emma

Baldonado Curamen, Court Interpreter I in the Municipal Trial Court of Rizal in Nueva Ecija, is found GUILTY of dishonesty and falsification of a public document and SUSPENDED for six (6) months and one (1) day without pay with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.

Let copies of this Resolution be furnished the Provincial Prosecutor of Nueva Ecija for appropriate action, including the possible filing of a special proceeding for the cancellation of the Certificate of Live Birth of Rica Mae Baldonado Curamen as well as the Affidavit for Delayed Registration of Birth executed by respondent.

[CR H.C. No. 01828, March 21, 2006] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, VS. ALBINA ALTUVEROS Y BRITT, accusedappellant.

1.

CRIMINAL LAW; ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT; WORDS AND PHRASES; ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT, DEFINED; IT IS THE LACK OF NECESSARY LICENSE OR AUTHORITY THAT RENDERS THE RECRUITMENT ACTIVITY UNLAWFUL OR CRIMINAL.-Illegal recruitment is defined as any recruitment activities including the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code, to be undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of authority. There is illegal recruitment when one purports to have the ability to send a worker abroad although without authority or license to do so. To prove illegal recruitment, it must be shown that the accused-appellant gave complainants the distinct impression that he had the power or ability to send complainants abroad for work such that the latter were convinced to part with their money in order to be employed. It is the lack of necessary license or authority that renders the recruitment activity unlawful or criminal.

2. ID.; ID.; ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT WHEN QUALIFIED INTO LARGE SCALE RECRUITMENT.-Illegal recruitment is qualified into large scale recruitment when three or more persons are victimized. When the Labor Code speaks of illegal recruiment "committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group," it must be understood as referring to the number of complainants in each case who are complainants therein. A conviction for largescale illegal recruitment must be based on a finding in each case of illegal recruitment of three or more persons whether individually or as a group. A witness must testify as to the facts that would prove recruitment. Where the evidence shows that accused-appellant made misrepresentations concerning her authority to recruit for overseas employment and collected various amounts from complainants for placement fees, the accused-appellant committed acts constitutive of large scale illegal recruitment.

3. ID.; ID.; ILLEGAL RECRUITERS NEED NOT EXPRESSLY REPRESENT THEMSELVES TO THE VICTIMS AS PERSONS WHO HAVE THE ABILITY TO SEND WORKERS ABROAD; IT IS ENOUGH THAT THEY GIVE THE IMPRESSION THAT THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO ENLIST WORKERS FOR JOB PLACEMENT ABROAD IN ORDER TO INDUCE THE LATTER TO TENDER PAYMENT OF FEES. The acts of the accused in giving the impression to complainants that they can deploy persons to work abroad through direct hiring convinced said complainants to part with various sums which accused told them were needed for their employment - amounts which, in their own words, are deemed big money to poor people like them. The fact that complainants were informed beforehand that there is no company or agency involved under their direct hire scheme is of no moment. It was held that illegal recruiters need not even expressly represent themselves to the victims as persons who have the ability to send workers abroad - it is enough that they give the impression that they have the ability to enlist workers for job placement abroad in order to induce the latter to tender payment of fees.

4. ID.; ID.; ABSENCE OF RECEIPTS CANNOT DEFEAT A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT.-As established by jurisprudence, even the absence of receipts is not fatal to the case of the prosecution, for as long as it is clearly established through the witnesses' respective testimonies, that the accused is the one involved in prohibited recruitment. Thus, even lacking a receipt, a claim for damages may be sustained if the complainant is able to prove by his testimony that the accused was involved in the recruitment process and that she got the money claimed. To stress the point, the absence of receipts cannot defeat a criminal prosecution for illegal recruitment. The fact that appellant did not issue the receipts for amounts received from complainants has no bearing on her culpability for the complainants have shown through their respective testimonies and affidavits that appellant was involved in the

confederating together and mutually helping each other, representing themselves to have the capacity to contract, enlist and transport Filipino workers for employment abroad, did then and there willfully unlawfully, knowingly and jointly recruit and promise employment/job placement to and collected fees from the following:

REMEDIOS V. MAGANTE JERICO R. VERGARA TERESITA D.R. CABRERA RODRIGO P. OLVIDO MARINA GARAY NER WILLIAM A. CERDON EDERSON M. MALABANA LILIA R.' DELOS SANTOS

without first having secured the required license/ permit or authority from the Department of Labor and Employment.

"Contrary to law."6

Accused were duly arraigned on May 4, 1994 and with the assistance of Public Attorney Fervyn C. Pinzon, a plea of not guilty was entered for both of them.7

During the trial, the prosecution presented as witnesses Police Chief Investigator Marcelo Reyes and private complainants Marina Ner, Edelson Malabana, William Cerdon, Remedios Magante and Teresita Cabrera. For the defense, both accused Lumabas and Altuveros and their witness Rowena Evangelista, testified.

Police Chief Investigator MARCELO REYES testified that accused Lumabas and Altuveros were the subject of several complaints filed before the Office of the Manila City Hall Detachment sometime in March 1994. The complaints arose from promise of employment abroad which according to complainants did not materialize. After several follow ups, they were able to establish the location of the

suspects who are staying at Barangay Unang Sigaw, Balintawak, Quezon City. They sought the assistance of the barangay chairman and tanods and eventually apprehended them together with seven (7) other policemen. Lumabas and Altuveros were brought to the Manila City Hall Police Detachment and after apprising them of their constitutional rights, referred them to the inquest prosecutor. Private complainants

6 Records, p. 1.

7 Records, p. 8.

executed their joint affidavit-complaint which they signed in his presence and under oath administered by Sr. Insp. Cecilio Reyes. They also sent a letter to the POEA which issued a Certification (Exhibit "B") and prepared the Booking Sheet and Arrest Report (Exhibits "C" and "D").8

MARINA NER testified that accused Lumabas was introduced to her by accused Altuveros during the last week of September 1993 in Tondo. She came from Quezon Province and their meeting place was the house of Lumabas in Tondo. She was told by Lumabas that her friend is hiring contract workers for abroad and so she applied with them. She paid them a total of P9,400.00 for the following fees demanded by the accused: medical fee (P800.00), passport and birth certificate (P1,800.00) and processing/recruitment fee (P7,000.00). At the time she gave the money to Altuveros, the latter and Lumabas were both present but they did not issue any receipt. She made the payment at the house of Lumabas. Their promise to bring her to work in Saudi did not materialize. She tried to collect back her money but after several attempts failed, they decided to bring the matter to court. While still at the court, Altuveros told her it is just a matter of money but up to now, Altuveros has not produced any money. She begged to be paid and Altuveros promised the dates December 2 to January 5; she told Altuveros that she will bring the matter to court after January 30. She came to know a fellow applicant, who was supposed to be deployed abroad and they referred the matter to the police on March 30, 1994. When police arrested Lumabas and Altuveros in Balintawak and

brought them to the Manila City Hall Detachment, they filed their formal complaint. It was SPO4 Marcelo Reyes who conducted the investigation.9

On cross-examination, the witness admitted that her co-complainants who were also from Quezon Province went with her and she introduced them to Lumabas whose sister is the wife of her cousin. She

8 TSN, August 3, 1994, pp. 3-14. 9 TSN, August 3, 1994, pp. 21-31.

personally met Lumabas only in September 1993. She applied as contract worker because according to Lumabas, she has a friend who is deploying workers abroad. She is married and jobless, her husband is a fisherman. When she gave the P9,400.00, she demanded for a receipt but they just told her that she will issue it next time, and every time, it would be next time until no receipt was issued at all. She paid in two (2) installments, for placement fee (P5,000.00 an P2,000.00) on October 24, 1993, and also paid the passport, medical fee and travel tax. She did not sign an application for passport, they volunteered to process her papers. She inquired from Altuveros if Lumabas indeed has a friend deploying people abroad and she said sure. Altuveros assured her she can be sent abroad but did not mention the name of the company; Altuveros said it will be a direct hire. She signed a Bio-Data form which is in the possession of accused. She applied for work as domestic helper.10

He

EDELSON MALABANA testified that in September 1993, he came to know Lumabas and Altuveros through Marina Ner because they wanted to go abroad. was supposed to be deployed in Riyadh and was required to pay for passport, NBI, cedula and placement fee. He paid the whole amount of P8,620.00 to Altuveros in the presence of Lumabas and other applicants like him (Diego Vergara, William Cerdon, Marina Ner, Rogelio Ortiz and Rodrigo Olbida), at 1745 Varona St., Tondo, Manila. He was scheduled to leave for Saudi on December 5, 1993 but it did not push through so they filed a complaint in the City Hall Police Detachment. When police arrested Lumabas and Altuveros and brought them to the detachment, he was also investigated. Together with other complainants, he signed the joint affidavitcomplaint (Exhibit "B"). Accused did not return to him the amount of P8,620.00 he paid to them.11

On cross-examination, the witness clarified that it was through Marina Ner who

10 Ibid., pp. 31-42. 11 Ibid., pp. 43-53.

is a friend of Lumabas who in turn knew a person (Altuveros) who deploys workers abroad -- that their group approached the accused because of their urgent desire to go abroad. He asked for receipt but was not given any. not given any. Altuveros mentioned the name Abubakar but their group did not know the person.12

WILLIAM CERDON testified that he paid the total amount of P9,920.00 to Altuveros for placement fee (P1,300.00), passport plus travel tax (P1,620.00) and placement fee (P7,000.00) on October 24, 1993 in the presence of Lumabas at the latter's house at 1745 Varona St., Tondo, Manila. He was not issued a receipt as they told him it would be given later. He was supposed to be deployed in Saudi to work as janitor on December 2, 1993 but nothing happened on that date. He was again scheduled to leave on January 5, 1994 but it also did not push through. Together with other complainants, he filed a formal complaint and mentioned these dates in the Joint Affidavit-Complaint (Exhibit "A"). When Lumabas and Altuveros were apprehended by the police and brought to Capt. Reyes in the detachment, investigation conducted and he was also investigated. Accused did not return his money, not even a single centavo, and neither did they give any reason why they failed to deploy him abroad, they just say next time, next time.13

was

On cross-examination, the witness said he was not given a receipt by the accused because the latter are fake. He gave money as it was only later that he came to know that they were fake; accused up to now have not deployed them abroad to work.14

REMEDIOS MAGANTE testified that she met Lumabas for the first time in November 1993 when she applied for job placement abroad as baby-sitter in Qatar. Lumabas conducted her business at her house located at 1745 F. Varona St., Tondo, Manila. She paid Lumabas the total amount of P13,800.00 (P12,000.00 placement fee, and P9,400.00

12 Ibid, pp. 53-56. 13 Ibid,. pp. 56-62. 14 Ibid., pp. 62-63.

051666- -3