THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 197086. February 12, 2014.]

ROWENA C. CARINGAL , petitioner, vs . PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES ,

respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated February
12, 2014 , which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 197086 (Rowena C. Caringal v. People of the Philippines) . — The
Court resolves to NOTE :
(1) the transmittal letter dated October 29, 2013 of the Court of Appeals
elevating to this Court the CA rollo, original records and transcripts of
stenographic notes of this case; and
(2) petitioner's motion for early resolution.
In April 2002 petitioner Rowena C. Caringal was introduced to complainant siblings,
Rolly and Devina Lugar (the Lugars), as a recruiter of workers for deployment abroad. The
Lugars submitted all the requirements for working abroad and paid Caringal the
corresponding placement and other fees that she asked. In addition, Devina paid
P3,500.00 to the Ministry of Healing and Uni cation Foundation International (MHUFI)
based on Caringal's representation that, to be deployed, she needed to be inducted as a
member of that organization. Because Caringal reneged on her undertaking to send the
Lugars abroad, 1 the latter inquired with the Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration (POEA) regarding her bona des . They found out that her agency had no
record in that office. ITaCEc

On November 6, 2002 the Public Prosecutor led against petitioner Caringal and her
co-accused, Rev. Efren P. Tan of the MHUFI, a charge of illegal recruitment in Criminal Case
02-2060 and four counts of estafa in Criminal Cases 02-2061 to 64. But trial in the cases
only began five years later in 2007 following Caringal's arrest. Rev. Tan remained at-large.
Upon petitioner Caringal's motion invoking her right to speedy trial occasioned by
the Lugars' repeated absence at the scheduled hearings despite notice, the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) provisionally dismissed three of the estafa cases against her, leaving only
Criminal Cases 02-2060 (for illegal recruitment in large scale) and 02-2061 (for estafa)
where trial proceeded and was concluded.
For her defense, petitioner Caringal claimed that MHUFI was a non-governmental
organization, not a recruitment agency. Its purpose was to feed the poor and street
children, engage in medical missions, and provide soft loans to members. Further, it
assists its members in acquiring missionary visas as members of the Seventh Day
Adventists so they can receive training at MHUFI in Palau, USA. While in Palau, the
members were allowed to work in addition to ful lling their missionary duties. MHUFI
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 never promised Devina the job of a waitress in Palau. In fact, she did not present any job
contract in her favor.
Petitioner Caringal further claimed that the amounts she received from Devina were
merely for safekeeping and were to be returned to her in the event her visa to Palau was
not approved. Beyond this, Caringal had no knowledge of any transaction or promise
allegedly made to the Lugars. She surmised that it must have been Rev. Tan who promised
to deploy the Lugars abroad and she was just being used as a fall guy. THDIaC

Illegal recruitment is large scale if committed against three or more persons

individually or as a group. 2 Here, however, the prosecution presented only the cases of the
Lugars. For this reason, on December 15, 2008 the RTC convicted petitioner Caringal only
of simple illegal recruitment and sentenced her to a prison term of 6 years and 1 day, as
minimum, to 12 years, as maximum, and to pay a ne of P200,000.00. 3 The prosecution
proved the two essential elements of illegal recruitment: one, that the offender had no valid
license or authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers; and
two, that he had undertaken an act of "recruitment and placement" as de ned under Article
13 (b) 4 or any of the urohibited practices enumerated in Article 34 5 of the Labor Code.
Here, petitioner Caringal categorically admitted on cross-examination that she did
not have any license from the POEA to deploy workers abroad. And, the trial court found
incredible her defense that she did not know the signi cance of the transactions for which
she issued the receipts. Indeed Caringal was a college graduate and served as MHUFI's
office manager.
The trial court also found petitioner Caringal guilty of estafa under Article 315,
paragraph (2) (a) of the Revised Penal Code 6 and sentenced her to suffer the
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from 3 years and 1 day of prision
correccional, as minimum, to 10 years of prision mayor, as maximum. 7 The trial court
further ordered Caringal to indemnify Devina P49,850.00 as actual damages plus 12%
interest per annum reckoned from the time that the case was filed. ATCaDE

The evidence is clear that, by falsely pretending that she had the capability of
deploying the Lugars for overseas placement, petitioner Caringal succeeded in deceiving
them into giving her money for fees. The defense failed to show that the Lugars harbored
some ill feeling or animosity against her that could have motivated them to falsely accuse
her of estafa. It would be against human nature and experience for strangers to conspire
and accuse another stranger of a most serious crime just to mollify their hurt feelings. As
such, the testimonies of the Lugars that it was petitioner who transacted business with
them, promised them jobs, and in exchange, received money from them, are credible and
trustworthy. 8
Petitioner Caringal attempted to appeal the RTC Decision to the Court of Appeals
(CA) in CA-G.R. CR 32550 but on January 31, 2011 the latter court dismissed her appeal
for failure to le appellant's brief 9 despite a 30-day extension and a fresh period of 10
days to convince the court not to dismiss the appeal. 1 0
On February 14, 2011 petitioner, through a new counsel, led a motion for
reconsideration with the CA pleading that she be given another chance to le an
appellant's brief since her previous lawyer was remiss in his duties. On March 1, 2011 the
CA denied petitioner's motion for lack of merit. The CA likewise denied her second motion
for reconsideration, hence, this petition for certiorari.
AaCcST

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 The O ce of the Solicitor General raised two points in its comment on the petition.
First, petitioner Caringal's failure to le her appellant's brief as required automatically
warranted the dismissal of her appeal. She was bound by the negligence or mistake of her
counsel when the latter failed to le the same. 1 1 Second, she led her petition for
certiorari beyond the reglementary period, given that her ling a second motion for
reconsideration before the CA, a prohibited pleading, did not toll the running of the period
for her to le a special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. 1 2 Thus,
even assuming that she could not be faulted for her previous counsel's mistake, she was
bound by her present counsel's mistake in not filing the present petition on time.
At any rate, the Court nds no grave of abuse of discretion on the part of the CA in
dismissing petitioner Caringal's appeal. The CA Resolution may be harsh to her but it falls
within the pale of reasonable discretion. An appeal is not a right but a choice and a
privilege. Thus, when she failed to le her appellant's brief despite the CA's numerous
liberalities, then it was correct in concluding that she had abandoned her cause. Moreover,
the Court has read petitioner's appellant's brief and her arguments. It found no merit in
them.
WHEREFORE , this Court AFFIRMS the Court of Appeals Resolution in CA-G.R. C.R.
32550 dated January 31, 2011 that dismissed petitioner Rowena C. Caringal's appeal for
failure to le appellant's brief and Resolution dated March 1, 2011 that denied her motion
for reconsideration.
SO ORDERED ." DSAacC

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) LUCITA ABJELINA SORIANO

Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes

1. Petitioner allegedly promised Devina Lugar a job in Palau, USA as a waitress earning
P30,000.00 a month. She then gave petitioner P40,000.00 as placement fee for which
petitioner issued a receipt. It was agreed that such amount would be, returned if her Visa
were not delivered as promised. Petitioner also told her that before she can be deployed,
she would have to be inducted as member of the Ministry of Healing and Uni cation
Foundation International (MHUFI) and pay P3,500.00. Devina likewise paid P2,600.00 for
medical examination and P3,750.00 for the correction of an error in her Visa.
2. As de ned in Section 6 of Republic Act 8042, otherwise known as the Migrant Workers and
Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995.
3. Rollo, pp. 18-19: Under Section 7 of R.A. 8042, any person found guilty of illegal recruitment
shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of not less than six (6) years and one (1) day
but not more than twelve (12) years and a ne of not less than two hundred thousand
pesos (P200,000.00) nor more than ve hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00). As held
in People v. Simon (234 SCRA 555 [1994]), the provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence
Law are applicable in the following manner: "It is true that Section 1 of said law, after
providing for indeterminate sentence for an offense under the Revised Penal Code,
states that, 'If the offense is punished by any other law, the court shall sentence the
accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the
maximum xed by said law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 prescribed by the same.' We hold that this quoted portion of the section indubitably
refers to an offense under a special law wherein the penalty imposed was not taken
from and is without reference to the Revised Penal Code, as discussed in the preceding
illustrations, such that it may be said that the 'offense is punished' under that law."
4. LABOR CODE, Title I, Article 13. De nitions. — . . . (b) "Recruitment and placement" refers to
any act of canvassing enlisting contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring
workers, and includes referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for
employment, locally or abroad, whether for pro t or not: Provided, That any person or
entity which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee, employment to two or more
persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement.
5. Id., Art. 34. Prohibited practices. — It shall be unlawful for any individual, entity, licensee, or
holder of authority:
(a) To charge or accept, directly or indirectly, any amount greater than that speci ed in the
schedule of allowable fees prescribed by the Secretary of Labor, or to make a worker pay
any amount greater than that actually received by him as a loan or advance;

(b) To furnish or publish any false notice or information or document in relation to recruitment
or employment; . . .
6. 2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or
simultaneously with the commission of fraud: (a) By using ctitious name, or falsely
pretending to possess power, in uence, quali cations, property, credit, agency, business,
or imaginary transactions, or by means of other similar deceits.
7. Rollo, pp. 19-20: The Indeterminate Sentence Law provides that if an offense is punished by
the Revised Penal Code or its amendments, the court shall sentence the accused to an
indeterminate penalty, the maximum term of which shall be that which, in view of the
attending circumstances, can be properly imposed under the rules of the Revised Penal
Code, while the minimum term of which shall be within the range of the penalty next
lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense [Section 1, Art. 4103, as amended by
Act 4225]. Considering that the amount involved is P49,850.00, which exceeds
P22,000.00, accused should be sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty, the
maximum term of which shall be the maximum period of the penalty prescribed, which
is prision correccional in its minimum period to prision mayor in its minimum period, or
from six (6) years, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days to eight (8) years, adding
one year for each additional P10,000.00, although the total penalty which may be
imposed shall not exceed twenty (20) years. The minimum term of the indeterminate
penalty shall be within the range of penalty next lower to that prescribed by law for the
offense, which would be prision correccional minimum and medium periods, or from six
(6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and two (2) months.
8. RTC Decision, rollo, p. 18.

9. Pursuant to Section 8, Rule 124 of the Revised Rules of Court.

10. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices
Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and Florito S. Macalino.
11. Heirs of the late Cruz Barredo v. Sps. Asis , 480 Phil. 642, 650 (2004), citing Alabanzas v.
Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 74697, November 29, 1991, 204 SCRA 304, 308.
12. Rollo, pp. 72-73: According to the OSG, petitioner erroneously assumed that the period to file
the instant petition is sixty (60) days from the denial of her second motion for
reconsideration or until June 1, 2011. Petitioner is mistaken.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com