SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 117010. April 18, 1997.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , plaintiff-appellee, vs . ENGR. CARLOS

GARCIA y PINEDA, PATRICIO BOTERO y VALES, LUISA MIRAPLES
(at large) , accused, PATRICIO BOTERO y VALES , accused-appellant.

The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.

Tomas J. Caspe for accused-appellant.

SYLLABUS

1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; DOCTRINE OF FALSUS IN UNO, FALSUS IN OMNIBUS;

RARELY ADHERED TO BY THE COURTS. — Under present jurisprudence, the doctrine of
falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is rarely adhered to by the courts. It is possible to admit
and lend credence to the testimony of a witness whom the Court has earlier found to have
wilfully perjured himself. ". . . (T)he testimony of a witness may be believed in part and
disbelieved in part, depending upon the corroborative evidence and the probabilities and
improbabilities of the case." In the case at bar, we hold that the trial court did not err in
giving credence to the testimony of Esclada against appellant Botero since it was
corroborated on its material points by the testimony of other witnesses. In fact, Esclada's
testimony against Botero is trustworthy as he gave it after his conscience bothered him
for not telling the truth.
2. CRIMINAL LAW; PENAL PROVISIONS OF THE LABOR CODE; ILLEGAL
RECRUITMENT; ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME. — Beyond any reasonable doubt, appellant
Botero engaged in recruitment and placement activities in that he, through Ricorn,
promised the complainants employment abroad. Under the Labor Code, recruitment and
placement refers to 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." All the essential
elements of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale are present in this case, to wit: "
(1) the accused engages in the recruitment and placement of workers, as de ned under
Article 13 (b) or in any prohibited activities under Article 34 of the Labor Code; (2) accused
has not complied with the guidelines issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment,
particularly with respect to the securing of a license or an authority to recruit and deploy
workers, either locally or overseas; and (3) accused commits the same against three (3) or
more persons, individually or as a group." It is a fact that Ricorn had no license to recruit
from DOLE. In the o ce of Ricorn, a notice was posted informing job applicants that its
recruitment license is still being processed. Yet, Ricorn already entertained applicants and
collected fees for processing their travel documents.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT IN LARGE SCALE; COMMITTED IN CASE AT
BAR. — Appellant Botero is guilty of the crime of illegal recruitment in a large scale
considering it was proven that he, together with this cohorts, were able to defraud the six
complainant-witnesses in this case. Under Article 38 (b) of the Labor Code, illegal
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 recruitment in large scale is perpetrated if committed against three (3) or more persons
individually if committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group. And
under Article 39(a) of the same Code, accused-appellant's crime is punishable by life
imprisonment and fine of one hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00).
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; LIABILITY OF CORPORATE OFFICIALS. — For engaging in
recruitment of workers without obtaining the necessary license from the POEA, Botero
should suffer the consequences of Recorn's illegal act for "(i)f the offender is a
corporation, partnership, association or entity, the penalty shall be imposed upon the
o cer or o cers of the corporation, partnership, association or entity responsible for
violation; . . ." The evidence shows that appellant Botero was one of the incorporators of
Ricorn. For reasons that cannot be discerned from the records. Ricorn's incorporation was
not consummated. Even then, appellant cannot avoid his liabilities to the public as an
incorporator of Ricorn. He and his co-accused Garcia held themselves out to the public as
officers of Ricorn. They received money from applicants who availed of their services. They
are thus estopped from claiming that they are not liable as corporate O cials Of Ricorn.
Section 25 of the Corporation Code provides that "(a)ll persons who assume to act as a
corporation knowing it to be without authority to do so shall be liable as general partners
for all the debts, liabilities and damages incurred or arising as a result thereof; Provided,
however, That when any such ostensible corporation is sued on any transaction entered by
it as a corporation or on any tort committed by it as such, it shall not be allowed to use as
a defense its lack of corporate personality."

DECISION

PUNO , J : p

Before us is an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court in Criminal Case
No. 93871 convicting accused-appellant Patricio Botero of illegal recruitment in large
scale and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment. 1
In an Information dated July 21, 1992, accused-appellant Patricio Botero together
with Carlos P. Garcia and Luisa Miraples were charged with the crime of illegal recruitment
in large scale de ned by Article 38 (b) and penalized under Article 39 (a) of the Labor
Code, as amended by Presidential Decree Nos. 1920 and 2018, committed as follows: aisadc

Botero together with

Garcia and Miraples
were charged with "That on or before March 2, 1992, and subsequently thereafter, in the
illegal recruitment
Municipality of Mandaluyong, Metro Manila, Philippines, a place within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and
confederating together and mutually helping and aiding each other, representing
themselves to have authority, license and/or permit to contract, enlist and recruit
workers for overseas employment, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously for a fee, recruit and promise job placement/employment abroad to
the following individuals, to wit:

1. Gloria Silaras y Barbero

2. Rolando Consigna y Ogana

3. Ma. Carmen Daluaidao

4. Zosimo La Puebla, Jr.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 5. Mario Espada y Melodia

6. Arnel Santilla y Villalos

7. Elsa Delubio

8. Abener Siriban y Abatuan

9. Franklin Cabingan y Casalla

10. Jose Erwin Estinoso

11. Edgardo Belen y Juanillo

12. Ariel Rivada y Pascual

13. Sunny Pinco y Pascua

14. Rolando Santiago y Magno

15. Alfredo Estinoso y Estrada

16. Luisito Vargas y Quizon

without rst securing the required license or authority from the Department
of Labor and Employment.
Contrary to law." 2 (Emphasis supplied.)

Accused Garcia and Botero pleaded not guilty upon arraignment on January 19,
1993 and March 31, 1993, respectively. Miraples remained at large as the warrant of arrest
against her was returned unserved. A joint trial was conducted against the two (2) accused
complainants
testified that considering that their cases involve the same parties and issues. 3
on various
dates, they
went to ricorn
and applied
as seamen,
Six (6) out of the sixteen (16) complaints testi ed as prosecution witnesses. 4
cook, waiter,
These complainants were Edgardo Belen, Gloria Silaras, Alfredo Estinoso, Jose Erwin
etc. to Botero
and Garcia
Esclada, Elsa Delubio and Ariel Rivada. They testi ed that on various dates in March 1992,
they went to Ricorn Philippine International Shipping Lines, Inc. (hereinafter Ricorn), an
entity which recruits workers for overseas employment, with o ce at Rm. 410, Jovan
Building, 600 Shaw Blvd., Mandaluyong, Metro Manila. They applied as seamen, cook,
they were
waiter, chambermaid or laundrywoman overseas. 5 Esclada applied to accused Botero. All
submit docusthe other complainants coursed their application to accused Garcia who represented
required to

and
processing himself as president of Ricorn. 6 Complainants were required to submit their NBI and
fee
police clearance, birth certi cate, passport, seaman's book and Survival of Life at Sea
(SOLAS). 7 As they did not have the last three (3) documents, they were asked to pay ve
thousand pesos (P5,000.00) as processing fee. They paid to Ricorn's treasurer, Luisa
Miraples. 8 They were issued receipts signed by Miraples. The receipts were under Ricorn's
heading. 9
Garcia and Botero assured complainants of employment after the May 11, 1992
election. Accused Botero, as the vice-president of Ricorn, followed-up their passports,
seaman's book and SOLAS. He told some applicants to wait for their papers and informed
complainantsthe others that their papers were in order.
discovered
that ricorn

After the election, complainants went back to Ricorn to check on their applications.
abandoned
its office and
that they
were not
registered w They discovered that Ricorn had abandoned its office at Jovan Building for non-payment of
the SEC
rentals. 1 0 Hoping against hope, they went back to the building several times to recover
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 their money. Their persistence was to no avail for Garcia and Botero were nowhere to be
found. They then went to the Mandaluyong Police Station and led their complaints. 1 1
They also checked with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and discovered
that Ricorn was not yet incorporated. They also found that Ricorn was not licensed by the
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) to engage in recruitment activities. 1 2
Accused Garcia testi ed that he is an electrical engineer by profession. According
to him, the group of Teresita Celso, Patricio Botero, Alice Mayonte, Luisa Miraples and
Edna Hemolaga approached him at a baptismal party to join Ricorn. He was asked to
contribute one hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00). He told them he would borrow the
money from his brother in the United States.
In February 1992, accused Garcia saw the group again in a small apartment in San
Juan which they utilized as their o ce. He met them once more at Ricorn's o ce at Jovan
Bldg. where there were many applicants for overseas jobs. This time, they asked him to
become Ricorn's president and to contribute only twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00).
He declined the offer. Allegedly, he already knew that Ricorn was not licensed by the
Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA) or registered as a corporation with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). He denied he issued receipts to complainants
in this case. 1 3
Accused-appellant Botero is a marine engineer by profession but was working as a
barber when the trial took place. He testi ed that he became acquainted with Ricorn when
he applied for overseas employment as a machinist. He dealt with accused Garcia who
claimed to be the President of Ricorn. Eventually, he gained the trust of Garcia and became
an employee of Ricorn. Three (3) times a week, he reported for work at Jovan Building. 1 4
As a former seaman, he was familiar with the processing of passport, seaman's book and
SOLAS. His job consisted in following-up these documents. He left Ricorn when he
discovered it was not licensed by the POEA nor was it registered with the SEC. 1 5 He
denied he recruited the complainants and received any money from them. 1 6 However, on
cross-examination, he admitted that in February 1992, he met Garcia in TADE recruitment
agency. Garcia convinced him to become one of the incorporators of Ricorn. He gave
money to Garcia for Ricorn's registration with the SEC. They held o ce at Jovan Building
from March 2, 1992 to April 20, 1992. 1 7
After trial, accused Garcia and Botero were convicted in a decision dated April 19,
1995, to wit:
"WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, accused CARLOS P. GARCIA and
PATRICIO BOTERO are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of
illegal recruitment on (sic) a large scale constituting economic sabotage under
Article 38(b) and punishable under Article 39(a) of the Labor Code as amended
and are sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a ne of
P100,000.00 each. They are also ordered to indemnify and pay jointly and
severally each of the six (6) complainants the amount of P5,000.00. Both
accused are also ordered to pay the cost of suit.

SO ORDERED." 1 8

The case against accused Miraples was archived by the court. 19 She has remained
at large. cdasia

Only accused Botero, thru counsel, led a Notice of Appeal. In his Brief, he raises the
following assignments of error, to wit: 2 0
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 "I
"THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY
THE PROSECUTION AGAINST ACCUSED-APPELLANT PATRICIO BOTERO IS
SUFFICIENT FOR CONVICTION.
II

"THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT IN TRUTH AND IN FACT
THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT PATRICIO BOTERO DID NOT CONSPIRE WITH CO-
ACCUSED CARLOS P. GARCIA.
III
"THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT ACCUSED-APPELLANT
PATRICIO BOTERO IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT
ACTIVITIES OF CO-ACCUSED CARLOS P. GARCIA.

IV
"THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF JOSE
ERWIN ESCLADA WHICH IS NOT ADMISSIBLE FOR BEING INCONSISTENT,
HIGHLY IMPROBABLE AND EXAGGERATED AND IN NOT GIVING WEIGHT TO THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT PATRICIO BOTERO'S EVIDENCE."

We sustain appellant's conviction.

Appellant Botero predicates his appeal on the alleged insu ciency of evidence to
support his conviction. More particularly, he assails the credibility of witness Esclada.
Esclada initially testi ed that he dealt with accused Garcia when he led his
application with Ricorn as a seaman. On cross-examination, however, he admitted it was
really accused Botero with whom he transacted, viz:
"Q But I thought you stated earlier on the third time, you talked to a certain Edna
because Carlos Garcia is not around (sic) on the same time, it was Carlos
Garcia who instructed you to give P5,000.00.
"A I have told a lie, sir. My conscience could not take it.

"COURT TO THE WITNESS

"Q So, what is the truth now because I will put you in jail?

"A When I applied at Ricorn (Phil.) with Mr. Botero, Mr. Garcia was not around but
it was Botero who said that my papers were alright." 2 1
In effect, accused-appellant Botero wants this court to apply the doctrine of falsus
in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one part, false in everything) and to disregard the entire
testimony of Esclada.
Under present jurisprudence, this maxim of law is rarely adhered to by the courts. 2 2
It is possible to admit and lend credence to the testimony of a witness whom the Court
has earlier found to have willfully perjured himself. ". . . (T)he testimony of a witness may be
believed in part and disbelieved in part, depending upon the corroborative evidence and the
probabilities and improbabilities of the case." 2 3 In the case at bar, we hold that the trial
court did not err in giving credence to the testimony of Esclada against appellant Botero
since it was corroborated on its material points by the testimony of other witnesses. In
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Botero
claimed that fact, Esclada's testimony against Botero is trustworthy as he gave it after his conscience
he merely
performed
minimal
bothered him for not telling the truth.
activities like
following up
on the docus
of the
We reject appellant Botero's pretense that he is also a victim rather than a culprit in
applicants
this case. He insist he was a mere applicant of Ricorn and not a conspirator of the other
accused who defrauded the complainants. He claims that even as a Ricorn employee, he
merely performed "minimal activities" like following-up applicants' passports, seaman's
book and SOLAS, and conducting simple interviews. He denies he had a hand in the
selection of workers to be employed abroad. 2 4 These submissions are at war with the
evidence on record. His co-accused Garcia introduced him to the complainants as the vice-
president of Ricorn. He used a table with a nameplate confirming he was the vice-president
of Ricorn. 2 5 He procured the passports, seaman's books and SOLAS for the applicants. It
was from him that the complainants inquired about the status of their applications. 2 6 He
we reject also admitted he gave money to accused Garcia for Ricorn's incorporation.
Botero’s
pretense that
he is a victim
rather than a Beyond any reasonable doubt, appellant Botero engaged in recruitment and
culprit
placement activities in that he, through Ricorn, promised the complainants employment
abroad. Under the Labor Code, 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." 2 7
All the essential elements of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale are
present in this case, to wit:
"(1) the accused engages in the recruitment and placement of workers, as
de ned under Article 13 (b) or in any prohibited activities under Article 34 of the
Labor Code; cdll

"(2) accused has not complied with the guidelines issued by the Secretary
of Labor and Employment, particularly with respect to the securing of a license or
an authority to recruit and deploy workers, either locally or overseas; and
"(3) accused commits the same against three (3) or more persons,
individually or as a group." 2 8
It is a fact that Ricorn had no license to recruit from DOLE. In the o ce of Ricorn, a
For engaging
in the
recruitment of
workers
without notice was posted informing job applicants that its recruitment license is still being
processed. Yet, Ricorn already entertained applicants and collected fees for processing
obtaining the
necessary
license from
POEA, Botero
should suffertheir travel documents. 2 9
the
consequences
of Ricorn’s
illegal act For engaging in recruitment of workers without obtaining the necessary license
from the POEA, Botero should suffer the consequences of Ricorn's illegal act for "(i)f the
shows that offender is a corporation, partnership, association or entity, the penalty shall be imposed
Evidence

one of the upon the o cer or o cers of the corporation, partnership, association or entity
Botero was

incorporators
of Ricorn and
the responsible for violation; . . ." 3 0 The evidence shows that appellant Botero was one of the
was not incorporators of Ricorn. For reasons that cannot be discerned from the records, Ricorn's
incorporation

consummated

Appellant
incorporation was not consummated. Even then, appellant cannot avoid his liabilities to the
cannot avoidpublic as an incorporator of Ricorn. He and his co-accused Garcia held themselves out to
his liabilities

and as an the public as o

to the public
cers of Ricorn. They received money from applicants who availed of their
incorporator.
They receivedservices. They are thus estopped from claiming that they are not liable as corporate
money from
applicants
o cials of Ricorn. 3 1 Section 25 of the Corporation Code provides that "(a)ll persons who
they are estopped from claiming
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 that they are not liable as cdasiaonline.com
corporate officials
 all persons who assume to act as a corp knowing
it will be without authority to do so shall be liable
as general partners for all the debts, liabilities, and
damages incurred
assume to act as a corporation knowing it to be without authority to do so shall be liable
as general partners for all the debts, liabilities and damages incurred or arising as a result
thereof : Provided, however, That when any such ostensible corporation is sued on any
transaction entered by it as a corporation or on any tort committed by it as such, it shall
not be allowed to use as a defense its lack of corporate personality."
Botero is guilty of the crime of illegal recruitment
since it was proven that he, together with his
cohorts, were able to defraud the 6 complainants
Appellant Botero is guilty of the crime of illegal recruitment in a large scale
considering it was proven that he, together with his cohorts, were able to defraud the six
complainant-witnesses in this case. Under Article 38 (b) of the Labor Code, illegal
recruitment in large scale is perpetrated if committed against three (3) or more persons
individually or as a group. And under Article 39 (a) of the same Code, accused-appellant's
crime is punishable by life imprisonment and a ne of one hundred thousand pesos
(P100,000.00).
Finally, it is fruitless for appellant to deny he conspired with his co-accused to
commit the crime at bar. The fact that all the accused were co-conspirators in defrauding
the complainants could be inferred from their acts. They played different roles in
defrauding complainants: accused Garcia was the president, appellant Botero was the
vice-president and accused-at-large Miraples was the treasurer of Ricorn. 3 2 Each one
played a part in the recruitment of complainants. They were indispensable to each other.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the decision of the Regional Trial Court convicting accused-
appellant Patricio Botero of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale is a rmed in all
respects. Costs against accused-appellant. llcd

SO ORDERED.
Regalado, Romero, Mendoza and Torres, Jr., JJ ., concur.

Footnotes
1. Decision penned by Presiding Judge Jose R. Hernandez, Branch 158, National Capital
Judicial Region, Pasig, Metro Manila.
2. Rollo, p. 3.
3. Rollo, p. 3.

4. Ibid.
5. TSN dated February 15, 1993, pp. 4, 9; TSN dated February 17, 1993, p. 3; TSN dated March
3, 1993, p. 3; TSN dated March 8, 1993, p. 4.
6. TSN dated February 9, 1993, p. 10; TSN dated February 15, 1993, p. 4; TSN dated February 9,
1993, p. 6; TSN dated February 24, 1993, p. 13. TSN dated March 3, 1993, pp. 3, 9, 11;
TSN dated March 8, 1993, pp. 8, 9, 11; TSN dated April 27, 1993, p. 3; Decision, p. 2;
Rollo, p. 20.
7. TSN dated February 9, 1993, p. 11.
8. TSN dated February 9, 1993, p. 11; TSN dated February 15, 1993, p. 4; TSN dated February
17, 1993, p. 3, TSN dated February 24, 1993, pp. 4, 6; TSN dated March 3, 1993, pp. 3, 10,
13; TSN dated March 8, 1993, pp. 4, 13.
9. TSN dated February 15, 1993, p. 7; TSN dated February 24, 1993, p. 7; Exhibits "B", "D", "E" "G",
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 "H", "J", and "K".
10. TSN dated February 15, 1993, p. 5; TSN dated February 17, 1993, p. 4; TSN dated February
24, 1993, p. 5; TSN dated March 3, 1993, pp. 4, 5; TSN dated March 3, 1993, p. 5.
11. TSN dated February 15, 1993, p. 6.

12. TSN dated February 15, 1993, p. 6; TSN dated March 3, 1993, p. 5; Exhibits "A" and "I".
13. TSN dated January 19, 1993, p. 3.
14. TSN dated October 6, 1993, p. 7.
15. Ibid, p. 8.
16. Ibid, p. 7.

17. Ibid, p. 6.
18. Decision, p. 8; Rollo, p. 26.
19. Original Record, p. 215.
20. Appellant's Brief, p. 1; Rollo, p. 60.
21. TSN dated February 24, 1993, p. 12.

22. Lagunsad v. Court of Appeals , 229 SCRA 596, 599 (1994) citing People v. Pacis , 130 SCRA
540 (1984), People v. Surban, 123 SCRA 218 (1983).

23. People v. Cura, 240 SCRA 203, 234 (1995) citing People v. Refuerzo, 82 Phil. 576 (1949).
24. Appellant's Brief, p. 17; Rollo, p. 77.
25. TSN dated February 24, 1993, p. 6.
26. TSN dated February 17, 1993, p. 6; TSN dated February 24, 1993, pp. 6, 10; TSN dated
March 3, 1993, pp. 9, 14; TSN dated April 21, 1993, p. 2; TSN dated April 27, 1993, p. 3;
TSN dated May 11, 1993, p. 2.
27. Article 13 (b), Labor Code of the Philippines, 1996 ed.
28. People v. Bautista, 241 SCRA 216, 220 (1995).
29. TSN dated February 24, 1993, p. 5.

30. Article 39 (d), Labor Code of the Philippines, 1996 ed.

31. Albert v. University Publishing Co., Inc ., 13 SCRA 84 (1965); Vda. de Salvatierra v. Hon.
Garlitos etc., and Refuerzo, 103 Phil. 757, 764 (1958).
32. People v. Alforte, 219 SCRA 458, 468 (1993).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com