People of
the Philippines vs. Dr. David A. Sobrepeña, Sr., et al.
G.R. No.
204063. December 5, 2016
Facts
Respondents are officers
and employees of Union College of Laguna, an educational institution
in Santa Cruz, Laguna. They were charged in several informations for
allegedly committing Estafa and Large Scale Illegal Recruitment
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Santa Cruz, Laguna. By
reason thereof, respondents were incarcerated. Invoking the
provisions of Section 13, Article III of the Constitution and Section
7, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court and in their belief that the
evidence of their guilt is not strong, respondents filed a Petition
for Bail.
In opposition to the
Petition, the prosecution presented Adelfo Carandang who testified
that:
x xx [S]ometime in June 2008, he saw an advertisement with the phrase
"Work, Earn and Live in Canada" printed on a tarpaulin
placed on the walls of Union College. Thereafter .. after consulting
with his wife, he visited the said institution and inquired about the
said advertisement. He met private-respondent Deobela Fortes who
introduced herself as the Director for Career and Placement of Union
College. The latter told him that Union College is engaged in Careers
and Enhancement Progran1 and it is offering; seminars, trainings and
workshops and that through its Canadian partner known as Jnfoskills
Learning Incorporated of British Columbia (INFOSKILLS) it is offering
high-quality certification classes endorsed by the British Columbia
Ministry of Health and Tourism, Worksafe British Columbia and the
Canadian Red Cross. INFOSKILLS is delivery partner of British
Columbia Ministry of Health and Tourism, Canadian Red Cross,
Construction Safety Network, Enforrn and it is the training agency of
Worksafe British Columbia. Also, he was informed that GDX Visa and
Immigration Incorporated of British Columbia will be providing work
and immigration assessment program for all participants. Fortes
allegedly assured him that the graduates of the program will be hired
as restaurant host, hostess, food and beverage service banquet server
and a host of other jobs in food and beverage industry in Canada with
a monthly fee of 1,500.00 Canadian Dollars; that he can soon become
an immigrant of Canada and be able to bring his family with him
after becoming such; that the program is on a first come first served
basis. Thus, enticed with this promise of a bright future, he
immediately paid the fees and enrolled himself for the first batch.
These include the $2,500 USD for visa and placement fees plus
Php15,000.00 for English Language Proficiency (ELP) fee. Carandang
also testified that the other private-respondents were also very much
active in luring him to join the program. In fact, Dr. Dabao and Dr.
David Sobrepeña told him to wait for his employment contract. But
none was forthcoming, hence the filing of Estafa and Large Scale
Illegal Recruitment cases against the herein petitioners.
Upon cross-examination, Carandang testified that he is a college
graduate, having finished Bachelor of Science in Marketing and
Commerce. He confirmed that he knew Union College to be a school in
Santa Cruz for a long time and that its officers and employees never
had cases for illegal recruitment. He further attested that in the
particular flyer that he got the actual statement was not quoted in
full. The complete statement in the flyer being that: "INVEST IN
YOUR FUTURE GET THE SKILLS YOU NEED TO WORK EARN AND LIVE IN CANADA."
xx x
With respect to the registration form that he signed, Carandang
admitted that although in his judicial affidavit he stated that the
$2,500 USD he paid was for visa processing fees or job placement
fees, however, the registration form that he actually signed does not
contain words of such import. In fact, the $2,500 USD, as stated in
the registration form was for the courses in entry level in food and
hospitality which he admitted to have actually attended under the
tutelage of two Canadian instructors who served as their professors.
Furthermore, Carandang testified on cross that while he mentioned in
his judicial affidavit that the alleged victims paid 12 Million
pesos, such conclusion is his mere estimate and he has no personal
knowledge of the actual amount.
RTC Ruling
The RTC denied the
Petition to Bail finding that there is evident proof against all the
accused. This Court holds that the evidence of guilt for all the
accused is STRONG.
The Motion for
Reconsideration filed by the respondents was denied in an Order dated
October 18, 2010.
CA Ruling
The CA was convinced
that the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or in excess of jurisdiction in rendering the assailed Orders.
According to the CA, there is doubt as to whether there is strong
evidence against respondents for the charge of estafa or large scale
illegal recruitment; that the evidence available on record merely
showed that Union College provided the venue and the English language
training course; that the trial court failed to appreciate the fact
that the prosecution purposely took out of context the statement
appearing in the flyer i.e., "INVEST IN YOUR FUTURE GET THE
SKILLS YOU NEED TO WORK, EARN, AND LIVE IN CANADA"; that there
were no statements to the effect that Union College is acting as a
job placement agency; that there is no direct evidence to show that
Carandang was illegally enticed by respondents to enroll at Union
College; that there is no direct evidence showing that respondents
overtly represented that they have the power to send the trainees
abroad for employment; and finally, there is no evidence that
respondents are flight risk.
Petitioner's Motion for
Reconsideration was denied per Resolution dated October 3, 2012.
Thus, petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari for the
reversal and setting aside of the January 31, 2012 CA Decision and
its October 3, 2012 Resolution and likewise prayed that the impugned
Orders of the RTC be reinstated.
Issue: Whether the
CA committed reversible error when it nullified and set aside the
Orders of the RTC.
SC Ruling
We rule in favor of the
petitioner. Section 13, Article III of the Constitution provides:
Section 13. All persons, except those charged with offenses
punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong,
shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties or be
released on recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to bail
shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required.
Section 7, Rule 114 of
the Rules of Court also states that no person charged with a capital
offense or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment, shall be admitted to bail when the evidence of guilt is
strong, regardless of the stage of the criminal action.
Thus from the
above-cited provisions and in cases involving non-bailable offenses,
what is controlling is the determination of whether the evidence of
guilt is strong which is a matter of judicial discretion that remains
with the judge. The judge is under legal obligation to conduct a
hearing whether summary or otherwise in the discretion of the court
to determine the existence of strong evidence or lack of it against
the accused to enable the judge to make an intelligent assessment of
the evidence presented by the parties. xxx xxx On such hearing, the
Court does not sit to try the merits or to enter into any nice
inquiry as to the weight that ought to be allowed to the evidence for
or against the accused, nor will it speculate on the outcome of the
trial or on what further evidence may be therein offered and
admitted. The course of inquiry may be left to the discretion of the
court which may confine itself to receiving such evidence as has
reference to substantial matters, avoiding unnecessary examination
and cross-examination."
In the present case, the
CA gave due course to the Petition imputing grave abuse of discretion
on the part of the RTC in denying bail to respondents. The CA held
that based on the evidence thus far presented by the prosecution in
the bail hearing, the evidence of guilt is not strong against Union
College particularly its employees and officers with respect to the
charges filed against them.
From a perspective of
the CA Decision, the issue therein resolved is not so much on the
bail application but already on the merits of the case. The matters
dealt therein involved the evaluation of evidence which is not within
the jurisdiction of the CA to resolve in a Petition for Certiorari.
The findings and assessment of the trial court during the bail
hearing were only a preliminary appraisal of the strength of the
prosecution's evidence for the limited purpose of determining whether
respondents are entitled to be released on bail during the pendency
of the trial.
We would like to stress
that "a writ of certiorari may be issued only for the correction
of errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. It does not
include correction of the trial court's evaluation of the evidence
and factual findings thereon. It does not go as far as to examine and
assess the evidence of the parties and to weigh the probative value
thereof"
WHEREFORE, premises
considered, the Petition is GRANTED.
No comments:
Post a Comment