PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. FLORENCIO GASACAO | G.R. No. 168445 | November 11, 2005

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. FLORENCIO GASACAO
G.R. No. 168445, November 11, 2005

Facts

Capt. Florencio O. Gasacao was the crewing manager of Great Eastern Shipping Agency, Inc., which company was headed by his nephew. On August 4, 2000 appellant and Jose Gasacao were charged with Large Scale Illegal Recruitment. The appellant was arrested while his nephew remained at large. The lower court found Capt. Gasacao guilty beyond reasonable doubt of large scale illegal recruitment. The Court of Appeals also affirmed the decision. Hence, Capt. Gasacao appealed to the Supreme Court claiming that he can‘t be held liable for illegal recruitment because he was just a mere employee of the manning agency. He also claimed that he was not aware of the law against prohibition on bonds and deposits under section 60 of the Omnibus Rules and Regulations implementing R.A. 8042. 
 
Issue

Whether or not the appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of large scale illegal recruitment. 
 
Ruling

There is no merit in appellant‘s contention that he was just a mere employee of the manning agency because he was the company‘s crewing manager. As testified by the witnesses, the accused appellant actively participated in the recruitment process from receiving job applications, interviewing the applicants, and informing them of the agency‘s requirement of payment of performance or cash bond prior to the deployment. The Supreme Court held further that appellants defense of ignorance is not commendable as provided for by Article 3 of the Civil Code which states that ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith. The defense of goodwill is neither unavailable because the appellant failed to deploy the complainants without valid reasons.  
 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

MICIANO vs. BRIMO | G.R. No. L-22595 | November 1, 1927

MICIANO vs. BRIMO G.R. No. L-22595, November 1, 1927  Facts Joseph G. Brimo, a citizen of Turkey, died and left a partition of the estate. Juan Miciano, the judicial administrator of the estate left filed a scheme of partition. However, Andre Brimo, one of the brothers of the deceased, opposed it. Brimo‘s opposition is based on the fact that the partition in question puts into effect the provisions of Joseph Brimo‘s will which are not in accordance with the laws of his Turkish nationality, for which reason they are void as being in violation of Article 10 of the Civil Code.  Issue Whether or not the national law of the testator is the one to govern his testamentary disposition.  Ruling Joseph Brimo, a Turkish citizen, though he declared in his will that Philippine laws must govern the disposition of his estate; however, it must not prejudice the heir or legatee of the testator. Therefore, the testator‘s national law must govern in accordance wit...
Read more

MICHAEL C. GUY vs. COURT OF APPEALS | G.R. No. 163707 | September 15, 2006

MICHAEL C. GUY vs. COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No. 163707, September 15, 2006    Facts On October 29, 1992, Sima Wei died in Makati City leaving an estate valued 10 million more or less. His known heirs are his spouse Shirley Guy with their children five children. On June 13, 1997, private respondents Karen Oanes Wei and Kamille Oanes Wei represented by their mother Remedios filed a petition for letters of administration before the Regional Trial Court alleging that they are duly acknowledged illegitimate children of Sima Wei. However, petitioner and co-heirs alleged that private respondent‘s claim had been paid, waived, abandoned, or otherwise extinguished by Remedios‘ June 7, 1993 Release and Waiver of Claim stating that in exchange for the financial and educational support received from petitioner, Remedios and her minor children discharge the estate of Sima Wei and any and all liabilities.   The petition was denied in the lower court and the motion for reconsidered dis...
Read more

EDUARDO MANUEL vs. PEOPLE | GR. No. 165842 | November 29, 2005

EDUARDO MANUEL vs. PEOPLE GR. No. 165842, November 29, 2005    Facts This case is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of Court of Appeals affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, convicting the petitioner for the crime of bigamy.    Eduardo P. Manuel, herein petitioner, was first married to Rubylus Gaña on July 18, 1975, who, according to the former, was charged with estafa in 1975 and thereafter imprisoned and was never seen again by him after his last visit. Manuel met Tina B. Gandalera in January 1996 when the latter was only 21 years old. Three months after their meeting, the two got married through a civil wedding in BaguioCity without Gandalera‘s knowledge of Manuel‘s first marriage. In the course of their marriage, things got rocky and Gandalera learned that Eduardo was in fact already married when he married him. She then filed a criminal case of bigamy against Eduardo Manuel. The latter‘s defense being that his decla...
Read more