PEOPLE V. CORPUZ (REMEDIAL)

It is axiomatic that findings of facts of the trial court, its calibration of the collective testimonies of witnesses and probative weight thereof and its conclusions culled from said findings are accorded by this Court great respect, if not conclusive effect, because of the unique advantage of the trial court in observing and monitoring at close range, the conduct, deportment, and demeanor of the witnesses as they testify before the trial court. However, this principle does not apply if the trial court ignored, misunderstood, or misconstrued cogent facts and circumstances of substance, which, if considered, would alter the outcome of the case.

The exception obtains in this case.

In the case at bar, we have carefully reviewed the records of the case and found that the prosecution failed to establish that appellant as secretary had control, management, or direction of the recruitment agency. She was tasked to hold document employment contracts from the foreign employers. She did not entertain applicants and she had no discretion over how the business was managed.

The trial court's finding that appellant, being the secretary of the agency, had control over its business, is not only non sequitur but has no evidentiary basis. where it is shown that the employee was merely acting under the direction of his superior and was unaware that this acts constituted a crime, he may not be criminally liable for an act done for and in behalf of his employer.

Anent the issue of whether or not appellant knowingly and intentionally participated in the commission of the crime charged, we find that she did not.

In the case at bar, as the prosecution failed to adduce evidence to prove appellant's active participation in the illegal recruitment activities of the agency, appellant is acquitted on ground of reasonable doubt.