Legal ResearchPEOPLE VS. LAURELRepublic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaFIRST DIVISION G.R. No. 120353 February 12, 1998PEOPLE OF THE PHLPPNES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.FLOR N. L!UREL, accused-appellant. "ELLOSLLO, J.:This is an appeal fo! the decision of the Re"ional Tial #out of Manila findin" accused-appellant Flo N. $auel "uilt% of ille"al ecuit!ent in la"e scale penali&ed unde 't. (), pa. *b+, in elation to't. (,, pa. *a+, of the $abo #ode.Fo! -, Octobe -,,- to ./ Ma% -,,. accused-appellant Flo N. $auel po!ised e!plo%!ent aboad fo a fee to co!plainin" 0itnesses Ricado San Felipe, Rosauo San Felipe, 1uanito #udal and #enen Ta!bon"co, 1. 2o0eve, afte eceivin" P-.,333.33 fo! Ta!bon"co, 1., P--,333.33 fo! each of the San Felipe bothes and P4,333.33 fo! #udal, $auel ene"ed on he po!ises and 0ent into hidin". Veification 0ith the Philippine Oveseas 5!plo%!ent 'd!inistation *PO5'+ evealed that $auel 0as neithe licensed no authoi&ed to ecuit 0o6es fo oveseas e!plo%!ent. 1 #onse7uentl%, she 0as haled to cout and cha"ed 0ith la"e scale ille"al ecuit!ent.'ccused $auel did not den% the cha"e a"ainst he. Instead, 0hen called to the 0itness stand, she pesented an affidavit of desistance b% 1uanito #udal as 0ell as seveal eceipts, 58hs. 9.,9 9(,9 9:,9 9/9 and 94,9 si"ned b% the othe pivate co!plainants ac6no0led"in" pa%!ent b% he of the a!ounts ta6en fo! the! in 9full settle!ent9 of he obli"ation. 2 Thus, on the basis of these docu!ents, she !oved to dis!iss the case. ;ut the cout a quo denied he !otion on the "ound that the ele!ents of la"e scale ille"al ecuit!ent 0ee established be%ond easonable doubt thou"h the co!bined testi!onies of the fou *:+ offended paties. The cout a quo noted that the affidavit of desistance as 0ell as the eceipts fo pa%!ents !ade 0ee pepaed and si"ned afte the posecution had alead% ested its case. #onse7uentl%, the tial o confedeatin" 0ith one anothe in ca%in" out an% unla0ful o ille"al tansaction, entepise o sche!e defined unde the fist paa"aph heeof.Ille"al ecuit!ent is dee!ed committed in large scale if co!!itted against thee *(+ o !oe pesons individuall% o as a "oup *e!phasis supplied+.The lan"ua"e of the la0 is ve% clea that ille"al ecuit!ent is co!!itted in la"e scale if done against three or more persons individuall% o as a "oup. The nu!be of offendes, 0hethe an individual o a s%ndicate, is cleal% not consideed a facto in the dete!ination of its co!!ission. The ule is 0ell-settled that 0hen the lan"ua"e of the statute is clea, plain and fee fo! a!bi"uit% thee is no oo! fo atte!pted intepetation o e8tended cout ationali&ation of the la0. # The dut% ofthe cout is to appl% it, not to intepet it. 5 #ounsel fo accused-appellant 0as !isled b% the fact that ille"al ecuit!ent in la"e scale is defined i!!ediatel% afte ille"al ecuit!ent b% a s%ndicate. 2o0eve, the onl% eason theefo is that the% ae both consideed offenses involvin" econo!ic sabota"e as the la0 itself so povides. ;esides, 0e have affi!ed ti!e and a"ain the conviction of an individual fo la"e scale ille"al ecuit!ent. $'s e"ads the alle"ed desistance b% pivate co!plaints, 0e ule that althou"h an affidavit of desistance !a% be "iven due couse even if e8ecuted onl% on appeal, it !a% be "iven such cedit onl% 0hen special cicu!stances e8ist en"endein" doubt on the ci!inal liabilit% of the accused. % Othe0ise, 0ithout such special cicu!stances, couts loo6 0ith disfavo on affidavits of etaction 8 considein" the! as e8ceedin"l% uneliable. 9Thee is absolutel% nothin" in the affidavits of etaction e8ecuted b% pivate co!plainants 0hich ceates doubt on the "uilt of accused-appellant. The co!plainants !eel% alle"e that the% !ade a !ista6e and 9!isundestood the cicu!stances.9 10 2o0eve, aside fo! such s0eepin" state!ent as 9!isundestood the cicu!stances,9 no detail is "iven as to ho0 thei !ista6e o !isappehensionof cicu!stances can indicate absence of o at least cast doubt on the "uilt of accused-appellant. OnLEANGIE MORA 2Legal ResearchPEOPLE VS. LAURELthe conta%, 0e have eve% eason to conclude that the affidavits of etaction 0ee e8ecuted b% pivate co!plainants onl% because accused-appellant etuned the !one% ta6en fo! the! as evidenced b% the eceipts !a6ed as 58hs. 9.,9 9(,9 9:,9 9/9 and 94.9 11 's co!plainant Ricado San Felipe testified in cout= 9I 0ill 0ithda0, if the pa%!ents is *sic+ co!plete, si.9 12 Thus, "iven the eason fo thei desistance, the sole!n testi!onies "iven b% pivate co!plainants shall not be dise"aded fo it is a !atte of public inteest that eve% ci!e !ust be posecuted and the autho theeof penali&ed. 13?25R5FOR5, the Decision of the Re"ional Tial #out of Manila convictin" accused-appellant Flo N. $auel of ille"al ecuit!ent in la"e scale penali&ed unde 't. (), pa. *b+, in elation to 't. (,, pa. *a+, of the $abo #ode and sentencin" he to life i!pison!ent is 'FFIRM5D. 2o0eve, the potion of the appealed decision diectin" accused-appellant to pa% the balance of 0hat she had eceived fo! each of pivate co!plainants is D5$5T5D in vie0 of the full settle!ent of he civil liabilit% as ac6no0led"ed b% pivate co!plainants the!selves.SO ORD5R5D.Davide, Jr., Vitug, Panganiban and Quisumbing, JJ., concur.Foo&'o&e(- #etification dated (3 1ul% -,,. b% the PO5' *58h. 9'9+, Oi"inal Recods, p. )... 5nvelope of 58hibits.( Decision dated @ Mach -,,/ penned b% 1ud"e Ro!ulo '. $ope&, RT#-Manila, ;. (:A Rollo, pp. -/-.(.: ;asbacio v. Office of the Seceta%, Depat!ent of 1ustice, B.R. No. -3,::/, @ Nove!be -,,:, .() S#R' /, -3A $ibanan v. Sandi"anba%an, B.R. No. --.()4, -: 1une -,,:, .(( S#R' -4(, -4@A Victoia v. #OM5$5#, B.R. No. -3,33/, -3 1anua%-,,:, .., S#R' .4,, .@(./ #asela v. #out of 'ppeals, No. $-.4@/:, -4 Octobe -,@3, (/ S#R' .@,A Cui