You are on page 1of 12

Jose Ysrael C.

Cordova Labor Review
G.R. No. 125044 July 13, 1998 IMELDA DARVIN, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents. Facts: Imelda Darvin offered her services to one Macaria Toledo to assist her to secure a passport, visa, and airline tickets to US. Macaria Toledo was introduced by her friends Florencio Jake Rivera Jr. and Leonila Rivera. She claims that she did not promise any employment in the U.S. to Toledo. She, however, admits receiving the amount of P150,000.00 from the latter but contends that it was used for necessary expenses of an intended trip to the United States of Toledo and her friend. She likewise testified that she was able to secure Toledo's passport and even set up a date for an interview with the US embassy. Accused alleged that she was not engaged in illegal recruitment but merely acted as a travel agent in assisting individuals to secure passports and visa. Despite of her defense, Bacoor, Cavite RTC ruled that accused-appellant guilty of the crime of simple illegal recruitment but acquitted her of the crime of estafa. Issue: Law: Is the accused indeed engaged in recruitment activities, as defined under the Labor Code? Art. 13 of the Labor Code, as amended, provides the definition of recruitment and placement as: . . .; b) 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 profit 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. On the other hand, Article 38 of the Labor Code provides: a) Any recruitment activities, including the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of this Code, to be undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of authority shall be deemed illegal and punishable under Article 39 of this Code. The Ministry of Labor and Employment or any law enforcement officer may initiate complaints under this Article.

Ruling: The Court can hardly rely on the bare allegations of private respondent that she was offered by accused of employment abroad, nor on mere presumptions and conjectures, to convict the latter. No sufficient evidence was shown to sustain the conviction, as the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish that accusedappellant indeed engaged in recruitment activities, thus committing the crime of illegal recruitment. In criminal cases, the burden is on the prosecution to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, the essential elements of the offense with which the accused is charged; and if the proof fails to establish any of the essential elements necessary to constitute a crime, the defendant is entitled to an acquittal. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof as, excluding the possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or that degree of proof which produces a conviction in an unprejudiced mind. Opinion: Sufficient evidence must be shown to sustain the conviction in the crime of illegal recruitment. This is to prove that the accused indeed engaged in recruitment activities. G.R. No. 184058 March 10, 2010

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. MELISSA CHUA, Appellant. Facts: That sometime during the month of September, 2002, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping each other, representing themselves to have the capacity to contract, enlist and transport Filipino workers for employment abroad, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly for a fee, recruit and promise employment or job placement abroad to Erik de Guia Tan, Marilyn O. Macaranas, Napoleon H. Yu Jr., Harry James P. King and Roberto C. Angeles for overseas employment abroad without first having secured the required license from the Department of Labor and Employment as required by law, and charge or accept directly from Erik Tan 73,000.00, Marilyn Macaranas 83,000.00, Napoleon Yu 23,000.00, Harry James King 23,000.00, Roberto Angeles 23,000.00.

1

Appellant. 38. owned by one Marilyn Calueng. province of Bulacan. shall be deemed illegal and punishable under Article 39 of the Labor Code of the Philippines. contracting. and includes referrals. Feliciano S. who is her godmother. del Rosario. placement or deployment of Wilson A. – (a) Any recruitment activities. Leo J. vs. Ruling: Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring and/or confederating with one another in carrying out any unlawful or illegal transaction. locally or abroad. was an agent. hiring. Issue: Is the accused may be cited for illegal recruitment and estafa even if she was mere a temporary cashier of the company? The term "recruitment and placement" is defined under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code of the Philippines as follows: (b) "Recruitment and placement" refers to any act of canvassing. in any manner. under which appellant was charged. including the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of this Code. the prosecution has to prove three essential elements. to wit: (1) the accused undertook a recruitment activity under Article 13(b) or any prohibited practice under Article 34 of the Labor Code. she maintained that Golden Gate was a licensed recruitment agency and that Josie. 181475 April 7. enlisting. being a non-licensee or non-holder of authority from the Department of Labor and Employment to recruit and/or place workers under local or overseas employment. Cordova Labor Review For purposes of their deployment. in the Municipality of Malolos. together with the employer. 2 . Article 38. Philippines. Ondra. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group. Manzo. 2009 Law: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. Opinion: Even if the accused was a mere temporary cashier of the company. (2) the accused did not have the license or the authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers. the above-named accused. utilizing. Illegal Recruitment. Facts: That in or about the month of November 1999 to January 20. G. 2002 at the office of Golden Gate. No. Claiming having worked as a temporary cashier from January to October. On the other hand. Norberto S. transporting.Jose Ysrael C. an agency with an expired license. and (3) the accused committed such illegal activity against three or more persons individually or as a group. contract services. provides: Art. or as in the present case. whether for profit or not. as amended. provided that she actively and consciously participated in the recruitment process. promising or advertising for employment. undertake illegal recruitment. did then and there willfully and feloniously. it is clear that any recruitment activities to be undertaken by non-licensee or non-holder of contracts. Appellant denied the charges. Thus for illegal recruitment in large scale to prosper. which amounts are in excess of or greater than that specified in the schedule of allowable fees as prescribed by the POEA. paragraph (a) of the Labor Code. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC. Appellee. failed to actually deploy them and failed to reimburse expenses incurred in connection with their documentation and processing for purposes of their deployment.R. That any person or entity which. And illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three or more persons individually or as a group. LARRY "LAURO" DOMINGO. Cruz. enterprise or scheme defined under the first paragraph hereof. offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement. The Ministry of Labor and Employment or any law enforcement officer may initiate complaints under this Article. The accused was convicted of a large scale illegal recruitment and estafa. (b) Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall be considered an offense involving economic sabotage and shall be penalized in accordance with Article 39 hereof. From the foregoing provisions. that did not make her any less an employee to be held liable for illegal recruitment as principal by direct participation. and without valid reasons and without the fault of said complainants. with false pretenses. or procuring workers. 2000. Florentino M. to be undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of authority shall be deemed illegal and punishable under Article 39 of this Code. Provided.

Simeon S. Felipe H. It was Gimeno who undertakes recruitment activities in Dakila. Rodriguez. (Emphasis supplied) On the other hand. whom he met inside the Victory Liner Bus bound for Manila in September. Renato D. Article 38. Dechavez. and that the filing of the complaint against appellant was a desperate attempt on their part to get even because Gimeno could not be located. Mariano Aguilar. Bartolome. provides: Art. including the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of this Code. Romeo Manasala. utilizing. Marcia A. Midel Clara Buensuceso. transporting. Malolos. Testifying anew. Cabigao. Jumaquio. contracting. . Rogelio M. enterprise or scheme defined under the first paragraph hereof. and (3) he/she committed the prohibited practice against three or more persons individually or as a group. To prove illegal recruitment in large scale. Rodolfo M. the prosecution must prove three essential elements. Carreon.(a) Any recruitment activities. and includes referrals. Sorel. denying all the accusations against him. per his affidavit dated March 3. Illegal Recruitment. to be undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of authority shall be deemed illegal and punishable under Article 39 of this Code. Appellant likewise presented as witnesses private complainants Enrico Espiritu and Roberto Castillo who corroborated his claim that it was Gimeno who actually recruited them. in any manner. Jumaquio. Enrico R. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group. That any person or entity which. Eugenio del Rosario y Tolentino. dela Cruz. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group. Sunga. he averred that the one who actually recruited him and his co-complainants and received their money was Danilo Gimeno. Jose Armen F. Espiritu.. The Ministry of Labor and Employment or any law enforcement officer may initiate complaints under this Article. contract services. Dionisio Aguilar. Edcil P. as amended. promising or advertising for employment. Perez. claimed as follows: He was a driver hired by the real recruiter. Balatbat. 2003. locally or abroad. it is clear that any recruitment activities to be undertaken by non-licensee or non-holder of authority shall be deemed illegal and punishable under Article 39 of the Labor Code of the Philippines. Remigio S. Narciso F. paragraph (a) of the Labor Code. Cordova Labor Review Surio. 3 . Cruz. Carlos J. Carlos P. and that the other cases for illegal recruitment filed against him before other courts have all been dismissed. Jr. Godofredo P. Genaro B. This offense involved economic sabotage. The Court finds that the prosecution ably discharged its onus of proving the guilt beyond reasonable doubt of appellant of the crimes charged.Jose Ysrael C. Angelito R. Bulacan at the residence of Eddie Simbayan. this time for the defense. Acevedo. Magno D. Leah Vivas. Cunanan. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring and/or confederating with one another in carrying out any unlawful or illegal transaction. enlisting. to wit: (1) the person charged undertook a recruitment activity under Article 13(b) or any prohibited practice under Article 34 of the Labor Code. Appellant. whether for profit or not. Juanito C. Leonardo C. Junior Balisbis. Roberto B. Sunga. as it was committed in large scale. Chico. Provided. 38. Issue: Law: Is the accused may be cited for illegal recruitment and estafa even if he was mere driver only? The term "recruitment and placement" is defined under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code of the Philippines as follows: (b) "Recruitment and placement" refers to any act of canvassing. and Iglecerio H. Sunga.1avvphi1 (b) Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall be considered an offense involving economic sabotage and shall be penalized in accordance with Article 39 hereof. Marcelino. and they only agreed among themselves to file a case against appellant because Gimeno was nowhere to be found. Ma. William B. (2) he/she did not have the license or the authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers. Bautista. Mariano. 2000. Samson. under which the accused stands charged. hiring. Mario J. Edgardo P. offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement. Ruling: From the foregoing provisions. Reynaldo C. Jr. Private complainant Cabigao later recanted this testimony. Gimeno.. or procuring workers. Bohol. The Regional Trial Court found the accused Domingo guilty of Illegal recruitment (Large Scale ). Cambay.

with the help of the Office of Ambassador Señeres and the Western Police District. Mardeolyn. he also told Dela Caza about the placement fee of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (PhP 150. Manila. issued and signed Official Receipt No. On the other hand. For his defense.000) to MPM Agency through accused-appellant Gallo who. Opinion: The Recantation of other witness will not affect the testimony of other witness provided that other witness’ credibility had not been impaired. He was informed that the transfer was done for easy accessibility to clients and for the purpose of changing the name of the agency. Cecilia Ramos were its board members. was also an employee who was tasked to deliver documents to the Korean embassy. he testified that he also applied with MPM Agency for deployment to Korea as a factory worker. Manila only to discover that the office had moved to a new location at Batangas Street. together with the other applicants. Inc. Manta. Accused-appellant Gallo then introduced himself as a relative of Mardeolyn and informed Dela Caza that the agency was able to send many workers abroad. Cordova Labor Review That no receipt or document in which appellant acknowledged the receipt of money for the promised jobs was adduced in evidence does not free him of liability. on the other hand. Mardeolyn. were briefed by Mardeolyn about the processing of their application papers for job placement in Korea as a factory worker and their possible salary. Dela Caza and the other applicants decided to take action. At the new office. Thus. San Isidro. since Article 13(b) of the Labor Code states that the act of recruitment may be for profit or not. Manta. Together with Pacardo and Manta. Carriedo. Dela Caza.R. No.Jose Ysrael C. running errands and performing such other tasks assigned to him. Manta. without salary except for some 4 . he agreed to perform some tasks for the agency. in order to facilitate the processing of his papers. accused-appellant denied having any part in the recruitment of Dela Caza. Lulu Mendanes acted as the cashier and accountant. However.000) with a down payment of Forty-Five Thousand Pesos (PhP 45. G. he paid Forty-Five Thousand Pesos (PhP 45.000) and the balance to be paid through salary deduction. while in the presence of Pacardo.000) as processing fee. He proceeded to the new address and found out that the agency was renamed to New Filipino Manpower Development & Services. Norman Martir. Lulu Mendanes and accused-appellant Gallo. Nelson Martir and Ma. Manta and Mardeolyn. Dela Caza decided to withdraw his application and recover the amount he paid but Mardeolyn. Facts: On May 22. Lulu Mendanes. Dela Caza was introduced by Eleanor Panuncio to accused-appellant Gallo. on May 29. while Pacardo acted as the agency’s employee who was in charge of the records of the applicants. Manila. FIDES PACARDO y JUNGCO and PILAR MANTA y DUNGO. as well as the presence of the two (2) Korean nationals and upon being shown the visas procured for the deployed workers. The agency explained that it had to move in order to separate those who are applying as entertainers from those applying as factory workers. 401. 2010 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. he gave his application directly with Mardeolyn because she was his town mate and he was allowed to pay only Ten Thousand Pesos (PhP 10. such as taking photographs of the visa and passport of applicants. Pacardo. Accused-Appellant. Manta and Lulu Mendanes talked him out from pursuing his decision. he talked to Pacardo. were then arrested. According to him. Dela Caza was told that Mardeolyn was the President of MPM Agency. It suffices that appellant promised or offered employment for a fee to the complaining witnesses to warrant his conviction for illegal recruitment. RODOLFO GALLO y GADOT. The first attempt was unsuccessful because the agency again moved to another place. For even if at the time appellant was promising employment no cash was given to him. Petitioner. Yeo Sin Ung and another Korean national at the office of MPM International Recruitment and Promotion Agency located in Malate. Further. Dela Caza went back to the agency’s office in Malate. With accused-appellant’s assurance that many workers have been sent abroad. accused-appellant Gallo even denied any knowledge about the money. they were able to locate the new address at 500 Prudential Building. vs. After two (2) more months of waiting in vain to be deployed. that Marcelino Martir. Accused. 2001. 2001. Brgy. Two (2) weeks after paying MPM Agency. In fact. he is still considered as having been engaged in recruitment activities. Accused-appellant Gallo. together with Pacardo and Manta. Dela Caza was convinced to part with his money. 187730 June 29. Accused Yeo Sin Ung also gave a briefing about the business and what to expect from the company and the salary. while Nelmar Martir was one of the incorporators. Also. Pacardo. Makati.

otherwise known as the Migrants and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995. xxxx (l) Failure to actually deploy without valid reason as determined by the Department of Labor and Employment.e. Under Art. however. Definition. in any manner. Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall be considered an offense involving economic sabotage. i. likewise. enlisting. utilizing. 2008 5 . promising or advertising for employment. and (3) the illegal recruitment is committed by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring or confederating with one another. licensee or holder of authority: (a) To charge or accept directly or indirectly any amount greater than that specified in the schedule of allowable fees prescribed by the Secretary of Labor and Employment.. He alleges that the trial court erred in adopting the asseveration of the private complainant that he was indeed an employee because such was not duly supported by competent evidence. if it is committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group. it is not essential that there be actual proof that all the conspirators took a direct part in every act. whether for profit or not. Cordova Labor Review allowance. According to him. promising or advertising for employment abroad.Jose Ysrael C. Lastly. On March 15. and includes referrals. 13(b) of the Labor Code. whether committed by any person. Accused-appellant avers that he cannot be held criminally liable for illegal recruitment because he was neither an officer nor an employee of the recruitment agency.R. Even with a license. hiring. 442. Issue: Law: Is the court correct in convicting the accused of syndicated illegal recruitment and estafa? To commit syndicated illegal recruitment. contracting. in cases where the deployment does not actually take place without the worker’s fault. It shall. 8042"). 8042 ("R. as amended. enlisting. – For purposes of this Act. non-holder. and (m) Failure to reimburse expenses incurred by the worker in connection with his documentation and processing for purposes of deployment and processing for purposes of deployment. include the following act. transporting. 6. offers or promises for a fee employment abroad to two or more persons shall be deemed so engaged. contracting. (2) he has no valid license or authority required by law to enable one to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers. 34 of the Labor Code. utilizing. He said that he only saw Dela Caza one or twice at the agency’s office when he applied for work abroad. otherwise known as the Labor Code of the Philippines: Provided. contract services. or any of the prohibited practices enumerated under Art. three elements must be established: (1) the offender undertakes either any activity within the meaning of "recruitment and placement" defined under Article 13(b). or procuring workers and includes referring. or to make a worker pay any amount greater than that actually received by him as a loan or advance. The evidence readily reveals that MPM Agency was never licensed by the POEA to recruit workers for overseas employment. When illegal recruitment is committed by a syndicate or in large scale. No. locally or abroad. even assuming that he was an employee. Ruling: The court believes that the prosecution was able to establish the elements of the offense sufficiently. whether for profit or not". that he was also promised deployment abroad but it never materialized. 170834 August 29. illegal recruitment could still be committed under Section 6 of Republic Act No. illegal recruitment shall mean any act of canvassing. whether a nonlicensee. "recruitment and placement" refers to "any act of canvassing. It is sufficient that they acted in concert pursuant to the same objective. when undertaken by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority contemplated under Article 13(f) of Presidential Decree No. viz: Sec. Opinion: In establishing conspiracy. transporting. contract services.A. 2007. G. That any such non-licensee or non-holder who. hiring or procuring workers. the RTC rendered its Decision convicting the accused of syndicated illegal recruitment and estafa. such cannot warrant his outright conviction sans evidence that he acted in conspiracy with the officers of the agency. it is considered an offense involving economic sabotage.

she sought to recover the amount she paid. they submitted his medical certificate and certification of previous employment. Appellant promised Alden that he would leave within a period of three to four months. however.00 was to be paid prior to his departure to Saipan. previous employment certificate and his passport. On March 26. He was required to submit NBI clearance.000.000. On the other hand. Kerwin Donacao went to Loran to apply for employment as purchaser in Saipan. which was not returned. actually remained in control of the branch office in Naga City. Nogra was a mere employee of the agency. Despite repeated follow-ups. Oliver Sarmiento. She also controlled the financial matters and assessment fees of the agency in Naga City. plaintiff-appellee. Annelyn Sarmiento and her husband.00 from appellant. She paid the amount of P35. accused-appellant. Teofila Lualhati applied for employment as hotel worker for Saipan with Loran. she. who required Alden to submit an NBI clearance and medical certificate and to pay the placement fee. Appellant required her to submit an NBI clearance and medical certificate and to pay the processing fee in the amount of P35..Jose Ysrael C. The additional amount of P4. she went to Loran and sought the return of P35. Sometime in May 1997. Sometime in July 1994. In 1995. he was transferred to Naga City when the agency opened a branch office thereat. Mandaluyong City that it was in need of a liaison officer. ANTONIO NOGRA.00 to Loran's secretary in the presence of appellant. vs. When she could not be deployed. Sometime in April 1998. After one year of waiting Alden was not able to leave. appellant presented the following evidence: The defense presented of Antonio Nogra and the agency's secretary and cashier. LTD. he filed a complaint with the NBI. On April 18. When he was not able to leave and what he paid was not refunded. He was in-charge of the advertisement of the company. Alden paid the amount of P31. She conducted the final interview of the applicants and transacted with the foreign employers.000.000. 1997. She was promised that within 120 days or 4 months she would be able to leave. She was also required to pay the amount ofP35. police clearance.00. was owned by accused Lorna Orciga and Japanese national Kataru. applied for overseas employment.00. Antonio Nogra read from outside the agency's main office at Libertad. Although part-owner Lorna Orciga was stationed in Manila.00 monthly meal allowance.00 as placement fee. 6 . He paid the placement fee ofP35. Lorna Orciga. After paying the amount. Facts: Sometime in December 1996.000. Although he was designated as the Operations Manager. Cordova Labor Review PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. Maritess Mesina.000. Fe Zaballa applied for overseas employment in Saipan with.000. Nogra started working with LORAN in October 1994. Oliver Sarmiento was promised that within 1 month. For the application of Oliver Sarmiento.. Alden filed a complaint with the NBI when he was not able to recover the amount and could no longer talk with appellant. 2003. When he was not able to leave for Saipan. She demanded the refund of the processing fee.00 as processing fee. hired him instead as Operations Manager as the agency was then still in the process of completing the list of personnel to be submitted to the POEA. From their testimonies it was established that LORAN INTERNATIONAL OVERSEAS RECRUITMENT CO. He fetched from the airport the agency's visitors and guests and drove them to hotels and other places. Renato Alden went to Loran to apply for a job as hotel worker for Saipan. He was receiving a monthly salary of P5.00 and additional P2. When the amount was not returned to her. original copy of her birth certificate. He applied for the position. he demanded the return of the placement fee. the RTC rendered Judgment finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged. Lualhati was unable to work in Saipan. she filed a complaint with the NBI. They were also made to pay the amount of P27. She was required to submit her medical certificate. During the first week of November 1997.000. The placement and processing fees collected by the agency in Naga City were all deposited in the bank account of Lorna Orciga and not a single centavo went to the benefit of Nogra. NBI clearance and police clearance. He was interviewed by appellant.000. he was told to wait for two to three months. The part-owner and co-accused. Initially. He also drove for the company. When she was not able to work abroad. Oliver Sarmiento was told that allegedly his visa was yet to be obtained.000. which was not refunded. She paid the amount of P35. Filipina Mendoza went to Loran to apply for employment as hotel worker. Sometime in October 1997. he would be able to leave.000.00 as placement fee.00 so she could leave immediately.

under R. contract services. whether for profit or not. even a licensee or holder of authority can be held liable for illegal recruitment. Section 6 of R. and accessories. No. he together with a friend who knows Rosabel Balagan. Ltd. 8042. No. 442. Pasay City purposely to apply for work abroad. management or direction of their business shall be liable. otherwise known as the Labor Code of the Philippines: Provided. Once in the said office. vs. he was able to talk to Rosabel." The law envisions that there be independent evidence from the DOLE to establish the reason for non-deployment. 8042 broadened the concept of illegal recruitment under the Labor Code and provided stiffer penalties. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring or confederating with one another.A. Section 6 (m) involves the failure to reimburse expenses incurred by the worker in connection with his documentation and processing for purposes of deployment. went to EGI Building located at Gil Puyat Street. Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall be considered as offense involving economic sabotage. offers or promises for a fee employment abroad to two or more persons shall be deemed so engaged. 183099 February 3. whether committed by any person.A. i.Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale and Illegal Recruitment Committed by a Syndicate. as amended.A. enlisting. is a duly licensed recruitment agency with authority to establish a branch office. Cordova Labor Review Issue: Is the accused may be cited for illegal recruitment and estafa even if he was mere employee of the company only? R. He 7 . No. Appellants. transporting. should he commit or omit to do any of the acts enumerated in Section 6. when undertaken by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority contemplated under Article 13(f) of Presidential Decree No. It is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group. non-holder. Rachel Herminia and some other applicants. utilizing.R. in cases in which the deployment does not actually take place without the worker’s fault. No. as determined by the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). No. Facts: Fernandez testified that sometime in February 2003. The law requires not only that the failure to deploy be without valid reason "as determined by the Department of Labor and Employment. It shall likewise include the following acts.A. A thorough scrutiny of the prosecution's evidence reveals that it failed to prove appellant's liability under Section 6 (l) of R. 8042 defined when recruitment is illegal: SEC. – For purposes of this Act. No. contracting. Definition. 8042. such as the absence of a proper job order. promising or advertising for employment abroad. Section 6 (l) refers to the failure to actually deploy without valid reason. However. In case of juridical persons. the officers having control.A.. That any such non-licensee or non-holder who. No document from the DOLE was presented in the present case to establish the reason for the accused's failure to actually deploy private complainants. No. or procuring workers and includes referring. Ruling: International Overseas Recruitment Co. 8042. licensee or holder of authority: xxxx (l) Failure to actually deploy without valid reason as determined by the Department of Labor and Employment. especially those that constitute economic sabotage. accomplices. whether a nonlicensee. illegal recruitment shall mean any act of canvassing.e. mother of Rachel. 8042.. Opinion: Being an employee is not a valid defense since employees who have knowledge and active participation in the recruitment activities may be criminally liable for illegal recruitment activities G. hiring. Appellee.A. Thus. in cases where the deployment does not actually take place without the worker's fault. and (m) Failure to reimburse expenses incurred by the workers in connection with his documentation and processing for purposes of deployment. appellant cannot be held liable under Section 6 (l) of R. 2010 Law: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. The persons criminally liable for the above offenses are the principals. Appellant was charged with illegal recruitment in large scale under Section 6 (l) and (m) of R. in any manner.Jose Ysrael C. RACHELLE BALAGAN and HERMINIA AVILA. 6.

000. she also presented her passport.000.00 asked by the accused. This is to prove that the accused indeed engaged in recruitment activities. The receipts were signed by Rosabel. SUSAN PANTALEON. with his wife met appellant at the Jollibee branch in Paco. The accused asked him if he was really interested in applying for work and when he answered in the affirmative. 263 and 264 to him. On April 4. Ricardo came to know of appellant through the latter's sister-in-law. When he later on went to the POEA he learned that the accused are not licensed to recruit workers for abroad.R. using the name of Pedro Lorzano in his passport. appellants Rachelle Balagan and Herminia Avila are found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa and are each sentenced to suffer a prison term of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional.00 (2) In Criminal Case No.00. After he had submitted the requirements. 108107 June 19.00 to Rosabel and on the following day additional P20. The court found the accused guilty of Syndicated Illegal Recruitment and Estafa.k.00) . G. Cordova Labor Review knows that Rachelle and Herminia were clerk and secretary. as minimum. and since she was then living in the boarding house of Rosabel.000. It was their understanding that the balance of US$500 would be given by Ricardo to the person who would accompany him to Japan.00 out of the P150.000.000. Herminia denied that she has anything to do with the cases filed by Fernandez. 03-2683. He called appellant and was told to wait for the person who would take him to Saitama. He then asked Rosabel to return the money to him but the latter refused to do so. he stayed at the hotel indicated in the calling card given to him by appellant. 1997 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. plaintiff-appellee.000. He was supposed to give the money personally to Rosabel but the latter told him to hand the same to Herminia who then issued official receipts nos. Manila because he wanted to get a job in Japan. A certain Lulu Geronimo 8 . She alleged that she and her husband Edwin were also applicants at Rosabel Travel Consultancy as evidenced by an official receipt issued by Rosabel which shows that they paid said office for their travel to Australia.00 is needed for deployment to Ireland and he will be able to leave by 28 March 2003. at the said office and they entice people that they could send workers abroad. Opinion: Sufficient evidence must be shown to sustain the conviction in the crime of illegal recruitment. Ruling: 1) In Criminal Case No. 03-2684. respectively. SUSAN FLORES. vs. much less with receipt for the total amount of P57. Rachel and Herminia affirmed to him the statements of Rosabel. whom appellant was able to send to Japan.00.000. the appellate court credited the position of the Office of the Solicitor General that the prosecution failed to establish that the illegal recruitment was committed by a syndicate. and to pay a fine of P200. appellants Rachelle Balagan and Herminia Avila are found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Simple Illegal Recruitment only.Jose Ysrael C. On March 13. ID pictures and a "bank account" of P500.00 at his house in Paco. To further support her claim. He and the other complainants whom he got acquainted with were not able to leave the country on 28 March 2003. as maximum.00 which were signed by Rosabel and that she was connected with Rosabel Travel Consultancy. It instead found appellants culpable of Simple Illegal Recruitment. Rosabel told him that the amount of P150. Facts: Ricardo Rosita. or a total of P57. and for the facilitation of other papers and documents. She further testified that she met Fernandez at the boarding house and often saw him when the latter was following up his application at the agency.000. accused-appellant. he gave P37.00 for the plane ticket to Japan via Korea.a. to twelve (12) years. a. that she was included as an accused so that Fernandez could use her in going after Rosabel who at that time was not yet arrested. Issue: Law: Is the lower correct in convicting the accused guilty of Syndicated Illegal Recruitment and Estafa? In the case for Syndicated Illegal Recruitment.000. as minimum. as maximum and is ORDERED to indemnify Michael O. to nine (9) years and one (1) day of prision mayor. Fernandez suspected that she might know where Rosabel was hiding. 1991. Rosabel told him to submit his passport. In Korea. No. Ricardo left for Korea aboard Korean Airlines. 1991. Appellant asked Ricardo for P75. Japan. On 21 March 2003. Fernandez in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php57. and are each sentenced to suffer a prison term of six (6) years and one (1) day.000. Ricardo paid appellant P60.

a plane ticket to Japan will not cost P75. Ricardo saw several other persons also recruited by appellant. whether for profit or not: Provided.00 for his passport. They stayed in a hotel owned by a Filipino instead of free lodging in barracks as appellant had promised. Manila and Ricardo introduced her to Nonito as a recruiter. the said amount could already cover plane fare to Europe. he paid an additional amount of P2. as amended as follows: Art. offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement. and back to the Philippines. health certifications and applications for employment. Japan. even at present-day prices. 1991.00. promising or advertising for employment. in any manner. together with George Samin and Kevin Kimbalita. When twenty seven days had passed and no plane tickets to Japan arrived for them in Saipan. locally or abroad. transporting. Nonito's brother-in-law. The next day Geronimo came back to the hotel and told him they were leaving for Japan at 5:00 o'clock the following morning. to be undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of authority shall be deemed illegal and punishable under Article 39 of this Code. On March 20. (b) Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall be considered an offense involving economic sabotage and shall be penalized in accordance with Article 39 hereof.000. On April 17.000. he paid appellant P20. — (a) Any recruitment activities. He paid the amount of P75. while trying to get a boarding pass. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring and/or confederating with one another in carrying out any unlawful or illegal transaction.00 and on April 16. it is obvious that those were to be used. During the investigation at the immigration section. 1991. utilizing. All payments were duly receipted by appellant. hiring or procuring workers. likewise was recruited to work in Japan as a factory worker.000. 1998 9 . Nonito and Leandro (who used the surname Abadillos) left for Saipan on April 18. 1991. 1991. No. its case against appellant. In fact. but also supposedly as placement fees. the U. Certainly. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group. and (2) the said person does not have a license or authority to do so. not just for plane fare. giving them the impression that she had the capability of sending them abroad. Article 13(b) of the same Code defines "recruitment and placement" as: "any act of canvassing. they decided to return to the Philippines. He was asked to pay P75.R.Jose Ysrael C. G.000. His route was via Saipan. Ricardo's brother-in-law. that any person or entity which. On April 15. contract services. Leandro Rosita. enterprise or scheme defined under the first paragraph hereof. The agreement was that appellant would send them the ticket for Japan in Saipan. contracting. Cordova Labor Review arrived in the afternoon of April 14. From the large amounts appellant charged. including the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of this Code." Ruling: There is no question that appellant committed large scale illegal recruitment as she recruited at least three persons. He was convinced to go to Japan as he was told that he would be receiving a salary of 180. he paid P7.000 yen with free board and lodging. especially not in 1991 when these events transpired. Nonito Abadillos. 1991 aboard Continental Airlines. also wanted to work as a factory worker in Saitama.00. 120353 February 12. not weakens. ticket and other documents.S. However. and includes referrals. The Ministry of Labor and Employment or any law enforcement officer may initiate complaints under this Article. The fact that no documents evidencing the recruitment activities were presented by the prosecution only strengthens.000. they were apprehended by Korean immigration officers and his passport was discovered to be fake.00. This is because only a legitimate recruitment agency would have asked the complainants to sign employment contracts.000 for his passport. appellant came to their house in Paco. enlisting. Appellant took advantage of her victims' gullibility in not knowing that the above documents were necessary for a valid overseas placement as the latter believed that all they had to do to obtain employment in Japan was to pay a certain amount to appellant and everything would be fixed. tickets and other documents. Opinion: To prove illegal recruitment. only two elements need be shown: (1) the person charged with the crime must have undertaken recruitment activities. Illegal Recruitment. 38. Issue: Law: Are the accused guilty of Illegal Recruitment? Illegal recruitment is defined in Article 38 of the Labor Code. 1991 and told him that she needed to arrange some documents for their departure to Japan.

this appeal. Issue: Law: Is the contention of the appellant correct? Article 38.000. Jr. accused-appellant does not deny the charge against her. plaintiff-appellee. whether an individual or a syndicate. G. Jr. accused-appellant. She argues through counsel that since illegal recruitment in large scale is defined in Art. Hence. FLOR N. Rosauro San Felipe. Instead. Ruling: The language of the law is very clear that illegal recruitment is committed in large scale if done against three or more persons individually or as a group. (b). . signed by the other private complainants acknowledging payment by her of the amounts taken from them in "full settlement" of her obligation. As in the court below. 10 . But the court a quo denied her motion on the ground that the elements of large scale illegal recruitment were established beyond reasonable doubt through the combined testimonies of the four (4) offended parties. 39. she was haled to court and charged with large scale illegal recruitment. Cordova Labor Review PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. Counsel for accusedappellant was misled by the fact that illegal recruitment in large scale is defined immediately after illegal recruitment by a syndicate. par. whether an individual or a syndicate. Nos. DOMINGO PANIS. The duty of the court is to apply it. Thus. Verification with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) revealed that Laurel was neither licensed nor authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment. she presented an affidavit of desistance by Juanito Cudal as well as several receipts. Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Zambales & Olongapo City. Branch III and SERAPIO ABUG.. of the Labor Code. after receiving P12. Laurel and sentenced her to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P100.000. The court a quo noted that the affidavit of desistance as well as the receipts for payments made were prepared and signed after the prosecution had already rested its case. (b). L-58674-77 July 11.Jose Ysrael C. petitioner. LAUREL. Consequently. the only reason therefore is that they are both considered offenses involving economic sabotage as the law itself so provides.00 from Cudal. 1990 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. vs. vs. However. of the Labor Code reads: Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall be considered an offense involving economic sabotage . is clearly not considered as a factor in the determination of the commission of large scale Illegal Recruitment. plain and free from ambiguity there is no room for attempted interpretation or extended court rationalization of the law. She contends however that she should have been convicted only of simple illegal recruitment and not of large scale illegal recruitment. Laurel reneged on her promises and went into hiding. Juanito Cudal and Cenen Tambongco. enterprise or scheme defined under the first paragraph hereof. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring and/or confederating with one another in carrying out any unlawful or illegal transaction. Hence.00 from Tambongco. is clearly not considered a factor in the determination of its commission. However. she moved to dismiss the case. (a). it follows that for illegal recruitment to be considered committed in large scale it should have been committed by a syndicate. when called to the witness stand.00 conformably with Art. The rule is well-settled that when the language of the statute is clear.000.00 from each of the San Felipe brothers and P6. 38. not to interpret it.R. The number of offenders. . Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group. Accused Laurel did not deny the charge against her. par. HON. Laurel promised employment abroad for a fee to complaining witnesses Ricardo San Felipe. Opinion: The number of offenders. the accused was ordered to return the balance of what she had received from each complainant. . an individual who commits an act of illegal recruitment even if it be against three (3) or more persons cannot be charged with illegal recruitment in large scale. the trial judge rendered a decision convicting the accused Flor N. Facts: From 19 October 1991 to 25 May 1992 accused-appellant Flor N. In addition. Consequently. respondents. P11.000. of the Labor Code immediately following the definition of illegal recruitment committed by a syndicate. par. on the basis of these documents.

enlisting. Also in May 1996. enlisting. Inc. He paid Valenciano the following amounts: PhP 20. contract services. PhP 20. transporting. otherwise known as the Labor Code. offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement. The first and last payments were turned over by Valenciano to Teresita Imperial.. and PhP 30. while Rodante issued a receipt for the payment made on May 30.000 on August 14. who also issued a receipt.R. contracting. De Luna went to Valenciano’s house. Issue: Law: Is the court proper in granting the motion of the accused? The basic issue in this case is the correct interpretation of Article 13(b) of P. unlawfully and criminally operate a private fee charging employment agency by charging fees and expenses (from) and promising employment in Saudi Arabia" to four separate individuals named therein. 2008 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. 442. private respondent herein. in consideration of a fee. plaintiff-appellee. he would be able to leave.Jose Ysrael C. 1981. he claimed. utilizing. went with one Susie Caraeg to the house of Agapito De Luna. Lourdes Valenciano. vs. PhP 20. promising or advertising for employment. Candelaria. Eusebio T. 180926 December 10. there would be illegal recruitment only "whenever two or more persons are in any manner promised or offered any employment for a fee. utilizing. accompanied by Euziel N. in the Court of First Instance of Zambales and Olongapo City alleging that Serapio Abug." G. who issued the corresponding receipts. claiming to be an employee of Middle East International Manpower Resources.000 on May 30. and PhP 10. PhP 20. 1996. Teresita issued receipts for the May 16. 1996 at Valenciano’s residence.000 on July 8. A week later. 1996. Cordova Labor Review Facts: Four information were filed on January 9. and the second payment was turned over by Valenciano to Rodante Imperial. Valenciano visited the house of Allan De Villa. 1996 at Valenciano’s residence.000 on August 21. also at her residence. in violation of Article 16 in relation to Article 39 of the Labor Code. 1996 payments. and includes referrals.000 on July 12. Batangas. 1996 at the Rural Bank of Ca laca. or procuring workers. utilizing. enlisting. 1996.000. 1996. That any person or entity which. with the assurance that if there were a job order abroad. Under the proviso in Article 13(b). in consideration of a fee. enlisting. and told him he could apply for a job in Taiwan. transporting. did then and there wilfully. No. contracting. The presumption is that the individual or entity is engaged in recruitment and placement whenever he or it is dealing with two or more persons to whom. "without first securing a license from the Ministry of Labor as a holder of authority to operate a fee-charging employment agency. contracting. contracting." Opinion: The presumption is that the individual or entity is engaged in recruitment and placement whenever he or it is dealing with two or more persons to whom. transporting. 11 . Valenciano turned over the amounts to either Teresita or Rodante. the petitioner does not explain why dealings with two or more persons are needed where the recruitment and placement consists of an offer or promise of employment but not when it is done through "canvassing. there to be told to undergo a medical examination.000 as placement fee. in any manner. the motion was reconsidered and finally granted in the Orders of the trial court dated June 24 and September 17. reading as follows: (b) Recruitment and placement' refers to any act of canvassing. After passing the medical examination. hiring or procuring (of) workers. an offer or promise of employment is made in the course of the "canvassing." Denied at first. LOURDES VALENCIANO y DACUBA. July 8. transporting. hiring. De Luna paid Valenciano at the latter’s residence the following amounts: PhP 20. 1996. an offer or promise of employment is made in the course of the "canvassing. Facts: In May 1996. hiring or procuring (of) workers. Ruling: Neither interpretation is acceptable.000 on June 21. For its part. whether for profit or not: Provided.D. The Court fail to see why the proviso should speak only of an offer or promise of employment if the purpose was to apply the requirement of two or more persons to all the acts mentioned in the basic rule. Abug filed a motion to quash on the ground that the information did not charge an offense because he was accused of illegally recruiting only one person in each of the four information. and August 14. The prosecution is now before us on certiorari. and De Luna. to recruit De Villa as a factory worker in Taiwan. De Villa was also asked for PhP 70. Dela Cuesta. hiring or procuring (of) workers. He was also told that the placement fee for his employment as a factory worker in Taiwan was PhP 70. accused-appellant. As we see it. 1981.000 on May 16. the proviso was intended neither to impose a condition on the basic rule nor to provide an exception thereto but merely to create a presumption. locally or abroad.

1996.000 when she returned to Lian.Jose Ysrael C. who issued a receipt for the said payments. alias "Rommel Imperial. 12 . 1996 at Valenciano’s residence in Manila. The complainants were introduced to Romeo Marquez. Teresita. 1996 payments over to Rodante. 1996 was turned over by Valenciano to Teresita. promising or advertising for employment. and on August 21. Valenciano brought the prospective workers to the office of Middle East International Manpower Resources. Dela Cuesta paid Valenciano PhP 20. to be undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of authority shall be deemed illegal and punishable under Article 39 of this Code. Valenciano. Art. Batangas to recruit workers for employment abroad. Art.000 as initial payment on May 20.000 on July 17. 1996. 1996 were turned over to Rodante. enlisting. Opinion: An employee of a company or corporation engaged in illegal recruitment may be held liable as principal. she paid Valenciano another PhP 20. The payments made on August 12 and 21. 13(b) of the Labor Code reads: "Recruitment and placement" refers to any act of canvassing. transporting. offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement. and includes referrals. in Pasay City." and Rommel Marquez. she paid PhP 7. locally or abroad. The payments made on May 30 and July 17. contracting. 1996." Teresita Marquez. 39(a) provides that the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of PhP 100. In some instances. 1996. in any manner. She even gave assurances that they would be able to find employment abroad and leave for Taiwan after the filing of their applications. On May 30. An employee of a company or corporation engaged in illegal recruitment may be held liable as principal. That any person or entity which. On May 1. contract services. 1996 and PhP 29. After the payments were made. 1996 were turned over to Teresita. She assured the prospective workers that they could leave for Taiwan within one month from the filing of their applications. Inc. Ruling: The claim of accused-appellant that she was a mere employee of her other co-accused does not relieve her of liability.000. and Rommel Imperial. On August 12." whom Valenciano made to appear as the owners of the employment agency. Valenciano asked him for an initial payment of PhP 20.000 on June 24. The payment made on June 24. Valenciano turned the May 20 and 30.000. 1996. Cordova Labor Review On May 20. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group. These payments were to cover the placement fee and other expenses for the processing of the requirements for the employment of Dela Cuesta in Taiwan.000. Issue: Is the court correct in convicting the accused of Illegal Recruitment? Law: Art. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring and/or confederating with one another in carrying out any unlawful or illegal transaction. As testified to by the complainants. where they were made to fill out application forms for their employment as factory workers in Taiwan. together with his employer. whether for profit or not: Provided. 38(a) and (b) of the Labor Code reads as follows: (a) Any recruitment activities. notwithstanding her gratuitous protestation that her actions were merely done in the course of her employment as a clerk. she paid PhP 15. utilizing. accompanied by Rodante and Puring Caraeg. who issued receipts for these payments. they have not yet found employment as factory workers in Taiwan. Accused-appellant was clearly engaged in recruitment activities. He then paid PhP 20. 1996. accused-appellant was among those who met and transacted with them regarding the job placement offers. Valenciano. including the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of this Code. alias "Teresita Imperial. she made the effort to go to their houses to recruit them. if it is shown that the employee actively and consciously participated in illegal recruitment. who also issued receipts for them. if it is shown that the employee actively and consciously participated in illegal recruitment. went to the house of Dela Cuesta to recruit her for employment as a factory worker in Taiwan. together with his employer. alias "Rodante Imperial. enterprise or scheme defined under the first paragraph hereof. During the period material.000 shall be imposed if illegal recruitment constitutes economic sabotage as defined above. These payments were to cover the placement fee and the expenses for the processing of his passport and other papers connected with his application for employment as a factory worker in Taiwan. hiring or procuring workers. Candelaria paid Valenciano PhP 20. 1996. with Rodante.000. x x x (b) Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall be considered an offense involving economic sabotage and shall be penalized in accordance with Article 39 hereof. went to Lian. On May 30. Candelaria applied for a job as a factory worker in Taiwan when Valenciano went to his residence in Lian.