PROVISION DISCUSSED: Article 13(b) of P.D.

442

(b) Recruitment and placement refers to any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting,
transporting, 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.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. HON. DOMINGO PANIS

G.R. Nos. L-58674-77, July 11, 1990
CRUZ, J:

DOCTRINE:

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. 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, in
consideration of a fee, an offer or promise of employment is made in the course of the "canvassing,
enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring (of) workers."

FACTS:

Four informations were filed on January 9, 1981, in the CFI of Zambales and Olongapo City alleging that
Serapio Abug, private respondent herein, "without first securing a license from the Ministry of Labor as
a holder of authority to operate a fee-charging employment agency, did then and there wilfully,
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 in violation of
Article 16 in relation to Article 39 of the Labor Code.

Abug: Filed a motion to quash on the ground that the informations did not charge an offense because
he was accused of illegally recruiting only one person in each of the four informations. He claimed that
under the proviso is Article 13(b), there would be illegal recruitment only "whenever two or more
persons are in any manner promised or offered any employment for a fee.

CFI: Granted the motion

Petitioner: Argues that: (1) Private respondent is being prosecuted under Article 39 in relation to Article
16 of the Labor Code; hence, Article 13(b) is not applicable; (2) the requirement of two or more persons
is imposed only where the recruitment and placement consists of an offer or promise of employment to
such persons and always in consideration of a fee. The other acts mentioned in the body of the article
may involve even only one person and are not necessarily for profit.

ISSUE:

Which between the interpretations of Article 13(b) of the private respondent and petitioner is correct?
HELD:

Neither interpretation is acceptable. We 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. For its part, 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, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing,
hiring or procuring (of) workers.

As we see it, 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. 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,
in consideration of a fee, an offer or promise of employment is made in the course of the "canvassing,
enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring (of) workers. "

The number of persons dealt with is not an essential ingredient of the act of recruitment and placement
of workers. Any of the acts mentioned in the basic rule in Article 13(b) will constitute recruitment and
placement even if only one prospective worker is involved. The proviso merely lays down a rule of
evidence that where a fee is collected in consideration of a promise or offer of employment to two or
more prospective workers, the individual or entity dealing with them shall be deemed to be engaged in
the act of recruitment and placement. The words "shall be deemed" create that presumption.

It is unfortunate that we can only speculate on the meaning of the questioned provision for lack of
records of debates and deliberations that would otherwise have been available if the Labor Code had
been enacted as a statute rather than a presidential decree. The trouble with presidential decrees is that
they could be, and sometimes were, issued without previous public discussion or consultation, the
promulgator heeding only his own counsel or those of his close advisers in their lofty pinnacle of power.
The not infrequent results are rejection, intentional or not, of the interest of the greater number and, as
in the instant case, certain esoteric provisions that one cannot read against the background facts usually
reported in the legislative journals.

At any rate, the interpretation here adopted should give more force to the campaign against illegal
recruitment and placement, which has victimized many Filipino workers seeking a better life in a foreign
land, and investing hard- earned savings or even borrowed funds in pursuit of their dream, only to be
awakened to the reality of a cynical deception at the hands of their own countrymen.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. GOCE
G.R. No. 113161 August 29, 1995
REGALADO, J.:

FACTS:

On January 12, 1988, an information for illegal recruitment committed by a syndicate and in large scale,
punishable under Articles 38 and 39 of the Labor Code (Presidential Decree No. 442) as amended by
Section 1(b) of Presidential Decree No. 2018, was filed against spouses Dan and Loma Goce and herein
accused-appellant Nelly Agustin in the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 5, alleging —

That in or about and during the period comprised between May 1986 and June 25, 1987, both dates
inclusive, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring and confederating together and
helping one another, representing themselves to have the capacity to contract, enlist and transport
Filipino workers for employment abroad, did then and there willfully and unlawfully, for a fee, recruit
and promise employment/job placement abroad, to (1) Rolando Dalida y Piernas, (2) Ernesto Alvarez y
Lubangco, (3) Rogelio Salado y Savillo, (4) Ramona Salado y Alvarez, (5) Dionisio Masaya y de Guzman,
(6) Dave Rivera y de Leon, (7) Lorenzo Alvarez y Velayo, and (8) Nelson Trinidad y Santos, without first
having secured the required license or authority from the Department of Labor.1

On January 21, 1987, a warrant of arrest was issued against the three accused but not one of them was
arrested. 2 Hence, on February 2, 1989, the trial court ordered the case archived but it issued a standing
warrant of arrest against the accused.3

Thereafter, on learning of the whereabouts of the accused, one of the offended parties, Rogelio Salado,
requested on March 17, 1989 for a copy of the warrant of arrest.4 Eventually, at around midday of
February 26, 1993, Nelly Agustin was apprehended by the Parañaque police.5 On March 8, 1993, her
counsel filed a motion to revive the case and requested that it be set for hearing "for purposes of due
process and for the accused to immediately have her day in court" 6 Thus, on April 15, 1993, the trial
court reinstated the case and set the arraignment for May 3, 1993,7 on which date of Agustin pleaded
not guilty8 and the case subsequently went to trial.

Four of the complainants testified for the prosecution. Rogelio Salado was the first to take the witness
stand and he declared that sometime in March or April, 1987, he was introduced by Lorenzo Alvarez, his
brother-in-law and a co-applicant, to Nelly Agustin in the latter's residence at Factor, Dongalo,
Parañaque, Metro Manila. Representing herself as the manager of the Clover Placement Agency, Agustin
showed him a job order as proof that he could readily be deployed for overseas employment. Salado
learned that he had to pay P5,000.00 as processing fee, which amount he gave sometime in April or May
of the same year. He was issued the corresponding receipt.9

Also in April or May, 1987, Salado, accompanied by five other applicants who were his relatives, went to
the office of the placement agency at Nakpil Street, Ermita, Manila where he saw Agustin and met the
spouses Dan and Loma Goce, owners of the agency. He submitted his bio-data and learned from Loma
Goce that he had to give P12,000.00, instead of the original amount of P5,000.00 for the placement fee.
Although surprised at the new and higher sum, they subsequently agreed as long as there was an
assurance that they could leave for abroad.10

Thereafter, a receipt was issued in the name of the Clover Placement Agency showing that Salado and
his aforesaid co-applicants each paid P2,000.00, instead of the P5,000.00 which each of them actually
paid. Several months passed but Salado failed to leave for the promised overseas employment. Hence,
in October, 1987, along with the other recruits, he decided to go to the Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration (POEA) to verify the real status of Clover Placement Agency. They discovered that said
agency was not duly licensed to recruit job applicants. Later, upon learning that Agustin had been
arrested, Salado decided to see her and to demand the return of the money he had paid, but Agustin
could only give him P500.00. 11

Ramona Salado, the wife of Rogelio Salado, came to know through her brother, Lorenzo Alvarez, about
Nelly Agustin. Accompanied by her husband, Rogelio, Ramona went to see Agustin at the latter's
residence. Agustin persuaded her to apply as a cutter/sewer in Oman so that she could join her
husband. Encouraged by Agustin's promise that she and her husband could live together while working
in Oman, she instructed her husband to give Agustin P2,000.00 for each of them as placement fee, or
the total sum of P4,000.00. 12

Much later, the Salado couple received a telegram from the placement agency requiring them to report
to its office because the "NOC" (visa) had allegedly arrived. Again, around February, or March, 1987,
Rogelio gave P2,000.00 as payment for his and his wife's passports. Despite follow-up of their papers
twice a week from February to June, 1987, he and his wife failed to leave for abroad. 13

Complainant Dionisio Masaya, accompanied by his brother-in-law, Aquiles Ortega, applied for a job in
Oman with the Clover Placement Agency at Parañaque, the agency's former office address. There,
Masaya met Nelly Agustin, who introduced herself as the manager of the agency, and the Goce spouses,
Dan and Loma, as well as the latter's daughter. He submitted several pertinent documents, such as his
bio-data and school credentials. 14

In May, 1986, Masaya gave Dan Goce P1,900.00 as an initial downpayment for the placement fee, and in
September of that same year, he gave an additional P10,000.00. He was issued receipts for said amounts
and was advised to go to the placement office once in a while to follow up his application, which he
faithfully did. Much to his dismay and chagrin, he failed to leave for abroad as promised. Accordingly, he
was forced to demand that his money be refunded but Loma Goce could give him back only P4,000.00 in
installments. 15

As the prosecution's fourth and last witness, Ernesto Alvarez took the witness stand on June 7, 1993. He
testified that in February, 1987, he met appellant Agustin through his cousin, Larry Alvarez, at her
residence in Parañaque. She informed him that "madalas siyang nagpapalakad sa Oman" and offered
him a job as an ambulance driver at the Royal Hospital in Oman with a monthly salary of about $600.00
to $700.00. 16
On March 10, 1987, Alvarez gave an initial amount of P3,000.00 as processing fee to Agustin at the
latter's residence. In the same month, he gave another P3,000.00, this time in the office of the
placement agency. Agustin assured him that he could leave for abroad before the end of 1987. He
returned several times to the placement agency's office to follow up his application but to no avail.
Frustrated, he demanded the return of the money he had paid, but Agustin could only give back
P500.00. Thereafter, he looked for Agustin about eight times, but he could no longer find her. 17

Only herein appellant Agustin testified for the defense. She asserted that Dan and Loma Goce were her
neighbors at Tambo, Parañaque and that they were licensed recruiters and owners of the Clover
Placement Agency. Previously, the Goce couple was able to send her son, Reynaldo Agustin, to Saudi
Arabia. Agustin met the aforementioned complainants through Lorenzo Alvarez who requested her to
introduce them to the Goce couple, to which request she acceded. 18

Denying any participation in the illegal recruitment and maintaining that the recruitment was
perpetrated only by the Goce couple, Agustin denied any knowledge of the receipts presented by the
prosecution. She insisted that the complainants included her in the complaint thinking that this would
compel her to reveal the whereabouts of the Goce spouses. She failed to do so because in truth, so she
claims, she does not know the present address of the couple. All she knew was that they had left their
residence in 1987. 19

Although she admitted having given P500.00 each to Rogelio Salado and Alvarez, she explained that it
was entirely for different reasons. Salado had supposedly asked for a loan, while Alvarez needed money
because he was sick at that time. 20

On November 19, 1993, the trial court rendered judgment finding herein appellant guilty as a principal
in the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale, and sentencing her to serve the penalty of life
imprisonment, as well as to pay a fine of P100,000.00. 21

In her present appeal, appellant Agustin raises the following arguments: (1) her act of introducing
complainants to the Goce couple does not fall within the meaning of illegal recruitment and placement
under Article 13(b) in relation to Article 34 of the Labor Code; (2) there is no proof of conspiracy to
commit illegal recruitment among appellant and the Goce spouses; and (3) there is no proof that
appellant offered or promised overseas employment to the complainants. 22 These three arguments
being interrelated, they will be discussed together.

Herein appellant is accused of violating Articles 38 and 39 of the Labor Code. Article 38 of the Labor
Code, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 2018, provides that any recruitment activity, including the
prohibited practices enumerated in Article 34 of said Code, undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders
of authority shall be deemed illegal and punishable under Article 39 thereof. The same article further
provides that illegal recruitment shall be considered an offense involving economic sabotage if any of
these qualifying circumstances exist, namely, (a) when illegal recruitment is committed by a syndicate,
i.e., if it is carried out by a group of three or more persons conspiring and/or confederating with one
another; or (b) when illegal recruitment is committed in large scale, i.e., if it is committed against three
or more persons individually or as a group.
At the outset, it should be made clear that all the accused in this case were not authorized to engage in
any recruitment activity, as evidenced by a certification issued by Cecilia E. Curso, Chief of the Licensing
and Regulation Office of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, on November 10, 1987.
Said certification states that Dan and Loma Goce and Nelly Agustin are neither licensed nor authorized
to recruit workers for overseas
employment. 23 Appellant does not dispute this. As a matter of fact her counsel agreed to stipulate that
she was neither licensed nor authorized to recruit applicants for overseas employment. Appellant,
however, denies that she was in any way guilty of illegal recruitment. 24

It is appellant's defensive theory that all she did was to introduce complainants to the Goce spouses.
Being a neighbor of said couple, and owing to the fact that her son's overseas job application was
processed and facilitated by them, the complainants asked her to introduce them to said spouses.
Allegedly out of the goodness of her heart, she complied with their request. Such an act, appellant
argues, does not fall within the meaning of "referral" under the Labor Code to make her liable for illegal
recruitment.

Under said Code, recruitment and placement refers to 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. 25 On the other hand, referral is the act of passing
along or forwarding of an applicant for employment after an initial interview of a selected applicant for
employment to a selected employer, placement officer or bureau. 26

Hence, the inevitable query is whether or not appellant Agustin merely introduced complainants to the
Goce couple or her actions went beyond that. The testimonial evidence hereon show that she indeed
further committed acts constitutive of illegal recruitment. All four prosecution witnesses testified that it
was Agustin whom they initially approached regarding their plans of working overseas. It was from her
that they learned about the fees they had to pay, as well as the papers that they had to submit. It was
after they had talked to her that they met the accused spouses who owned the placement agency.

As correctly held by the trial court, being an employee of the Goces, it was therefore logical for
appellant to introduce the applicants to said spouses, they being the owners of the agency. As such,
appellant was actually making referrals to the agency of which she was a part. She was therefore
engaging in recruitment activity. 27

Despite Agustin's pretensions that she was but a neighbor of the Goce couple, the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses paint a different picture. Rogelio Salado and Dionisio Masaya testified that
appellant represented herself as the manager of the Clover Placement Agency. Ramona Salado was
offered a job as a cutter/sewer by Agustin the first time they met, while Ernesto Alvarez remembered
that when he first met Agustin, the latter represented herself as "nagpapaalis papunta sa Oman." 28
Indeed, Agustin played a pivotal role in the operations of the recruitment agency, working together with
the Goce couple.
There is illegal recruitment when one gives the impression of having the ability to send a worker
abroad." 29 It is undisputed that appellant gave complainants the distinct impression that she had the
power or ability to send people abroad for work such that the latter were convinced to give her the
money she demanded in order to be so employed. 30

It cannot be denied that Agustin received from complainants various sums for purpose of their
applications. Her act of collecting from each of the complainants payment for their respective passports,
training fees, placement fees, medical tests and other sundry expenses unquestionably constitutes an
act of recruitment within the meaning of the law. In fact, appellant demanded and received from
complainants amounts beyond the allowable limit of P5,000.00 under government regulations. It is true
that the mere act of a cashier in receiving money far exceeding the amount allowed by law was not
considered per se as "recruitment and placement" in contemplation of law, but that was because the
recipient had no other participation in the transactions and did not conspire with her co-accused in
defrauding the victims. 31 That is not the case here.

Appellant further argues that "there is no evidence of receipts of collections/payments from

complainants to appellant." On the contrary, xerox copies of said receipts/vouchers were presented by
the prosecution. For instance, a cash voucher marked as Exhibit D, 32 showing the receipt of P10,000.00
for placement fee and duly signed by appellant, was presented by the prosecution. Another receipt,
identified as Exhibit E, 33 was issued and signed by appellant on February 5, 1987 to acknowledge
receipt of P4,000.00 from Rogelio and Ramona Salado for "processing of documents for Oman." Still
another receipt dated March 10, 1987 and presented in evidence as Exhibit F, shows that appellant
received from Ernesto Alvarez P2,000.00 for "processing of documents for Oman." 34

Apparently, the original copies of said receipts/vouchers were lost, hence only xerox copies thereof
were presented and which, under the circumstances, were admissible in evidence. When the original
writing has been lost or destroyed or cannot be produced in court, upon proof of its execution and loss
or destruction, or unavailability, its contents may be proved by a copy or a recital of its contents in some
authentic document, or by the recollection of witnesses. 35

Even assuming arguendo that the xerox copies presented by the prosecution as secondary evidence are
not allowable in court, still the absence thereof does not warrant the acquittal of appellant. In People vs.
Comia, 36 where this particular issue was involved, the Court held that the complainants' failure to ask
for receipts for the fees they paid to the accused therein, as well as their consequent failure to present
receipts before the trial court as proof of the said payments, is not fatal to their case. The complainants
duly proved by their respective testimonies that said accused was involved in the entire recruitment
process. Their testimonies in this regard, being clear and positive, were declared sufficient to establish
that factum probandum.

Indeed, the trial court was justified and correct in accepting the version of the prosecution witnesses,
their statements being positive and affirmative in nature. This is more worthy of credit than the mere
uncorroborated and self-serving denials of appellant. The lame defense consisting of such bare denials
by appellant cannot overcome the evidence presented by the prosecution proving her guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. 37

The presence of documentary evidence notwithstanding, this case essentially involves the credibility of
witnesses which is best left to the judgment of the trial court, in the absence of abuse of discretion
therein. The findings of fact of a trial court, arrived at only after a hearing and evaluation of what can
usually be expected to be conflicting testimonies of witnesses, certainly deserve respect by an appellate
court. 38 Generally, the findings of fact of the trial court on the matter of credibility of witnesses will not
be disturbed on appeal. 39

In a last-ditch effort to exculpate herself from conviction, appellant argues that there is no proof of
conspiracy between her and the Goce couple as to make her liable for illegal recruitment. We do not
agree. The evidence presented by the prosecution clearly establish that appellant confabulated with the
Goces in their plan to deceive the complainants. Although said accused couple have not been tried and
convicted, nonetheless there is sufficient basis for appellant's conviction as discussed above.

In People vs. Sendon, 40 we held that the non-prosecution of another suspect therein provided no
ground for the appellant concerned to fault the decision of the trial court convicting her. The
prosecution of other persons, equally or more culpable than herein appellant, may come later after their
true identities and addresses shall have been ascertained and said malefactors duly taken into custody.
We see no reason why the same doctrinal rule and course of procedure should not apply in this case.

WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment of the court a quo is hereby AFFIRMED in toto, with costs against
accused-appellant Nelly D. Agustin.

SO ORDERED.
IMELDA DARVIN vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 125044 July 13, 1998
ROMERO, J.:

FACTS:

Action: Petition for review of the decision of the CA which affirmed in toto the judgment of the RTC,
convicting accused-appellant, Imelda Darvin for simple illegal recruitment under Article 38 and Article
39, in relation to Article 13 (b) and (c), of the Labor Code as amended.

It was alleged in the information that Darvin, through fraudulent representation to the effect that she
has the authority to recruit workers and employees for abroad and can facilitate the necessary papers in
connection thereof, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, hired, recruited and promised a job abroad to
Macaria Toledo, without first securing the necessary license and permit from the Philippine Overseas
Employment Administration to do so, thereby causing damage and prejudice to Toledo.

In said meeting, accused-appellant allegedly convinced Toledo that by giving her P150,000.00, the latter
can immediately leave for the United States without any appearance before the U.S. embassy. 3 Thus,
on April 13, 1992, Toledo gave Darvin the amount of P150,000.00, as evidenced by a receipt stating that
the "amount of P150,000.00 was for U.S. Visa and Air fare." 4 After receiving the money, Darvin assured
Toledo that she can leave within one week. However, when after a week, there was no word from
Darvin, Toledo went to her residence to inquire about any development, but could not find Darvin.
Thereafter, on May 7, 1992, Toledo filed a complaint with the Bacoor Police Station against Imelda
Darvin. Upon further investigation, a certification was issued by the Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration (POEA) stating that Imelda Darvin is neither licensed nor authorized to recruit workers
for overseas employment. 5 Accused-appellant was then charged for estafa and illegal recruitment by
the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Cavite.

Accused-appellant, on the other hand, testified that she used to be connected with Dale Travel Agency
and that in 1992, or thereabouts, she was assisting individuals in securing passports, visa, and airline
tickets. She came to know Toledo through Florencio Jake Rivera, Jr. and Leonila Rivera, alleging that
Toledo sought her help to secure a passport, US visa and airline tickets to the States. 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 on April 13, 1992 but contends that it was used for necessary expenses of
an intended trip to the United States of Toledo and her friend, Florencio Rivera 6 as follows. P45,000.00
for plane fare for one person; P1,500.00 for passport, documentation and other incidental expenses for
each person; P20,000.00 for visa application cost for each person; and P17,000.00 for services. 7 After
receiving the money, she allegedly told Toledo that the papers will be released within 45 days. She
likewise testified that she was able to secure Toledo's passport on April 20, 1992 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.
ISSUE:

HELD:

That on our about the 13th day of April 1992, in the Municipality of Bacoor, Province of Cavite,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, through
fraudulent representation to one Macaria Toledo to the effect that she has the authority to recruit
workers and employees for abroad and can facilitate the necessary papers in connection thereof, did,
then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, hire, recruit and promise a job abroad to one
Macaria Toledo, without first securing the necessary license and permit from the Philippine Overseas
Employment Administration to do so, thereby causing damage and prejudice to the aforesaid Macaria
Toledo.

Contrary to law. 2

The evidence for the prosecution, based on the testimony of private respondent, Macaria Toledo, shows
that sometime in March, 1992, she met accused-appellant Darvin in the latter's residence at
Dimasalang, Imus, Cavite, through the introduction of their common friends, Florencio Jake Rivera and
Leonila Rivera. In said meeting, accused-appellant allegedly convinced Toledo that by giving her
P150,000.00, the latter can immediately leave for the United States without any appearance before the
U.S. embassy. 3 Thus, on April 13, 1992, Toledo gave Darvin the amount of P150,000.00, as evidenced by
a receipt stating that the "amount of P150,000.00 was for U.S. Visa and Air fare." 4 After receiving the
money, Darvin assured Toledo that she can leave within one week. However, when after a week, there
was no word from Darvin, Toledo went to her residence to inquire about any development, but could
not find Darvin. Thereafter, on May 7, 1992, Toledo filed a complaint with the Bacoor Police Station
against Imelda Darvin. Upon further investigation, a certification was issued by the Philippine Overseas
Employment Administration (POEA) stating that Imelda Darvin is neither licensed nor authorized to
recruit workers for overseas employment. 5 Accused-appellant was then charged for estafa and illegal
recruitment by the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Cavite.

Accused-appellant, on the other hand, testified that she used to be connected with Dale Travel Agency
and that in 1992, or thereabouts, she was assisting individuals in securing passports, visa, and airline
tickets. She came to know Toledo through Florencio Jake Rivera, Jr. and Leonila Rivera, alleging that
Toledo sought her help to secure a passport, US visa and airline tickets to the States. 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 on April 13, 1992 but contends that it was used for necessary expenses of
an intended trip to the United States of Toledo and her friend, Florencio Rivera 6 as follows. P45,000.00
for plane fare for one person; P1,500.00 for passport, documentation and other incidental expenses for
each person; P20,000.00 for visa application cost for each person; and P17,000.00 for services. 7 After
receiving the money, she allegedly told Toledo that the papers will be released within 45 days. She
likewise testified that she was able to secure Toledo's passport on April 20, 1992 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.
In its judgment rendered on June 17, 1993, the Bacoor, Cavite RTC found accused-appellant guilty of the
crime of simple illegal recruitment but acquitted her of the crime of estafa. The dispositive portion of
the judgment reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused Imelda Darvin is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of Simple Illegal Recruitment for having committed the prohibited practice as defined
by paragraph (b) of Article 34 and punished by paragraph (c) of Article 39 of the Labor Code, as
amended by PD 2018.

Accused Imelda Darvin is hereby ordered to suffer the prison term of Four (4) years, as minimum, to
Eight (8) years, as maximum; and to pay the fine of P25,000.00.

Regarding her civil liability, she is hereby ordered to reimburse the private complainant the sum of
P150,000.00 and attorney's fees of P10,000.00.

She is hereby acquitted of the crime of Estafa.

SO ORDERED. 8

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court in toto, hence this petition.

Before this Court, accused-appellant assails the decision of the trial and appellate courts in convicting
her of the crime of simple illegal recruitment. She contends that based on the evidence presented by
the prosecution, her guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

We find the appeal impressed with merit.

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.

xxx xxx xxx

Applied to the present case, to uphold the conviction of accused-appellant, two elements need to be
shown: (1) the person charged with the crime must have undertaken recruitment activities; and (2) the
said person does not have a license or authority to do so. 9
In this case, private respondent, Macaria Toledo alleged that she was offered a job in the United States
as nursing aide 10 by accused-appellant. In her direct examination, she testified as follows:

Atty. Alejandro:

Q : How did you come to know the accused?

Witness : I was introduced by my two friends. One of whom is my best friend. That according to them,
this accused has connections and authorizations, that she can make people leave for abroad, sir.

Court : What connections?

Witness : That she has connections with the Embassy and with people whom she can approach
regarding work abroad, your Honor.

xxx xxx xxx

Q : When you came to meet for the first time in Imus, Cavite, what transpired in that meeting of yours?

A : When I came to her house, the accused convinced me that by means of P150,000.00, I will be able to
leave immediately without any appearance to any embassy, non-appearance, Sir.

Q : When you mentioned non-appearance, as told to you by the accused, precisely, what do you mean
by that?

A : I was told by the accused that non-appearance, means without working personally for my papers and
through her efforts considering that she is capacitated as according to her I will be able to leave the
country, Sir.

xxx xxx xxx

Atty. Alejandro : What transpired after the accused told you all these things that you will be able to
secure all the documents without appearing to anybody or to any embassy and that you will be able to
work abroad?

Witness : She told me to get ready with my P150,000.00, that is if I want to leave immediately, Sir.

Atty. Alejandro : When you mentioned kaagad, how many days or week?

Witness : She said that if I will able to part with my P150,000.00. I will be able to leave in just one week
time, Sir.

xxx xxx xxx 11

The prosecution, as evidence, presented the certification issued by the POEA that accused-appellant
Imelda Darvin is not licensed to recruit workers abroad.
It is not disputed that accused-appellant does not have a license or authority to engage in recruitment
activities. The pivotal issue to be determined, therefore, is whether the accused-appellant indeed
engaged in recruitment activities, as defined under the Labor Code. Applying the rule laid down in the
case of People v. Goce, 12 to prove that accused-appellant was engaged in recruitment activities as to
commit the crime of illegal recruitment, it must be shown that the accused appellant gave private
respondent the distinct impression that she had the power or ability to send the private respondent
abroad for work such that the latter was convinced to part with her money in order to be so employed.

In this case, we find no sufficient evidence to prove that accused-ppellant offered a job to private
respondent. It is not clear that accused gave the impression that she was capable of providing the
private respondent work abroad. What is established, however, is that the private respondent gave
accused-appellant P150,000.00. The claim of the accused that the P150,000.00 was for payment of
private respondent's air fare and US visa and other expenses cannot be ignored because the receipt for
the P150,000.00, which was presented by both parties during the trial of the case, stated that it was "for
Air Fare and Visa to USA." 13 Had the amount been for something else in addition to air fare and visa
expenses, such as work placement abroad, the receipt should have so stated.

By themselves, procuring a passport, airline tickets and foreign visa for another individual, without
more, can hardly qualify as recruitment activities. Aside from the testimony of private respondent, there
is nothing to show that accused-appellant engaged in recruitment activities. We also note that the
prosecution did not present the testimonies of witnesses who could have corroborated the charge of
illegal recruitment, such as Florencio Rivera, and Leonila Rivera, when it had the opportunity to do so. As
it stands, the claim of private respondent that accused-appellant promised her employment abroad is
uncorroborated. All these, taken collectively, cast reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused.

This Court can hardly rely on the bare allegations of private respondent that she was offered by accused-
appellant 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 accused-appellant 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
conviction in an unprejudiced mind. 14

At best, the evidence proffered by the prosecution only goes so far as to create a suspicion that accused-
appellant probably perpetrated the crime charged. But suspicion alone is insufficient, the required
quantum of evidence being proof beyond reasonable doubt. When the People's evidence fail to
indubitably prove the accused' s authorship of the crime of which he stands accused, then it is the
Court's duty, and the accused's right, to proclaim his innocence. Acquittal, therefore, is in order. 15
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby GRANTED and the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No.
15624 dated January 31, 1996, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Imelda Darvin is hereby
ACQUITTED on ground of reasonable doubt. Accordingly, let the accused be immediately released from
her place of confinement unless there is reason to detain her further for any other legal or valid cause.
No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.