ELARDO, SEBASTIAN GABRIEL M.

20180200435

PEOPLE VS. MALAPIT

G.R. Nos. 140067-71 August 29, 2002
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

FACTS: Marie Purificacion Abenoja and Marilyn Mariano met accused-appellant at her
beauty parlor in Lopez Building, Session Road, Baguio City. Marie met accused-
appellant sometime in January 1997 through her friend, Florence Bacoco. A month
later, Marilyn was introduced to accused-appellant by Grace Lanozo, a fellow nurse at
the PMA Hospital. Marie claims that accused-appellant enticed her to apply for work as
a caregiver in Canada. Accused-appellant showed her a piece of paper containing a job
order saying that Canada was in need of ten (10) caregivers and some messengers.
Accused-appellant also promised her that she will be receiving a salary of CN$2,700.00
(Canadian Dollars) and will be able to leave for Canada in a month's time. Heeding
accused-appellant's guaranty, Marie eventually applied for the overseas job opportunity.

On June 6, 1997, accused-appellant introduced Marie to co-accused Nenita Maria

Olivia-Gallardo in Tandang Sora, Quezon City. On the same day, Marie submitted
herself to a physical examination and personally handed to Gallardo a partial payment
of P18,000.00, for which the latter issued a receipt. 7 Marie made another payment in
the amount of P52,000.00, for which accused-appellant issued a provisional receipt. 8
This amount included the placement fee of her sister, Araceli Abenoja, who became
interested in the opportunity to work abroad. Accused-appellant issued to Marie the
receipt 9 for Araceli in the amount of P35,000.00, signed by Gallardo.

Three months lapsed without any news on Marie's deployment to Canada. Her sister,
Araceli, had already left for work abroad through the efforts of their other townmate. The
weekly follow-ups made by Marie to accused-appellant pertaining to her application and
that of Araceli's were to no avail. Accused-appellant just promised Marie that she will
return her money. Realizing that she had been hoodwinked, Marie decided to file a
complaint against the accused-appellant and Gallardo with the National Bureau of
Investigation. She no longer verified the authority of both accused-appellant and
Gallardo in recruiting workers overseas because she was told by Gallardo that she is a
direct recruiter.

Marilyn Mariano, on the other hand, was told by accused-appellant that she was
recruiting nurses from Baguio City and was looking for one more applicant to complete
the first batch to Oy to Canada. After giving her all the information about the job
opportunity in Canada, accused-appellant encouraged her to meet Gallardo. Not long
after, Grace Lanozo accompanied her to meet Gallardo at the latter's house in Quezon
City.

Gallardo required her to undergo a medical check-up, to complete her application

papers within the soonest possible time and to prepare money to defray the expenses
for her deployment to Canada. Upon the instruction of accused-appellant, Marilyn paid a
total amount of P36,000.00 to Gallardo, which was evidenced by a receipt. Of this
amount, the P1,500.00 11 was for her medical check-up, P20,000.00 12 for processing
of papers and P15,000.00 13 for her visa.

Marilyn was further made to accomplish a form, prepared by both accusedappellant and
Gallardo, at the residence of accused-appellant in Baguio City. Thereafter, she was
informed that the processing of her papers abroad shall commence within the next three
months. She was also made to attend a meeting conducted by both accusedappellant
and Gallardo at the former's house in Baguio City, together with other interested
applicants.

After three months of waiting with no forthcoming employment abroad, Marilyn and the
other applicants proceeded to the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency, Regional
Administrative Unit, of the Cordillera Administrative Region in Baguio City, where they
learned that accused-appellant and Gallardo were not authorized recruiters. Marilyn
confronted accused-appellant about this, whereupon the latter assured her that it was a
direct hiring scheme. Thereafter, Marilyn reported accused-appellant and Gallardo to
the NBI. After trial on the merits, accused-appellant was found guilty of the crimes of
Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale and Estafa on three (3) counts.
ISSUE: W/N Maria and Gallardo are guilty of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale?

LAWS: Illegal recruitment is committed when the two essential elements concur: (1)
that the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable him to
lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers, and (2) that the offender
undertakes any activity within the meaning of "recruitment and placement" defined
under Article 13 (b), or any prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of the
Labor Code.

CASE HISTORY: The conviction of illegal recruitment in large scale must be based on
a finding in each case of illegal recruitment of three or more persons, whether
individually or as a group. In People v. Reichl, et al., we reiterated the rule we laid down
in People v. Reyes that: ". . . When the Labor Code speaks of illegal recruitment
"committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group," it must be
understood as referring to the number of complainants in each case who are
complainants therein, otherwise, prosecutions for single crimes of illegal recruitment can
be cumulated to make out a case of large scale illegal recruitment. In other words, a
conviction for large-scale illegal recruitment must be based on a finding in each case of
illegal recruitment of three or more persons whether individually or as a group."

RULING: The Supreme Court ruled that these elements are present in the case at bar.
However, the Court found appellant guilty only of two (2) counts of simple illegal
recruitment and not illegal recruitment in large scale because the conviction of illegal
recruitment in large scale must be based on a finding in each case of illegal recruitment
of three or more persons, whether individually or as a group. The Court likewise
affirmed the conviction of appellant for estafa on three (3) counts. It is settled that a
person may be charged and convicted separately of illegal recruitment under the Labor
Code and estafa under the Revised Penal Code, Article 315, paragraph 2 (a). The
offense of illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum where the criminal intent of the
accused is not necessary for conviction, while estafa is malum in se where the criminal
intent of the accused is crucial for conviction.
OPINION: Falsely pretending to possess the power to deploy persons for overseas
placement was a means employed by the accused at an attempt for greener pastures.
Through simple illegal recruitment, they sought to circumvent the law in pursuit of
opportunities as caregivers in Canada. The blinding occasions of proper wages and a
good lifestyle probably seemed alluring to the accused in this case; however, the
frailties and hardships of life are no excuse to dispose of the law as one may wish, in
which case, the Supreme Court ruled correctly in sentencing the accused guilty.
PEOPLE VS. FORTUNA
G.R. No. 148137 January 16, 2003
VITUG, J.:

FACTS: Appellant herein was charged with illegal recruitment in large scale. According
to private complainants, they were convinced by herein appellant Fortuna that she could
provide them with jobs abroad. Each of them gave her the amount of P5,400.00 to take
care of processing fee for medical examination and other expenses for securing their
respective passports. Weeks went by, but the promised departure had not materialized.
After having learned later that Fortuna had neither license nor an authority to undertake
recruiting activities, one of the complainants, Angelyn Magpayo, filed a complaint which
ultimately resulted in the indictment of Fortuna for illegal recruitment. After trial, the
Regional Trial Court held appellant guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale and was
sentenced to life imprisonment. Appellant went to the Supreme Court to seek the
reversal of her conviction.
ISSUE: W/N Fortune is guilty of Large Scale Recruitment?

LAWS: The requisites constituting the offense of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale
have sufficiently been proven by the prosecution. First, ,undeniably, has not been duly
licensed to engage in recruitment activities; second, she has engaged in illegal
recruitment activities, offering private complainants employment abroad for a fee; and
third, she has committed the questioned illegal recruitment activities against three or
more persons. Illegal recruitment in large scale (when committed against three or more
persons), like illegal recruitment committed by a syndicate (when carried out by a group
of three or more persons), would be deemed constitutive of economic sabotage carrying
a penalty, under Section 7, paragraph (b), of Republic Act 8042, of life imprisonment
and a fine of not less than five hundred thousand (P500,000.00) pesos nor more than
one million (P1,000,000.00) pesos. The sentence imposed by the trial court thus
accords with the penalty prescribed by law.

CASE HISTORY: No two cases are exactly alike; almost invariably, surrounding
circumstances vary from case to case. It is this reality that must have compelled the
adoption by the Revised Penal Code of the scheme of graduated penalties providing,
correspondingly, for the circumstances that affect criminal liability. The system allows
the judge to have a good latitude in the sentencing process. Indeed, in other
jurisdictions, a bifurcated proceeding is prescribed in order to help make certain that the
penalty is commensurate to the wrong done. Under this procedure, the guilt and the
innocence of the accused is first determined and then, after a verdict of plea or guilt, a
pre-sentence hearing is conducted where the judge or a jury would hear argument and
receive additional evidence on such matters as the nature of the offense, manner of its
commission, the milieu of time and place, as well as the education, religion, physical
and mental state of the accused, along with still other conditions or circumstances, that
may find relevance in either mitigating or aggravating the punishment to be meted, all
calculated to enhance a fair judgment. Statutory provisions for a single penalty, like
those prescribed in Republic Act No. 8042, virtually ignore these safeguards that help
obviate the danger of imposing either too great or too little a punishment for the offense.

RULING: According to the Court, the testimony presented at the trial by the complaining
witnesses adequately established the commission of the offense. The narration made
by the complaining witnesses appeared to be straightforward, credible and convincing
to the Court and, hence, it agreed with the trial court's evaluation of their credibility. The
requisites constituting the offense of illegal recruitment in large scale was sufficiently
proven by the prosecution. Thus, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of the
appellant, as well as the sentenced imposed upon the appellant. However, the Court
recommended to the President of the Philippines a possible commutation of sentence.
OPINION: I find the Court’s ruling sufficient in form and substance. While the
information cited Section 6, paragraph (m), of Act No. 8042, its factual averments,
however, are sufficient to constitute the crime of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale
under the aforequoted provisions of the law. It is not the specific designation of the
offense in the information that controls but it is the allegations therein contained directly
apprising the accused of the nature and cause of the accusation against him that
matter.
PEOPLE VS. ALVAREZ
G.R. No. 142981 August 20, 2002
PANGANIBAN, J.:

FACTS: CARMELITA ALVAREZ testified that sometime in 1991, she met Director
Angeles Wong at the Office of the Deputy Administrator of the POEA, Manuel Quimson,
who happened to be her 'compadre.' Sometime in November 1993, Director Wong
called her about a direct-hire scheme from Taiwan which is a job order whereby people
who want to work abroad can apply directly with the POEA. The said director told her
that there were six (6) approved job orders from Labor

Attache Ellen Canasa. Seeing this as a good opportunity for her son, Edelito Gonzales,
who was then a new graduate, she recommended him and his son's friends, namely,
Reynaldo Abrigo, Renato Abrigo and two others surnamed Lucena, for employment.
Unfortunately, Director Wong called off the scheduled departure because the quota of
workers for deployment was not met. To remedy the situation, she approached
Josephine Lomocso and a certain recruiter named Romeo Dabilbil, who also
recommends people to Director Wong with ready passports. When the thirty (30) slots
needed for the direct-hiring scheme were lled up, Director Wong set the tentative
schedule of departure on February 23, 1994. In view of the said development, Mr.
Dabilbil contacted the recruits from

Cebu who even stayed at her (Conchita's) place in Capiz Street, Del Monte, Quezon
City for three (3) days to one (1) week while waiting to be deployed. On the night of their
scheduled departure and while they were having their despedida party, Director Wong
sent a certain Ross to inform them that a telex was received by him informing him
(Director Wong) that the factory where the recruits were supposed to work was gutted
by a re. She was later advised by Director Wong to wait for the deployment order to
come from Taiwan. While the people from Cebu were staying in her house waiting for
development, the accused even advised them to le a complaint against Mr. Dabilbil
before the Presidential Anti-Crime Commission at Camp Crame. Surprisingly, she was
also arrested for illegal recruitment on May 31, 1994 and thereafter learned that on June
1, 1994, the Damian brothers led a complaint against her before the POEA.
After her apprehension, the accused further testi ed that there was some sort of
negotiation between her lawyer, Atty. Orlando Salutandre, and the apprehending o cer,
Major Umbao, regarding her release. According to her, if she [would] be able to raise
the amount of [t]hirty [t]housand [p]esos (P30,000.00), Major Umbao [would] not
anymore refer her for inquest, but would only recommend her case for further
investigation and then she would be released. Since she failed to raise the said amount,
she was brought to the inquest fiscal.
REYNALDO ABRIGO testified that it was Director Angeles Wong who was actually
recruiting workers for deployment abroad because of a certain document which Alvarez
showed to them bearing the name of the said POEA Official.
ISSUE: W/N Alvarez is guilty of Illegal Recruitment?

LAWS: Prior to the enactment of RA No. 8042, the crime of illegal recruitment was
defined under Article 38(a) in relation to Articles 13(b) and 34 and penalized under
Article 39 of the Labor Code. It consisted of any recruitment activity, including the
prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of the Code, undertaken by a non-
licensee or non-holder of authority. It is committed when two elements concur: (1) the
offenders have no valid license or authority required by law to enable them to lawfully
engage in the recruitment and placement of workers; and (2) the offenders undertake
either any activity within the meaning of recruitment and placement defined under
Article 13(b) or any prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34.

CASE HISTORY: Illegal recruitment is an offense that is essentially committed by a

non-licensee or non-holder of authority. A non-licensee means any person, corporation
or entity to which the labor secretary has not issued a valid license or authority to
engage in recruitment and placement; or whose license or authority has been
suspended, revoked or cancelled by the POEA or the labor secretary. A license
authorizes a person or an entity to operate a private employment agency, while
authority is given to those engaged in recruitment and placement activities. Likewise
constituting illegal recruitment and placement activities are agents or representatives
whose appointments by a licensee or holder of authority have not been previously
authorized by the POEA.

RULING: The Supreme Court ruled that the finding of illegal recruitment in large scale is
justified wherever the following elements concur: (1) the offenders have no valid license
or authority required by law to enable them to lawfully engage in the recruitment and
placement of workers; (2) the offenders undertake either any activity within the meaning
of recruitment and placement defined under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code or any
prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of the Code; and (3) the offenders
commit the crime against three or more persons, individually or as a group. All the
foregoing elements are present in the case at bar. Appellant had been neither licensed
nor authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment. Appellant recruited at least
three persons. All the witnesses for the prosecution categorically testified that it was she
who had promised them that she could arrange for and facilitate their employment in
Taiwan as factory workers. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court.

OPINION: I find the Supreme Court’s ruling sufficient in form and in substance. This
case accurately depicted the elements of illegal recruitment in large scale and applied it
to its ruling, sufficiently sentencing the accused guilty.
PEOPLE VS. NAVARRA, SR.
G.R. No. 119361 February 19, 2001
PARDO, J.:

FACTS: Appellants were charged with illegal recruitment in large scale resulting to
economic sabotage. Appellants pleaded not guilty and interposed the defense of denial.
Evidence disclosed that appellants and accused Corazon, Rodolfo's wife, operated an
agency and recruited eleven persons for employment in Taiwan who paid placement
fees ranging from P10,000.00 to P30,000.00. The persons recruited failed to leave for
abroad for overseas employment. Verification with the Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE) disclosed that accused' recruitment agency was not authorized to
recruit workers for overseas employment. Judgment was rendered finding appellants
guilty as charged, sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P100,000.00.
ISSUE: W/N appellants are guilty of large scale of recruitment to economic sabotage?

LAWS: Article 38 (b) of the Labor Code, as amended by P.D. No. 2018 provides that
illegal recruitment shall be considered an offense involving economic sabotage if any of
the following qualifying circumstances exists: First, when illegal recruitment is
committed by a syndicate. For purposes of the law, a syndicate exists when three or
more persons conspire or confederate with one another in carrying out any unlawful or
illegal transaction, enterprise or scheme. Second, there is economic sabotage when
illegal recruitment is committed in a large scale, as when it is committed against three or
more persons individually or as a group.

CASE HISTORY: Bare denials, without clear and convincing evidence to support them,
cannot sway judgment. They are self-serving statements that are inherently weak and
can easily be put forward. The rule is well-entrenched that as an appellate court, we will
not disturb the findings of the trial court on credibility of witnesses as it was in a better
position to appreciate the same. The rule is specially so given that there is no showing
that the trial court plainly overlooked certain facts of substance or value, which, if
considered, may affect the result of the case.

RULING: The Supreme Court held that bare denials without clear and convincing
evidence to support them cannot sway judgment; that findings of the trial court on
credibility of witnesses are generally not disturbed on appeal; that appellants committed
acts of recruitment and placement with their promises of pro table employment abroad
and acceptance of placement fees; and that illegal recruitment is considered an offense
involving economic sabotage where the same was committed by herein three or more
accused against three or more persons.
OPINION: The ruling of the Supreme Court is sufficient in form and in substance. It is
clearly proven that appellants committed acts of recruitment and placement with
promises of pro table employment and acceptance of placement fees and that the case
included economic sabotage.
PEOPLE VS. CASTILLON
G.R. No. 130940 April 21, 1999
PANGANIBAN, J.:
FACTS: Appellant was charged with and convicted of large-scale illegal recruitment and
correspondingly sentenced to life imprisonment. Evidence for the prosecution disclosed
that appellant, without any license to recruit overseas workers, fraudulently represented
to Emily and Nelia Perturbos, Dahlia Acol and Clemencia Bula-ag that she could
provide them employment in Malaysia as factory workers. Appellant demanded a fee of
P8,000 for placement and processing but accepted P4,000 partial payment to which she
issued duly signed individual receipts. The complainants, however, were not able to
leave for abroad. Hence, this case against appellant. Appellant denied the charges
against her but admitted having received the amounts of P4,000 from complainants.
ISSUE: W/N Castillon is guilty of large-scale illegal recruitment and correspondingly
sentenced to life imprisonment?
LAWS: Large-scale illegal recruitment has the following essential elements: (1) The
accused undertook [a] recruitment activity de ned under Article 13(b) or any prohibited
practice under Art. 34 of the Labor Code. (2) He did not have the license or the authority
to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers. (3) He committed the
same against three or more persons, individually or as a group.
CASE HISTORY: The prosecution evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that the
foregoing elements were present in this case. There is no question that appellant did
not have a license to engage in the recruitment of workers, as she herself admitted, and
that the crime was committed against more than three persons. Appellant merely
contends that she did not engage in the recruitment and placement of workers. Her
argument is belied, however, by the evidence on record. Appellant's recruitment of four
persons despite her lack of authority or license to do so is uncontroverted. She is thus
guilty of large-scale illegal recruitment as de ned and penalized in Articles 38(b) and
39(a) of the Labor Code.
RULING: The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision. It found that there was
sufficient evidence to sustain appellant's conviction for large-scale illegal recruitment the
prosecution having established beyond reasonable doubt that appellant who did not
have license to engage in the recruitment of workers recruited more than three persons
for employment abroad for a fee.
OPINION: The Supreme Court’s ruling is sufficient in form and in substance. The
evidence was sufficient to sustain the appellant’s conviction for large-scale illegal
recruitment. The prosecution clearly established guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
PEOPLE VS. ENRIQUEZ
G.R. No. 127159 May 5, 1999
ROMERO, J.:
FACTS: The case under consideration is an appeal by accused-appellant from the
decision dated October 25, 1996 rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City
convicting her of illegal recruitment in large scale under Article 38 (B) of the Labor
Code, as amended. In this case, the trial court did not give credence to the evidence
presented by the defense and found herein appellant guilty as charged. Hence, this
appeal.
ISSUE: W/N Enriquez is guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale?
LAWS: The essential elements of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale can thus
be summarized as follows: (1) the accused engages in acts of recruitment and
placement of workers, as defined under Article 13 (b), or in any prohibited activities
under Article 34 of the Labor Code; (2) the accused has not complied with the
guidelines issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment, particularly with respect
to the securing of a license or an authority to recruit and deploy workers, either locally or
overseas; and (3) the accused commits the same unlawful acts against three or more
persons, individually or as a group.
CASE HISTORY: As the Court held in another illegal recruitment case, with the
accused appellant's failure to present the person who was allegedly responsible for the
recruitment of the complainants, she risked the adverse inference and legal
presumption that evidence suppressed would be adverse if produced.
Furthermore, worth reiterating is the rule that illegal recruitment in large scale is malum
prohibitum, not malum in se, and the fact alone that a person violated the law warrants
her conviction. 17 Thus, any claim of lack of criminal intent, as the herein accused
attempts to raise in her defense, is unavailing. She cannot escape liability by merely
passing the blame to her common-law husband. As the records show, accused-
appellant was, in fact, engaged in recruitment without the requisite license or authority.
This alone is sufficient to support her conviction, and it is now immaterial whether or not
she had intended to defraud the complainants.
RULING: The Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found that all the elements of the
crime of illegal recruitment in large scale are duly proven in the case at bar. Particularly,
the prosecution was able to prove that the appellant actually engaged in recruitment
activities through the testimonies of the complaining witnesses. These witnesses were
united in pointing to the appellant as the one who inveigled them into handing over their
hard-earned money in exchange for work abroad. Moreover, the certification issued by
the Chief of Licensing of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration
unequivocally showed that appellant does not have the requisite license or authority to
engage in the recruitment and placement of workers abroad. In view thereof, the Court
affirmed the challenged decision and sentenced herein appellant to suffer the penalty of
life imprisonment and to pay the fine of P100,000.00.
OPINION: The Supreme Court’s ruling is sufficient in form and in substance. The
evidence was sufficient to sustain the appellant’s conviction for large-scale illegal
recruitment. The prosecution clearly established guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
PEOPLE VS. DE LEON
G.R. No. 110391 February 7, 1997
ROMERO, J.:
FACTS: Appellant is a former overseas contract worker placed by All Seasons
Manpower for employment as a midwife in Kuwait from 1989 to September 1991 and as
a nursing aide in Jeddah from February 1992 to June 1992. On August 14, 1992,
appellant went to the house of Mr. Tatlonghari and offered him and his daughter-in-law,
Charlene Tatlonghari, placement in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Although Charlene already
had a pending application in another agency, she still submitted her biodata to
appellant.
On August 15, 1992, appellant told Charlene that she would be hired as a clerk with a
monthly salary of US$450.00. On August 16, 1992, Charlene withdrew her passport
from the other agency and gave it to appellant together with P1,000.00, which was
P400.00 short of the amount required by appellant allegedly for travel tax. No receipt
was issued but appellant promised Charlene's departure on August 28, 1992.
The scheduled departure was postponed as were the succeeding schedules, prompting
Charlene and the other applicants to go to All Seasons Manpower in Makati. They saw
appellant there and she advised them to attend a seminar at the Philippine Overseas
Employment Agency (POEA). However, they were warned not to talk with anyone in the
said government agency. Subsequently, she learned that appellant was arrested in one
of the lodging houses in Sta. Cruz, Manila where all the applications and other
documents were found beneath the bed. When she saw appellant at the police station,
appellant told Charlene not to join the other accusers who caused her arrest.
ISSUE: W/N De Leon is guilty of illegal large-scale recruitment?
LAWS: To prove illegal recruitment, only two elements need 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. A license is a document issued by
the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) authorizing a person or entity to
operate a private employment agency, while an authority is a document issued by the
DOLE authorizing a person or association to engage in recruitment and placement
activities as a private recruitment agency.
CASE HISTORY: As the Court declared in People v. Naparan, Jr.: "Nitong mga
nakaraang buwan, ang pansin ng sambayanan ay natuon sa mga krimen na
karumaldumal na katulad ng pagpatay at pagsasamantala sa ating mga kababaihan.
Wari ay nakaligtaan natin ang mga salarin na di nahuhuli sa mga mamamatay tao. Sila
rin ay nagsasamantala sa mga inosente at walang malay. Ang kaibhan nga lamang ay
ang kanilang biktima ay yaong ating mga kababayan na nangangarap na mangibang
bayan upang sila ay mahango sa karalitaan sampu ng kanilang pamilya. Sa masidhi
nilang hangarin, halos hindi nagdadalawang-isip kapag may balanang nangangako na
ipadadala sila sa mga bayang nakaririwasa kung sila ay magbabayad ng sapat na
salapi. Upang mapaniwala sila, ang mga may masasamang tangka ay nagpapanggap
na sila ay malakas at may koneksyon sa mga Embahada ng mga bayang ito. Hindi
lamang madudulas ang kanilang dila. Umaasta silang maykaya. Naroong sabihin na
nakatira sila sa otel o pook ng mayayaman. Kapag nakikipagkita sa kanilang kliyente ay
magara ang suot at nakakotse. Anupat ang mga pobreng nangangarap ay gagawin ang
lahat ng makakaya upang makapagbayad ng hinihinging pamasahe sa eroplano.
Kadalasan ay nangungutang sila o ang mga magulang nila sa 'sinco-seis;' o dili kaya'y
nagsasangla ng lupain o nagbibili ng mga ari-ariang gaya ng kalabaw. Kanila namang
nahihimok ang kamag-anakan nila na tumulong sapagkat nangangakong magpapadala
ng higit na maraming kuwarta na pambayad sa kanilang utang o dili kaya ay pampaaral
sa mga nakababatang kapatid.
Sa oras na nakapagbitiw ng salapi ang biktima, ang manlilinlang ay dagling nawawala
na parang bula. Sapagkat karamihan sa kanila ay 'illegal recruiter' at walang lisensya sa
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA), hindi na matutunton ang
kanilang bakas.
Totoong napakarami na ang ating kaawa-awang kababayan na napagsamantalahan na
ng gayon. Nakalulungkot na kahit na magbabala ang pamahalaan at ang mga opisinang
kinauukulan, hindi rin dinidinggin ng mga nais na mapabuti ang kalagayan nila sa buhay
sa pamamagitan ng pangingibang bayan.
Napapanahon nang iparating sa mga salarin na iyan na hindi pahihintulutan ng
pamahalaan ang gayong malawakang pangloloko sa mga maralita na masasabing ang
kasalanan lamang ay 'naghangad ng kagitna, isang salop ang nawala.' Kami ay
maaasahang magpataw ng akma at nauukol na parusa na bilanggo habang buhay at
multa sa halagang Isang Daang Libong Piso (P100,000.00) sa katulad ng nasasakdal
sa kasong itong nakasalang sa Kataastaasang Hukuman ngayon. Umaasa kaming ito
ay magsisilbing halimbawa sa mga walang awa nating kababayan na patuloy ang
gawang panlilinlang sa kanilang kapwa Pilipino."
RULING: In the instant case, appellant clearly committed large scale illegal recruitment
as she recruited at least three persons, giving them the impression that she had the
capability of sending them abroad for assured jobs in Saudi Arabia, and collecting
various amounts allegedly for processing and placement fees without license or
authority to do so. Against the prosecution's overwhelming evidence, appellant could
only offer a bare denial and an obviously concocted story that it was her suitor who
actually recruited the various complainants and not she. This suitor was never
presented to corroborate her statements, nor were other evidence presented to cast
even an iota of doubt on the testimony of the prosecution's witnesses. After a thorough
and painstaking review, the Court is satisfied that there is nothing in the records to
signify that the trial court ignored or misappreciated substantial facts as would warrant a
reversal of its findings and conclusions.
OPINION: The Supreme Court’s ruling is sufficient in form and in substance. The
evidence was sufficient to sustain the appellant’s conviction for large-scale illegal
recruitment. The prosecution clearly established guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
PEOPLE VS. ORTIZ-MIYAKE
G.R. Nos. 115338-39 September 16, 1997
REGALADO, J.:
FACTS: Appellant Lanie Ortiz-Miyake was charged with illegal recruitment in large
scale by three complainants. In the same court she was also indicted for estafa by
means of false pretenses by one of the complainants. Upon arraignment, appellant
pleaded not guilty to the charges and the cases were tried jointly. Appellant was
convicted on both crimes as charged. In convicting appellant of illegal recruitment in
large scale, the court adopted as its own the facts and conclusions established in an
earlier decision which had become final and executory. In the said decision, appellant
was convicted with the crime of estafa, the complainants therein being the other two
victims in the illegal recruitment in large scale. Appellant led this petition to seek the
reversal of her conviction for being groundless.
ISSUE: W/N Ortiz-Miyake is guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale?
LAWS: Illegal recruitment is likewise defined and made punishable under the Labor
Code, thus: Art. 38. Illegal Recruitment. — (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. . . . (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. . . . Illegal recruitment is deemed
committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons individually or
as a group. Art. 39. Penalties. — (a) The penalty of life imprisonment and a ne of One
Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) shall be imposed if Illegal Recruitment
constitutes economic sabotage as defined herein; . . . (c) Any person who is neither a
licensee nor a holder of authority under this Title found violating any provision thereof or
its implementing rules and regulations shall, upon conviction thereof, suffer the penalty
of imprisonment of not less than four (4) years nor more than eight (8) years or a ne of
not less than P20,000.00 nor more than P100,000.00, or both such imprisonment and
ne, at the discretion of the court. . . . During the pendency of this case, Republic Act No.
8042, otherwise known as the "Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995,"
was passed increasing the penalty for illegal recruitment. This new law, however, does
not apply to the instant case because the offense charged herein was committed in
1992, before the effectivity of said Republic Act No. 8042. It is evident that in illegal
recruitment cases, the number of persons victimized is determinative. Where illegal
recruitment is committed against a lone victim, the accused may be convicted of simple
illegal recruitment which is punishable with a lower penalty under Article 39(c) of the
Labor Code. Corollarily, where the offense is committed against three or more persons,
it is qualified to illegal recruitment in large scale which provides a higher penalty under
Article 39(a) of the same Code.
CASE HISTORY: The distinction between simple illegal recruitment and illegal
recruitment in large scale are emphasized by jurisprudence. Simple illegal recruitment is
committed where a person: (a) undertakes any recruitment activity defined under Article
13(b) or any prohibited practice enumerated under Articles 34 and 38 of the Labor
Code; and (b) does not have a license or authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment
and placement of workers. On the other hand, illegal recruitment in large scale further
requires a third element, that is, the offense is committed against three or more
persons, individually or as a group. In illegal recruitment in large scale, while the law
does not require that at least three victims testify at the trial, it is necessary that there is
sufficient evidence proving that the offense was committed against three or more
persons.
RULING: In its decision, the Supreme Court modified the judgment of the trial court.
The trial court's utilization of and reliance on a previous decision must be rejected. A
previous decision, while admissible in evidence, may only prove that an accused was
previously convicted of a crime. To sanction its being used as a basis for conviction in a
subsequent case would constitute a violation of the right of the accused to confront the
witnesses against him. Appellant was convicted only of simple illegal recruitment. The
conviction for estafa, however, was affirmed by the Court stating that the elements of
deceit and damage for this form of estafa were indisputably present.
OPINION: The Supreme Court’s ruling is sufficient in form and in substance. The
evidence was sufficient to modify the lower court’s decision and thus convict Ortiz-
Miyake of simple illegal recruitment only and not illegal recruitment in a large-scale.
PEOPLE VS. REYES
G.R. No. 105204 March 9, 1995
MENDOZA, J.:
FACTS: Appellant Thelma Reyes was charged together with her husband Nick Reyes,
but the latter was at large and so has remained up to now. Consequently, the trial
proceeded only with respect to Thelma Reyes in view of her plea of not guilty.
The prosecution's first witness, Rosalino Bitang, testi ed that sometime in 1985, he and
five others (Lorenzo Blanza, Fabian Baradas, Edgardo Garcia, Ramon Mendoza and
Dionisio de Castro) went to the house of the appellant in Los Baños, Laguna, to apply
for employment abroad; that he gave P5,000 to Nick Reyes as downpayment for the
recruitment fees; that Nick Reyes handed the money to his wife Thelma Reyes, and
afterward issued a receipt.
ISSUE: W/N Reyes is guilty of illegal large-scale recruitment?
LAWS: The Labor Code prescribes the penalty of life imprisonment for illegal
recruitment when committed on a "large scale." Art. 38 (b) of the Code provides that
"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." And Art. 39 (a) provides that "the penalty of life imprisonment and a
ne of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000) shall be imposed if illegal recruitment
constitutes economic sabotage as defined herein."
CASE HISTORY: There are 14 other cases led/pending in the courts against the
accused for illegal recruitment. These cases cannot be taken into account for the
purpose of Art. 38(b). When the Labor Code speaks of illegal recruitment "committed
against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group," it must be understood as
referring to the number of complainants in each case who are complainants therein,
otherwise, prosecutions for single crimes of illegal recruitment can be cumulated to
make out a case of large scale illegal recruitment. In other words, a conviction for large
scale illegal recruitment must be based on a finding in each case of illegal recruitment of
three or more persons whether individually or as a group. Moreover, even if Blanza and
Garcia had been illegally recruited so as to make the number of persons illegally
recruited four and make the crime that of illegal recruitment on a large scale, since this
was not alleged in the information and this is the more serious offense which includes
that which was charged, the appellant can only be found guilty of the less serious
offense charged, pursuant to Rule 120, Sec. 4.
RULING: In this case the information against appellant mentioned only the two
complainants Fabian Baradas and Rosalino Bitang as having been illegally recruited by
appellant and her husband. The trial Court, however, held appellant guilty of illegal
recruitment on a large scale because aside from Baradas and Bitang, appellant and her
husband allegedly recruited others, namely, Lorenzo Blanza, Edgardo Garcia, Ramon
Mendoza, and Dionisio de Castro. This is error. To be sure, Blanza and Garcia,
according to complainant Baradas were able to obtain overseas employment. On the
other hand, with respect to De Castro there is no evidence that he, too, had been
illegally recruited by the spouses. What appears in the record is that he advanced the
amount of P34,000.00 in behalf of the complainants and the three others. Only two,
therefore, had been illegally recruited. Accordingly, appellant must be punished under
Art. 39(c) of the Labor Code.
OPINION: The Supreme Court’s ruling is sufficient in form and in substance. The
evidence was sufficient to modify the lower court’s decision and thus convict Reyes of
simple illegal recruitment only and not illegal recruitment in a large-scale.
PEOPLE VS. TURDA
G.R. Nos. 97044-46 July 6, 1994
BELLOSILLO, J.:
FACTS: In the first week of August 1986, appellant Gener Turda, his wife Milagros
Turda nicknamed "Mila," and Carmen Manera went to the house of complainant
Florante Rosales at 28 Ilocos Sur St., Bago Bantay, Quezon City, to convince his family
that the former could secure an overseas job for Florante in Italy and another for his
sister Shirley Cabalu in France for a fee. Florante and Shirley accepted the offer and
their father, Roberto Rosales, paid P70,000.00 for both. However, he did not ask for a
receipt because of his trust in appellant and his wife who were Shirley's "compadre" and
"comadre" for the past seventeen (17) years. 1
On 13 August 1986, the spouses Gener and Mila, together with Carmen Manera,
brought Florante and Shirley to the airport for their supposed departure for abroad at ve
o'clock that afternoon. The Turdas used their Volkswagen in bringing their two (2)
"recruits" to the airport for the customary "send-off." After a long wait, appellant and his
coaccused told Florante and Shirley that their passports had to be rescheduled, with the
assurance however that they could leave as soon as their papers were released. 2
Despite several promises, Florante and Shirley were still unable to leave. They visited
and Turdas several times at their house but the former were given more promises
instead. Florante even went to the agency of accused German Manera, the International
Friendship and General Services, at Mabini St., Ermita, Manila, but was unable to talk to
her because at that time there were many applicants inside the o ce. Complainant and
his sister nally demanded the return of their money, but the Turdas failed to give their
money back. Consequently, Florante Rosales went to the O ce of the City Fiscal of
Quezon City to le the corresponding complaint.
Sometime before September 1987, another complainant, Celina Andan, learned that
her application for an immigrant visa with the Canadian Embassy was denied. While her
application was pending, Celina's mother, Milagros Andan, was persuaded by Milagros
Turda to entrust to her the processing of Celina's papers since she (Milagros Turda)
had already been abroad and had gone through the application process previously. The
Andans and the Turdas had known each other for more than ten (10) years as their
stores which sold rice and LPG, respectively, were near each other.
After the denial of Celina Andan's application, Gener and Mila undertook the processing
of Celina's travel papers for which they were given a downpayment of P25,000.00 with
the promise to refund the amount if she would not be able to leave for Canada within 45
days. However, should they succeed, Celina would have to pay them an additional
amount of P35,000.00 upon delivery to her of her visa.
On 14 September 1987, the mother of Celina gave a check in her store for P14,500.00
and cash of P500.00 to Mila Turda for which the latter gave a receipt in the presence of
appellant Gener. On 22 September 1987, Celina's mother again gave a check to the
Turdas in the amount of P10,000.00 for which a receipt was likewise issued by Milagros
Turda.
After forty- five (45) days, Celina Andan was still unable to leave for abroad. She went
with her mother to the house of the Turdas where they only met appellant. They were
told that Mila went somewhere. Celina wanted to get here passport and money back
because nothing happened to her visa application, but appellant told her that he would
just relay the message to his wife. Celina returned the following day only to be told by
the spouses that her passport had been sent to her mother's store and that their
downpayment of P25,000.00 could be withdrawn from the person to whom they
(Turdas) gave it. Celina went back to the house of appellant but she never succeeded in
talking to the spouses. They were always out. Hence, she decided to charge the Turda
spouses with estafa and illegal recruitment. On 22 February 1989, Gener Turda, his
wife Milagros Turda and Carmen Manera were jointly charged with illegal recruitment
and two (2) counts of estafa in three (3) separate Informations.
ISSUE: W/N Turda is guilty of illegal recruitment on large scale?
LAWS: There is no doubt that the acts of appellant and his wife conclusively
established a common criminal design mutually deliberated upon and accomplished
through coordinated moves. Such acts constitute enlisting, contracting or procuring
workers or promising them overseas employment under Art. 13, par. (b), of the Labor
Code. Since appellant did not have the license or authority to recruit and yet recruited at
least three (3) persons, he is guilty of large-scale illegal recruitment under Art. 38,
penalized under Art. 39, of the Labor Code.
CASE HISTORY: A review of the testimonies of complainants leads us to no other
conclusion than that appellant, his wife, and Manera were conspirators in the illegal
recruitment business by contributing acts in pursuance of the financial success of their
joint venture for their mutual bene t. All the complainants have testified that in every
recruitment transaction, appellant was always present with the other accused. All the
complainants confirmed that appellant even drove them to the airport for the supposed
trip abroad not only once but thrice. Appellant's explanation that his reason for driving
the complainants to the airport was because he himself was also scheduled to leave for
abroad, is weak and uncorroborated. It is a self-serving negative evidence which cannot
prevail over his positive identification by the complaining witnesses as one of those who
actively participated in recruiting them. Besides, how could he be driving his
Volkswagen to the airport if he himself was leaving for abroad, unless he was ready to
abandon his car after taking off?
RULING: The findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to the
highest degree of respect and will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of any
showing that said court overlooked, misunderstanding or misapplied some facts or
circumstances of weight and substance which do not obtain in the present case. There
is no doubt that the acts of appellant and his wife conclusively established a common
criminal design mutually deliberated upon and accomplished through coordinated
moves. Such acts constitute enlisting, contracting or procuring workers or promising
them overseas employment under Art. 13, par. (b), of the Labor Code. 5 Since appellant
did not have the license or authority to recruit 6 and yet recruited at least three (3)
persons, he is guilty of large-scale illegal recruitment under Art. 38, penalized under Art.
39, of the Labor Code.
We are not persuaded by appellant's argument that the trial court erred in imposing
upon him the penalty of life imprisonment because this was imposed by a new law not
in force when the offense was allegedly committed. P.D. No. 2018 7 has increased the
penalty to life imprisonment if the illegal recruitment constitutes economic sabotage. As
de ned in Art. 38, as amended, illegal recruitment constitutes economic sabotage if
undertaken by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring and/or confederating
with one another in carrying out any unlawful or illegal transaction, enterprise or scheme
defined under the first paragraph of Art. 38.
As correctly pointed out by the Solicitor General, Sec. 2 of P.D. No. 2018, promulgated
on 26 January 1986, has provided for its immediate effectivity. It was published on 10
February 1986 in Vol. 82, No. 6, Page 922, of the Official Gazette. Hence, when
appellant committed the acts of illegal recruitment from August 1986 to September
1987, the amendments to the law, which took effect on 28 July 1986, 8 were already in
force and effect.
The rule is settled that the recruitment of persons for overseas employment without the
necessary recruiting permit or authority from the POEA constitutes illegal recruitment;
however, where some other crimes or felonies are committed in the process, conviction
under the Labor Code does not preclude punishment under other statutes.
OPINION: The Supreme Court’s ruling is sufficient in form and in substance. The
evidence was sufficient to sustain the appellant’s conviction for large-scale illegal
recruitment. The prosecution clearly established guilt beyond reasonable doubt.