Case: 138 People v Jamilosa

Topic: Prosecution/ Evidence

DOCTRINE: Even in the absence of money or other valuables given as consideration

for the “services” of the recruiter, he is still considered as being engaged in
recruitment activities—it can be gleaned from the language of Article 13(b) of the
Labor Code that the act of recruitment may be for profit or not.

Accused Private Complainants

Joseph Jamilosa Imelda D. Bamba

Geraldine M Lagman

Alma E. Singh

ACTION SEQUENCE:

FACTS:

Bamba was a company nurse for SM when Jamilosa approached her in SM North
EDSA where he introduced himself as a recruiter of workers abroad

 He stated that his sister was a head nurse in LA with a monthly salary of 2,000
usd and that he would be able to help her leave to the US in 2 weeks’ time

 He further stated that he was an FBI agent and had connections with the US
Embassy.

 He would be able to secure a visa if she would be able to pay 300 usd for the
consul.

 Bamba gave her copies of transcript of records, diploma , PRC license and
paid Jamilosa the 300 usd in a McDO she was shown a photocopy of the
supposed US visa

 He also was able to procure several pieces of jewelry that Bamba was
intending to sell and assured here that he would sell it in the us embassy.

She was not issued a receipt for the money and the jewelry

He told her that she should quit her job at SM because tickets were booked in
Northwestern Airlines for LA on Feb 25 1996

Bamba also introduced the accused to the other complainants Lagman, her cousin
and Singh who were also registered nurses

Lagman was asked to give for 300 usd for the so called processing of her US Visa but
she had to pay a 3400 php processing fee and she gave him 2 bottles of Black Label

Extelcom, a telephone company, called Lagman because her number was appearing
in the cellular data of Jamilosa and asked for his whereabouts because he was a
swindler who did not pay for his cellular bills.

Singh was also asked to give 300 usd for the processing , she gave Jamilosa a bottle
of cognac as “grease money”. He asked her to pay 10,000 php to cover half of her
airline ticket she did not pay the 10,000 php

Both Lagman and Singh were not issued receipts for their payments

One week the day of departure, both Lagman and Singh told Bamba what had
happened to them and they called up Jamilosa who said that he could not meet them
to give them their Visas because his wife and/ or mother passed away. He never
showed up afterwards. They tried to verify but he was no longer able to be found.

They filed a complaint for Illegal Recruitment with the NBI.

Jamilosa stated in his Brief that Bamba was his girlfriend and that she and her friends
were all merely seeking advice on how to get jobs in the USA and that he was
charged for Illegal Recruitment was due to a lover’s spat.

He presented evidence that they singed separate certifications that he was not
recruiting during his defense and not on the filing of his counter-affidavit during
the preliminary investigation.

The RTC found the accused guilty of Illegal Recruitment

the accused argued that the criminal Information charging him with illegal recruitment
specifically mentioned the phrase “for a fee,” and as such, receipts to show proof of
payment are indispensable. He pointed out that the three (3) complaining witnesses
did not present even one receipt to prove any profit he may have gained.

the CA found no merit in the arguments and affirmed the RTC

ISSUE: Whether the Accused is Guilty of Illegal Recruitment

RULING: Yes, the Accused is guilty of Illegal Recruitment

Article 13(b) of the Labor Code of the Philippines defines recruitment and placement
as follows:

“(b) 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.”

Section 6 of R.A. No. 8042 defined when recruitment is illegal:

“SEC. 6. Definition.—For purposes of this Act, illegal recruitment shall mean any act
of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring
workers and includes referring, contract services, promising or advertising for
employment abroad, whether for profit or not, when undertaken by a non-licensee or
non-holder of authority contemplated under Article 13(f) of Presidential Decree No.
442, as amended, otherwise known as the Labor Code of the Philippines: Provided,
That any such non-licensee or non-holder who, in any manner, offers or promises for
a fee employment abroad to two or more persons shall be deemed so engaged. x x x”

Any recruitment activities to be undertaken by nonlicensee or non-holder of contracts

shall be deemed illegal and punishable under Article 39 of the Labor Code of the
Philippines. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed
against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group

To prove Illegal Recruitment of the large scale the following elements must be
present:

1) the person charged undertook a recruitment activity under Article 13(b) or any
prohibited practice under Article 34 of the Labor Code;

2) accused did not have the license or the authority to lawfully engage in the
recruitment and placement of workers; and

3) accused committed the same against three or more persons individually or as a

group

The failure of the prosecution to adduce in evidence any receipt or document signed
by appellant where he acknowledged to have received money and liquor does not free
him from criminal liability. Even in the absence of money or other valuables given as
consideration for the “services” of appellant, the latter is considered as being engaged
in recruitment activities.

It can be gleaned from the language of Article 13(b) of the Labor Code that the
act of recruitment may be for profit or not. It is sufficient that the accused
promises or offers for a fee employment to warrant conviction for illegal
recruitment.

In regards to the certifications:

The appellant testified that he was in possession of the said certifications at the time
the same were executed by the complainants and the same were always in his
possession; however, when he filed his counter-affidavit during the preliminary
investigation before the Department of Justice, he did not mention the said
certifications nor attach them to his counter-affidavit.

We find it unbelievable that the appellant, a college graduate, would not divulge the
said certifications which would prove that, indeed, he is not an illegal recruiter. By
failing to present the said certifications prior to the trial, the appellant risks the adverse
inference and legal presumption that, indeed, such certifications were not genuine.
When a party has it in his possession or power to produce the best evidence of which
the case in its nature is susceptible and withholds it, the fair presumption is that the
evidence is withheld for some sinister motive and that its production would thwart his
evil or fraudulent purpose.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision of the
Court of Appeals affirming the conviction of Joseph Jamilosa for large scale illegal
recruitment under Sections 6 and 7 of Republic Act No. 8042 is AFFIRMED WITH
MODIFICATION. The appellant is hereby ordered to refund to each of the complaining
witnesses the peso equivalent of US$300.00. Costs against appellant

NOTES