Aidan Frank F.

Millora
LM3188
Atty. Jimenez
3LM2

Case #2:
[G.R. No. 113161. August 29, 1995.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LOMA GOCE y OLALIA, DAN
GOCE and NELLY D. AGUSTIN, accused, NELLY D. AGUSTIN, accused-appellant.
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Pablo Baltazar for accused-appellant.
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.
January 1987, a warrant of arrest was issued against the 3 accused but none of them was arrested.
Hence, on February 1989, the RTC ordered the case archived but issued a standing warrant of arrest
against the accused.
At around midday of February 26, 1993, Nelly Agustin was apprehended by the Parañaque police. 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" Thus, on April
15, 1993, the trial court reinstated the case and set the arraignment for May 3, 1993, on which date of
Agustin pleaded not guilty 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.
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.
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. These three arguments being
interrelated, they will be discussed together.
The counsel of the appellant 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.
Issue:
Whether or not there is proof of conspiracy between accused-appellant and the Goce couple as to
make her liable for illegal recruitment.
Ruling:
Under the Labor 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.  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. 
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.
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, 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, 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." 
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.
Case Critic:
Under Article 13(b) of The Labor 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. 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.

In this case of People vs. Goce, the testimonial evidence shows that she further committed acts
constitutive of illegal recruitment. It is clear that Agustin gave the plaintiff-appellee the impression of
having the ability to send a worker abroad. Supported by the evidence presented by the prosecution,
appellant coordinated with their plan to deceive the complainants.

Moreover, Agustin collected the payments of the complainants as well as their passports, training fees,
medical tests and other expenses. On the issue of proof, the court held that the receipts exhibited by
the claimants are clear enough to prove the payments and transaction made.

Even though the presented receipt of the fees and expenses that were paid by the complainants were
only xerox copies and are not allowable in court, this does not mean that the appellant is acquitted. It
is important that the court takes into account the respective testimonies of the complainants that
Agustin was involved in the entire recruitment process.