Case No.: G.R. No. 168651 Case Title: People vs.

Abat Date Promulgated: March 16, 2011 Facts:

SC Division: 3rd Division/Ponente/Bersamin,J. Students Name: Manzano, Stephen R. FILRO Series: 001

The accused-appellant was convicted by the trial court of the crime of large scale illegal recruitment as provided for by Article 13(b) and penalized by Article 39(a), both of the Labor Code. Such conviction is based on the information that the accused not being a licensee or holder of authority performed recruitment activities in large scale by recruiting nine (9) individuals for a work in Taiwan. The accused contended that the sums she collected from the complainants represents reimbursement of the expenses incurred during their trips that took them to the different parts of the county and not in consideration of the employment in Taiwan. The ruling of the trial court was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). Issue: Is the conviction of the accused in accordance with applicable laws? Laws Applicable: Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code provides that 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. Article 38 of the Labor Code specifically defines acts that constitute illegal recruitment as follows: 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 Department of Labor and Employment or any law enforcement officer may initiate complaints under this Article. 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 by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring and/or confederating with one another in carrying out any unlawful or illegal transaction, enterprise or scheme defined under the first

b.

c.

paragraph hereof. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group. d. The Secretary of Labor and Employment or his duly authorized representatives shall have the power to cause the arrest and detention of such non-licensee or non-holder of authority if after investigation it is determined that his activities constitute a danger to national security and public order or will lead to further exploitation of job-seekers. The Secretary shall order the search of the office or premises and seizure of documents, paraphernalia, properties and other implements used in illegal recruitment activities and the closure of companies, establishments and entities found to be engaged in the recruitment of workers for overseas employment, without having been licensed or authorized to do so.

Ruling: It is the lack of the necessary license or authority to recruit and deploy workers, either locally or overseas, that renders the recruitment activity unlawful or criminal. To prove illegal recruitment, therefore, the State must show that the accused gave the complainants the distinct impression that she had the power or ability to deploy the complainants abroad in a manner that they were convinced to part with their money for that end. Further, the Court ruled that the failure of the State to present receipts proving that the payments by the complainants was in consideration of their recruitment to Taiwan does not negate the guilt of the accused Opinion: The ruling of the Court provided me an added knowledge that the non-availability or non-production of the receipt during trial evidencing that the accused received money from the victims is immaterial for the conviction of the crime of large scale illegal recruitment.

Case No.: 656 SCRA 382

SC Division: /Ponente/Leonardo-de Castro, J.

Case Title: People vs. Ochoa Date Promulgated: Facts:

Students Name: Manzano, Stephen R. FILRO Series: 002

The accused-appellant was charged and convicted by the trial court with the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale for recruiting sixteen (16) individuals promising work in Saudi Arabia and Taiwan and for collecting from them placement fees without securing the necessary license. On appeal before the CA, the conviction was affirmed. Issue: Is the conviction of the appellant in order? Law Applicable: Section 6, R.A. No. 8042 (Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995) broadened the concept of illegal recruitment under the Labor Code and provides stiffer penalties. The said Section provides that illegal recruitment shall mean any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, procuring workers and includes referring, contact services, promising or advertising for employment abroad, whether for profit or not, when undertaken by a nonlicense 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 such non-license 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. It shall likewise include the following acts, whether committed by any persons, whether a non-licensee, non-holder, licensee or holder of authority. Ruling: Section 6 of R.A. No. 8042 broadens the concept of illegal recruitment under the Labor Code and provides stiffer penalties, especially for those that constitute economic sabotage. It is well-settled that to prove illegal recruitment, it must be shown that appellant gave complainants the distinct impression that she had the power or ability to send complainant abroad for work such that the latter were convinced to part with their money in order to be employed. Further, Section of R.A. No 8042 clearly provides that any person, whether a non-licensee, non-holder, license or holder of authority may be held liable for illegal recruitment for certain acts as enumerated in paragraphs (a) to (m) thereof, among which acts id the failure to reimburse expenses incurred by the worker in connection with his documentation and processing for purposes of deployment, in cases where the deployment does not actually take place without the workers fault. Opinion:

Clearly, R.A. No. 8042 provides that any person, whether a nonlicensee, non-holder, licensee or holder of authority may be convicted of illegal recruitment for acts committed that falls under Section 6 (a) to (m) thereof. Thus, the impression that only non-licensee or non-holder of authority may be convicted of illegal recruitment in misplaced.

Case No.: G.R. No. 176264 Case Title: People vs. Laogo Date Promulgated: January 10, 2011 Facts:

SC Division: /Ponente/Villarama, J. Students Name: Manzano, Stephen R. FILRO Series: 003

Respondent is the proprietor and manager of Laogo Travel Consultancy. An Information against appellant and a certain Susan Navarro was filed by seven (7) complainants in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos City, Bulacan for the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale. It appeared that appellant promised them job placement abroad, more particularly in Guam, which did not materialize, without first having secured the required license or authority. Appellant contended that the transactions and the payments were made not with her but with Susan. She also admitted that her consultancy firm was merely engaged in the business of assisting clients in the procurement of passports and visas, and denied that her agency was involved in any recruitment activity. The trial court convicted the accused as charged and the same was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). Issue: Is the conviction of the appellant in accordance with applicable laws? Law Applicable: Article 38(a) of the Labor Code, as amended, specifies that recruitment activities undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of authority are deemed illegal and punishable by law. And when the illegal recruitment is committed against three or more persons, individually or as a group, then it is deemed committed in large scale and carries with it stiffer penalties as the same is deemed a form of economic sabotage. Ruling: Here, both the trial court and the CA found that all the five complainants were promised to be sent abroad by Susan and herein appellant as cooks and assistant cooks. The follow up transactions between appellant and her victims were done inside the said travel agency. Moreover, all four receipts issued to the victims bear the name and logo of Laogo Travel Consultancy with two of the said receipts personally signed by appellant herself. Indubitably, appellant and her co-accused acting together made complainants believe that they were transacting with a legitimate recruitment agency and that Laogo Travel Consultancy had the authority to recruit them and send them abroad for work when in truth and in fact it had none as certified by the POEA. Absent any showing that the trial court and the CA overlooked or misappreciated certain significant facts and circumstances, which if properly considered, would change the result, we are bound by said findings. Opinion: In this case, the appellant attempted to change the name of her travel agency to disassociate herself with Susans recruitment activities. Such attempt of a guilty individual to escape liability or to confuse and dishearten her victims is unacceptable.

Case No.: 614 SCRA 254 Case Title: People vs. Martinez Date Promulgated: Facts:

SC Division: /Ponente/del Castillo, J. Students Name: Manzano, Stephen R. FILRO Series: 004

Jenilyn Martinez was charged with the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale before the trial court of Manila. This rooted from representation of the accused to the effect that she had the capacity to recruit and employ the victims as factory worker in Korea and facilitate the processing of their papers if given the necessary amounts.

The trial court found that appellant was not a holder of a license of authority to deploy workers abroad and represented that she had the capacity to do so. Thus, she was convicted as charged. This was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). Issue: Is the conviction of the accused in accordance with applicable law? Law Applicable: Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code provides that 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. Ruling: Although the appellant merely referred the complainants to JH Imperial Organization Placement Corp., the same still constituted an act of recruitment. As explicitly enumerated in Article 13(b) of the Labor Code, recruitment and placement includes the act of making referrals, whether for profit or not. Opinion: The mere act of referral which means the act of passing along or forwarding an applicant to a selected employer is included in recruitment.

Case No.: 616 SCRA 162 Case Title: People vs. Gallo Date Promulgated: Facts:

SC Division: /Ponente/Perez, J. Students Name: Manzano, Stephen R. FILRO Series: 005

Gallo informed the complainants that if they pay P45,000.00, they would leave for Korea in two to three months time, however, they were unable to leave for Korea despite the lapse of several months. Hence, the complainants requested for the refund of their money but the same was not returned.

Subsequently, the complainants recruitment in large scale against Gallo.

filed

complaint

for

illegal

After trial, Gallo was found guilty as charged and this was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). Issue: Is the conviction of Gallo in accordance with the applicable law? Law applicable: Section 6, R.A. No. 8042 (Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995) broadened the concept of illegal recruitment under the Labor Code and provides stiffer penalties. The said Section provides that illegal recruitment shall mean any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, procuring workers and includes referring, contact services, promising or advertising for employment abroad, whether for profit or not, when undertaken by a nonlicense 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 such non-license 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. It shall likewise include the following acts, whether committed by any persons, whether a non-licensee, non-holder, licensee or holder of authority. Ruling: In the simplest terms, illegal recruitment is committed by persons who, without authority from the government, give the impression that they have the power to send workers abroad for employment purposes. To constitute illegal recruitment in large scale, three elements must concur: (a) the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable him to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers; (b) the offender undertakes any of the activities within the meaning of recruitment and placement under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code, or any of the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of the same Code; and (c) the offender committed the same against thee (3) or more persons, individually or as a group. Opinion: The very same evidence to prove commission of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale may also establish the crime of estafa.

Case No.: G.R. No. 171644 Case Title: Romero vs. People Date Promulgated: Nov. 23, 2011 Facts:

SC Division: /Ponente/Peralta, J. Students Name: Manzano, Stephen R. FILRO Series: 006

Sometime in September 2000, Romulo went to petitioner's stall to inquire about securing a job in Israel. Convinced by petitioner's words of encouragement and inspired by the potential salary of US$700.00 to US$1,200.00 a month, Romulo asked petitioner the amount of money required in order for him to be able to go to Israel. Petitioner informed him that as soon as he could give her US$3,600.00, his papers would be immediately processed. Thus, to raise the amount, Romulo secured a loan from a bank and borrowed some more from his friends. When he was able to raise the amount, Romulo went back to petitioner and handed her the money.

Petitioner contacted Jonney Erez Mokra who instructed Romulo to attend a briefing at his house in Dau, Mabalacat, Pampanga. Thereafter, Romulo was able to leave for Israel and was able to secure a job with a monthly salary of US$650.00. Unfortunately, after two and a half months, he was caught by Israel's immigration police and detained for 25 days. He was subsequently deported because he did not possess a working visa. On his return, Romulo demanded from petitioner the return of his money, but the latter refused and failed to do so. Almost the same sequence of event happened to Arturo Siapno, petitioner's nephew. Issue: Is petitioner is guilty of Illegal Recruitment? Applicable Law: Art. 13 (b) and Art. 38 of PD 442 Ruling: Yes. The crime of illegal recruitment is committed when two elements concur, namely: (1) the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable one to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers; and (2) he undertakes either 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. Petitioner was able to convince the private respondents to apply for work in Israel after parting with their money in exchange for the services she would render. The said act of the petitioner, without a doubt, falls within the meaning of recruitment and placement as defined in Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code. As to petitioner's contention that the testimony of Arturo Siapno that the latter paid a certain amount of money to the former must not be given any credence due to the absence of any receipt or any other documentary evidence proving such, the same is without any merit. In People v. Alvarez, this Court ruled that in illegal recruitment cases, the failure to present receipts for money that was paid in connection with the recruitment process will not affect the strength of the evidence presented by the prosecution as long as the payment can be proved through clear and convincing testimonies of credible witnesses. Opinion: The perpetrators of the crime of illegal recruitment takes advantage of people who are succumbed to improve their life through an honorable way of livelihood, by working and striving hard. Notwithstanding the gamble of working away from home, they still take the risk. These people must be protected against deceivers who take advantage of the vulnerability of those who strive to change and improve their lives by working abroad.

10

Case No.: G.R. No. 173198 Case Title: People vs. Ocden Date Promulgated: June 1, 2011 Facts:

SC Division: /Ponente/Leonardo-de Castro, J. Students Name: Manzano, Stephen R. FILRO Series: 007

From May to December 1998, in the City of Baguio, accused Ocden was alleged to have recruited and promised employment as factory workers in Italy to more than three (3) persons without the accused having first secured the necessary license or authority from the Department of Labor and Employment. Ocden contends that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she is guilty of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale. Other than the bare allegations of the prosecution witnesses, no evidence was adduced to prove that she was a non-licensee or non-holder of authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers. No certification attesting to this fact was formally offered in evidence by the prosecution. Issue:

11

Is Ocden guilty of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale? Applicable Laws: Sec. 6 and Sec. 7 of Republic Act No. 8042. Ruling: Yes. It is well-settled that to prove illegal recruitment, it must be shown that appellant gave complainants the distinct impression that he had the power or ability to send complainants abroad for work such that the latter were convinced to part with their money in order to be employed. It is not necessary for the prosecution to present a certification that Ocden is a non-licensee or non-holder of authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers. Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042 enumerates particular acts which would constitute illegal recruitment whether committed by any person, whether a non-licensee, non-holder, licensee or holder of authority. Among such acts, under Section 6(m) of Republic Act No. 8042, is the [f]ailure to reimburse expenses incurred by the worker in connection with his documentation and processing for purposes of deployment, in cases where the deployment does not actually take place without the workers fault. Since illegal recruitment under Section 6(m) can be committed by any person, even by a licensed recruiter, a certification on whether Ocden had a license to recruit or not, is inconsequential. Ocden committed illegal recruitment as described in said provision by receiving placement fees from Mana-a, Ferrer, and Golidans two sons, Jeffries and Howard, evidenced by receipts Ocden herself issued; and failing to reimburse/refund to Mana-a, Ferrer, and Golidans two sons the amounts they had paid when they were not able to leave for Italy, through no fault of their own. Opinion: The fact is Ocden has deceived the herein victims and failed to reimburse them. Unsatisfied of having deceived the victims, Ocden and company even aggravated the situation by making them go to Zamboanga and travel that far; sacrificing their time, money and other resources just to make sure of pursuing the work with the Ocden and companys false promise. The culprit must be punished accordingly.

12

Case No.: G.R. No. 196519 Case Title: People vs. Lalli Date Promulgated: Oct. 12, 2011 Facts:

SC Division: /Ponente/Carpio, J. Students Name: Manzano, Stephen R. FILRO Series: 008

Lollita Plando met Ronnie on her way to the house of her grandfather. She was asked by the latter if she was interested for a job abroad at Malaysia as restaurant entertainer. Lolita was led to meet Lalli and Aringoy. They processed Lolitas papers and since she had no passport, she was able to use her sisters passport which Lalli said she can take care of it having connection with the DFA. Lolita was then set to go to Malaysia on June 6 with Lalli. Lolita went to Zamboanga City wharf bringing a bag containing her make-up and powder. She met at the wharf Lalli, Ronnie Aringoy, Honey and Michele. Ronnie gave to Lolita her boat ticket for the vessel M/V Mary Joy bound for Sandakan, Malaysia; a passport in the name of Marife Plando but with Lolitas picture on it, and P1,000.00 in cash. Hadja Jarma, Lolita, Honey, Michele and two other women boarded the boat M/V Mary Joy bound for Sandakan. Ronnie Aringoy did not go with them. He did not board the boat. At a hotel in Malaysia, Nestor Relampagos introduced to Lolita and her companions a Chinese Malay called Boss as their employer. After looking

13

at the women, Boss brought Lolita, Honey, Diane and Lorraine to a restaurant near the hotel. After about five minutes, another person called boss arrived. They were fetched by a van at about 7:00 oclock in the evening and brought to Pipen Club owned by Boss Awa, a Malaysian. At the club, they were told that they owe the club 2,000 ringgits each as payment for the amount given by the club to Lalli and Relampagos. They will pay for the said amount by entertaining customers. The customers will pay 300 ringgits for short time services of which 50 ringgits will go to the entertainer, and 500 ringgits for overnight service of which 100 ringgits will be given to the entertainer. Lolita Plando was forced to work as entertainer at Pipen Club and was made to have sexual intercourse with customers. Issue: Are Lalli and Ronnie guilty of syndicated Illegal Recruitment? Applicable Law: Section 6 and 7 of RA 8042, Article 13 (b) and (f) of Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, otherwise known as the Labor Code of the Philippines. Ruling: Yes. Given the broad definition of recruitment and placement, even the mere act of referring someone for placement abroad can be considered recruitment. Such act of referral, in connivance with someone without the requisite authority or POEA license, constitutes illegal recruitment. In its simplest terms, illegal recruitment is committed by persons who, without authority from the government, give the impression that they have the power to send workers abroad for employment purposes. The three elements of syndicated illegal recruitment are present in this case, in particular: (1) the accused have no valid license or authority required by law to enable them to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers; (2) the accused engaged in this activity of recruitment and placement by actually recruiting, deploying and transporting Lolita to Malaysia; and (3) illegal recruitment was committed by three persons (Aringoy, Lalli and Relampagos), conspiring and confederating with one another. Opinion: The herein perpetrators did not merely gave false promise to the recruited workers but made victims prostitutes. Such wrong doing of the accused should is horrendous.

14

Case No.: G.R. No. 187052 Case Title: People vs. Chua Date Promulgated: Sept. 13, 2012 Facts:

SC Division: /Ponente/Villarama, J. Students Name: Manzano, Stephen R. FILRO Series: 009

The complainants filed an Information for illegal dismissal in large scale against Melissa Chua alleging that the latter offered them a job as factory workers in Taiwan for deployment within a month. She required each of them on separate occasions to undergo medical examination and pay a placement fee of P 80,000 each. Chua assured each of them that whoever pays the application fee the earliest can leave sooner. After completing payment, they followed-up their applications. However, they learned that Chua was not licensed to recruit workers for overseas employment. Issue: Is Chua guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale? Applicable Law: Sections 6 and 7 of R.A. No. 8042, or the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 Ruling:

15

In order to hold a person liable for illegal recruitment, the following elements must concur: (1) the offender undertakes any of the activities within the meaning of "recruitment and placement" under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code, or any of the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code (now Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042) and (2) the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable him to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers. In the case of illegal recruitment in large scale, a third element is added: that the offender commits any of the acts of recruitment and placement against three or more persons, individually or as a group. All three elements are present in the case at bar. Inarguably, appellant Chua engaged in recruitment when she represented to private complainants that she could send them to Taiwan as factory workers upon submission of the required documents and payment of the placement fee. The four private complainants positively identified appellant as the person who promised them employment as factory workers in Taiwan for a fee of P 80,000. More importantly, Severino Maranan the Senior Labor Employment Officer of the POEA, presented a Certification dated December 5, 2002, issued by Director Felicitas Q. Bay, to the effect that appellant Chua is not licensed by the POEA to recruit workers for overseas employment. Opinion: The government must appropriate more of its resources in going after individuals who are involved in illegal recruitment. It should be more proactive in dealing with the problem. Case No.: G.R. No. 194255 SC Division: /Ponente/Sereno, J. Case Title: People vs. Hashim Students Name: Manzano, Stephen R. Date Promulgated: June 13, 2012 FILRO Series: 010 Facts: Bernadette approached AAA, who was then doing her job as a waitress to encourage AAA to work in Malaysia. On the next day BBB was at her house when Bernadette paid her a visit and invited her to work as a saleslady in Brunei. After being assured that the prospective employment was above board and that she would be well compensated, BBB accepted the invitation. The day after together with Amad and a certain Jun, returned to the house, informed BBB that the latter would be escorted to Malaysia by the two men, and that they would meet the next day. BBB, Macky and Jun met as planned and they met with Hashim who assured BBB that she would be easily hired because of her beauty and height. They also met CCC, another recruit, and Arlene and they all proceeded to the wharf, where they met Cristy, who was also allegedly invited by Bernadette to work in Malaysia. Thereafter, AAA, BBB, CCC, Cristy, Macky and Jun boarded the M/V Grand Flora for Tawi tawi and then to Sabah, Malaysia. Hashim instructed BBB, AAA, CCC and Cristy to wear "sexy clothes" because they were going to meet their supposed boss named Bunso at Cape Imperial located at Labuan, Malaysia. When they arrived at Cape Imperial, accused Macky and Jun talked to Bunso but they failed to reach an agreement on the purported compensation of the four girls. So, accused Macky and Jun brought the girls to Salon where the latter were introduced to

16

a certain person named Mommy Cindy, the alleged owner of the salon, and their purported manager Hako who was called Mommy Susan. At first, private complainants were not aware of the circumstances surrounding their employment at the Golden Lotus. It was only after they agreed to stay there for employment that they were forced to become sex workers to earn money and pay off the debts they incurred from their travel from Zamboanga City to Labuan, Malaysia. Thus, from 21 June 2003 to 13 July 2003, AAA and BBB worked as prostituted women. Issue: Was the crime of Illegal Recruitment committed by a syndicate? Applicable Laws: Section 6 in relation to Section 7(b) of Republic Act. No. (R.A.) 8042 or the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995. Ruling: Yes. To be convicted of the crime of illegal recruitment committed by a syndicate, the following elements must occur: 1. The accused have no valid license or authority required by law to enable them to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers, 2. The accused engaged in this activity of recruitment and placement by actually recruiting, deploying and transporting, 3. Illegal recruitment was committed by three persons conspiring and confederating with one another. As to the first element, accused-appellant admitted that she did not have a valid license to recruit persons for overseas employment, consistent with her defense that she did not engage in the recruitment of persons for employment. Anent the second element, both victims, AAA and BBB, narrated in great detail how they were induced by accused-appellant to accept an employment opportunity, and how they were successfully transported from Zamboanga City to Malaysia where they eventually worked as prostituted women. On the third element, accused-appellant posits that the prosecution failed to prove that there were more than two persons involved in the alleged crime of illegal recruitment, since the trial court held only two of the accused liable for the crime. The prosecution, she alleges, failed to establish that the other accused Macky, Jun, and Tas also had no license or authority to recruit workers for overseas employment. Opinion: Our enforcers should strengthen the campaign against the illegal recruiters, mainly because such crime results exploitation of countrymen.

17

18