Topic: What constitutes recruitment PEOPLE vs. LOMA GOCE y OLALIA, DA GOCE an! ELL" D. AG#$TI %G.&. o.

''(')' Au*ust +,, ',,- . Ponente: REGALADO, J.: ature: This is a petition for certiorari seeking to set aside the order of the trial quashing the information in favor of the private respondent. /acts: On anuar! "#, "$%%, an information for illegal recruitment committed &! a s!ndicate and in large scale, punisha&le under Articles '% and '$ of the La&or (ode )*residential Decree +o. ,,#- as amended &! .ection ")&- of *residential Decree +o. #/"%, 0as filed against spouses Dan and Loma Goce and herein accused1appellant +ell! Agustin for alleged representing themselves to have the capacit! to contract, enlist and transport 2ilipino 0orkers for emplo!ment a&road 0ithout first having secured the required license or authorit! from the Department of La&or. On anuar! #", "$%3, a 0arrant of arrest 0as issued against the three accused &ut not one of them 0as arrested. Eventuall!, +ell! Agustin 0as apprehended &! the *ara4aque police. Agustin denied an! participation in the illegal recruitment and maintained that the recruitment 0as perpetrated onl! &! the Goce couple. Agustin also denied an! kno0ledge of the receipts representing placement fee presented &! the prosecution. .he insisted that the complainants included her in the complaint thinking that this 0ould compel her to reveal the 0herea&outs of the Goce spouses 0hich she failed to do so &ecause in truth, so she claims, she does not kno0 the present address of the couple. All she kne0 0as that the! had left their residence in "$%3. The trial court rendered 5udgment finding herein appellant guilt! as a principal in the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale, and sentencing her to serve the penalt! of life imprisonment and fine. 6n her present appeal, appellant Agustin raises the follo0ing arguments7 )"- her act of introducing complainants to the Goce couple does not fall 0ithin the meaning of illegal recruitment and placement under Article "')&- in relation to Article ', of the La&or (ode8 )#- there is no proof of conspirac! to commit illegal recruitment among appellant and the Goce spouses8 and )'- there is no proof that appellant offered or promised overseas emplo!ment to the complainants. Issue: 9hether or not the act of introducing complainants to the Goce couple falls 0ithin the meaning of illegal recruitment and placement under Article "')&- in relation to Article ', of the La&or (ode. &u0in*:

:E.. ;nder said (ode, recruitment and placement refers to an! act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utili<ing, hiring or procuring 0orkers, and includes referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for emplo!ment, locall! or a&road, 0hether for profit or not8 provided, that an! person or entit! 0hich, in an! manner, offers or promises for a fee emplo!ment to t0o or more persons shall &e deemed engaged in recruitment and placement. On the other hand, referral is the act of passing along or for0arding of an applicant for emplo!ment after an initial intervie0 of a selected applicant for emplo!ment to a selected emplo!er, placement officer or &ureau. The testimonial evidence sho0s that she indeed further committed acts constitutive of illegal recruitment. All four prosecution 0itnesses testified that it 0as Agustin 0hom the! initiall! approached regarding their plans of 0orking overseas. 6t 0as from her that the! learned a&out the fees the! had to pa!, as 0ell as the papers that the! had to su&mit. 6t 0as after the! had talked to her that the! met the accused spouses 0ho o0ned the placement agenc!. As correctl! held &! the trial court, &eing an emplo!ee of the Goces, it 0as therefore logical for appellant to introduce the applicants to said spouses, the! &eing the o0ners of the agenc!. As such, appellant 0as actuall! making referrals to the agenc! of 0hich she 0as a part. .he 0as therefore engaging in recruitment activit!. Agustin pla!ed a pivotal role in the operations of the recruitment agenc!, 0orking together 0ith the Goce couple. There is illegal recruitment 0hen one gives the impression of having the a&ilit! to send a 0orker a&road.= 6t is undisputed that appellant gave complainants the distinct impression that she had the po0er or a&ilit! to send people a&road for 0ork such that the latter 0ere convinced to give her the mone! she demanded in order to &e so emplo!ed. 6t cannot &e denied that Agustin received from complainants various sums for purpose of their applications. >er act of collecting from each of the complainants pa!ment for their respective passports, training fees, placement fees, medical tests and other sundr! e?penses unquestiona&l! constitutes an act of recruitment 0ithin the meaning of the la0. Dispositive Portion: 9>ERE2ORE, the appealed 5udgment of the court a quo is here&! A226R@ED in toto , 0ith costs against accused1appellant +ell! D. Agustin. .O ORDERED.