Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2


: Facts: "That in the month of November 1988, in the Municipality of Calapan, Province of Oriental Mindoro, Philippines, the above-named accused thru false manifestation and fraudulent representation made to ROSELIA JIZ JANEO, ZENAIDA J. SUBANG, RENITA J. JANEO and MELROSE S. PALOMO to the effect that he has the authority to recruit workers for employment in Taipei, Taiwan given the necessary amount of money to cover the costs of such recruitment and by means of other similar deceit he is not authorized nor licensed to recruit, collect from the aforestated applicants the aggregate amount of FOURTEEN THOUSAND PESOS (P 14,000.00.) Trial court finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal recruitment . On appeal, the respondent Court of Appeals found petitioner guilty of illegal recruitment on a large-scale. Issue: Whether or not the accused cannot be convicted of illegal recruitment in large scale because the information charged him only with simple illegal recruitment. Held: The real nature of the criminal charge is determined not from the technical name given by the fiscal appearing in the title of the information but by the actual recital of facts appearing in the complaint or information. Thus, where the allegations in the information clearly sets forth the essential elements of the crime charged, the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of his accusations is not violated. The information against petitioner has clearly recited all the elements of the crime of illegal recruitment at large scale, namely: the offender is a non-licensee or non-holder of authority to engage in recruitment and placement activity, the offender undertakes recruitment and placement activity defined under Article 13 (b), or any prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34, and illegal recruitment is committed against three or more persons individually or as a group.

All these elements were duly proven by the prosecution. Petitioner, as discussed earlier, is not licensed or authorized to recruit overseas workers; he undertook recruitment activities defined under Article 34 under the Labor Code and he recruited the four (4) complainant-workers, thus making the crime illegal recruitment in large scale. The imposable penalty is life imprisonment and a fine of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) pursuant to Article 38 (b) and Article 39 (a) of the Labor Code. WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED.