People vs.

Panis

People vs. Panis, 142 SCRA 664 (1986) Facts: Four separate criminal complaints were filed against Abug for operating a feecharging employment agency without first securing a license. Abug filed a motion to
quash alleging that the informations did not charge an offense as he was charged
with illegally recruiting only one person in each of the four informations. Abug
claimed that under Article 13(b) there would be illegal recruitment only when two or
more persons in any manner were promised or offered any employment for a fee.

Ruling: The Court ruled that the number of persons is not an essential ingredient of
the act of recruitment and placement of workers. - As we see it, the proviso was
intended neither to impose a condition on the basic rule nor to provide an exception
thereto but merely to create a presumption. The presumption is that the individual
or entity is engaged in recruitment and placement whenever he or it is dealing with
two or more persons to whom, in consideration of a fee, an offer or promise of
employment is made in the course of the canvassing, enlisting, contracting,
transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring (of) workers. The number of persons
dealt with is not an essential ingredient of the act of recruitment and placement of
workers. Any of the acts mentioned in the basic rule in Article 13(b) will constitute
recruitment and placement even if only one prospective worker is involved. The
proviso merely lays down a rule of evidence that where a fee is collected in
consideration of a promise or offer of employment to two or more prospective
workers, the individual or entity dealing with them shall be deemed to be engaged
in the act of recruitment and placement. The words shall be deemed create that
presumption.

The Court laid down the rule in People vs. Goce, (64 SCAD 72, 247 SCRA 780
[1995]) that to prove that the accused was engaged in recruitment activities, it
must be shown that the accused gave the complainant the distinct impression that
she had the power or ability to send the complainant abroad for work, such that
the'latter was convinced to part with her money in order to be so employed. Where
such act or representation is not proven, there is no recruitment activity and
conviction for illegal recruitment has no basis.

Thus, in Darvin vs. C.A. and People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 125044, July 13,
1998, the Court noted the lack of evidence to prove that the accused offered a job
to complainant-respondent. It was established, instead, that the complainant gave
P150,000.00 to the accused-appellant for payment of air fare and US visa and other
expenses. The receipt for the P150,000.00 stated that it was for Air Fare and visa
to USA. The Court through Justice Romero concluded: By themselves, procuring a

passport, airline tickets and foreign visa for another individual, without more, can
hardly qualify as recruitment activities.