G.R. No. 125044.

July 13, 1998

IMELDA DARVIN, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondents.

SYLLABUS

Labor and Social Legislation; Labor Code; Illegal Recruitment; Elements. To uphold
the conviction of accused-appellant for illegal recruitment under Article 13 in
relation to Article 38 of the Labor Code, two elements need to be shown: (1) the
person charged with the crime must have undertaken recruitment activities; and
(2) the said person does not have a license or authority to do so.

Labor and Social Legislation; Labor Code; Illegal Recruitment; When is One Engaged in
Illegal Recruitment Activities. To prove that accused-appellant was engaged in
recruitment activities as to commit the crime of illegal recruitment, it must be
shown that the accused-appellant gave private respondent the distinct
impression that she had the power or ability to send the private respondent
abroad for work such that the latter was convinced to part with her money in
order to be so employed.

Labor and Social Legislation; Labor Code; Illegal Recruitment; When is One Engaged in
Illegal Recruitment Activities; Absence of Offer of Job in Case at Bar. In this case, we
find no sufficient evidence to prove that accused-appellant offered a job to
private respondent. It is not clear that accused gave the impression that she was
capable of providing the private respondent work abroad. What is established,
however, is that the private respondent gave accused-appellant P150,000.00. The
claim of the accused that the P150,000.00 was for payment of private
respondent's air fare and US visa and other expenses cannot be ignored because
the receipt for the P150,000.00, which was presented by both parties during the
trial of the case, stated that it was "for Air Fare and Visa to USA." Had the
amount been for something else in addition to air fare and visa expenses, such as
work placement abroad, the receipt should have so stated. By themselves,
procuring a passport, airline tickets and foreign visa for another individual,
without more, can hardly qualify as recruitment activities. Aside from the
testimony of private respondent, there is nothing to show that accused-appellant
engaged in recruitment activities. We also note that the prosecution did not
present the testimonies of witnesses who could have corroborated the charge of
illegal recruitment, such as Florencio Rivera, and Leonila Rivera, when it had the
opportunity to do so. As it stands, the claim of private respondent that accused-
appellant promised her employment abroad is uncorroborated. All these, taken
collectively, cast reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused.

FACTS

Accused-appellant used to be connected with Dale Travel Agency. In 1992, she was introduced
to Macaria Toledo by a friend. Toledo sought her help to secure a passport, U.S. Visa and airline
tickets to the States. She did not promise any employment in the U.S. to Toledo. She, however,
admitted having received the amount of P150,000.00 from Toledo and contends that it was used
for necessary expenses of an intended trip to the U.S. of Toledo and her friend, Florencio Rivera.
After receiving the money, she told Toledo that the papers will be released within 45 days.
Appellant alleged that she was not engaged in illegal recruitment but merely acted as a travel
agent in assisting individuals to secure passports and visa. Charged with Estafa and Illegal
Recruitment before the trial court, the latter found her guilty of the crime of simple illegal
recruitment but acquitted her of estafa. The Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the trial court's
decision.

ISSUE

Whether or not Darvin committed the crime of illegal recruitment.

RULING

No. Accused-appellant was acquitted on ground of reasonable doubt of the crime charged.

RATIO DECIDENDI

The Supreme Court held that to uphold the conviction for the crime of illegal recruitment, two
elements must concur, i.e., the person charged must have undertaken recruitment activities; and
that he does not have a license or authority to do so.

In the case at bar, the Court finds, no sufficient evidence to prove that appellant offered a job to
private respondent. It is not clear that she gave the impression that she was capable of
providing the private respondent work abroad. By themselves, procuring a passport, airline
tickets and foreign visa for another individual, without more, can hardly qualify as recruitment
activities. Aside from the testimony of private respondent, there is nothing to show that
accused-appellant engaged in recruitment activities. We also note that the prosecution did not
present the testimonies of witnesses who could have corroborated the charge of illegal
recruitment, such as Florencio Rivera, and Leonila Rivera, when it had the opportunity to do so.
As it stands, the claim of private respondent that accused-appellant promised her employment
abroad is uncorroborated. All these, taken collectively, cast reasonable doubt on the guilt of the
accused.