PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MA.

HARLETA VELASCO y
BRIONES, MARICAR B. INOVERO, MARISSA DIALA, and BERNA M.
PAULINO, accused, MARICAR B. INOVERO, accused-appellant. G.R.
195668, June 25, 2014

BERSAMIN, J.:

Facts: The Office of the City Prosecutor filed in RTC two informations charging Inovero, Ma. Harleta y Briones,
Marissa Diala and Berna Paulino with illegal recruitment as defined and penalized under Section 6 of Migrant
Worker’s Act of 1995. Only Inovero was arrested and prosecuted, while the other accused remained at large.

Complainants Baful, Brizuela, Aguirre, Amoyo and Marbella testified that they went to HARVEL for recruitment
and deployment in Japan for caregivers and janitor respectively. Futhermore, they passed the required
documents and paid for training fees, placement fees and processing fees to Diala. They have also undergone
medical examination and several training seminars, and briefed by Inovero (introduced by Diala as owner) on
what to wear on the day of deployment. However, they were not deployed and their money not returned. They
later found out that HARVEL was not licensed to recruit.

Labor Employment Officer Versoza of Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (“POEA”) Licensing
Branch certified that neither HARVEL nor Inovero was authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment
as per office records.

Inovero denied the allegations against her. She claimed that she is the niece of accused Velasco, the owner of
HARVEL, but denied working there. She explained her presence in HARVEL by alleging that she worked for
her uncle, Velasco’s husband, as office assistant for at least two to three times a week. She had to go to
HARVEL on alleged errands for her uncle which mainly consisted of serving food and refreshments during
orientation at HARVEL. She denied receiving any money from the complainants, nor issuing receipts thereof.

RTC ruled in favor of complainants. CA affirmed RTC.

Issue: WON Inovero is guilty of illegal

recruitment.

Held: Yes. The essential elements of illegal recruitment committed in large scale are: (1) that the accused
engaged in acts of recruitment and placement of workers as defined under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code, or
in any prohibited activities under Article 34 of the same Code; (2) that the accused had not complied with the
guidelines issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment with respect to the requirement to secure a
license or authority to recruit and deploy workers; and (3) that the accused committed the unlawful acts
against 3 or more persons.

In 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. Private complainants commonly testified Inovero’s conduct. When Inovero was introduced as one
of the owners of Harvel, she (Inovero) did not corrected it. She represented herself as the one expediting
release of applicants’ working visa for Japan. And Inovero was certified to have no license nor authority to
recruit for overseas employment.

Court, not being a trier of facts, must of necessity rely on the findings of fact by the trial court which are
conclusive and binding once affirmed by the CA on intermediate review. The bindingness of the trial court's
factual findings is by virtue of its direct access to the evidence. Denial, essentially a negation of a fact, does
not prevail over an affirmative assertion of the fact for it is inherently weak and unreliable by virtue of its being
an excuse too easy and too convenient for the guilty to make.

Thus, as conspirator and joint tortfeasor, Inovero is solidarily liable with the other accused and shall pay by
way of actual damages to each of the complainants the amounts paid by them for placement, training and
processing fees,
plus interest on such amounts at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this judgment
until fully paid. Inovero shall further pay the costs of suit.