THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CAROL M. DELA PIEDRA, accused-appellant.

DECISION
KAPUNAN, J.:

Accused-appellant Carol M. dela Piedra questions her conviction for illegal recruitment in large scale and assails, as well, the constitutionality of the law defining and penalizing said crime. The Court affirms the constitutionality of the law and the conviction of the accused, ut reduces the penalty imposed upon her. The accused was charged efore the !egional Trial Court of "am oanga City in an information alleging#

That on or a out $anuary %&, '((), in the City of "am oanga, Philippines, and within the *urisdiction of this +onora le Court, the a ove-named accused, without having previously o tained from the Philippine ,verseas -mployment Administration, a license or authority to engage in recruitment and overseas placement of wor.ers, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, offer and promise for a fee employment a road particularly in /ingapore thus causing Maria 0ourdes Modesto 1y2 3adrino, 4ancy Araneta y Aliwanag and $ennelyn 5aez y Tim ol, all qualified to apply, in fact said Maria 0ourdes Modesto had already advanced the amount of P6,&&&.&& to the accused for and in consideration of the promised employment which did not materialized 1sic2 thus causing damage and pre*udice to the latter in the said sum7 furthermore, the acts complained of herein tantamount 1sic2 to economic sa otage in that the same were committed in large scale.1'2
Arraigned on $une 6&, '((), the accused pleaded not guilty162 to these charges. At the trial, the prosecution presented five 89: witnesses, namely, -rlie !amos, /P,6 -rwin Manalopilar, -ileen ;ermindoza, 4ancy Araneta and 0ourdes Modesto. The succeeding narration is gathered from their testimonies# ,n $anuary %&, '((), at e<actly '&#&& in the morning, -rlie !amos, Attorney == of the Philippine ,verseas -mployment Agency 8P,-A:, received a telephone call from an unidentified woman inquiring a out the legitimacy of the recruitment conducted y a certain Mrs. Carol ;igueroa. !amos, whose duties include the surveillance of suspected illegal recruiters, immediately contacted a friend, a certain Mayeth 5ellotindos, so they could oth go to 4o. 6>-?, Tetuan +ighway, /ta. Cruz, "am oanga City, where the recruitment was reportedly eing underta.en. @pon arriving at the reported area at around )#&& p.m., 5ellotindos entered the house and pretended to e an applicant. !amos remained outside and stood on the pavement, from where he was a le to see around si< 8>: persons in the houseAs sala. !amos even heard a woman, identified as Carol ;egueroa, tal. a out the possi le employment she has to provide in /ingapore and the documents that the applicants have to comply with. ;ifteen 8'9: minutes later, 5ellotindos came out with a io-data form in hand.

,n ;e ruary ', '((), !amos conferred with a certain Capt. Mendoza of the Criminal =nvestigation /ervice 8C=/: to organize the arrest of the alleged illegal recruiter. Also present were other mem ers of the C=/, including Col. !odolfo Almonte, !egional ?irector of the P4P-C=/ for !egion =B, -ileen ;ermindoza, and a certain /P,% /antos. The group planned to entrap the illegal recruiter the ne<t day y having ;ermindoza pose as an applicant.1%2 ,n ;e ruary 6, '((), at around C#&& p.m., Col. Almonte directed the case to /P,6 -rwin Manalopilar, a mem er of the Philippine 4ational Police who was assigned as an investigator of the C=/, to conduct a surveillance of the area to confirm the report of illegal recruitment. Accordingly, he, along with -ileen ;ermindoza, immediately proceeded to Tetuan +ighway. The two did not enter the house where the recruitment was supposedly eing conducted, ut ;ermindoza interviewed two people who informed them that some people do go inside the house. @pon returning to their office at around C#%& a.m., the two reported to Capt. Mendoza who organized a team to conduct the raid. The raiding team, which included Capt. Mendoza, /P,6 Manalopilar, ;ermindoza and a certain ,scar 5ucol, quic.ly set off and arrived at the reported scene at (#%& that morning. There they met up with -rlie !amos of the P,-A. ;ermindoza then proceeded to enter the house while the rest of the team posted themselves outside to secure the area. ;ermindoza was instructed to come out after she was given a io-data form, which will serve as the teamAs cue to enter the house.1)2 ;ermindoza introduced herself as a *o applicant to a man and a woman, apparently the owners of the house, and went inside. There, she saw another woman, later identified as $asmine, coming out of the athroom. The man to whom ;ermindoza earlier introduced herself told $asmine that ;ermindoza was applying for a position. $asmine, who was then only wearing a towel, told her that she would *ust get dressed. $asmine then came ac. and as.ed ;ermindoza what position she was applying for. ;ermindoza replied that she was applying to e a a ysitter or any other wor. so long as she could go a road. $asmine then gave her an application form. A few minutes later, a certain Carol arrived. $asmine informed Carol that ;ermindoza was an applicant. ;ermindoza as.ed Carol what the requirements were and whether she 8;ermindoza: was qualified. Carol told ;ermindoza that if she had a passport, she could fill up the application papers. ;ermindoza replied that she had no passport yet. Carol said she need not worry since $asmine will prepare the passport for her. Dhile filling up the application form, three women who appeared to e friends of $asmine arrived to follow up the result of their applications and to give their advance payment. $asmine got their papers and put them on top of a small ta le. ;ermindoza then proceeded to the door and signaled to the raiding party y raising her hand. Capt. Mendoza as.ed the owners of the house, a married couple, for permission to enter the same. The owners granted permission after the raiding party introduced themselves as mem ers of the C=/. =nside the house, the raiding party saw some supposed applicants. Application forms, already filled up, were in the hands of one Mrs. Carol ;igueroa. The C=/ as.ed ;igueroa if she had a permit to recruit. ;igueroa retorted that she was not engaged in recruitment. Capt. Mendoza nevertheless proceeded to arrest ;igueroa. +e too. the application forms she was holding as the raiding party seized the other papers192 on the ta le.1>2 The C=/ team then rought ;igueroa, a certain $asmine Ale*andro, and the three women suspected to e applicants, to the office for investigation.1E2

=n the course of their investigation, the C=/ discovered that Carol ;igueroa had many aliases, among them, Carol 0lena and Carol dela Piedra. The accused was not a le to present any authority to recruit when as.ed y the investigators.1C2 A chec. y !amos with the P,-A revealed that the acused was not licensed or authorized to conduct recruitment. 1(2 A certification1'&2 dated ;e ruary 6, '(() stating thus was e<ecuted y !enegold M. Macarulay, ,fficer-in-Charge of the P,-A. The C=/ li.ewise interviewed the supposed applicants, 0ourdes Modesto, 4ancy Araneta and $ennelyn 5aez, all registered nurses wor.ing at the Ca ato Medical +ospital, who e<ecuted their respective written statements.1''2 At the trial, 4ancy Araneta, 6%, recounted that she was at $asmine Ale*androAs house in the afternoon of $anuary %&, '((). Araneta had learned from /andra Aquino, also a nurse at the Ca ato Medical +ospital, that a woman was there to recruit *o applicants for /ingapore. Araneta and her friends, $ennelyn 5aez and /andra Aquino, arrived at $asmineAs house at around )#%& p.m. $asmine welcomed them and told them to sit down. They listened to the FrecruiterG who was then tal.ing to a num er of people. The recruiter said that she was FrecruitingG nurses for /ingapore. Araneta and her friends then filled up io-data forms and were required to su mit pictures and a transcript of records. They were also told to pay P6,&&&, and Fthe rest will e salary deduction.G Araneta su mitted her io-data form to Carol that same afternoon, ut did not give any money ecause she was Fnot yet sure.G ,n the day of the raid on ;e ruary 6, '((), Araneta was again at the Ale*andro residence to su mit her transcript of records and her picture. /he arrived at the house %& minutes efore the raid ut did not witness the arrest since she was at the porch when it happened.1'62 Maria 0ourdes Modesto, 6>, was also in $asmine Ale*androAs house on $anuary %&, '((). A friend of $asmine had informed her that there was someone recruiting in $asmineAs house. @pon arriving at the Ale*andro residence, 0ourdes was welcomed y $asmine. 0ourdes recalled that Carol ;igueroa was already riefing some people when she arrived. Carol ;igueroa as.ed if they would li.e a Fgood opportunityG since a hospital was hiring nurses. /he gave a rea.down of the fees involved# P%&,&&& for the visa and the round trip tic.et, and P9,&&& as placement fee and for the processing of the papers. The initial payment was P6,&&&, while P%&,&&& will e y salary deduction. 0ourdes filled up the application form and su mitted it to $asmine. After the interview, she gave the initial payment of P6,&&& to $asmine, who assured 0ourdes that she was authorized to receive the money. ,n ;e ruary 6, '((), however, 0ourdes went ac. to the house to get ac. the money. $asmine gave ac. the money to 0ourdes after the raid.1'%2 ?enial comprised the accusedAs defense. Carol dela Piedra, %E, is a housewife and a resident of Ce u City. +er hus and is a usinessman from Ce u, the manager of the !egion E 5ranch of the 3rollier =nternational -ncyclopedia. They own an apartment in Ce u City, providing lodging to students. The accused claimed that she goes to /ingapore to visit her relatives. /he first traveled to

/ingapore on August 6', '((% as a tourist, and came ac. to the Philippines on ,cto er 6& of the same year. Thereafter, she returned to /ingapore on ?ecem er '&, '((%. ,n ?ecem er 6', '((%, while in /ingapore, the accused was invited to a Christmas party sponsored y the "am oanga City Clu Association. ,n that occasion, she met a certain 0aleen Malicay, who sought her help. A midwife, Malicay had een wor.ing in /ingapore for si< 8>: years. +er employer is a certain Mr. Tan, a close friend of Carol. According to the accused, Malicay sent P'9,&&& home for her father who was then seriously ill. Malicay was not sure, however, whether her father received the money so she requested the accused to verify from her relatives receipt thereof. /he informed the accused that she had a cousin y the name of $asmine Ale*andro. Malicay gave the accused $asmineAs telephone num er, address and a s.etch of how to get there. The accused returned to the country on $anuary 6', '((). ;rom Ce u City, the accused flew to "am oanga City on $anuary 6%, '(() to give some presents to her friends. ,n $anuary %&, '((), the accused called up $asmine Ale*andro, 0aleen MalicayAs cousin, to inform her that she would e going to her house. At around noon that day, the accused, accompanied y her friend +ilda ;alcasantos, arrived at the house where she found $asmine entertaining some friends. $asmine came down with two of her friends whom she introduced as her classmates. $asmine told them that the accused was a friend of 0aleen Malicay. The accused relayed to $asmine MalicayAs message regarding the money the latter had sent. $asmine assured her that they received the money, and as.ed Carol to tell Malicay to send more money for medicine for MalicayAs mother. $asmine also told her that she would send something for Malicay when the accused goes ac. to /ingapore. The accused replied that she *ust needed to confirm her flight ac. to Ce u City, and will return to $asmineAs house. After the meeting with $asmine, the accused went shopping with +ilda ;alcasantos. The accused was in the house for only fifteen 8'9: minutes. ,n ;e ruary 6, '((), the accused went to the Philippine Airlines office at E#%& in the morning to confirm her 9#%& p.m. flight to Ce u City. /he then proceeded to $asmineAs residence, arriving there at past C a.m. =nside the house, she met a woman who as.ed her, FAre you Carol from /ingaporeHG The accused, in turn, as.ed the woman if she could do anything for her. The woman inquired from Carol if she was recruiting. Carol replied in the negative, e<plaining that she was there *ust to say good ye to $asmine. The woman further as.ed Carol what the requirements were if she 8the woman: were to go to /ingapore. Carol replied that she would need a passport. Two 86: minutes later, three 8%: girls entered the house loo.ing for $asmine. The woman Carol was tal.ing with then stood up and went out. A minute after, three 8%: mem ers of the C=/ and a P,-A official arrived. A ig man identified himself as a mem er of the C=/ and informed her that they received a call that she was recruiting. They told her she had *ust interviewed a woman from the C=/. /he denied this, and said that she came only to say good ye to the occupants of the house, and to get whatever $asmine would e sending for 0aleen Malicay. /he even showed them her tic.et for Ce u City.

-rlie !amos then went up to $asmineAs room and returned with some papers. The accused said that those were the papers that 0aleen Malicay requested $asmine to give to her 8the accused:. The accused surmised that ecause 0aleen Malicay wanted to go home ut could not find a replacement, one of the applicants in the forms was to e her 8MalicayAs: su stitute. !amos told the accused to e<plain in their office. The accused denied in court that she went to $asmineAs residence to engage in recruitment. /he claimed she came to "am oanga City to visit her friends, to whom she could confide since she and her hus and were having some pro lems. /he denied she .new 4ancy Araneta or that she rought information sheets for *o placement. /he also denied instructing $asmine to collect P6,&&& from alleged applicants as processing fee.1')2 The accused presented two witnesses to corro orate her defense. The first, $asmine Ale*andro, 6%, testified that she met the accused for the first time only on $anuary %&, '(() when the latter visited them to deliver 0aleen MalicayAs message regarding the money she sent. Carol, who was accompanied y a certain +ilda ;alcasantos, stayed in their house for '& to '9 minutes only. Carol came ac. to the house a few days later on ;e ruary 6 at around C#&& in the morning to Fget the envelope for the candidacy of her daughter.G $asmine did not ela orate. $asmine denied that she .new 4ancy Araneta or 0ourdes Modesto. /he denied that the accused conducted recruitment. /he claimed she did not see Carol distri ute io-data or application forms to *o applicants. /he disclaimed any .nowledge regarding the P6,&&& application fee.1'92 The other defense witness, -rnesto Morales, a policeman, merely testified that the accused stayed in their house in 4o. 6E& Tug ungan, "am oanga City, for four 8): days efore her arrest, although she would sometimes go downtown alone. +e said he did not notice that she conducted any recruitment.
1'>2

,n May 9, '((9, the trial court rendered a decision convicting the accused, thus#

D+-!-;,!-, in view of all the foregoing consideration1s21,2 this Court finds the accused Carol dela Piedra alias Carol 0lena and Carol ;igueroa guilty eyond reasona le dou t of =llegal !ecruitment committed in a large scale and here y sentences her to suffer the penalty of 0=;- =MP!=/,4M-4T and to pay a fine of P'&&,&&&.&&, and also to pay the costs. 5eing a detention prisoner, the said accused is entitled to the full time of the period of her detention during the pendency of this case under the condition set forth in Article 6( of the !evised Penal Code. /, ,!?-!-?.1'E2
The accused, in this appeal, ascri es to the trial court the following errors#
I

D=T+ ?@- !-/P-CT, T+- 0,D-! C,@!T -!!-? =4 4,T ;=4?=43 /-C. '% 85: ,; P.?. ))61,2 A/ AM-4?-?1,2 ,T+-!D=/- I4,D4 A/ 1T+-2 =00-3A0

!-C!@=TM-4T 0AD @4C,4/T=T@T=,4A0.

II

D=T+ ?@- !-/P-CT, T+- 0,D-! C,@!T -!!-? =4 4,T +,0?=43 T+AT T+- APP!-+-4?=43 T-AM C,MP,/-? ,; P,-A A4? C=/ !-P!-/-4TAT=J-/ -4T-!-? =4T, 1sic2 T+- !-/=?-4C- ,; $A/M=41-2 A0-$A4?!, D=T+,@T A4K /-A!C+ DA!!A4T =4 J=,0AT=,4 ,; A!T=C0===, /-CT=,4 6 ,; T+- P+=0=PP=4- C,4/T=T@T=,4, A4? A4K -J=?-4C,5TA=4-? =4 J=,0AT=,4 T+-!-,;, /+A00 5- =4A?M=//=50- ;,! A4K P@!P,/- =4 A4K P!,C--?=43 A/ P!,J=?-? @4?-! A!T=C0- ===, /-CT=,4 %, 86: ,; T+- /AM- C,4/T=T@T=,47
III

D=T+ ?@- !-/P-CT, T+- 0,D-! C,@!T -!!-? =4 =34,!=43 T+AT D+-4 /P,6 1sic2 -=0-1-24 ;-!M=4?,"A -4T-!-? T+- !-/=?-4C- ,; $A/M=41-2 A0-$A4?!,, T+-!- DA/ 4, C!=M- C,MM=TT-? D+AT/,-J-!, +-4CT+- A!!-/T ,; T+- ACC@/-?-APP-00A4T DA/ =00-3A07
[IV]

D=T+ ?@- !-/P-CT, T+- 0,D-! C,@!T -!!-? =4 4,T ?=/C,J-!=43 T+AT /P,6 1sic2 -=0-1-24 ;-!M=4?,"A DA/ 4,T =00-3A00K !-C!@=T-? 5K T+- ACC@/-?-APP-00A4T, +-4C-, ACC@/-?-APP-00A4T /+,@0? 5ACL@=TT-?7
V

D=T+ ?@- !-/P-CT, T+- 0,D-! C,@!T -!!-? =4 4,T ?-T-CT=43 T+AT 4A4CK A!A4-TA DA/ 4,T =00-3A00K !-C!@=T-? 5K T+- ACC@/-?APP-00A4T, +-4C-, ACC@/-? /+,@0? 5- -B,4-!AT-?7
VI

D=T+ ?@- !-/P-CT, T+- 0,D-! C,@!T -!!-? =4 4,T !-A0="=43 T+AT MA!=A 0,@!?-/ M,?-/T, DA/ 4,T =00-3A00K !-C!@=T-? 5K T+ACC@/-?-APP-00A4T, +-4C-, ACC@/-?-APP-00A4T /+,@0? 5-BC@0PAT-?7
VII

D=T+ ?@- !-/P-CT, T+- 0,D-! C,@!T -!!-? =4 ;=4?=43 T+AT T+ACC@/-?-APP-00A4T DA/ C+A!3-? D=T+ 0A!3- /CA0- =00-3A0 !-C!@=TM-4T ,4 $A4@A!K %&, '((), T+- ?AT- /TAT-? =4 T+=4;,!MAT=,4 A/ T+- ?AT- ,; T+- C!=M-, 5@T ACC@/-? DA/ A!!-/T-? ,4 ;-5. 6, '(() A4? A00 T+- -J=?-4C-/ 1sic2 =4?=CAT-? 1sic2 T+AT T+A00-3-? C!=M- D-!- 1sic2 C,MM=TT-? ,4 ;-5. 6, '((), +-4C-, T+-

=4;,!MAT=,4 =/ ;ATA00K ?-;-CT=J-7

VIII

D=T+ ?@- !-/P-CT, T+- 0,D-! C,@!T -!!-? =4 4,T ;=4?=43 T+AT T+A00-3-? C!=M- ,; =00-3A0 !-C!@=TM-4T DA/ C,MM=TT-? 4,T ,4 1sic2 0A!3- /CA0-, +-4C-, T+- P-4A0TK /+,@0? 4,T 5- 0=;=MP!=/,4M-4T7
IX

D=T+ ?@- !-/P-CT, T+- 0,D-! C,@!T -!!-? =4 4,T ;=4?=43 T+AT T+,/- -J=?-4C-/ 1sic2 /-="-? AT T+- +,@/- ,; $A/M=41-2 A0-$A4?!, A4? P!-/-4T-? T, T+- C,@!T D-!- P0A4T-? 5K A 5,3@/ ATT,!4-K1,2 -!0=- /. !AM,/ ,; T+- P,-A7
X

D=T+ ?@- !-/P-CT, T+- 0,D-! C,@!T -!!-? =4 4,T ?=/C,J-!=43 T+AT ACC@/-?-APP-00A4T ?=? 4,T !-C-=J- A4K PAKM-4T -J-4 A /=430- C-4TAJ, ;!,M T+- A00-3-? J=CT=M/ D+, ?=? 4,T /@;;-! ?AMA3- =4 A4K MA44-!, K-T /+- DA/ C,4J=CT-? T, /-!J- +-! -4T=!- 0=;- 5-+=4? P!=/,4 5A!/. /@C+ P@4=/+M-4T DA/ C!@-0 A4? @4@/@A0, +-4C-, A DA4T,4 J=,0AT=,4 ,; T+- C,4/T=T@T=,4. 1'C2
=n the first assigned error, appellant maintains that the law defining Frecruitment and placementG violates due process. Appellant also avers, as part of her si<th assigned error, that she was denied the equal protection of the laws. De shall address the issues *ointly. Appellant su mits that Article '% 8 : of the 0a or Code defining Frecruitment and placementG is void for vagueness and, thus, violates the due process clause.1'(2 ?ue process requires that the terms of a penal statute must e sufficiently e<plicit to inform those who are su *ect to it what conduct on their part will render them lia le to its penalties. 16&2 A criminal statute that Ffails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is for idden y the statute,G or is so indefinite that Fit encourages ar itrary and erratic arrests and convictions,G is void for vagueness.16'2 The constitutional vice in a vague or indefinite statute is the in*ustice to the accused in placing him on trial for an offense, the nature of which he is given no fair warning.1662 De reiterated these principles in People vs. Nazario#16%2

As a rule, a statute or act may e said to e vague when it lac.s comprehensi le standards that men Fof common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application.G =t is repugnant to the Constitution in two respects# 8': it violates due process for failure to accord persons, especially the parties targeted y it,

fair notice of the conduct to avoid7 and 86: it leaves law enforcers un ridled discretion in carrying out its provisions and ecome an ar itrary fle<ing of the 3overnment muscle.
De added, however, that#

< < < the act must e utterly vague on its face, that is to say, it cannot e clarified y either a saving clause or y construction. Thus, in Coates v. City of Cincinnati, the @./. /upreme Court struc. down an ordinance that had made it illegal for Fthree or more persons to assem le on any sidewal. and there conduct themselves in a manner annoying to persons passing y.G Clearly, the ordinance imposed no standard at all F ecause one may never .now in advance what Mannoys some people ut does not annoy others.AG Coates highlights what has een referred to as a Fperfectly vagueG act whose o scurity is evident on its face. =t is to e distinguished, however, from legislation couched in imprecise languageN ut which nonetheless specifies a standard though defectively phrasedNin which case, it may e FsavedG y proper construction.
+ere, the provision in question reads#

A!T. '%. ?efinitions.N8a: < < <. 8 : F!ecruitment and placementG refers to any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring wor.ers, and includes referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or a road, whether for profit or not# Provided, That any person or entity which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons shall e deemed engaged in recruitment and placement.
< < <. Dhen underta.en punisha le as follows# y non-licensees or non-holders of authority, recruitment activities are

A!T. %C. =llegal !ecruitment. N 8a: Any recruitment activities, including the prohi ited practices enumerated under Article %) of this Code, to e underta.en y non-licensees or non-holders of authority shall e deemed illegal and punisha le under Article %( of this Code. The Ministry of 0a or and -mployment or any law enforcement officer may initiate complaints under this Article. 8 : =llegal recruitment when committed y a syndicate or in large scale shall e considered an offense involving economic sa otage and shall e penalized in accordance with Article %( hereof. =llegal recruitment is deemed committed y a syndicate if carried out y a group of three 8%: or more persons conspiring andOor confederating with one another in carrying out any unlawful or illegal transaction, enterprise or scheme defined under the first

paragraph hereof. =llegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three 8%: or more persons individually or as a group.
< < <.

Art. %(. Penalties. P 8a: The penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of ,ne +undred Thousand Pesos 8P'&&,&&&: shall e imposed if illegal recruitment constitutes economic sa otage as defined herein# 8 : Any licensee or holder of authority found violating or causing another to violate any provision of this Title or its implementing rules and regulations, shall upon conviction thereof, suffer the penalty of imprisonment of not less than five years or a fine of not less than P'&,&&& nor more than P9&,&&& or oth such imprisonment and fine, at the discretion of the court7 8c: Any person who is neither a licensee nor a holder of authority under this Title found violating any provision thereof or its implementing rules and regulations shall, upon conviction thereof, suffer the penalty of imprisonment of not less than four years nor more than eight years or a fine of not less than P6&,&&& nor more than P'&&,&&& or oth such imprisonment and fine, at the discretion of the court7
< < <. =n support of her su mission that Article '% 8 : is void for vagueness, appellant invo.es People vs. Panis,16)2 where this Court, to use appellantAs term, FcriticizedG the definition of Frecruitment and placementG as follows# =t is unfortunate that we can only speculate on the meaning of the questioned provision for lac. of records of de ates and deli erations that would otherwise have een availa le if the 0a or Code had een enacted as a statute rather than a presidential decree is that they could e, and sometimes were, issued without previous pu lic discussion or consultation, the promulgator heeding only his own counsel or those of his close advisers in their lofty pinnacle of power. The not infrequent results are re*ection, intentional or not, of the interest of the greater num er and, as in the instant case, certain esoteric provisions that one cannot read against the ac.ground facts usually reported in the legislative *ournals. =f the Court in Panis Fhad to speculate on the meaning of the questioned provision,G appellant as.s, what more Fthe ordinary citizenG who does not possess the Fnecessary 1legal2 .nowledgeHG Appellant further argues that the acts that constitute Frecruitment and placementG suffer from over readth since y merely FreferringG a person for employment, a person may e convicted of illegal recruitment. These contentions cannot e sustained. AppellantAs reliance on People vs. Panis is misplaced. The issue in Panis was whether, under the proviso of Article '% 8 :, the crime of illegal recruitment could e committed only Fwhenever two or more persons are in any manner promised or offered any employment for a fee.G The Court held in the

negative, e<plaining#

As we see it, the proviso was intended neither to impose a condition on the asic rule nor to provide an e<ception thereto ut 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 Fcanvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring 8of: wor.ers.G The num er of persons dealt with is not an essential ingredient of the act of recruitment and placement of wor.ers. Any of the acts mentioned in the asic rule in Article '%8 : will constitute recruitment and placement even if only one prospective wor.er 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 wor.ers, the individual or entity dealing with them shall e deemed to e engaged in the act of recruitment and placement. The words Fshall e deemedG create that presumption. This is not unli.e the presumption in article 6'E of the !evised Penal Code, for e<ample, regarding the failure of a pu lic officer to produce upon lawful demand funds or property entrusted to his custody. /uch failure shall e prima facie evidence that he has put them to personal use7 in other words, he shall e deemed to have malversed such funds or property. =n the instant case, the word Fshall e deemedG should y the same to.en e given the force of a disputa le presumption or of prima facie evidence of engaging in recruitment and placement. =t is unfortunate that we can only speculate on the meaning of the questioned provision for lac. of records of de ates and deli erations that would otherwise have een availa le if the 0a or Code had een enacted as a statute rather than a presidential decree is that they could e, and sometimes were, issued without previous pu lic discussion or consultation, the promulgator heeding only his own counsel or those of his close advisers in their lofty pinnacle of power. The not infrequent results are re*ection, intentional or not, of the interest of the greater num er and, as in the instant case, certain esoteric provisions that one cannot read against the ac.ground facts usually reported in the legislative *ournals. At any rate, the interpretation here adopted should give more force to the campaign against illegal recruitment and placement, which has victimized many ;ilipino wor.ers see.ing a etter life in a foreign land, and investing hard-earned savings or even orrowed funds in pursuit of their dream, only to e awa.ened to the reality of a cynical deception at the hands of their own countrymen.
-vidently, therefore, appellant has ta.en the penultimate paragraph in the e<cerpt quoted a ove out of conte<t. The Court, in Panis, merely emoaned the lac. of records that would help shed light on the meaning of the proviso. The a sence of such records notwithstanding, the Court was a le to arrive at a reasona le interpretation of the proviso y applying principles in criminal law and drawing from the

language and intent of the law itself. /ection '% 8 :, therefore, is not a Fperfectly vague actG whose o scurity is evident on its face. =f at all, the proviso therein is merely couched in imprecise language that was salvaged y proper construction. =t is not void for vagueness.

An act will e declared void and inoperative on the ground of vagueness and uncertainty, only upon a showing that the defect is such that the courts are una le to determine, with any reasona le degree of certainty, what the legislature intended. < < <. =n this connection we cannot pretermit reference to the rule that Flegislation should not e held invalid on the ground of uncertainty if suscepti le of any reasona le construction that will support and give it effect. An Act will not e declared inoperative and ineffectual on the ground that it furnishes no adequate means to secure the purpose for which it is passed, if men of common sense and reason can devise and provide the means, and all the instrumentalities necessary for its e<ecution are within the reach of those intrusted therewith.G1692
That /ection '% 8 : encompasses what appellant apparently considers as customary and harmless acts such as F la or or employment referralG 8FreferringG an applicant, according to appellant, for employment to a prospective employer: does not render the law over road. -vidently, appellant misapprehends concept of over readth. A statute may e said to e over road where it operates to inhi it the e<ercise of individual freedoms affirmatively guaranteed y the Constitution, such as the freedom of speech or religion. A generally worded statute, when construed to punish conduct which cannot e constitutionally punished is unconstitutionally vague to the e<tent that it fails to give adequate warning of the oundary etween the constitutionally permissi le and the constitutionally impermissi le applications of the statute.16>2 =n Blo Umpar Adiong vs. Commission on Elections ,16E2 for instance, we struc. down as void for over readth provisions prohi iting the posting of election propaganda in any place P including private vehicles P other than in the common poster areas sanctioned y the C,M-0-C. De held that the challenged provisions not only deprived the owner of the vehicle the use of his property ut also deprived the citizen of his right to free speech and information. The prohi ition in Adiong, therefore, was so road that it covered even constitutionally guaranteed rights and, hence, void for over readth. =n the present case, however, appellant did not even specify what constitutionally protected freedoms are em raced y the definition of Frecruitment and placementG that would render the same constitutionally over road. Appellant also invo.es the equal protection clause16C2 in her defense. /he points out that although the evidence purportedly shows that $asmine Ale*andro handed out application forms and even received 0ourdes ModestoAs payment, appellant was the only one criminally charged. Ale*andro, on the other hand, remained scot-free. ;rom this, appellant concludes that the prosecution discriminated against her on grounds of regional origins. Appellant is a Ce uana while Ale*andro is a "am oangueQa, and the alleged crime too. place in "am oanga City. The argument has no merit. At the outset, it may e stressed that courts are not confined to the language of the statute under challenge in determining whether that statute has any discriminatory effect. A statute nondiscriminatory

on its face may e grossly discriminatory in its operation. 16(2 Though the law itself e fair on its face and impartial in appearance, yet, if it is applied and administered y pu lic authority with an evil eye and unequal hand, so as practically to ma.e un*ust and illegal discriminations etween persons in similar circumstances, material to their rights, the denial of equal *ustice is still within the prohi ition of the Constitution.1%&2 The prosecution of one guilty person while others equally guilty are not prosecuted, however, is not, y itself, a denial of the equal protection of the laws. 1%'2 Dhere the official action purports to e in conformity to the statutory classification, an erroneous or mista.en performance of the statutory duty, although a violation of the statute, is not without more a denial of the equal protection of the laws. 1%62 The unlawful administration y officers of a statute fair on its face, resulting in its unequal application to those who are entitled to e treated ali.e, is not a denial of equal protection unless there is shown to e present in it an element of intentional or purposeful discrimination. This may appear on the face of the action ta.en with respect to a particular class or person, or it may only e shown y e<trinsic evidence showing a discriminatory design over another not to e inferred from the action itself. But a di !"i#i$at%"& 'u"'% ( i $%t '"( u#(d, t)("( #u t *( a )%+i$, %- .!/(a" a$d i$t($ti%$a/ di !"i#i$ati%$.G1%%2 Appellant has failed to show that, in charging appellant in court, that there was a Fclear and intentional discriminationG on the part of the prosecuting officials. The discretion of who to prosecute depends on the prosecutionAs sound assessment whether the evidence efore it can *ustify a reasona le elief that a person has committed an offense. 1%)2 The presumption is that the prosecuting officers regularly performed their duties, 1%92 and this presumption can e overcome only y proof to the contrary, not y mere speculation. =ndeed, appellant has not presented any evidence to overcome this presumption. The mere allegation that appellant, a Ce uana, was charged with the commission of a crime, while a "am oangueQa, the guilty party in appellantAs eyes, was not, is insufficient to support a conclusion that the prosecution officers denied appellant equal protection of the laws. There is also common sense practicality in sustaining appellantAs prosecution.

Dhile all persons accused of crime are to e treated on a asis of equality efore the law, it does not follow that they are to e protected in the commission of crime. =t would e unconsciona le, for instance, to e<cuse a defendant guilty of murder ecause others have murdered with impunity. The remedy for unequal enforcement of the law in such instances does not lie in the e<oneration of the guilty at the e<pense of society < < <. Protection of the law will e e<tended to all persons equally in the pursuit of their lawful occupations, ut no person has the right to demand protection of the law in the commission of a crime.1%>2
0i.ewise,

1i2f the failure of prosecutors to enforce the criminal laws as to some persons should e converted into a defense for others charged with crime, the result would e that the trial of the district attorney for nonfeasance would ecome an issue in the trial of many persons charged with heinous crimes and the enforcement of law would suffer a complete rea.down.1%E2

De now come to the third, fourth and fifth assigned errors, all of which involve the finding of guilt y the trial court. =llegal recruitment is committed when two elements concur. ;irst, the offender has no valid license or authority required y law to ena le one to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of wor.ers. /econd, he or she underta.es either any activity within the meaning of Frecruitment and placementG defined under Article '% 8 :, or any prohi ited practices enumerated under Article %) of the 0a or Code.1%C2 =n case of illegal recruitment in large scale, a third element is added# that the accused commits said acts against three or more persons, individually or as a group.1%(2 =n this case, the first element is present. The certification of P,-A ,fficer-in-Charge Macarulay states that appellant is not licensed or authorized to engage in recruitment and placement. The second element is also present. Appellant is presumed engaged in recruitment and placement under Article '% 8 : of the 0a or Code. 5oth 4ancy Araneta and 0ourdes Modesto testified that appellant promised them employment for a fee. Their testimonies corro orate each other on material points# the riefing conducted y appellant, the time and place thereof, the fees involved. Appellant has not shown that these witnesses were incited y any motive to testify falsely against her. The a sence of evidence as to an improper motive actuating the principal witnesses of the prosecution strongly tends to sustain that no improper motive e<isted and that their testimony is worthy of full faith and credence.1)&2 AppellantAs denials cannot prevail over the positive declaration of the prosecution witnesses. Affirmative testimony of persons who are eyewitnesses of the fact asserted easily overrides negative testimony.1)'2 That appellant did not receive any payment for the promised or offered employment is of no moment. ;rom the language of the statute, the act of recruitment may e Ffor profit or not7G it suffices that the accused Fpromises or offers for a fee employmentG to warrant conviction for illegal recruitment. The testimonies of Araneta and Modesto, coming as they do from credi le witnesses, meet the standard of proof eyond reasona le dou t that appellant committed recruitment and placement. De therefore do not deem it necessary to delve into the second and third assigned errors assailing the legality of appellantAs arrest and the seizure of the application forms. A warrantless arrest, when unlawful, has the effect of invalidating the search incidental thereto and the articles so seized are rendered inadmissi le in evidence.1)62 +ere, even if the documents seized were deemed inadmissi le, her conviction would stand in view of Araneta and ModestoAs testimonies. Appellant attempts to cast dou t on the prosecutionAs case y claiming in her ninth assigned error that -rlie !amos of the P,-A supposedly FplantedG the application forms. /he also assails his character, alleging that he passed himself off as a lawyer, although this was denied y !amos. The claim of Fframe-up,G li.e ali i, is a defense that has een invaria ly viewed y the Court with disfavor for it can easily e concocted ut difficult to prove. 1)%2 Apart from her self-serving testimony, appellant has not offered any evidence that she was indeed framed y !amos. /he has not even hinted at any motive for !amos to frame her. 0aw enforcers are presumed to have performed their duties regularly in the a sence of evidence to the contrary.1))2

Considering that the two elements of lac. of license or authority and the underta.ing of an activity constituting recruitment and placement are present, appellant, at the very least, is lia le for FsimpleG illegal recruitment. 5ut is she guilty of illegal recruitment in large scaleH De find that she is not. A conviction for large scale illegal recruitment must e ased on a finding in each case of illegal recruitment of three or more persons whether individually or as a group. 1)92 =n this case, only two persons, Araneta and Modesto, were proven to have een recruited y appellant. The third person named in the complaint as having een promised employment for a fee, $ennelyn 5aez, was not presented in court to testify. =t is true that law does not require that at least three victims testify at the trial7 nevertheless, it is necessary that there is sufficient evidence proving that the offense was committed against three or more persons.1)>2 =n this case, evidence that appellant li.ewise promised her employment for a fee is s.etchy. The only evidence that tends to prove this fact is the testimony of 4ancy Araneta, who said that she and her friends, 5aez and /andra Aquino, came to the riefing and that they 8she and her FfriendsG: filled up application forms. The affidavit1)E2 5aez e<ecuted *ointly with Araneta cannot support AranetaAs testimony. The affidavit was neither identified, nor its contents affirmed, y 5aez. =nsofar as it purports to prove that appellant recruited 5aez, therefore, the affidavit is hearsay and inadmissi le. 1)C2 =n any case, hearsay evidence, such as the said affidavit, has little pro ative value.1)(2 4either can appellant e convicted for recruiting C=/ agent -ileen ;ermindoza or even the other persons present in the riefing of $anuary %&, '((). Appellant is accused of recruiting only the three persons named in the information N Araneta, Modesto and 5aez. The information does not include ;ermindoza or the other persons present in the riefing as among those promised or offered employment for a fee. To convict appellant for the recruitment and placement of persons other than those alleged to have een offered or promised employment for a fee would violate her right to e informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against her.19&2 =n any event, the purpose of the offer of the testimonies of Araneta, Morales and ;ermindoza, respectively, was limited as follows#
;=/CA0 5-0?@A# Kour +onor please, we are offering the oral testimony of the witness, as one of those recruited y the accused, and also to identify some e<hi its for the prosecution and as well as to identify the accused. 19'2

<<<
;=/CA0 5-0?@A# De are offering the oral testimony of the witness, Kour +onor, to testify on the fact a out her recruitment y the accused and immediately efore the recruitment, as well as to identify some e<hi its for the prosecution, and also the accused in this case, Kour +onor. 1962

<<<
;=/CA0 5-0?@A#

This witness is going to testify that at around that date Kour +onor, she was connected with the C=/, that she was instructed together with a companion to conduct a surveillance on the place where the illegal recruitment was supposed to e going on, that she acted as an applicant, Kour +onor, to ascertain the truthfulness of the illegal recruitment going on, to identify the accused, as well as to identify some e<hi its for the prosecution.19%2

<<< Courts may consider a piece of evidence only for the purpose for which it was offered, 19)2 and the purpose of the offer of their testimonies did not include the proving of the purported recruitment of other supposed applicants y appellant. Appellant claims in her seventh assigned error that the information is fatally defective since it charges her with committing illegal recruitment in large scale on $anuary %&, '(() while the prosecution evidence supposedly indicates that she committed the crime on ;e ruary 6, '((). De find that the evidence for the prosecution regarding the date of the commission of the crime does not vary from that charged in the information. 5oth 4ancy Araneta and 0ourdes Modesto testified that on $anuary %&, '((), while in the Ale*andro residence, appellant offered them employment for a fee. Thus, while the arrest was effected only on ;e ruary 6, '((), the crime had already een committed three 8%: days earlier on $anuary %&, '((). The eighth and tenth assigned errors, respectively, pertain to the penalty of life imprisonment imposed y the trial court as well as the constitutionality of the law prescri ing the same, appellant arguing that it is unconstitutional for eing unduly harsh.1992 The penalty of life imprisonment imposed upon appellant must e reduced. 5ecause the prosecution was a le to prove that appellant committed recruitment and placement against two persons only, she cannot e convicted of illegal recruitment in large scale, which requires that recruitment e committed against three or more persons. Appellant can only e convicted of two counts of FsimpleG illegal recruitment, one for that committed against 4ancy Araneta, and another count for that committed against 0ourdes Modesto. Appellant is sentenced, for each count, to suffer the penalty of four 8): to si< 8>: years of imprisonment and to pay a fine of P%&,&&&.&&. This renders immaterial the tenth assigned error, which assumes that the proper imposa le penalty upon appellant is life imprisonment. 0HEREFORE, the decision of the regional trial court is M !"#"E!. Appellant is here y declared guilty of illegal recruitment on two 86: counts and is sentenced, for each count, to suffer the penalty of four 8): to si< 8>: years of imprisonment and to pay a fine of P%&,&&&.&&. SO ORDERED. !avide$ %r.$ C.%.$ &Chairman'$ Puno$ Pardo$ and (nares)*antiago$ %%.$ concur.