People vs.

Dela Piedra
GR.# 121777
FACTS: Maria Lordes Modesto, Nancy Araneta and her friends went to the house of Jasmine
Alejandro after learning that Carol dela Peidra was there to recruit applicants for Singapore. They were
welcomed by Jasmine and sat down while listening to the recruiter who was then talking about the
breakdown of the fees. Dela Piedra said that she has been recruiting nurse for Singapore. Subsequently,
the girls filed bio-data submitted pictures and other documents. After the interview, Lourdes gave initial
payment of P2,000 to Jasmine who assured she is authorized to received the money.
Meanwhile, Atty. Ramos of POEA received a telephone call from an unidentified woman that
asking about the legitimacy of the recruitment. Atty. Ramos together with his conducted surveillance.
One of them pretended to be an applicant. Ramos confirmed to the CIS to organize the arrest of the illegal
recruiter. Subsequently, Dela Piedra was convicted for ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT.
On appeal she questioned her conviction and even assailed the constitutionality of Article 13 of
the Labor Code that it is void for vagueness.

ISSUES: a. Whether or not said provision as amended by Illegal Recruitment Law violates due
process clause.
b. Whether or not the accused was denied equal protection clause because she was the
only one charged and therefore should be exculpated.
HELD:
A. No. Section 13 of the labor code as amended is not a perfectly vague act whose obscurity is
evident on its face. If at all, the proviso therein is merely couched in imprecise language that
was salvaged for proper construction. It is not void for vagueness.

B. No. The prosecution of one guilty person while others equally guilty are not
prosecuted, is not, by itself, a denial of the equal protection of the laws. The
unlawful administration by officers of a statute fair on its face, resulting in its
unequal application to those who are entitled to be treated alike, is not a denial of
equal protection unless there is shown to be present in it an element of intentional or
purposeful discrimination. But a discriminatory purpose is not presumed, there
must be a showing of clear and intentional discrimination. In the case at bar, dela Piedra
failed to show that, in charging her, there was clear and intentional discrimination on the
part of the prosecuting officials.