You are on page 1of 19

G.R. No.

169076

January 23, 2007

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,


vs.
JOSEPH JAMILOSA, Appellant.

The case for the prosecution, as synthesized by the Court of


Appeals (CA), is as follows:
The prosecution presented three (3) witnesses, namely: private
complainants Imelda D. Bamba, Geraldine M. Lagman and Alma E.
Singh.

CALLEJO, SR., J.:


This is an appeal from the Decision1 of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Quezon City in Criminal Case No. Q-97-72769 convicting
appellant Joseph Jamilosa of large scale illegal recruitment under
Sections 6 and 7 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8042, and sentencing
him to life imprisonment and to pay a P500,000.00 fine.
The Information charging appellant with large scale illegal
recruitment was filed by the Senior State Prosecutor on August
29, 1997. The inculpatory portion of the Information reads:
That sometime in the months of January to February, 1996, or
thereabout in the City of Quezon, Metro Manila, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, representing to
have the capacity, authority or license to contract, enlist and
deploy or transport workers for overseas employment, did then
and there, willfully, unlawfully and criminally recruit, contract and
promise to deploy, for a fee the herein complainants, namely,
Haide R. Ruallo, Imelda D. Bamba, Geraldine M. Lagman and Alma
E. Singh, for work or employment in Los Angeles, California, U.S.A.
in Nursing Home and Care Center without first obtaining the
required license and/or authority from the Philippine Overseas
Employment Administration (POEA).
Contrary to law.2
On arraignment, the appellant, assisted by counsel, pleaded not
guilty to the charge.

Witness Imelda D. Bamba testified that on January 17, 1996, she


met the appellant in Cubao, Quezon City on board an aircon bus.
She was on her way to Shoemart (SM), North EDSA, Quezon City
where she was working as a company nurse. The appellant was
seated beside her and introduced himself as a recruiter of workers
for employment abroad. The appellant told her that his sister is a
head nurse in a nursing home in Los Angeles, California, USA and
he could help her get employed as a nurse at a monthly salary of
Two Thousand US Dollars ($2,000.00) and that she could leave in
two (2) weeks time. He further averred that he has connections
with the US Embassy, being a US Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI) agent on official mission in the Philippines for one month.
According to the appellant, she has to pay the amount of
US$300.00 intended for the US consul. The appellant gave his
pager number and instructed her to contact him if she is
interested to apply for a nursing job abroad.
On January 21, 1996, the appellant fetched her at her office. They
then went to her house where she gave him the photocopies of
her transcript of records, diploma, Professional Regulatory
Commission (PRC) license and other credentials. On January 28 or
29, 1996, she handed to the appellant the amount of US$300.00
at the McDonalds outlet in North EDSA, Quezon City, and the
latter showed to her a photocopy of her supposed US visa. The
appellant likewise got several pieces of jewelry which she was
then selling and assured her that he would sell the same at the US
embassy. However, the appellant did not issue a receipt for the
said money and jewelry. Thereafter, the appellant told her to

resign from her work at SM because she was booked with


Northwest Airlines and to leave for Los Angeles, California, USA on
February 25, 1996.
The appellant promised to see her and some of his other recruits
before their scheduled departure to hand to them their visas and
passports; however, the appellant who was supposed to be with
them in the flight failed to show up. Instead, the appellant called
and informed her that he failed to give the passport and US visa
because he had to go to the province because his wife died. She
and her companions were not able to leave for the United States.
They went to the supposed residence of the appellant to verify,
but nobody knew him or his whereabouts. They tried to contact
him at the hotel where he temporarily resided, but to no avail.
They also inquired from the US embassy and found out that there
was no such person connected with the said office. Thus, she
decided to file a complaint with the National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI).
Prosecution witness Geraldine Lagman, for her part, testified that
she is a registered nurse by profession. In the morning of January
22, 1996, she went to SM North EDSA, Quezon City to visit her
cousin Imelda Bamba. At that time, Bamba informed her that she
was going to meet the appellant who is an FBI agent and was
willing to help nurses find a job abroad. Bamba invited Lagman to
go with her. On the same date at about 2:00 oclock in the
afternoon, she and Bamba met the appellant at the SM Fast-Food
Center, Basement, North EDSA, Quezon City. The appellant
convinced them of his ability to send them abroad and told them
that he has a sister in the United States. Lagman told the
appellant that she had no working experience in any hospital but
the appellant assured her that it is not necessary to have one. The
appellant asked for US$300.00 as payment to secure an American
visa and an additional amount of Three Thousand Four Hundred
Pesos (P3,400.00) as processing fee for other documents.

On January 24, 1996, she and the appellant met again at SM North
EDSA, Quezon City wherein she handed to the latter her passport
and transcript of records. The appellant promised to file the said
documents with the US embassy. After one (1) week, they met
again at the same place and the appellant showed to her a
photocopy of her US visa. This prompted her to give the amount
of US$300.00 and two (2) bottles of Black Label to the appellant.
She gave the said money and liquor to the appellant without any
receipt out of trust and after the appellant promised her that he
would issue the necessary receipt later. The appellant even went
to her house, met her mother and uncle and showed to them a
computer printout from Northwest Airlines showing that she was
booked to leave for Los Angeles, California, USA on February 25,
1996.
Four days after their last meeting, Extelcom, a telephone
company, called her because her number was appearing in the
appellants cellphone documents. The caller asked if she knew
him because they were trying to locate him, as he was a swindler
who failed to pay his telephone bills in the amount
of P100,000.00. She became suspicious and told Bamba about the
matter. One (1) week before her scheduled flight on February 25,
1996, they called up the appellant but he said he could not meet
them because his mother passed away. The appellant never
showed up, prompting her to file a complaint with the NBI for
illegal recruitment.
Lastly, witness Alma Singh who is also a registered nurse,
declared that she first met the appellant on February 13, 1996 at
SM North EDSA, Quezon City when Imelda Bamba introduced the
latter to her. The appellant told her that he is an undercover agent
of the FBI and he could fix her US visa as he has a contact in the
US embassy. The appellant told her that he could help her and her
companions Haidee Raullo, Geraldine Lagman and Imelda Bamba
find jobs in the US as staff nurses in home care centers.

On February 14, 1996 at about 6:30 in the evening, the appellant


got her passport and picture. The following day or on February 15,
1996, she gave the appellant the amount of US$300.00 and a
bottle of cognac as "grease money" to facilitate the processing of
her visa. When she asked for a receipt, the appellant assured her
that there is no need for one because she was being directly hired
as a nurse in the United States.
She again met the appellant on February 19, 1996 at the Farmers
Plaza and this time, the appellant required her to submit
photocopies of her college diploma, nursing board certificate and
PRC license. To show his sincerity, the appellant insisted on
meeting her father. They then proceeded to the office of her
father in Barrio Ugong, Pasig City and she introduced the
appellant. Thereafter, the appellant asked permission from her
father to allow her to go with him to the Northwest Airlines office
in Ermita, Manila to reserve airline tickets. The appellant was able
to get a ticket confirmation and told her that they will meet again
the following day for her to give P10,000.00 covering the half
price of her plane ticket. Singh did not meet the appellant as
agreed upon. Instead, she went to Bamba to inquire if the latter
gave the appellant the same amount and found out that Bamba
has not yet given the said amount. They then paged the appellant
through his beeper and told him that they wanted to see him.
However, the appellant avoided them and reasoned out that he
could not meet them as he had many things to do. When the
appellant did not show up, they decided to file a complaint for
illegal recruitment with the NBI.
The prosecution likewise presented the following documentary
evidence:
Exh. "A" Certification dated February 23, 1998 issued by
Hermogenes C. Mateo, Director II, Licensing Branch, POEA.

Exh. "B" Affidavit of Alma E. Singh dated February 23, 1996. 3


On the other hand, the case for the appellant, as culled from his
Brief, is as follows:
Accused JOSEPH JAMILOSA testified on direct examination that he
got acquainted with Imelda Bamba inside an aircon bus bound for
Caloocan City when the latter borrowed his cellular phone to call
her office at Shoe Mart (SM), North Edsa, Quezon City. He never
told Bamba that he could get her a job in Los Angeles, California,
USA, the truth being that she wanted to leave SM as company
nurse because she was having a problem thereat. Bamba called
him up several times, seeking advice from him if Los Angeles,
California is a good place to work as a nurse. He started courting
Bamba and they went out dating until the latter became his
girlfriend. He met Geraldine Lagman and Alma Singh at the Shoe
Mart (SM), North Edsa, Quezon City thru Imelda Bamba. As
complainants were all seeking advice on how they could apply for
jobs abroad, lest he be charged as a recruiter, he made Imelda
Bamba, Geraldine Lagman and Alma Singh sign separate
certifications on January 17, 1996 (Exh. "2"), January 22, 1996
(Exh. "4"), and February 19, 1996 (Exh. "3"), respectively, all to
the effect that he never recruited them and no money was
involved. Bamba filed an Illegal Recruitment case against him
because they quarreled and separated. He came to know for the
first time that charges were filed against him in September 1996
when a preliminary investigation was conducted by Fiscal Daosos
of the Department of Justice. (TSN, October 13, 1999, pp. 3-9 and
TSN, December 8, 1999, pp. 2-9)4
On November 10, 2000, the RTC rendered judgment finding the
accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
charged.5 The fallo of the decision reads:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused guilty


beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Recruitment in large scale;
accordingly, he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of life
imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P500,000.00), plus costs.
Accused is ordered to indemnify each of the complainants, Imelda
Bamba, Geraldine Lagman and Alma Singh the amount of Three
Hundred US Dollars ($300.00).
SO ORDERED.6
In rejecting the defenses of the appellant, the trial court declared:
To counter the version of the prosecution, accused claims that he
did not recruit the complainants for work abroad but that it was
they who sought his advice relative to their desire to apply for
jobs in Los Angeles, California, USA and thinking that he might be
charged as a recruiter, he made them sign three certifications,
Exh. "2," "3" and "4," which in essence state that accused never
recruited them and that there was no money involved.
Accuseds contention simply does not hold water. Admittedly, he
executed and submitted a counter-affidavit during the preliminary
investigation at the Department of Justice, and that he never
mentioned the aforesaid certifications, Exhibits 2, 3 and 4 in said
counter-affidavit. These certifications were allegedly executed
before charges were filed against him. Knowing that he was
already being charged for prohibited recruitment, why did he not
bring out these certifications which were definitely favorable to
him, if the same were authentic. It is so contrary to human nature
that one would suppress evidence which would belie the charge
against him.

Denials of the accused can not stand against the positive and
categorical narration of each complainant as to how they were
recruited by accused who had received some amounts from them
for the processing of their papers. Want of receipts is not fatal to
the prosecutions case, for as long as it has been shown, as in this
case, that accused had engaged in prohibited recruitment. (People
v. Pabalan, 262 SCRA 574).
That accused is neither licensed nor authorized to recruit workers
for overseas employment, is shown in the Certification issued by
POEA, Exh. "A."
In fine, the offense committed by the accused is Illegal
Recruitment in large scale, it having been committed against
three (3) persons, individually.7
Appellant appealed the decision to this Court on the following
assignment of error:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT
OF THE CRIME OF ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT IN LARGE SCALE
DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE LATTERS GUILT WAS NOT PROVED
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT BY THE PROSECUTION.8
According to appellant, the criminal Information charging him with
illegal recruitment specifically mentioned the phrase "for a fee,"
and as such, receipts to show proof of payment are indispensable.
He pointed out that the three (3) complaining witnesses did not
present even one receipt to prove the alleged payment of any fee.
In its eagerness to cure this "patent flaw," the prosecution
resorted to presenting the oral testimonies of complainants which
were "contrary to the ordinary course of nature and ordinary
habits of life [under Section 3(y), Rule 131 of the Rules on
Evidence] and defied credulity." Appellant also pointed out that
complainants testimony that they paid him but no receipts were

issued runs counter to the presumption under Section [3](d), Rule


131 of the Rules on Evidence that persons take ordinary care of
their concern. The fact that complainants were not able to present
receipts lends credence to his allegation that it was they who
sought advice regarding their desire to apply for jobs in Los
Angeles, California, USA. Thus, thinking that he might be charged
as a recruiter, he made them sign three (3) certifications stating
that he never recruited them and there was no money involved.
On the fact that the trial court disregarded the certifications due
to his failure to mention them during the preliminary investigation
at the Department of Justice (DOJ), appellant pointed out that
there is no provision in the Rules of Court which bars the
presentation of evidence during the hearing of the case in court.
He also pointed out that the counter-affidavit was prepared while
he was in jail "and probably not assisted by a lawyer." 9
Appellee, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG),
countered that the absence of receipts signed by appellant
acknowledging receipt of the money and liquor from the
complaining witnesses cannot defeat the prosecution and
conviction for illegal recruitment. The OSG insisted that the
prosecution was able to prove the guilt of appellant beyond
reasonable doubt via the collective testimonies of the complaining
witnesses, which the trial court found credible and deserving of
full probative weight. It pointed out that appellant failed to prove
any ill-motive on the part of the complaining witnesses to falsely
charge him of illegal recruitment.
On appellants claim that the complaining witness Imelda Bamba
was his girlfriend, the OSG averred:
Appellants self-serving declaration that Imelda is his girlfriend
and that she filed a complaint for illegal recruitment after they
quarreled and separated is simply preposterous. No love letters or
other documentary evidence was presented by appellant to

substantiate such claim which could be made with facility. Imelda


has no reason to incriminate appellant except to seek justice. The
evidence shows that Alma and Geraldine have no previous quarrel
with appellant. Prior to their being recruited by appellant, Alma
and Geraldine have never met appellant. It is against human
nature and experience for private complainants to conspire and
accuse a stranger of a most serious crime just to mollify their hurt
feelings. (People v. Coral, 230 SCRA 499, 510 [1994])10
The OSG posited that the appellants reliance on the
certifications11 purportedly signed by the complaining witnesses is
misplaced, considering that the certifications are barren of
probative weight.
On February 23, 2005, the Court resolved to transfer the case to
the CA.12 On June 22, 2005, the CA rendered judgment affirming
the decision of the RTC.13
The OSG filed a Supplemental Brief, while the appellant found no
need to file one.
The appeal has no merit.
Article 13(b) of the Labor Code of the Philippines defines
recruitment and placement as follows:
(b) "Recruitment and placement" refers to any act of canvassing,
enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring
workers, and includes referrals, contract services, promising or
advertising for employment, locally or abroad, 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 be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement.
Section 6 of R.A. No. 8042 defined when recruitment is illegal:

SEC. 6. Definition. For purposes of this Act, illegal recruitment


shall mean any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting,
transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers and includes
referring, contract services, promising or advertising for
employment abroad, whether for profit or not, when undertaken
by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority contemplated under
Article 13(f) of Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended,
otherwise known as the Labor Code of the Philippines: Provided,
That any such non-licensee or non-holder who, in any manner,
offers or promises for a fee employment abroad to two or more
persons shall be deemed so engaged. x x x
Any recruitment activities to be undertaken by non-licensee or
non-holder of contracts shall be deemed illegal and punishable
under Article 39 of the Labor Code of the Philippines.14 Illegal
recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed
against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group. 15
To prove illegal recruitment in large scale, the prosecution is
burdened to prove three (3) essential elements, to wit: (1) the
person charged undertook a recruitment activity under Article
13(b) or any prohibited practice under Article 34 of the Labor
Code; (2) accused did not have the license or the authority to
lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers; and
(3) accused committed the same against three or more persons
individually or as a group.16 As gleaned from the collective
testimonies of the complaining witnesses which the trial court and
the appellate court found to be credible and deserving of full
probative weight, the prosecution mustered the requisite quantum
of evidence to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable
doubt for the crime charged. Indeed, the findings of the trial court,
affirmed on appeal by the CA, are conclusive on this Court absent
evidence that the tribunals ignored, misunderstood, or misapplied
substantial fact or other circumstance.

The failure of the prosecution to adduce in evidence any receipt or


document signed by appellant where he acknowledged to have
received money and liquor does not free him from criminal
liability. Even in the absence of money or other valuables given as
consideration for the "services" of appellant, the latter is
considered as being engaged in recruitment activities.
It can be gleaned from the language of Article 13(b) of the Labor
Code that the act of recruitment may be for profit or not. It is
sufficient that the accused promises or offers for a fee
employment to warrant conviction for illegal recruitment.17 As the
Court held in People v. Sagaydo:18
Such is the case before us. The complainants parted with their
money upon the prodding and enticement of accused-appellant
on the false pretense that she had the capacity to deploy them for
employment abroad. In the end, complainants were neither able
to leave for work abroad nor get their money back.
The fact that private complainants Rogelio Tibeb and Jessie
Bolinao failed to produce receipts as proof of their payment to
accused-appellant does not free the latter from liability. The
absence of receipts cannot defeat a criminal prosecution for illegal
recruitment. As long as the witnesses can positively show through
their respective testimonies that the accused is the one involved
in prohibited recruitment, he may be convicted of the offense
despite the absence of receipts.19
Appellants reliance on the certifications purportedly signed by the
complaining witnesses Imelda Bamba, Alma Singh and Geraldine
Lagman20 is misplaced. Indeed, the trial court and the appellate
court found the certifications barren of credence and probative
weight. We agree with the following pronouncement of the
appellate court:

Anent the claim of the appellant that the trial court erred in not
giving weight to the certifications (Exhs. "2," "3" & "4") allegedly
executed by the complainants to the effect that he did not recruit
them and that no money was involved, the same deserves scant
consideration.
The appellant testified that he was in possession of the said
certifications at the time the same were executed by the
complainants and the same were always in his possession;
however, when he filed his counter-affidavit during the preliminary
investigation before the Department of Justice, he did not mention
the said certifications nor attach them to his counteraffidavit.lavvphil.net
We find it unbelievable that the appellant, a college graduate,
would not divulge the said certifications which would prove that,
indeed, he is not an illegal recruiter. By failing to present the said
certifications prior to the trial, the appellant risks the adverse
inference and legal presumption that, indeed, such certifications
were not genuine. When a party has it in his possession or power
to produce the best evidence of which the case in its nature is
susceptible and withholds it, the fair presumption is that the
evidence is withheld for some sinister motive and that its
production would thwart his evil or fraudulent purpose. As aptly
pointed out by the trial court:
"x x x These certifications were allegedly executed before charges
were filed against him. Knowing that he was already being
charged for prohibited recruitment, why did he not bring out these
certifications which were definitely favorable to him, if the same
were authentic. It is so contrary to human nature that one would
suppress evidence which would belie the charge against him."
(Emphasis Ours)21

At the preliminary investigation, appellant was furnished with


copies of the affidavits of the complaining witnesses and was
required to submit his counter-affidavit. The complaining
witnesses identified him as the culprit who "recruited" them. At no
time did appellant present the certifications purportedly signed by
the complaining witnesses to belie the complaint against him. He
likewise did not indicate in his counter-affidavit that the
complaining witnesses had executed certifications stating that
they were not recruited by him and that he did not receive any
money from any of them. He has not come forward with any valid
excuse for his inaction. It was only when he testified in his
defense that he revealed the certifications for the first time. Even
then, appellant lied when he claimed that he did not submit the
certifications because the State Prosecutor did not require him to
submit any counter-affidavit, and that he was told that the
criminal complaint would be dismissed on account of the failure of
the complaining witnesses to appear during the preliminary
investigation. The prevarications of appellant were exposed by
Public Prosecutor Pedro Catral on cross-examination, thus:
Q Mr. Witness, you said that a preliminary investigation [was]
conducted by the Department of Justice through State Prosecutor
Daosos. Right?
A Yes, Sir.
Q Were you requested to file your Counter-Affidavit?
A Yes, Sir. I was required.
Q Did you file your Counter-Affidavit?
A Yes, Sir, but he did not accept it.
Q Why?

A Because he said "never mind" because the witness is not


appearing so he dismissed the case.

A Yes, Sir.
Q Where was this handed to you by Imelda Bamba, Mr. Witness?

Q Are you sure that he did not accept your Counter-Affidavit, Mr.
Witness?
A I dont know of that, Sir.
Q If I show you that Counter-Affidavit you said you prepared, will
you be able to identify the same, Mr. Witness?

A At SM North Edsa, Sir.


Q During the direct examination you were also asked to identify a
Certification Exh. "3" for the defense dated February 19, 1996,
allegedly issued by Alma Singh, one of the complainants in this
case, will you please go over this and tell us when did Alma Singh
allegedly issue to you this Certification?

A Yes, Sir.
A On February 19, 1996, Sir.
Q I will show you the Counter-Affidavit dated June 16, 1997 filed
by one Joseph J. Jamilosa, will you please go over this and tell if
this is the same Counter-Affidavit you said you prepared and you
are going to file with the investigating state prosecutor?
A Yes, Sir. This the same Counter-Affidavit.

Q And also during the direct examination, you were asked to


identify a Certification which was already marked as Exh. "4" for
the defense dated January 22, 1996 allegedly issued by Geraldine
M. Lagman, one of the complainants in this case, will you please
tell the court when did Geraldine Lagman give you this
Certification?

Q There is a signature over the typewritten name Joseph J.


Jamilosa, will you please go over this and tell this Honorable Court
if this is your signature, Mr. Witness?

A January 22, 1996, Sir.

A Yes, Sir. This is my signature.

Q During that time, January 22, 1996, January 17, 1996 and
February 19, 1996, you were in possession of all these
Certification. Correct, Mr. Witness?

Q During the direct examination you were asked to identify [the]


Certification as Exh. "2" dated January 17, 1996, allegedly issued
by Bamba, one of the complainants in this case, when did you
receive this Certification issued by Imelda Bamba, Mr. Witness?

A Yes, Sir.
Q These were always in your possession. Right?

A That is the date, Sir.

A Yes, Sir, with my papers.

Q You mean the date appearing in the Certification.

Q Do you know when did the complainants file cases against you?

A I dont know, Sir.

A I did not say that, Sir.

Q Alright. I will read to you this Counter-Affidavit of yours, and I


quote "I, Joseph Jamilosa, of legal age, married and resident of
Manila City Jail, after having duly sworn to in accordance with law
hereby depose and states that: 1) the complainants sworn under
oath to the National Bureau of Investigation that I recruited them
and paid me certain sums of money assuming that there is truth
in those allegation of this (sic) complainants. The charge filed by
them should be immediately dismissed for certain lack of merit in
their Sworn Statement to the NBI Investigator; 2) likewise, the
complainants allegation is not true and I never recruited them to
work abroad and that they did not give me money, they asked me
for some help so I [helped] them in assisting and processing the
necessary documents, copies for getting US Visa; 3) the
complainant said under oath that they can show a receipt to prove
that they can give me sums or amount of money. That is a lie.
They sworn (sic), under oath, that they can show a receipt that I
gave to them to prove that I got the money from them. I asked
the kindness of the state prosecutor to ask the complainants to
show and produce the receipts that I gave to them that was
stated in the sworn statement of the NBI; 4) the allegation of the
complainants that the charges filed by them should be dismissed
because I never [received] any amount from them and they can
not show any receipt that I gave them," Manila City Jail,
Philippines, June 16, 1997. So, Mr. Witness, June 16, 1997 is the
date when you prepared this. Correct?

Q So, it is not here in your Counter-Affidavit?

A Yes, Sir.
Q Now, my question to you, Mr. Witness, you said that you have
with you all the time the Certification issued by [the] three (3)
complainants in this case, did you allege in your Counter-Affidavit
that this Certification you said you claimed they issued to you?

A None, Sir.
Q What is your educational attainment, Mr. Witness?
A I am a graduate of AB Course Associate Arts in 1963 at the
University of the East.
Q You said that the State Prosecutor of the Department of Justice
did not accept your Counter-Affidavit, are you sure of that, Mr.
Witness?
A Yes, Sir.
Q Did you receive a copy of the dismissal which you said it was
dismissed?
A No, Sir. I did not receive anything.
Q Did you receive a resolution from the Department of Justice?
A No, Sir.
Q Did you go over the said resolution you said you received here?
A I just learned about it now, Sir.
Q Did you read the content of the resolution?
A Not yet, Sir. Its only now that I am going to read.

COURT

Q You said a while ago that your Affidavit was not accepted by
State Prosecutor Daosos. Is that correct?

Q You said it was dismissed. Correct?


A Yes, Sir.
A Yes, Your Honor.
Q Did you receive a resolution of this dismissal?

Q Will you please read to us paragraph four (4), page two (2) of
this resolution of State Prosecutor Daosos.

A No, Your Honor.

(witness reading par. 4 of the resolution)

FISCAL CATRAL

Alright. What did you understand of this paragraph 4, Mr. Witness?

Q What did you receive?

A Probably, guilty to the offense charge.22

A I did not receive any resolution, Sir. Its just now that I learned
about the finding.

It turned out that appellant requested the complaining witnesses


to sign the certifications merely to prove that he was settling the
cases:

Q You said you learned here in court, did you read the resolution
filed against you, Mr. Witness?
A I did not read it, Sir.
Q Did you read by yourself the resolution made by State
Prosecutor Daosos, Mr. Witness?

COURT
Q These complainants, why did you make them sign in the
certifications?
A Because one of the complainants told me to sign and they are
planning to sue me.

A Not yet, Sir.


Q What did you take, if any, when you received the subpoena
from this court?
A I was in court already when I asked Atty. Usita to investigate this
case.

Q You mean they told you that they are filing charges against you
and yet you [made] them sign certifications in your favor, what is
the reason why you made them sign?
A To prove that Im settling this case.
Q Despite the fact that they are filing cases against you and yet
you were able to make them sign certifications?

A Only one person, Your Honor, who told me and he is not around.
Q But they all signed these three (3) certifications and yet they
filed charges against you and yet you made them sign
certifications in your favor, so what is the reason why you made
them sign?
(witness can not answer)23
The Court notes that the trial court ordered appellant to refund
US$300.00 to each of the complaining witnesses. The ruling of the
appellate court must be modified. Appellant must pay only the
peso equivalent of US$300.00 to each of the complaining
witnesses.
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the appeal is DISMISSED. The
Decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the conviction of Joseph
Jamilosa for large scale illegal recruitment under Sections 6 and 7
of Republic Act No. 8042 is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION. The
appellant is hereby ordered to refund to each of the complaining
witnesses the peso equivalent of US$300.00. Costs against
appellant.

G.R. No. 146964 August 10, 2006


ROSA C. RODOLFO, Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
CARPIO MORALES, J.:

Petitioner was charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of


Makati for illegal recruitment alleged to have been committed as
follows:
That in or about and during the period from August to September
1984, in Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused representing
herself to have the capacity to contract, enlist and transport
Filipino workers for employment abroad, did then and there
willfully and unlawfully, for a fee, recruit and promise
employment/job placement abroad to VILLAMOR ALCANTARA,
NARCISO CORPUZ, 1 NECITAS R. FERRE, GERARDO H. TAPAWAN
and JOVITO L. CAMA, without first securing the required license or
authority from the Ministry of Labor and Employment. 2
After trial on the merits, Branch 61 of the Makati RTC rendered its
Judgment on the case, 3 the decretal portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, PREMISES ABOVE CONSIDERED, the Court finds the
accused ROSA C. RODOLFO as GUILTY of the offense of ILLEGAL
RECRUITMENT and hereby sentences her [to] a penalty of
imprisonment of EIGHT YEARS and to pay the
costs. 4 (Underscoring supplied)
In so imposing the penalty, the trial court took note of the fact
that while the information reflected the commission of illegal
recruitment in large scale, only the complaint of the two of the
five complainants was proven.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals correctly synthesized the
evidence presented by the parties as follows:
[The evidence for the prosecution] shows that sometime in
August and September 1984, accused-appellantapproached
private complainants Necitas Ferre and Narciso Corpus

individually and invited them to apply for overseas employment in


Dubai. The accused-appellant being their neighbor, private
complainants agreed and went to the formers office. This office
which bore the business name "Bayside Manpower Export
Specialist" was in a building situated at Bautista St. Buendia,
Makati, Metro Manila. In that office, private complainants gave
certain amounts to appellant for processing and other fees. Ferre
gave P1,000.00 as processing fee (Exhibit A) and
another P4,000.00 (Exhibit B). Likewise, Corpus gave
appellant P7,000.00 (Exhibit D). Appellant then told private
complainants that they were scheduled to leave for Dubai on
September 8, 1984. However, private complainants and all the
other applicants were not able to depart on the said date as their
employer allegedly did not arrive. Thus, their departure was
rescheduled to September 23, but the result was the same.
Suspecting that they were being hoodwinked, private
complainants demanded of appellant to return their money.
Except for the refund of P1,000.00 to Ferre, appellant was not able
to return private complainants money. Tired of excuses, private
complainants filed the present case for illegal recruitment against
the accused-appellant.

Specialist agency because she knew Florante Hinahon, 5 the


owner of the said agency. While accused-appellant admitted that
she received money from the private complainants, she was quick
to point out that she received the same only in trust for delivery
to the agency. She denied being part of the agency either as an
owner or employee thereof. To corroborate appellants testimony,
Milagros Cuadra, who was also an applicant and a companion of
private complainants, testified that appellant did not recruit them.
On the contrary, they were the ones who asked help from
appellant. To further bolster the defense, Eriberto C. Tabing, the
accountant and cashier of the agency, testified that appellant is
not connected with the agency and that he saw appellant
received money from the applicants but she turned them over to
the agency through either Florantino Hinahon or Luzviminda
Marcos. 6(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

To prove that accused-appellant had no authority to recruit


workers for overseas employment, the prosecution presented Jose
Valeriano, a Senior Overseas Employment Officer of the Philippine
Overseas Employment Agency (POEA), who testified that accusedappellant was neither licensed nor authorized by the then Ministry
of Labor and Employment to recruit workers for overseas
employment.

WHEREFORE, finding no merit in the appeal, this Court DISMISSES


it and AFFIRMS the appealed Decision EXCEPT the penalty x x
x which is hereby changed to five (5) years as minimum to seven
(7) years as maximum with perpetual disqualification from
engaging in the business of recruitment and placement of
workers. 7(Underscoring supplied)

For her defense, appellant denied ever approaching private


complainants to recruit them for employment in Dubai. On the
contrary, it was the private complainants who asked her help in
securing jobs abroad. As a good neighbor and friend, she brought
the private complainants to the Bayside Manpower Export

In light thereof, the appellate court affirmed the judgment of the


trial court but modified the penalty imposed due to the trial
courts failure to apply the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
The appellate court thus disposed:

Petitioners Motion for Reconsideration having been denied,


present petition was filed, faulting the appellate court
I

the

x x x IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONIES OF THE


COMPLAINING WITNESSES, [AND]
II
x x x IN FINDING THE PETITIONER-ACCUSED GUILTY WHEN THE
PROSECUTION FAILED TO PROVE HER GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT. 9 (Underscoring supplied)

(c) 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 P20,000
nor more than P100,000 or both such imprisonment and fine, at
the discretion of the court;
x x x x (Underscoring supplied)

Petitioner bewails the failure of the trial court and the Court of
Appeals to credit the testimonies of her witnesses, her companion
Milagros Cuadra, and Eriberto C. Tabing who is an accountantcashier of the agency.
Further, petitioner assails the trial courts and the appellate
courts failure to consider that the provisional receipts she issued
indicated that the amounts she collected from the private
complainants were turned over to the agency through Minda
Marcos and Florante Hinahon. At any rate, she draws attention
to People v. Seoron 10wherein this Court held that the issuance or
signing of receipts for placement fees does not make a case for
illegal recruitment. 11
The petition fails.
Articles 38 and 39 of the Labor Code, the legal provisions
applicable when the offense charged was committed,12 provided:
ART. 38. Illegal Recruitment. (a) Any recruitment activities,
including the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of
this Code, to be undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of
authority shall be deemed illegal and punishable under Article 39
of this Code. x x x
Article 39. Penalties. x x x x

The elements of the offense of illegal recruitment, which must


concur, are: (1) that the offender has no valid license or authority
required by law to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement
of workers; and (2) that the offender undertakes any activity
within the meaning of recruitment and placement under Article
13(b), or any prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of
the Labor Code. 13 If another element is present that the
accused commits the act against three or more persons,
individually or as a group, it becomes an illegal recruitment in a
large scale. 14
Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code defines "recruitment and
placement" as "[a]ny act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting,
transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, and includes
referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for
employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not."
(Underscoring supplied)
That the first element is present in the case at bar, there is no
doubt. Jose Valeriano, Senior Overseas Employment Officer of the
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, testified that the
records of the POEA do not show that petitioner is authorized to
recruit workers for overseas employment. 15 A Certification to that
effect was in fact issued by Hermogenes C. Mateo, Chief of the
Licensing Division of POEA. 16

Petitioners disclaimer of having engaged in recruitment activities


from the very start does not persuade in light of the evidence for
the prosecution. In People v. Alvarez, this Court held:
Appellant denies that she engaged in acts of recruitment and
placement without first complying with the guidelines issued by
the Department of Labor and Employment. She contends that she
did not possess any license for recruitment, because she never
engaged in such activity.
We are not persuaded. In weighing contradictory declarations and
statements, greater weight must be given to the positive
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses than to the denial of the
defendant. Article 38 (a) clearly shows that illegal recruitment
is an offense that is essentially committed by a non-licensee or
non-holder of authority. A non-licensee means any person,
corporation or entity to which the labor secretary has not issued a
valid license or authority to engage in recruitment and placement;
or whose license or authority has been suspended, revoked or
cancelled by the POEA or the labor secretary. A license authorizes
a person or an entity to operate a private employment agency,
while authority is given to those engaged in recruitment and
placement activities.
xxxx
That appellant in this case had been neither licensed nor
authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment was
certified by Veneranda C. Guerrero, officer-in-charge of the
Licensing and Regulation Office; and Ma. Salome S. Mendoza,
manager of the Licensing Branch both of the Philippine Overseas
Employment Administration. Yet, as complainants convincingly
proved, she recruited them for jobs in Taiwan. 17 (Italics in the
original; underscoring supplied)

The second element is doubtless also present. The act of referral,


which is included in recruitment, 18 is "the act of passing along or
forwarding of an applicant for employment after an initial
interview of a selected applicant for employment to a selected
employer, placement officer or bureau." 19 Petitioners admission
that she brought private complainants to the agency whose owner
she knows and her acceptance of fees including those for
processing betrays her guilt.
That petitioner issued provisional receipts indicating that the
amounts she received from the private complainants were turned
over to Luzviminda Marcos and Florante Hinahon does not free her
from liability. For the act of recruitment may be "for profit or not."
It is sufficient that the accused "promises or offers for a fee
employment" to warrant conviction for illegal recruitment. 20 As
the appellate court stated:
x x x Sec. 13(b) of P.D. 442 [The Labor Code] does not require that
the recruiter receives and keeps the placement money for himself
or herself. For as long as a person who has no license to engage in
recruitment of workers for overseas employment offers for a fee
an employment to two or more persons, then he or she is guilty of
illegal recruitment. 21
Parenthetically, why petitioner accepted the payment of fees from
the private complainants when, in light of her claim that she
merely brought them to the agency, she could have advised them
to directly pay the same to the agency, she proferred no
explanation.
On petitioners reliance on Seoron, 22 true, this Court held that
issuance of receipts for placement fees does not make a case for
illegal recruitment. But it went on to state that it is "rather
the undertaking of recruitment activities without the necessary
license or authority" that makes a case for illegal recruitment. 23

A word on the penalty. Indeed, the trial court failed to apply the
Indeterminate Sentence Law which also applies to offenses
punished by special laws.
Thus, Section 1 of Act No. 4103 (An Act to Provide for an
Indeterminate Sentence and Parole for All Persons Convicted of
Certain Crimes by the Courts of the Philippine Islands; To Create A
Board of Indeterminate Sentence and to Provide Funds Therefor;
and for Other Purposes) provides:
SECTION 1. Hereafter, in imposing a prison sentence for an
offense punished by the Revised Penal Code, or its amendments,
the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate
sentence the maximum term of which shall be that which, in view
of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under
the rules of the said Code, and the minimum which shall be within
the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code
for the offense; and if the offense is punished by any other law,
the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate
sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the
maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less
than the minimum term prescribed by the same. (As amended by
Act No. 4225) (Underscoring supplied)
While the penalty of imprisonment imposed by the appellate court
is within the prescribed penalty for the offense, its addition of
"perpetual disqualification from engaging in the business of
recruitment and placement of workers" is not part thereof. Such
additional penalty must thus be stricken off.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision and
Resolution of the Court of Appeals areAFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION in that the accessory penalty imposed by it
consisting of "perpetual disqualification from engaging in the
business of recruitment and placement of workers" is DELETED.

MAYON HOTEL & RESTAURANT, PACITA O. PO vs. ROLANDO


ADANA, et al.
G.R. No. 157634
May 16, 2005
FACTS: Petitioner Mayon Hotel & Restaurant (MHR) hired herein
16 respondents as employees in its business in Legaspi City. Its
operation was suspended on March 31, 1997 due to the expiration
and non-renewal of the lease contract for the space it rented.
While waiting for the completion of the construction of its new
site, MHR continued its operation in another site with 9 of the 16
employees. When the new site constructed and MHR resumed its
business operation, none of the 16 employees was recalled to
work.
MHR alleged business losses as the reason for not reinstating the
respondents. On various dates, respondents filed complaints for
underpayment of wages, money claims and illegal dismissal.
ISSUES: 1. Whether or not respondents were illegally dismissed
by petitioner;
2. Whether or not respondents are entitled to their money claims
due to underpayment of wages, and nonpayment of holiday pay,
rest day premium, SILP, COLA, overtime pay, and night shift
differential pay.
HELD: 1. Illegal Dismissal: claim for separation pay
Since April 1997 until the time the Labor Arbiter rendered its
decision in July 2000, or more than three (3) years after the
supposed temporary lay-off, the employment of all the
respondents with petitioner had ceased, notwithstanding that the

new premises had been completed and the same resumed its
operation. This is clearly dismissal or the permanent severance
or complete separation of the worker from the service on the
initiative of the employer regardless of the reasons therefor.
Article 286 of the Labor Code is clear there is termination of
employment when an otherwise bona fide suspension of work
exceeds six (6) months. The cessation of employment for more
than six months was patent and the employer has the burden of
proving that the termination was for a just or authorized cause.
While we recognize the right of the employer to terminate the
services of an employee for a just or authorized cause, the
dismissal of employees must be made within the parameters of
law and pursuant to the tenets of fair play. And in termination
disputes, the burden of proof is always on the employer to prove
that the dismissal was for a just or authorized cause. Where there
is no showing of a clear, valid and legal cause for termination of
employment, the law considers the case a matter of illegal
dismissal.
If doubts exist between the evidence presented by the employer
and the employee, the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of
the latter the employer must affirmatively show rationally
adequate evidence that the dismissal was for a justifiable cause. It
is a time-honored rule that in controversies between a laborer and
his master, doubts reasonably arising from the evidence, or in the
interpretation of agreements and writing should be resolved in the
former's favor. The policy is to extend the doctrine to a greater
number of employees who can avail of the benefits under the law,
which is in consonance with the avowed policy of the State to give
maximum aid and protection of labor.
2. Money claims

The Supreme Court reinstated the award of monetary claims


granted by the Labor Arbiter.
The cost of meals and snacks purportedly provided to respondents
cannot be deducted as part of respondents' minimum wage. As
stated in the Labor Arbiter's decision.
Even granting that meals and snacks were provided and indeed
constituted facilities, such facilities could not be deducted without
compliance with certain legal requirements. As stated in Mabeza
v. NLRC, the employer simply cannot deduct the value from the
employee's wages without satisfying the following: (a) proof that
such facilities are customarily furnished by the trade; (b) the
provision of deductible facilities is voluntarily accepted in writing
by the employee; and (c) the facilities are charged at fair and
reasonable value. The law is clear that mere availment is not
sufficient to allow deductions from employees' wages.
As for petitioners repeated invocation of serious business losses,
suffice to say that this is not a defense to payment of labor
standard benefits. The employer cannot exempt himself from
liability to pay minimum wages because of poor financial
condition of the company. The payment of minimum wages is not
dependent on the employer's ability to pay.

Far East Agricultural Supply, Inc. vs Jimmy Lebatique


September 14, 2010
In March 1996, Lebatique was hired as a driver by FAR EAST
AGRICULTURAL SUPPLY, INC. with a daily wage of P223.50. His job
as a driver includes the delivery of animal feeds to the clients of

the company. He must report either in the morning or in the

ISSUE: Whether or not Lebatique is a field personnel.

afternoon to make the deliveries.


HELD: No. Lebatique is a regular employee.
On January 24, 2000, Lebatique was suspended by Manuel Uy
(brother of FEASIs General Manager Alexander Uy) for allegedly

Uy illegally dismissed Lebatique when he told him to look for

using the company vehicle illegally.

another job. Judging at the sequence of event, Lebatique earned


the ire of Uy when he filed a complaint for nonpayment of OT pay

On the same day, Lebatique filed a complaint for nonpayment of

on the day Lebatique was suspended by Manuel Uy. Such is not a

overtime pay against Alexander Uy.

valid reason for dismissing Lebatique.

Uy summoned Lebatique and asked why he was claiming overtime

Uy cannot therefore claim that he merely suspended Lebatique.

pay. Lebatique said since he started working with the company he


has never been paid OT pay. Uy consulted with his brother. On

Further, Lebatique did not abandon his job. His filing of this case is

January 29, 2000, Uy told Lebatique to look for another job.

proof enough that he had no intention to abandon his job.

Lebatique then filed an Illegal Dismissal case against the

To constitute abandonment as a just cause for dismissal, there

company.

must be:

The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Lebatique. Uy was ordered to

(a) absence without justifiable reason; and

reinstate Lebatique and at the same time to pay Lebatique his


13th month pay, back wages (time when case was pending),
service incentive leave pay and OT pay all amounting to
P196,659.72.
Uy argued that Lebatique was not dismissed and that he was
merely suspended; that he abandoned his job; and that Lebatique
was a field personnel not entitled to overtime pay and service
incentive leave.

(b) a clear intention, as manifested by some overt act, to sever


the employer-employee relationship.
None of the above was proven by Uy.
Also, Lebatique is not a field personnel as defined above for the
following reasons:
(1) company drivers, including Lebatique, are directed to deliver
the goods at a specified time and place;

(2) they are not given the discretion to solicit, select and contact

compliance with minimum wage and other labor standard

prospective clients; and

provision. The instrument provides that they have no complaints


against the management of the Hotel Supreme as they are paid

(3) Far East issued a directive that company drivers should stay at

accordingly and that they are treated well. The petitioner signed

the clients premises during truck-ban hours which is from 5:00 to

the affidavit but refused to go to the Citys Prosecutors Office to

9:00 a.m. and 5:00 to 9:00 p.m.

confirm the veracity and contents of the affidavit as instructed by


management. That same day, as she refused to go to the City

As a regular employee, Lebatique is entitled to service incentive

Prosecutors Office, she was ordered by the hotel management to

leave and OT pay.

turn over the keys to her living quarters and to remove her
belongings to the hotels premises. She then filed a leave of

The Supreme Court affirmed the Labor Arbiters decision but

absence which was denied by her employer. She attempted to

remanded the case for properly computing Lebatiques OT pay

return to work but the hotels cashier told her that she should not

taking in to consideration the companys time keeping records.

report to work and instead continue with her unofficial leave of


absence. Three days after her attempt to return to work, she filed
a complaint against the management for illegal dismissal before
the Arbitration Branch of the NLRC in Baguio City. In addition to

Field Personnel Defined

that, she alleged underpayment of wages, non-payment of holiday

Field personnel are those who regularly perform their duties away

differential and other benefits. Peter Ng, in their Answer, argued

from the principal place of business of the employer and whose

that her unauthorized leave of absence from work is the ground

actual hours of work in the field cannot be determined with


reasonable certainty.

pay,

service

incentive

leave

pay,

13th

month

pay,

night

for her dismissal. He even maintained that her alleged of


underpayment and non-payment of benefits had no legal basis.
He raises a new ground of loss of confidence, which was
supported by his filing of criminal case for the alleged qualified

Mabeza vs. NLRC [G.R. No. 118506 April 18, 1997]

theft of the petitioner. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the hotel
management on the ground of loss of confidence. She appealed to
the NLRC which affirmed the Labor Arbiters decision. hence, this

Facts: Petitioner Norma Mabeza and her co-employees at the


Hotel Supreme in Baguio City were asked by the hotels
management to sign an instrument attesting to the latters

petition.

Issue: Whether or not the dismissal by the private respondent of

requirements.

Without

satisfying

these

requirements,

the

petitioner constitutes an unfair labor practice.

employer simply cannot deduct the value from the employees


ages. First, proof must be shown that such facilities are

Held: The NLRCs decision is reversed. The pivotal question in any

customarily furnished by the trade. Second, the provision of

case where unfair labor practice on the part of the employer is

deductible facilities must be voluntary accepted in writing by the

alleged is whether or not the employer has exerted pressure, in

employee.

the form of restraint, interference or coercion, against his

reasonable value. These requirements were not met in the instant

employees right to institute concerted action for better terms and

case. Private respondent failed to present any company policy to

conditions of employment. Without doubt, the act of compelling

show that the meal and lodging are part of the salary. He also

employees to sign an instrument indicating that the employer

failed to provide proof of the employees written authorization and

observed labor standard provisions of the law when he might not

he failed to show how he arrived at the valuations. More

have, together with the act of terminating or coercing those who

significantly, the food and lodging, or electricity and water

refuse to cooperate with the employees scheme constitutes

consumed by the petitioner were not facilities but supplements. A

unfair labor practice. The labor arbiters contention that the

benefit or privilege granted to an employee for the convenience of

reason for the monetary benefits received by the petitioner

the employer is not a facility. The criterion in making a distinction

between 1981 to 1987 were less than the minimum wage was

between the two not so much lies in the kind but the purpose.

because petitioner did not factor in the meals, lodging, electric

Considering, therefore, that hotel workers are required to work on

consumption and water she received during the period of

different shifts and are expected to be available at various odd

computations. Granting that meals and lodging were provided and

hours, their ready availability is a necessary matter in the

indeed constituted facilities, such facilities could not be deducted

operations of a small hotel, such as the private respondents

without

hotel.

the

employer

complying

first

with

certain

legal

Finally,

facilities

must

be

charged

at

fair

and

You might also like