Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 113161 August 29, 1995

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
LOMA GOCE y OLALIA, DAN GOCE and NELLY D. AGUSTIN, accused. NELLY D. AGUSTIN, accused-
appellant.

REGALADO, J.:

On January 12, 1988, an information for illegal recruitment committed by a syndicate and in large scale, punishable
under Articles 38 and 39 of the Labor Code (Presidential Decree No. 442) as amended by Section 1(b) of
Presidential Decree No. 2018, was filed against spouses Dan and Loma Goce and herein accused-appellant Nelly
Agustin in the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 5, alleging

That in or about and during the period comprised between May 1986 and June 25, 1987, both
dates inclusive, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring and confederating
together and helping one another, representing themselves 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 (1) Rolando
Dalida y Piernas, (2) Ernesto Alvarez y Lubangco, (3) Rogelio Salado y Savillo, (4) Ramona
Salado y Alvarez, (5) Dionisio Masaya y de Guzman, (6) Dave Rivera y de Leon, (7) Lorenzo
Alvarez y Velayo, and (8) Nelson Trinidad y Santos, without first having secured the required
license or authority from the Department of Labor. 1

On January 21, 1987, a warrant of arrest was issued against the three accused but not one of them was
arrested. 2Hence, on February 2, 1989, the trial court ordered the case archived but it issued a standing warrant of
arrest against the accused. 3

Thereafter, on learning of the whereabouts of the accused, one of the offended parties, Rogelio Salado, requested on
March 17, 1989 for a copy of the warrant of arrest. 4 Eventually, at around midday of February 26, 1993, Nelly
Agustin was apprehended by the Paraaque police. 5 On March 8, 1993, her counsel filed a motion to revive the case
and requested that it be set for hearing "for purposes of due process and for the accused to immediately have her day
in court" 6 Thus, on April 15, 1993, the trial court reinstated the case and set the arraignment for May 3, 1993, 7 on
which date of Agustin pleaded not guilty 8 and the case subsequently went to trial.

Four of the complainants testified for the prosecution. Rogelio Salado was the first to take the witness stand and he
declared that sometime in March or April, 1987, he was introduced by Lorenzo Alvarez, his brother-in-law and a co-
applicant, to Nelly Agustin in the latter's residence at Factor, Dongalo, Paraaque, Metro Manila. Representing
herself as the manager of the Clover Placement Agency, Agustin showed him a job order as proof that he could
readily be deployed for overseas employment. Salado learned that he had to pay P5,000.00 as processing fee, which
amount he gave sometime in April or May of the same year. He was issued the corresponding receipt. 9

Also in April or May, 1987, Salado, accompanied by five other applicants who were his relatives, went to the office
of the placement agency at Nakpil Street, Ermita, Manila where he saw Agustin and met the spouses Dan and Loma
Goce, owners of the agency. He submitted his bio-data and learned from Loma Goce that he had to give P12,000.00,
instead of the original amount of P5,000.00 for the placement fee. Although surprised at the new and higher sum,
they subsequently agreed as long as there was an assurance that they could leave for abroad. 10

Thereafter, a receipt was issued in the name of the Clover Placement Agency showing that Salado and his aforesaid
co-applicants each paid P2,000.00, instead of the P5,000.00 which each of them actually paid. Several months
passed but Salado failed to leave for the promised overseas employment. Hence, in October, 1987, along with the
other recruits, he decided to go to the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) to verify the real
status of Clover Placement Agency. They discovered that said agency was not duly licensed to recruit job applicants.
Later, upon learning that Agustin had been arrested, Salado decided to see her and to demand the return of the
money he had paid, but Agustin could only give him P500.00. 11

Ramona Salado, the wife of Rogelio Salado, came to know through her brother, Lorenzo Alvarez, about Nelly
Agustin. Accompanied by her husband, Rogelio, Ramona went to see Agustin at the latter's residence. Agustin
persuaded her to apply as a cutter/sewer in Oman so that she could join her husband. Encouraged by Agustin's
promise that she and her husband could live together while working in Oman, she instructed her husband to give
Agustin P2,000.00 for each of them as placement fee, or the total sum of P4,000.00. 12

Much later, the Salado couple received a telegram from the placement agency requiring them to report to its office
because the "NOC" (visa) had allegedly arrived. Again, around February, or March, 1987, Rogelio gave P2,000.00
as payment for his and his wife's passports. Despite follow-up of their papers twice a week from February to June,
1987, he and his wife failed to leave for abroad. 13

Complainant Dionisio Masaya, accompanied by his brother-in-law, Aquiles Ortega, applied for a job in Oman with
the Clover Placement Agency at Paraaque, the agency's former office address. There, Masaya met Nelly Agustin,
who introduced herself as the manager of the agency, and the Goce spouses, Dan and Loma, as well as the latter's
daughter. He submitted several pertinent documents, such as his bio-data and school credentials. 14

In May, 1986, Masaya gave Dan Goce P1,900.00 as an initial downpayment for the placement fee, and in September
of that same year, he gave an additional P10,000.00. He was issued receipts for said amounts and was advised to go
to the placement office once in a while to follow up his application, which he faithfully did. Much to his dismay and
chagrin, he failed to leave for abroad as promised. Accordingly, he was forced to demand that his money be
refunded but Loma Goce could give him back only P4,000.00 in installments. 15

As the prosecution's fourth and last witness, Ernesto Alvarez took the witness stand on June 7, 1993. He testified
that in February, 1987, he met appellant Agustin through his cousin, Larry Alvarez, at her residence in Paraaque.
She informed him that "madalas siyang nagpapalakad sa Oman" and offered him a job as an ambulance driver at
the Royal Hospital in Oman with a monthly salary of about $600.00 to $700.00. 16

On March 10, 1987, Alvarez gave an initial amount of P3,000.00 as processing fee to Agustin at the latter's
residence. In the same month, he gave another P3,000.00, this time in the office of the placement agency. Agustin
assured him that he could leave for abroad before the end of 1987. He returned several times to the placement
agency's office to follow up his application but to no avail. Frustrated, he demanded the return of the money he had
paid, but Agustin could only give back P500.00. Thereafter, he looked for Agustin about eight times, but he could no
longer find her. 17

Only herein appellant Agustin testified for the defense. She asserted that Dan and Loma Goce were her neighbors at
Tambo, Paraaque and that they were licensed recruiters and owners of the Clover Placement Agency. Previously,
the Goce couple was able to send her son, Reynaldo Agustin, to Saudi Arabia. Agustin met the aforementioned
complainants through Lorenzo Alvarez who requested her to introduce them to the Goce couple, to which request
she acceded. 18

Denying any participation in the illegal recruitment and maintaining that the recruitment was perpetrated only by the
Goce couple, Agustin denied any knowledge of the receipts presented by the prosecution. She insisted that the
complainants included her in the complaint thinking that this would compel her to reveal the whereabouts of the
Goce spouses. She failed to do so because in truth, so she claims, she does not know the present address of the
couple. All she knew was that they had left their residence in 1987. 19

Although she admitted having given P500.00 each to Rogelio Salado and Alvarez, she explained that it was entirely
for different reasons. Salado had supposedly asked for a loan, while Alvarez needed money because he was sick at
that time. 20

On November 19, 1993, the trial court rendered judgment finding herein appellant guilty as a principal in the crime
of illegal recruitment in large scale, and sentencing her to serve the penalty of life imprisonment, as well as to pay a
fine of P100,000.00. 21

In her present appeal, appellant Agustin raises the following arguments: (1) her act of introducing complainants to
the Goce couple does not fall within the meaning of illegal recruitment and placement under Article 13(b) in relation
to Article 34 of the Labor Code; (2) there is no proof of conspiracy to commit illegal recruitment among appellant
and the Goce spouses; and (3) there is no proof that appellant offered or promised overseas employment to the
complainants. 22 These three arguments being interrelated, they will be discussed together.

Herein appellant is accused of violating Articles 38 and 39 of the Labor Code. Article 38 of the Labor Code, as
amended by Presidential Decree No. 2018, provides that any recruitment activity, including the prohibited practices
enumerated in Article 34 of said Code, undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of authority shall be deemed
illegal and punishable under Article 39 thereof. The same article further provides that illegal recruitment shall be
considered an offense involving economic sabotage if any of these qualifying circumstances exist, namely, (a) when
illegal recruitment is committed by a syndicate, i.e., if it is carried out by a group of three or more persons
conspiring and/or confederating with one another; or (b) when illegal recruitment is committed in large scale, i.e., if
it is committed against three or more persons individually or as a group.

At the outset, it should be made clear that all the accused in this case were not authorized to engage in any
recruitment activity, as evidenced by a certification issued by Cecilia E. Curso, Chief of the Licensing and
Regulation Office of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, on November 10, 1987. Said certification
states that Dan and Loma Goce and Nelly Agustin are neither licensed nor authorized to recruit workers for overseas
employment. 23 Appellant does not dispute this. As a matter of fact her counsel agreed to stipulate that she was
neither licensed nor authorized to recruit applicants for overseas employment. Appellant, however, denies that she
was in any way guilty of illegal recruitment. 24

It is appellant's defensive theory that all she did was to introduce complainants to the Goce spouses. Being a
neighbor of said couple, and owing to the fact that her son's overseas job application was processed and facilitated
by them, the complainants asked her to introduce them to said spouses. Allegedly out of the goodness of her heart,
she complied with their request. Such an act, appellant argues, does not fall within the meaning of "referral" under
the Labor Code to make her liable for illegal recruitment.

Under said Code, 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. 25 On the other hand, referral 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. 26

Hence, the inevitable query is whether or not appellant Agustin merely introduced complainants to the Goce couple
or her actions went beyond that. The testimonial evidence hereon show that she indeed further committed acts
constitutive of illegal recruitment. All four prosecution witnesses testified that it was Agustin whom they initially
approached regarding their plans of working overseas. It was from her that they learned about the fees they had to
pay, as well as the papers that they had to submit. It was after they had talked to her that they met the accused
spouses who owned the placement agency.
As correctly held by the trial court, being an employee of the Goces, it was therefore logical for appellant to
introduce the applicants to said spouses, they being the owners of the agency. As such, appellant was actually
making referrals to the agency of which she was a part. She was therefore engaging in recruitment activity. 27

Despite Agustin's pretensions that she was but a neighbor of the Goce couple, the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses paint a different picture. Rogelio Salado and Dionisio Masaya testified that appellant represented herself
as the manager of the Clover Placement Agency. Ramona Salado was offered a job as a cutter/sewer by Agustin the
first time they met, while Ernesto Alvarez remembered that when he first met Agustin, the latter represented herself
as "nagpapaalis papunta sa Oman." 28 Indeed, Agustin played a pivotal role in the operations of the recruitment
agency, working together with the Goce couple.

There is illegal recruitment when one gives the impression of having the ability to send a worker abroad." 29 It is
undisputed that appellant gave complainants the distinct impression that she had the power or ability to send people
abroad for work such that the latter were convinced to give her the money she demanded in order to be so
employed. 30

It cannot be denied that Agustin received from complainants various sums for purpose of their applications. Her act
of collecting from each of the complainants payment for their respective passports, training fees, placement fees,
medical tests and other sundry expenses unquestionably constitutes an act of recruitment within the meaning of the
law. In fact, appellant demanded and received from complainants amounts beyond the allowable limit of P5,000.00
under government regulations. It is true that the mere act of a cashier in receiving money far exceeding the amount
allowed by law was not considered per se as "recruitment and placement" in contemplation of law, but that was
because the recipient had no other participation in the transactions and did not conspire with her co-accused in
defrauding the victims. 31 That is not the case here.

Appellant further argues that "there is no evidence of receipts of collections/payments from complainants to
appellant." On the contrary, xerox copies of said receipts/vouchers were presented by the prosecution. For instance,
a cash voucher marked as Exhibit D, 32 showing the receipt of P10,000.00 for placement fee and duly signed by
appellant, was presented by the prosecution. Another receipt, identified as Exhibit E, 33 was issued and signed by
appellant on February 5, 1987 to acknowledge receipt of P4,000.00 from Rogelio and Ramona Salado for
"processing of documents for Oman." Still another receipt dated March 10, 1987 and presented in evidence as
Exhibit F, shows that appellant received from Ernesto Alvarez P2,000.00 for "processing of documents for Oman." 34

Apparently, the original copies of said receipts/vouchers were lost, hence only xerox copies thereof were presented
and which, under the circumstances, were admissible in evidence. When the original writing has been lost or
destroyed or cannot be produced in court, upon proof of its execution and loss or destruction, or unavailability, its
contents may be proved by a copy or a recital of its contents in some authentic document, or by the recollection of
witnesses. 35

Even assuming arguendo that the xerox copies presented by the prosecution as secondary evidence are not allowable
in court, still the absence thereof does not warrant the acquittal of appellant. In People vs. Comia, 36where this
particular issue was involved, the Court held that the complainants' failure to ask for receipts for the fees they paid
to the accused therein, as well as their consequent failure to present receipts before the trial court as proof of the said
payments, is not fatal to their case. The complainants duly proved by their respective testimonies that said accused
was involved in the entire recruitment process. Their testimonies in this regard, being clear and positive, were
declared sufficient to establish that factum probandum.

Indeed, the trial court was justified and correct in accepting the version of the prosecution witnesses, their statements
being positive and affirmative in nature. This is more worthy of credit than the mere uncorroborated and self-serving
denials of appellant. The lame defense consisting of such bare denials by appellant cannot overcome the evidence
presented by the prosecution proving her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 37

The presence of documentary evidence notwithstanding, this case essentially involves the credibility of witnesses
which is best left to the judgment of the trial court, in the absence of abuse of discretion therein. The findings of fact
of a trial court, arrived at only after a hearing and evaluation of what can usually be expected to be conflicting
testimonies of witnesses, certainly deserve respect by an appellate court. 38 Generally, the findings of fact of the trial
court on the matter of credibility of witnesses will not be disturbed on appeal. 39

In a last-ditch effort to exculpate herself from conviction, appellant argues that there is no proof of conspiracy
between her and the Goce couple as to make her liable for illegal recruitment. We do not agree. The evidence
presented by the prosecution clearly establish that appellant confabulated with the Goces in their plan to deceive the
complainants. Although said accused couple have not been tried and convicted, nonetheless there is sufficient basis
for appellant's conviction as discussed above.

In People vs. Sendon, 40 we held that the non-prosecution of another suspect therein provided no ground for the
appellant concerned to fault the decision of the trial court convicting her. The prosecution of other persons, equally
or more culpable than herein appellant, may come later after their true identities and addresses shall have been
ascertained and said malefactors duly taken into custody. We see no reason why the same doctrinal rule and course
of procedure should not apply in this case.

WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment of the court a quo is hereby AFFIRMED in toto, with costs against accused-
appellant Nelly D. Agustin.

SO ORDERED.
 FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. Nos. 140067-71. August 29, 2002]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. NENITA MARIA OLIVIA GALLARDO (at large),
and REMEDIOS MALAPIT, accused,

REMEDIOS MALAPIT, accused-appellant.

DECISION

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

Remedios Malapit and Nenita Maria Olivia Gallardo were charged with one (1) count of illegal recruitment
committed in large-scale, three (3) counts of estafa, and one (1) count of simple illegal recruitment before the
Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, Branch 3.[1] The Informations read as follows:

Criminal Case No. 15320-R (Illegal Recruitment Committed in Large Scale)[2]

The undersigned (Public Prosecutor) accuses NENITA MARIA OLIVIA GALLARDO and REMEDIOS MALAPIT
of the crime of ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT COMMITTED IN LARGE SCALE, defined and penalized under
Article 13(b) in relation to Article 38(b), 34, and 39 of P.D. No. 442, otherwise known as the New Labor Code of the
Philippines, as amended by P.D. No. 1693, 1920, 2018 and R.A. No. 8042, committed as follows:

That during the period from January 1997 to June, 1997, in the City of Baguio, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually aiding one
another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously for a fee, recruit and promise employment as
contract workers in Canada, to the herein complainants, namely: Rommel Suni, Myrna Castro, Marilyn Mariano,
Bryna Paul Wong, Mary Grace Lanozo, Ana Liza Aquino, Marie Purificacion Abenoja, Florence Bacoco and Lorna
Domingo, without said accused having first secured the necessary license or authority from the Department of Labor
and Employment.

Criminal Case No. 15323-R (Estafa)[3]

That in March 1997 in the City of Baguio, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually aiding one another did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously defraud one MARILYN MARIANO by way of false pretenses, which are executed prior
to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud, as follows; to wit: the accused knowing fully well that he/she
they is/are not authorized job recruiters for persons intending to secure work abroad convinced said Marilyn
Mariano and pretended that he/she/they could secure a job for him/her abroad, for and in consideration of the sum of
P36,500.00, when in truth and in fact they could not; the said Marilyn Mariano deceived and convinced by the false
pretenses employed by the accused parted away the total sum of P36,500.00, in favor of the accused, to the damage
and prejudice of the said Marilyn Mariano in the aforementioned amount of THIRTY SIX THOUSAND FIVE
HUNDRED PESOS (P36,500.00), Philippine Currency.

Criminal Case No. 15327-R (Estafa)[4]

That on June 6, 1997 in the City of Baguio, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually aiding one another, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously defraud one MARIE PURIFICACION ABENOJA by way of false pretenses, which are
executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud, as follows, to wit: the accused knowing fully
well that he/she they is/are not authorized job recruiters for persons intending to secure work abroad convinced said
Marie Purificacion Abenoja and pretended that he/she/they could secure a job for him/her abroad, for and in
consideration of the sum of P36,500.00, when in truth and in fact they could not; the said Marie Purificacion
Abenoja deceived and convinced by the false pretenses employed by the accused parted away the total sum of
P36,500.00 in favor of the accused, to the damage and prejudice of the said Marie Purificacion Abenoja in the
aforementioned amount of THIRTY SIX THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED PESOS (P36,500.00), Philippine
currency.

Criminal Case No. 15570-R (Illegal Recruitment)[5]

The under signed (Public Prosecutor) accuses NENITA MARIA OLIVIA-GALLARDO and REMEDIOS
MALAPIT of the crime of ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT, defined and penalized under Article 13(b) in relation to
Article 38(b), 34, and 39 of Presidential Decree No. 442, otherwise known as the New Labor Code of the
Philippines, as amended by R.A. No. 8042, committed as follows:

That on or about the 6th day of June, 1997, in the City of Baguio, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually aiding one another, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously for a fee, recruit and promise employment as contract worker in
Canada, to the herein complainant ARACELI D. ABENOJA, without said accused having first secured the necessary
license or authority from the Department of Labor and Employment.

Criminal Case No. 15571-R (Estafa)[6]

That on or about the 11th day of June, 1997 in the City of Baguio, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating & mutually aiding one another, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud one ARACELI D. ABENOJA by way of false pretenses, which
are executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud, as follows; to wit: the accused knowing
fully well that he/she/they is/are not authorized job recruiters for persons intending to secure work abroad convinced
said Araceli D. Abenoja and pretended that he/she/they could secure a job for him/her abroad, for and in
consideration of the sum of P35,000.00, when in truth and in fact they could not; the said Araceli D. Abenoja
deceived and convinced by the false pretenses employed by the accused parted away the total sum of P35,000.00 in
favor of the accused, to the damage and prejudice of the said Araceli D. Abenoja in the aforementioned amount of
THIRTY FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P35,000.00), Philippine currency.

Only accused-appellant Remedios Malapit was brought to the jurisdiction of the trial court. Her co-accused,
Nenita Maria Olivia Gallardo, remained at large.

Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to all charges. The five (5) cases were consolidated
and tried jointly.

Marie Purificacion Abenoja and Marilyn Mariano met accused-appellant at her beauty parlor in Lopez
Building, Session Road, Baguio City. Marie met accused-appellant sometime in January 1997 through her friend,
Florence Bacoco. A month later, Marilyn was introduced to accused-appellant by Grace Lanozo, a fellow nurse at
the PMA Hospital.

Marie claims that accused-appellant enticed her to apply for work as a caregiver in Canada. Accused-appellant
showed her a piece of paper containing a job order saying that Canada was in need of ten (10) caregivers and some
messengers. Accused-appellant also promised her that she will be receiving a salary of CN$2,700.00 (Canadian
Dollars) and will be able to leave for Canada in a months time. Heeding accused-appellants guaranty, Marie
eventually applied for the overseas job opportunity.
 On June 6, 1997, accused-appellant introduced Marie to co-accused Nenita Maria Olivia-Gallardo in Tandang
Sora, Quezon City. On the same day, Marie submitted herself to a physical examination and personally handed to
Gallardo a partial payment of P18,000.00, for which the latter issued a receipt. [7] Marie made another payment in the
amount of P52,000.00, for which accused-appellant issued a provisional receipt. [8] This amount included the
placement fee of her sister, Araceli Abenoja, who became interested in the opportunity to work abroad. Accused-
appellant issued to Marie the receipt[9] for Araceli in the amount of P35,000.00, signed by Gallardo.

Three months lapsed without any news on Maries deployment to Canada. Her sister, Araceli, had already left
for work abroad through the efforts of their other town-mate. The weekly follow-ups made by Marie to accused-
appellant pertaining to her application and that of Aracelis were to no avail. Accused-appellant just promised Marie
that she will return her money. Realizing that she had been hoodwinked, Marie decided to file a complaint against
the accused-appellant and Gallardo with the National Bureau of Investigation. She no longer verified the authority of
both accused-appellant and Gallardo in recruiting workers overseas because she was told by Gallardo that she is a
direct recruiter.[10]

Marilyn Mariano, on the other hand, was told by accused-appellant that she was recruiting nurses from Baguio
City and was looking for one more applicant to complete the first batch to fly to Canada. After giving her all the
information about the job opportunity in Canada, accused-appellant encouraged her to meet Gallardo. Not long after,
Grace Lanozo accompanied her to meet Gallardo at the latters house in Quezon City.

Gallardo required her to undergo a medical check-up, to complete her application papers within the soonest
possible time and to prepare money to defray the expenses for her deployment to Canada. Upon the instruction of
accused-appellant, Marilyn paid a total amount of P36,000.00 to Gallardo, which was evidenced by a receipt. Of this
amount, the P1,500.00[11] was for her medical check-up, P20,000.00[12] for processing of papers and
P15,000.00[13] for her visa.

Marilyn was further made to accomplish a form, prepared by both accused-appellant and Gallardo, at the
residence of accused-appellant in Baguio City. Thereafter, she was informed that the processing of her papers abroad
shall commence within the next three months. She was also made to attend a meeting conducted by both accused-
appellant and Gallardo at the formers house in Baguio City, together with other interested applicants.

After three months of waiting with no forthcoming employment abroad, Marilyn and the other applicants
proceeded to the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency, Regional Administrative Unit, of the Cordillera
Administrative Region in Baguio City, where they learned that accused-appellant and Gallardo were not authorized
recruiters.[14] Marilyn confronted accused-appellant about this, whereupon the latter assured her that it was a direct
hiring scheme. Thereafter, Marilyn reported accused-appellant and Gallardo to the NBI. [15]

After trial on the merits, accused-appellant was found guilty of the crimes of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale
and Estafa on three (3) counts. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:

WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused Remedios Malapit GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt with the crimes of
Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale, and Estafa in three (3) counts, and she is hereby sentenced as follows:

1. To suffer Life Imprisonment at the Correctional Institution for Women, Mandaluyong City in Criminal
Cases Nos. 15320-R and 15770-R for Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale; to pay a Fine to the
Government in the amount of One Hundred Thousand (P100,000.00) Pesos; and to pay private
complainants, Marie Purificacion Abenoja, the amount of Thirty Five Thousand (P35,000.00) Pesos;
Araceli Abenoja also the amount of Thirty Five Thousand (P35,000.00) Pesos; and Marilyn Mariano,
the amount of Thirty Six Thousand Five Hundred (P36,500.00) Pesos, all amounts with legal interest.

2. To suffer Imprisonment at the same Institution from Six (6) Years, Five (5) Months, and Eleven (11)
Days as Minimum to Seven (7) Years, Eight (8) Months, and Twenty (20) Days as Maximum of
Prision Mayor for each Estafa case in Criminal Cases Nos. 15323-R, 15327-R, and 15571-R.
 3. To pay costs of suit.[16]

Accused-appellant is now before us on the following assignment of errors:

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE PROSECUTION SUCCEEDED IN PROVING
THE GUILT OF ACCUSED-APPELLANT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT FOR THE CRIME OF ILLEGAL
RECRUITMENT.

II

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE PROSECUTION SUCCEEDED IN PROVING
THE GUILT OF ACCUSED-APPELLANT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT FOR THREE COUNTS OF
ESTAFA.

III

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT DISMISSING CRIMINAL CASES NOS. 15570-R AND 15571-R FOR
ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE RESULTING FROM THE FAILURE OF THE COMPLAINING WITNESS TO
APPEAR AND SUBSTANTIATE HER COMPLAINT.

IV

GRANTING ARGUENDO THAT ACCUSED-APPELLANT COMMITTED ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT, THE

TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING HER OF ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT IN LARGE SCALE.

Accused-appellant maintains that she did not commit any of the activities enumerated in the Labor Code on
illegal recruitment in connection with the applications of the private complainants. It was Nenita Maria Olivia
Gallardo who convinced and promised private complainants employment overseas. It was also Gallardo who
received and misappropriated the money of private complainants. Accordingly, she cannot be convicted of estafa.

We do not agree.

Illegal recruitment is committed when two (2) essential elements concur:

(1) that the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable him to lawfully engage in
the recruitment and placement of workers, and

(2) that the offender undertakes any activity within the meaning of recruitment and placement defined
under Article 13(b), or any prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code.[17]

Article 13(b) of the Labor Code defines recruitment and placement as:

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.

In the case at bar, the first element is present. Nonette Legaspi-Villanueva, the Overall Supervisor of the
Regional Office of the POEA in Baguio City, testified that per records, neither accused-appellant nor Gallardo were
licensed or authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment in the City of Baguio or in any part of the
Cordillera Region.

The second essential element is likewise present. Accused-appellant purported to have the ability to send Marie
Purificacion Abenoja, Araceli Abenoja and Marilyn Mariano for employment abroad through the help of her co-
accused Gallardo, although without any authority or license to do so. Accused-appellant was the one who persuaded
them to apply for work as a caregiver in Canada by making representations that there was a job market therefor.
[18]
She was also the one who helped them meet Gallardo in order to process their working papers and personally
assisted Marie, Araceli and Marilyn in the completion of the alleged requirements. [19] Accused-appellant even
provided her house in Baguio City as venue for a meeting with other applicants that she and Gallardo conducted in
connection with the purported overseas employment in Canada. [20] Accused-appellant, therefore, acted as an
indispensable participant and effective collaborator of co-accused Gallardo, who at one time received placement
fees[21] on behalf of the latter from both Marie and Araceli Abenoja. The totality of the evidence shows that accused-
appellant was engaged in the recruitment and placement of workers for overseas employment under the above-
quoted Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code. Hence, she cannot now feign ignorance on the consequences of her
unlawful acts.

Accused-appellants claim that the other private complainants in Criminal Case No. 15320-R, for illegal
recruitment in large scale, have executed their individual affidavits of desistance pointing to Gallardo as the actual
recruiter, deserves scant consideration. The several Orders[22] issued by the trial court show that the dismissal of the
complaints of the other private complainants were based on their failure to substantiate and prosecute their
individual complaints despite due notice.*

The foregoing notwithstanding, the existence of the adverted affidavits of desistance does not appear in the
records of this case and, thus, may not be given any probative weight by this Court. Any evidence that a party
desires to submit for the consideration of the court must be formally offered by him, otherwise, it is excluded and
rejected.[23]Evidence not formally offered before the trial court cannot be considered on appeal, for to consider them
at such stage will deny the other parties their right to rebut them. [24] By opting not to present them in court, such
affidavits of desistance are generally hearsay and have no probative value since the affiants thereof were not placed
on the witness stand to testify thereon.[25] The reason for the rule prohibiting the admission of evidence that has not
been formally offered is to afford the other party the chance to object to their admissibility.[26]

All told, the evidence against accused-appellant has established beyond a shadow of doubt that she actively
collaborated with co-accused Gallardo in illegally recruiting the complainants in this case. As correctly pointed out
by the trial court, the private complainants in this case would not have been induced to apply for a job in Canada
were it not for accused-appellants information, recruitment, and introduction of the private complainants to her co-
accused Gallardo.

Likewise untenable are accused-appellants claims that she did not represent herself as a licensed recruiter,
[27]
and that she merely helped complainants avail of the job opportunity. It is enough that she gave the impression of
having had the authority to recruit workers for deployment abroad. In fact, even without consideration for accused-
appellants services, she will still be deemed as having engaged in recruitment activities, since it was sufficiently
demonstrated that she promised overseas employment to private complainants. [28] Illegal recruitment is committed
when it is shown that the accused-appellant gave the private complainants the distinct impression that she had the
power or ability to send complainants abroad for work such that the latter were convinced to part with their money
in order to be employed.[29] To be engaged in the practice and placement, it is plain that there must at least be a
promise or offer of an employment from the person posing as a recruiter whether locally or abroad.[30]

Undoubtedly, the acts of accused-appellant showed unity of purpose with those of co-accused Gallardo. All
these acts establish a common criminal design mutually deliberated upon and accomplished through coordinated
moves. There being conspiracy, accused-appellant shall be equally liable for the acts of her co-accused even if she
herself did not personally reap the fruits of their execution.
 While accused-appellant is guilty of illegal recruitment, we do not agree with the trial court that the same
qualifies as large scale.

Accused-appellants conviction of the illegal recruitment in large scale was based on her recruitment of Marie
Purificacion Abenoja and Marilyn Mariano, private complainants in Criminal Case No. 15320-R, and Araceli
Abenoja, private complainant in Criminal Case No. 15570-R. It was error for the trial court to consider the three
private complainants in the two criminal cases when it convicted accused-appellant of illegal recruitment committed
in large scale. The conviction of illegal recruitment in large scale must be based on a finding in each case of illegal
recruitment of three or more persons, whether individually or as a group. In People v. Reichl, et al.,[31] we reiterated
the rule we laid down in People v. Reyes[32] that:

x x x When the Labor Code speaks of illegal recruitment committed against three (3) or more persons individually
or as a group, it must be understood as referring to the number of complainants in each case who are complainants
therein, otherwise, prosecutions for single crimes of illegal recruitment can be cumulated to make out a case of large
scale illegal recruitment. In other words, a conviction for large-scale illegal recruitment must be based on a finding
in each case of illegal recruitment of three or more persons whether individually or as a group. (Underscoring ours)

Accused-appellant likewise assails the decision of the trial court in Criminal Cases Nos. 15570-R and 15571-R
for simple illegal recruitment and estafa, respectively, saying that these two criminal cases should have been
dismissed for lack of evidence. The only evidence presented in these cases was the testimony of Marie Purificacion
Abenoja, Araceli Abenojas sister, on her alleged payment of the placement fees for Aracelis application. By Aracelis
failure to testify, she failed to prove the facts and circumstances surrounding her alleged recruitment and the person
accountable therefor.

We are not persuaded. In People v. Gallarde,[33] we held:

Direct evidence of the commission of a crime is not the only matrix wherefrom a trial court may draw its conclusion
and finding of guilt. The prosecution is not always tasked to present direct evidence to sustain a judgment of
conviction; the absence of direct evidence does not necessarily absolve an accused from any criminal liability. Even
in the absence of direct evidence, conviction can be had on the basis of circumstantial evidence, provided that the
established circumstances constitute an unbroken chain which leads one to one fair and reasonable conclusion which
points to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person, i.e., the circumstances proved must be
consistent with each other, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, and at the same time inconsistent
with any other hypothesis except that of guilty.

The rules on evidence and precedents sustain the conviction of an accused through circumstantial evidence, as long
as the following requisites are present: (1) there must be more than one circumstance; (2) the inference must be
based on proven facts; and (3) the combination of all circumstances produces a conviction beyond reasonable doubt
of the guilt of the accused.

The circumstantial evidence in the case at bar, when scrutinized and taken together, leads to no other
conclusion than that accused-appellant and co-accused Gallardo conspired in recruiting and promising a job
overseas to Araceli Abenoja. Moreover, Marie Purificacion Abenoja had personal knowledge of the facts and
circumstances surrounding the charges filed by her sister, Araceli, for simple illegal recruitment and estafa. Marie
was privy to the recruitment of Araceli as she was with her when both accused-appellant and Gallardo required
Araceli to undergo physical examination to find out whether the latter was fit for the job abroad. [34] Accused-
appellant even admitted that she was the one who introduced Marie and Araceli to Gallardo when they went to the
latters house.[35] Marie was the one who shouldered the placement fee of her sister Araceli.[36]

Furthermore, the private complainants in this case did not harbor any ill motive to testify falsely against
accused-appellant and Gallardo. Accused-appellant failed to show any animosity or ill-feeling on the part of the
prosecution witnesses which could have motivated them to falsely accuse her and Gallardo. It would be against
human nature and experience for strangers to conspire and accuse another stranger of a most serious crime just to
mollify their hurt feelings.[37] As such, the testimony of private complainants that accused-appellant was the person
who transacted with them, promised them jobs and received money therefor, was correctly given credence and
regarded as trustworthy by the trial court.

In sum, accused-appellant is only guilty of two (2) counts of illegal recruitment. Under Section 7 of Republic
Act No. 8042[38] otherwise known as the Migrant Workers Act of 1995, any person found guilty of illegal
recruitment shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of not less than six (6) years and one (1) day but not more than
twelve (12) years and a fine of not less than two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00) nor more than five hundred
thousand pesos (P500,000.00).

The provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law are applicable, as held in People v. Simon:[39]

It is true that Section 1 of said law, after providing for indeterminate sentence for an offense under the Revised Penal
Code, states that 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. We hold that this quoted portion of the section indubitably
refers to an offense under a special law wherein the penalty imposed was not taken from and is without reference to
the Revised Penal Code, as discussed in the preceding illustrations, such that it may be said that the offense is
punished under that law.

Guided by the foregoing principle, accused-appellant shall be made to suffer a prison term of six (6) years and
one (1) day, as minimum, to twelve (12) years, as maximum, and to pay a fine of P200,000.00, for each count of
illegal recruitment.

The Court likewise affirms the conviction of accused-appellant for estafa on three (3) counts. It is settled that a
person may be charged and convicted separately of illegal recruitment under the Labor Code and estafa under the
Revised Penal Code, Article 315, paragraph 2(a). As we held in People v. Yabut:[40]

In this jurisdiction, it is settled that a person who commits illegal recruitment may be charged and convicted
separately of illegal recruitment under the Labor Code and estafa under par. 2 (a) of Art. 315 of the Revised Penal
Code. The offense of illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum where the criminal intent of the accused is not
necessary for conviction, while estafa is malum in se where the criminal intent of the accused is crucial for
conviction. Conviction for offenses under the Labor Code does not bar conviction for offenses punishable by other
laws. Conversely, conviction for estafa under par. 2 (a) of Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code does not bar a
conviction for illegal recruitment under the Labor Code. It follows that ones acquittal of the crime of estafa will not
necessarily result in his acquittal of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale, and vice versa.

The prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant was guilty of estafa under the
Revised Penal Code, Article 315 paragraph (2) (a), which provides that estafa is committed:

2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the
commission of fraud:

(a) By using fictitious name or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property,
credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of other similar deceits.

The evidence is clear that in falsely pretending to possess the power to deploy persons for overseas placement,
accused-appellant deceived Marie, Araceli and Marilyn into believing that the recruitment would give them greener
opportunities as caregivers in Canada. Accused-appellants assurance constrained the private complainants to part
with their hard-earned money in exchange for a slot in the overseas job in Canada. The elements of deceit and
damage for this form of estafa are indisputably present. Hence, the conviction of accused-appellant for three (3)
counts of estafa in Criminal Cases Nos. 15323-R, 15327-R and 15571-R should be upheld.

Under the Revised Penal Code, an accused found guilty of estafa shall be sentenced to:
x x x The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period, if the
amount of the fraud is over 12,000 but does not exceed 22,000 pesos, and if such amount exceeds the latter sum, the
penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional
10,000 pesos; x x x.

In applying the provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, we had occasion to reiterate our ruling
in People v. Ordono[41] in the very recent case of People v. Angeles,[42] to wit:

Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum term of the penalty shall be that which, in view of the
attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the Revised Penal Code, and the minimum shall be
within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed for the offense. The penalty next lower should be based
on the penalty prescribed by the Code for the offense, without first considering any modifying circumstances
attendant to the commission of the crime. The determination of the minimum penalty is left by law to the sound
discretion of the court and it can be anywhere within the range of the penalty next lower without any reference to the
periods into which it might be subdivided. The modifying circumstances are considered only in the imposition of the
maximum term of the indeterminate sentence.

Similarly, in People v. Saulo,[43] we further elucidated on how to apply the Indeterminate Sentence Law for the
charge of estafa:

Since the penalty prescribed by law for the estafa charge against accused-appellant is prision correccional maximum
to prision mayor minimum, the penalty next lower in degree is prision correccional minimum to medium. Thus, the
minimum term of the indeterminate sentence should be anywhere within six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4)
years and two (2) months.

In fixing the maximum term, the prescribed penalty of prision correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum
should be divided into three equal portions of time, each of which portion shall be deemed to form one period, as
follows

Minimum Period: From 4 years, 2 months and 1 day to 5 years, 5 months and 10 days

Medium Period: From 5 years, 5 months and 11 days to 6 years, 8 months and 20 days

Maximum Period: From 6 years, 8 months and 21 days to 8 years

pursuant to Article 65, in relation to Article 64, of the Revised Penal Code.

When the amounts involved in the offense exceeds P22,000, the penalty prescribed in Article 315 of the Revised
Penal Code shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional P10,000.00, although the
total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty (20) years.

In Criminal Case No. 15323-R, Marilyn Mariano testified that upon instruction of accused-appellant she gave
accused Gallardo a total of P36,500.00.

In Criminal Case Nos. 15327-R and 15571-R, Marie Purificacion Abenoja testified that she gave the amounts
of P18,000.00 and P52,000.00 to accused Gallardo and accused-appellant. Out of the amount of P52,000.00,
P35,000.00 was intended to answer for the placement fee of her sister Araceli Abenoja, the private complainant
in Criminal Case No. 15571-R. The remaining P17,000.00 formed part of the balance of Maries placement
fee. Accordingly, accused-appellant shall be criminally liable for the amount of P35,000.00 in Criminal Cases No.
15327-R and P35,000.00 in Criminal Case No. 15571-R.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appealed Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City,
Branch 3 is AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS:
 (1) In Criminal Case No. 15320-R, accused-appellant Remedios Malapit is found GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Simple Illegal Recruitment only, and is sentenced to suffer a prison
term of six (6) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to twelve (12) years, as maximum, and to pay a
fine of P200,000.00.

(2) In Criminal Case No. 15323-R, accused-appellant Remedios Malapit is found GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa and sentenced to suffer a prison term of four (4) years and two
(2) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to nine (9) years and four (4) months of prision
mayor, as maximum, and is ORDERED to indemnify Marilyn Mariano the amount of P36,500.00.

(3) In Criminal Case No. 15327-R, accused-appellant Remedios Malapit is found GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa and sentenced to suffer a prison term of four (4) years and two
(2) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to nine (9) years and four (4) months of prision
mayor, as maximum, and is ORDERED to indemnify Marie Purificacion Abenoja the amount of
P35,000.00.

(4) In Criminal Case No. 15570-R, accused-appellant Remedios Malapit is found GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Simple Illegal Recruitment and is sentenced to suffer a prison term
of six (6) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to twelve (12) years, as maximum, and to pay a fine of
P200,000.00.

(5) In Criminal Case No. 15571-R, accused-appellant Remedios Malapit is found GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa and sentenced to suffer a prison term of four (4) years and two
(2) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to nine (9) years and four (4) months of prision
mayor, as maximum, and is ORDERED to indemnify Araceli Abenoja the amount of P35,000.00 SO
ORDERED.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 119076 March 25, 2002

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
ROGER SEGUN and JOSEPHINE CLAM, accused-appellants.

KAPUNAN, J.:

Appellants Roger Segun and Josephine Clam were charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iligan City
with violating Article 38 of the Labor Code, as amended, in an information reading:

That on or about the 3rd day of March, 1993 and for sometime thereafter, at Linamon, Lanao del Norte,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring,
confederating and mutually helping each other, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
canvass, enlist, contract, transport and recruit for employment the following persons, namely:

1. Mario Tambacan;

2. Mary Jane Cantil;

 3. Richard Araas;

4. Victoria Collantes;

5. Christine Collantes;

6. Rogelio Collantes;

7. Luther Caban;

8. Loreta Caban;

9. Jonard Genemelo;

10. Jhonely Genemelo;

11. Pedro Ozarraga;

12. Pablo Ozarraga; and

13. Pacifico Villaver,

Without any license and/or authority to engage in recruitment and placement of workers from the
Department of Labor and Employment.1

Upon arraignment, appellants pleaded not guilty to the above charges.

The prosecution presented eight (8) witnesses, namely, Francita L. Manequis, Conchita Tambacan, Josephine Aba,
Melecio Ababa, Rogelio Collantes, Loreta Caban, Christine Collantes and Elena Araas.

Manequis, Employment Officer III and Administrative Officer of the Department of Labor and Employment
(DOLE), identified two certifications issued by Allan Macaraya, then DOLE Director for Region XII. 2 The first
Certification,3dated October 7, 1993, stated that "per records available in this Office" appellants were "neither
licensed nor authorized by this Department to recruit workers for overseas employment." The second, 4 dated May
17, 1993, was "issued upon the request of [the] Honorable Mayor of Linamon, Lanao del Norte, Mayor Alejandro C.
Alfeche." It stated that appellants, "per records of this Office," were "not authorized to conduct recruitment for local
and overseas employment."

Conchita Tambacan, 50, married, a tobacco vendor and a resident of Linamon, Lanao del Norte testified that her son
Mario, then 17, was "recruited" by appellants on March 6, 1993 and brought to Manila. She knew that he was
recruited only because "many told [her]." Her son did not consult her regarding the recruitment. At the time of her
testimony, her son had sent her only two letters from Cabanatuan City but had not returned home to Linamon, Lanao
del Norte.

After learning of her sons recruitment, Mrs. Tambacan went to the Mayor of Linamon who, in turn, verified from
DOLE whether appellants had any authority to undertake recruitment. Subsequently, the mayor handed Mrs.
Tambacan the certification dated May 17, 1993.5

Josephine Ozarraga Aba, 28, married, a housekeeper, and a resident of Linamon, is the aunt of twins Pedro and
Pablo Ozarraga. Pedro and Pablo, then 18, are the sons of her deceased sister. Mrs. Aba testified that sometime in
March or April 1993 her nephews told her that they wanted to go to Manila and that they were "recruited." Her
nephews were then jobless and were looking for work. Mrs. Aba went to appellants house to inquire from
appellants, who were her neighbors, if what her nephews told her was true. In appellants house, she saw appellants,
her nephews, among others. Appellants told her that her nephews would be given free fare to Manila, free meals and
good wages. These they also promised her nephews. Mrs. Aba claimed that appellants brought one of the twins to
Cabanatuan and the other to Bulacan. When she testified, her nephews had not yet returned to Linamon. 6

Melecio Ababa, 64, married, a fish vendor, and a resident of Linamon, Lanao del Norte, is the grandfather of
Jhonely and Jonard Genemelo. Sometime in April 1992, Ababa learned that appellants had "recruited" his
grandsons. Ababa asked his grandsons, "Why will you work there [in Cabanatuan City] [when] in fact you can find
jobs here?" Ababa went to the house of appellants who assured him that the transportation to Manila was free, and
that his grandsons were to be provided free meals and paid good wages. Because of these promises, he acquiesced to
the recruitment. At the time of his testimony, Ababas grandsons had not returned to Linamon. All he received from
them were two letters but no money.7

Another complainant, Rogelio Collantes, 44, jobless and a resident of Linamon, Lanao del Norte, is the husband of
Victoria Collantes and the father of Christine, then 13, and Rogelio, Jr., then 6. Sometime in April 1993, Rogelio
learned that appellants had "recruited" Victoria, Christine and Roger. Rogelio talked to appellants who promised that
his wife and childrens transportation to Manila and meals will be free and that they will receive good wages.
Victoria, Christine and Rogelio, Jr., who were then looking for jobs, were then brought to Cabanatuan City.

At the time of his testimony, Rogelios children had already returned to Linamon, traveling home with appellant
Josephine Clam. Collantes wife, though, was still in Nueva Ecija. She had sent letters to Rogelio thrice, and money
twice, once in the amount of P1,000.00 and the other time P800.00.8

The prosecution also presented Rogelios daughter Christine, who was among those allegedly recruited by
appellants. Christine said her parents were jobless during the months of March and April 1993 and were looking for
work. Upon the invitation of appellants, she and her mother went to the house of appellants on March 26, 1993.
Appellants offered her mother a job. Christine went with her mother to Cabanatuan City where her mother forced
her to work. According to Christine, those "recruited" totaled thirteen, including her mother and her brother. She and
the others took a boat to Manila and Cabanatuan City. Appellants shouldered the transportation expenses.

In Cabanatuan, Christine did housework for a certain Engr. Sy for seven (7) months. She was paid P500.00 a month.
She returned home in Linamon on December 4, 1993. Neri Clam, Josephines sister, paid for her fare to Manila.

Like Christine, her mother Victoria also performed housework in Cabanatuan City for a certain Mabini Llanera. Her
brother, Rogelio, Jr., was not able to find work because he was still a child.9

Loreta Cavan,* 14, and also a resident of Linamon, Lanao del Norte, testified that sometime in March 1993, she was
"recruited" by appellants and brought to Manila then to Cabanatuan City. She related that she met appellants in the
house of Josephine Clam, where she was recruited. Appellants told her that Cabanatuan City was a "good place"
"because the salary [was] big." Loreta agreed to go. Loreta further stated that those "recruited" by the couple totaled
thirteen, including the twin brothers Pedro and Pablo, a certain woman named Pasbel, a certain Johnny, and Loretas
sister Luther.

At Cabanatuan City, Loreta was able to work for a certain Barangay Captain Centioco for three (3) months for
P600.00 a month. Loreta purportedly was not paid for her services since her two months salary was supposed to pay
for her fare to Manila.

Loreta denied that she went to the house of appellants to seek their help. Rather, appellants allegedly offered her a
job. Appellants invited her to go to their house on March 27, 1993. Loreta learned from her sister Luther that
appellants were recruiting.

Loretas sister Luther, who was among those listed in the information as having been recruited by appellants, went to
Manila to work but her job was not provided by appellants.10
The prosecution also offered the testimony of Ester Cavan, the mother of Loreta Cavan, to corroborate the latters
testimony. The same was dispensed with, however, the corroborative nature thereof having been admitted by counsel
for the defense.11

Finally, Elena Araas, mother of Richard Araas, related that on March 6, 1993 appellants brought her son, then 19,
to Cabanatuan City. Her son, who was then looking for work, was promised that he would be given a good salary.
She learned of the promise when she went to appellants house where she saw appellants, her son, among others.
Elena claimed that she was present when appellants approached her son and offered him work in Cabanatuan City.
Elena agreed to the recruitment of her son because of the promise of a good salary. However, she has not heard from
her son since he left nor had she received any money from him.12

Appellants defense was predicated on denial. They presented five witnesses to support their case.

Myrna Sasil, 35, married, a housekeeper and a resident of Iligan City, testified that in March 1993 she went to the
appellants residence to ask them to find a job in Manila for her daughter Margie. Prior to that, Myrna had known
appellants for almost a year. She knew that appellants could help their daughter find work in Manila because they
just came from Manila themselves. She said that before she went to appellants house, she did not know that
appellants were sending people to Manila for work. As Myrnas family was then suffering from financial difficulties,
Josephine agreed to find work for Myrnas daughter.

According to Myrna, Margie left with the thirteen persons listed in the information as having been recruited by
appellants. Appellants paid for Margies fare to Manila, which she reimbursed from her salary. At the time of
Myrnas testimony, Margie was still working in Cabanatuan City and was sending Myrna money from her salary.13

Losendo Servano, 50, married, a farmer and a resident of Linamon, Lanao del Norte, is a neighbor of appellants as
well as those of the thirteen persons they allegedly recruited. Losendo had known Josephine Clam since she was
born, and Roger Segun when the latter and Josephine got married.

Losendo testified that his son Ruel did not have work in Linamon. If Ruel stayed in Linamon, Losendo said he
would become a hoodlum or a delinquent. His son thus requested appellants to take him with them to Manila and
find work for him, saying "Manang, Manong, I just go with you to Manila."

In April 1993, Ruel, appellants and thirteen others left for Manila by boat. Appellants shouldered Ruels expenses in
going to Manila. When Ruel was able to find work, he paid appellants by installment. Losendo claims that his son
found work through the help of appellants.14

Virgincita Ozarraga, 30, a housekeeper and a resident of Linamon, Lanao del Norte, is the sister of appellant
Josephine Clam. She is also the aunt of the twins Pedro and Pablo Ozarraga and a neighbor of the thirteen persons
allegedly recruited by appellants.

According to Virgincita, Josephine Clam went to Nueva Ecija in 1991 but transferred in 1992 to Dagupan City. In
both places, Josephine worked as a house helper. Roger Segun, on the other hand, worked as liaison officer for
Rolmar Employment Services.

Virgincita disputed Conchita Tambacans testimony that appellants recruited the latters son Mario. She said that
Mario went to appellants house. Josephine did not promise him a job because they were not recruiters although
appellants assured him they would help him find a job.

Virgincita further testified that in March 1993 Pedro and Pablo Ozarraga also went to the house of Virgincitas
mother to ask appellants to help them find work because there were times they could not eat. Josephine allegedly
told the twins that she was not a recruiter but she would help them find work. She purportedly said the same thing to
Jhonely and Jonard Genemelo, Victoria and Christine Collantes, and Loreta and Luther Cavan. Josephine also told
them that she was not promising them anything.
Appellants and the thirteen persons they purportedly recruited left for Manila by boat. Appellants paid for their fare
and were able to find work for them in Manila, Cabanatuan and other places in Luzon. Thereafter, appellants
returned to Linamon. To Virgincitas knowledge, no people sought their help to find them jobs after the couple
returned from Manila.15

Appellant Roger Segun, 34, single, is an employee of the Rolmar Employment Services. As the liaison officer of the
agency, appellant undertakes the processing of the papers for the agencys license.

According to appellant, around April and May of 1993, the thirteen persons listed in the information went to the
house of Josephine Clam to ask her to help them find jobs in Cabanatuan City. Their neighbors knew that Josephine
used to work in Cabanatuan City, Pangasinan and Dagupan City. Josephine told them that she was not a recruiter
although she would help them find work.

Appellants accompanied the thirteen to Manila as they (appellants) were going there anyway. Appellants shouldered
their neighbors transportation and other expenses from Linamon to Cabanatuan City upon the promise that they
(appellants) would be paid back. Eventually, some paid while others did not. Roger did not bother to ask for
payment from those who did not pay. He claimed he was able to help find jobs for their neighbors by recommending
them to friends who needed helpers and workers. Until they were able to find jobs, the thirteen stayed in Rogers
house in Cabanatuan City.

Roger admitted that neither he nor Josephine Clam had a license to recruit. He said he was not a recruiter. He also
revealed that after he brought the thirteen to Manila, he tried to secure a license to recruit but his application was
disapproved.16

Appellant Josephine Clam, 28, single, and residing at Linamon, Lanao del Norte, used to work as a house helper in
Pangasinan and Bulacan for a year after which she returned to Linamon.

Around March and April 1993, the thirteen persons listed in the information went to her house to ask her help to find
them work. They knew that Josephine used to work in Pangasinan and Dagupan. She told them she would try her
best to help them but informed them that she was not a recruiter.1wphi1.nt

Roger and Josephine shouldered their neighbors transportation and food expenses on the condition that their
neighbors reimburse appellants once they found jobs. Some of them eventually paid them back although others did
not. Appellants were able to find jobs for the thirteen since Roger had many friends.

Josephine admitted that she did not have any license to recruit since she was not a recruiter. She and Roger helped
their neighbors find jobs because she took pity on them when they begged her to help them find jobs. She even spent
her and Rogers joint savings to answer for her neighbors expenses.17

Based on the foregoing evidence, the Iligan City RTC convicted appellants for violating Article 38 of the Labor
Code, as amended:

WHEREFORE, finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Recruitment of the 13
persons mentioned in the information, namely: Mario Tambacan, Mary Jane Cantil, Richard Aranas,
Victoria Collantes, Christine Collantes, Rogelio Collantes, Luther Caban, Loreta Caban, Jonard Genemilo,
Jhonely Genemilo, Pedro Ozarraga, Pablo Ozarraga and Pacifico Villaver in a large scale, the accused are
hereby sentenced to suffer a penalty of life imprisonment for each of them and to pay a fine of P100,000.00
each. The bail bond put up by the accused is hereby ordered cancelled, in view of the penalty imposed by
this Court of life imprisonment, which is a nonbailable offense.

SO ORDERED.18
Appellants contend that their guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. They maintain that it was their
neighbors who approached them in the house of Josephine Clams mother and solicited their assistance in their (the
neighbors) desire to go to Manila. Josephine Clam had a history of employment in Luzon and had just returned to
Linamon. In Josephine, the neighbors saw an opportunity to taste economic progress and escape poverty and
stagnation. Appellants took pity on them and helped them find jobs, even defraying their neighbors travel expenses.
They submit, therefore, that they were not engaged in the recruitment of persons for employment but in pursuit of a
lawful and noble endeavor for the benefit of the less fortunate. They neither collected nor received any consideration
for their efforts. Appellants point out that of the 13 allegedly recruited only Christine Collantes and Loreta Cavan
testified against them. Considering these circumstances, appellants submit that the evidence against them is at most
ambiguous and inconclusive.19

The crime of illegal recruitment in large scale is committed when three elements concur. First, the offender has no
valid license or authority required by law to enable one to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers.
Second, he or she undertakes either any activity within the meaning of "recruitment and placement" defined under
Article 13 (b), or any prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code. Third, the offender
commits said acts against three or more persons, individually or as a group. 20

There is no dispute that the first element is present in this case. The certification dated May 17, 1993 and issued by
DOLE Region XII Director Allen Macaraya, states that appellants "were not authorized to conduct recruitment for
local and overseas employment." Both appellants conceded they have no license to recruit.21

The next question is whether appellants undertook any activity constituting recruitment and placement as defined by
Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code, which states:

"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.

Did the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that appellants canvassed, enlisted, contracted and transported
the thirteen persons listed in the information? In examining the prosecutions evidence, we bear in mind that a
conviction for large scale illegal recruitment must be based on a finding in each case of illegal recruitment of three
(3) or more persons whether individually or as a group.22 While the law does not require that at least three (3)
victims testify at the trial, it is necessary that there is sufficient evidence proving that the offense was committed
against three (3) or more persons.23

There is no evidence that appellant undertook the recruitment of Mary Jane Cantil and Pacifico Villaver. Neither
Cantil nor Villaver testified in court. No witness testified as to the fact of their recruitment.

As regards Mario Tambacan, his mother Conchita testified that she learned of his recruitment only from other
persons. On direct examination she said:

Q How did you know that he was recruited?

A Many told me.24

On cross-examination, she further revealed:

Q You claimed that he was recruited but you did not see the recruitment?

A This Josephine Clam and a companion recruited my son because many saw them.
 ATTY. BAYRON:

That is hearsay.

COURT:

Q But you, yourself, you did not see that he was recruited? Were you present when Mario Tambacan
was recruited by the accused?

A I was not present.

Q You were only informed?

A Yes.

Q Your testimony here that he was recruited was only told to you?

A Yes.25

Conchita Tambacans testimony is clearly hearsay and, thus, of little probative value. 26 It hardly suffices to prove
Mario Tambacans recruitment beyond reasonable doubt.

We now examine the evidence offered to prove the recruitment of the Collanteses. The prosecutions evidence
consists of the testimonies of Rogelio Collantes and his daughter Christine. Rogelio testified that his wife and
children were "recruited" by appellants, that appellants promised that his wife and children were to be provided free
meals and transportation to Manila and good wages, and that appellants brought his wife and children to Manila.

Q Do you recall what happen[ed] to Victoria, Cristine and Roger Collantes, Jr., sometime in April,
1993?

A They were recruited.

Q By whom?

A Roger Segun and Josephine Clam.

xxx

Q When you learn[ed] that your wife Victoria, Cristine your daughter and son Roger Segun, Jr., were
being recruited by the accused whom you just identified, what did you do then?

A I verified about their recruited (sic).

Q You mean you were to talk to Josephine Clam and Roger Segun?

A Yes.

Q Have you talked to Josephine Clam and Roger Segun?

A Yes.
 Q What did they tell you?

A They promised that the transportation to Manila will be free and the meals and good wages.

xxx

Q Were these two accused Roger Segun and Josephine Clam able to bring your wife and children to
Manila?

A Yes.

Q Do you know what place in Manila they were taken?

A In Cabanatuan City.27

By itself, Rogelios testimony is far from conclusive that appellants actually recruited his wife and children. Rogelio
used the term "recruit" which is a conclusion of law; the prosecution did not elicit from him the specific act
constituting the recruitment. Section 36, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court states that a witness can testify only to
those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge. He is not permitted to testify as to a conclusion of law. Law
in the sense here used embraces whatever conclusions belong properly to the court.28 Thus, it has been held that the
bare statements of a rape victim that she was "sexually assaulted" or "raped" by the accused are not sufficient to
establish the accuseds guilt for the crime of rape.29 Testimony constituting conclusions of law has no probative
value and is not binding upon the court.30

Rogelio also said that appellants made certain promises but it is not clear if these were made to Rogelio or to his
wife and children. That appellants "brought" them to Manila does not necessarily mean that they were "transported"
in the context of Article 13 (b) for if we subscribe to the defenses account, appellants merely accompanied
Rogelios family to Manila. If two inculpatory facts are capable of two different interpretations, that which would
favor the accused should be adopted.31

On the other hand, Christine Collantes testified on direct examination:

Q Do you recall sometime in April, 1993 what transpired between you and these 2 accused in this case?

A They treated me well.

Q How did it happen that these 2 accused treated you well sometime in April, 1993?

A They told us we would be given work.

Q Where will you be given work?

A In Cabanatuan City, sir.

Q In other words how many were you these 2 accused promised to give you work in Cabanatuan City?

A We were 13.

Q That includes your mother and your brother Rogelio, Jr.?

A Yes, sir.
Q And that includes you also?

A Yes.

Q Did you agree to their proposal that you will be given job in Cabanatuan City if you will go there?

A Yes, sir.

Q How about your mother?

A Yes, sir.

Q How about your brother?

A My brother went with my mother.

Q When you agree[d] with your mother, were you able to go in Cabanatuan City together with the
accused as they promised?

A Yes, sir.

Q That includes the others recruited with the total of 13 of you?

A Yes, sir.

Q What means of transportation did you take from here to Manila?

A William Lines.

Q Who shoulder[ed] the expenses of that boat in going there from here?

A Josephine Clam and Roger Segun.

Q When you arrived in Manila you proceeded to Cabanatuan City, is that correct?

A Yes.

Q That includes your mother and your brother?

A Yes, sir.

Q As promised by the accused that you would be given a job, were [you] able to have a job there in
Cabanatuan City?

A Yes, sir.

Q What is your work there?

A House work.

Q To whom did you work with?

 A With Engr. Sy.

Q How much did he agree as your wages?

A P500.00 a month.

Q Do you know if your mother was able to secure a job as promised by the accused?

A Yes.

Q Was she able to get a job?

A Yes.

Q What kind of job?

A House work.

Q How about your younger brother, was he able to have a work there?

A No he is still a child.

COURT

Q To whom did your mother work?

A Mabini Llanera in Cabanatuan City.32

On cross-examination, she related:

Q Is it not a fact that your mother went to the house of the accused and beg[ged] you to find a job?

A Yes, sir.

Q You also went with your parents when your mother went to the house of the accused?

A Yes, sir.

Q The accused did not offer [a] job for your mother?

A She offered.

Q You went along with your mother to Cabanatuan City, is that correct?

A Yes.

Q Now, will you please tell the court why did you go along with your mother to Cabanatuan City?

A In order to work.
 Q The accused did not offer you [a] job but you only went along with your mother to Cabanatuan City,
is that correct?

A No.

COURT

Q What do you mean when you say no?

A I was forced by my mother to work in Cabanatuan City.33

And on re-cross:

ATTY. BAYRON

Q The accused did not invite you to go to their house on March 26, 1993, am I correct?

A We were invited.

Q You and your mother went to the house of the accused because you ask[ed] for help to find a job, am
I correct?

FISCAL BALABAGAN

Already answered, Your Honor.

COURT

Answer.

WITNESS

A We were invited.34

Christines testimony establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that appellants recruited Christines mother Victoria.
Christine explicitly stated that appellants offered her mother a job and told them that they "would be given work."
Victoria thus agreed to appellants "proposal" that she would be given a job in Cabanatuan City.

However, there is reasonable doubt whether appellants actually recruited Christine herself since Christine said that
she "was forced by [her] mother to work in Cabanatuan City."

The Court also entertains grave doubts regarding the alleged recruitment of Christines brother Rogelio, Jr., who,
according to Christine, went with their mother and was not able to work because, at 6, he was "still a child." Did
Rogelio, Jr. go to Cabanatuan City to work or did he just go together with his mother so she could look after him?
The former is unlikely while the latter is not farfetched since the child was too young to work and still needed
looking after.

The prosecution, however, succeeded in proving that appellants recruited Loreta Cavan. Loreta testified that
appellants told her that the salary in Cabanatuan City was good, that she agreed to their proposal for her to work
there, and that they brought her to Manila then to Cabanatuan City:

Q Who brought you to Manila and then Cabanatuan City?

A Josephine Clam and Roger Segun.

Q Why did they bring you to Manila then to Cabanatuan City?

A According to them that place is good because the salary is big.

xxx

Q You said you were brought to Manila by these two accused on March 27, 1993, before that March 27,
was there any occasion that you met the accused in this case?

A Yes, sir.

Q Where did you meet them?

A In Linamon.

Q In the house of Mrs. Josephine Clam?

A Yes, sir.

Q What transpired when you first met with the accused Josephine Clam in their house in Linamon?

A They told us that in the boat where we are going to take, we are prohibited to go around the boat.

COURT

Q Prior to that when for the first time you met the accused?

WITNESS

A At the time when we are recruited.

Q How did they recruit you?

A They told me that the salary in that place is good.

FISCAL BALABAGAN

And because they told you that the salary is good, you are referring to Cabanatuan City?

WITNESS

A Yes.

Q When they told you that the salary is good, what did you do?

A I am willing to go.

Q You mean you agreed with their proposal to you and that you are going to work there?
 A Yes, sir.35

On cross-examination, she said that appellants offered her employment and she went to appellants house because
they were recruiting:

ATTY. BAYRON

Q You said awhile ago that you went to the house of the accused in Linamon, Lanao del Norte, can you
recall when was that when you went to the house of the accused in this case?

A March 27.

Q Did you go to the house of the accused alone or with companion?

A I have companions.

Q Please tell the court why did you go to the house of the accused on March 27, 1993?

A Because they have recruited us.

Q Is it not a fact that you went to the house of the accused in Linamon because you sought their help to
find a job?

A No, sir.

Q The accused in this case did not offer you a job?

A They offered me.

Q Is it not a fact that you beg[ged] the accused to help you find a job outside Linamon, Lanao del
Norte?

A No, sir.

Q The accused in this case did not invite you to go in their house on March 27, 1993?

A No, sir.

Q You went there on March 27, 1993 on your own volition, am I correct?

A Sir, sir.

Q You are familiar with the house of the accused in Linamon, Lanao del Norte, am I correct?

A Yes, sir.

Q In the house of the accused you can not find any signboard that they are recruiting people for jobs,
am I correct?

A No, sir.
 COURT

Q What is your purpose in going to the house of the accused?

A Because they are recruiting.

Q Prior to that when you went there, you have not met them before?

A No, sir.

Q Why did you go to the house of the accused and knew that they are recruiting?

A I was told by my sister.

Q Luther is your elder sister?

A Yes.36

The prosecution however failed to prove that appellants recruited Loretas sister, Luther. Loreta testified, thus:

Q How many of you were brought and were recruited by the accused?

A We were 13.

Q Can you mention who were your companions?

A The twin brother, Pedro and Pablo.

xxx

Q Who else?

A Luther Caban.

Q What is your relation with Luther Cavan?

A She is my sister.

xxx

FISCAL BALABAGAN

Q You said that you were recruited together with your sister and others and were brought to Cabanatuan
City, is that correct?

A Yes, sir.

Q Who brought you there?

ATTY. BAYRON
 Already answered.

COURT

Witness may answer.

WITNESS

A Josephine Clam and Roger Segun.37

Again, the term "recruit" is a conclusion of law. The prosecution failed to elicit from Loreta how appellants
"recruited" Luther. While Loreta also said that Luther was among the thirteen brought to Manila, it does not
necessarily mean that her transportation was for purposes of employment. Moreover, Loreta said that Luthers job, at
least at the time Loreta testified, was not a result of appellants efforts.

Q How about your sister Luther, where is she now?

A She is in Manila.

Q Why [is] she is still in Manila until now?

A She went there to work.

Q Who gave her work, were the accused in this case as promised to you?

A No, sir.38

These circumstances give rise to doubts whether appellants indeed recruited Luther Cavan.

Neither was the prosecution able to establish that appellants recruited the twins Pedro and Pablo Ozarraga. Josephine
Ozarraga Aba, the twins aunt, testified:

Q Sometime in March or April, 1993, what happen to these two nephews of yours?

A They were recruited by Josephine Clam and Roger Segun.

xxx

Q You said that these 2 accused were the ones who recruited your 2 nephews sometime in March or
April, 1993. When you learn that they were recruited what did you do if any?

A I went to their house and confronted them about my nephews and they told me that my nephews will
be given free fare to Manila, free meals and good wages and they also promised that to my nephews.

Q You said they promised your nephews free fare to Manila, free meals and good wages, whom are you
referring they?

A Josephine Clam and Roger Segun.

Q Why were Josephine Clam and Roger Segun able to recruit your two nephews?
 A Because they brought them.

Q Where did they brought your nephews?

A One in Cabanatuan and the other one in Bulacan.39

As we held earlier, "recruit" is a legal conclusion. The witness must testify as to the facts that would prove
recruitment. It does not suffice that the witness simply state that the accused "recruited" the "victim." Hence, the
testimony of Josephine Aba that appellants "recruited" her nephews is, by itself, insufficient to convict appellants for
the recruitment of Pedro and Pablo Ozarraga.

That appellants allegedly told Josephine Aba that her nephews would be given free fare and meals is not
inconsistent with appellants account that they paid for their neighbors expenses. The same holds true for the claim
that appellants brought the twins to Cabanatuan and Bulacan. According to appellants, they accompanied the thirteen
persons to help them find work. The reference to good wages could mean that the rates of compensation in
Cabanatuan or Bulacan are relatively high compared to those in Lanao del Norte. These circumstances do not
necessarily mean that appellants recruited Pedro and Pablo Ozarraga.

We cannot give much credence to Josephines statement that appellants also promised free fare and meals, and good
wages to her nephews since the prosecution did not show that Josephine was present when appellants made this
supposed promise to her nephews.

Neither did the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt that appellants recruited Jhonely and Jonard Genemelo.
Melecio Ababa, grandfather of Jhonely and Jonard testified on direct examination:

Q Do you recall what happen to your 2 grandsons sometime in the month of April, 1993?

A They were recruited by Roger Segun and Josephine Clam.

xxx

FISCAL BALABAGAN

Q When you learn that your grandsons were being recruited by Roger and Segun and Josephine Clam,
what did you do?

A I went to their house.

Q You said you went to their house, whose house are your referring?

A The house of Roger Segun and Josephine Clam.

xxx

FISCAL BALABAGAN

Q Who were the people you met inside the house of Josephine Clam?

A Them.

Q Are you referring Roger Segun and Josephine Clam?

 A Yes.

Q Then what happen there when you went to the house of the accused?

A They promised that the transportation to Manila is free and free meals and good wages.

Q Because of this free meals and transportation to Manila they promised to your grandsons and you
what happen?

A They brought them to Cabanatuan City.

Q Did you agree with this?

A Yes, I agree.

Q You agreed because of this promise of free transportation and good wages for your grandchildren?

A Yes.40

On cross-examination, Melecio said:

Q You only learn from somebody that your grandsons were recruited by the two accused?

A From them personally because I went to their house.

Q You mean the house of your grandson?

A I went to the house of the recruiters because they were staying in my house.

Q When you went to their house your grandsons were not there?

A My two grandsons were there.

Q Can you recall when your two grandsons Johnely and Jonard allegedly recruited by the two accused?

A Sometime on the 16 or 17th.

Q What month?

A April.

Q You were not present when your two grandsons were allegedly recruited by the two accused?

A I was there present.41

Note again the use of the term "recruit," a defect present in the testimonies of Rogelio Collantes, Loreta Cavan and
Josephine Aba. While Melecio Aba said that appellants promised his grandsons free transportation and meals, and
good wages, these promises, as we have observed in analyzing Josephine Abas testimony, are not incongruent with
appellants version.
Lastly, Elena Araas testimony on her son Richards alleged recruitment is insufficient to prove appellants guilt.
Elena testified on direct examination:

FISCAL BALABAGAN

Q Mrs. Elena Araas, do you know Richard Araas?

WITNESS

A Yes, he is my son.

Q Where is he now?

A In Cabanatuan City brought by Josephine Clam

Q Do you know what is the family name of Josephine?

A Yes, Clam.

Q When was your son brought by Josephine Clam and Roger Segun?

A March 6, that was Saturday.

Q Do you know the reason why they brought your son in Cabanatuan on March 6, 1993?

A Because of the promise that he would be given good salary.

COURT

Q How do you know that he was promised of a good salary?

A Because I went to their house.

FISCAL BALABAGAN

Q Are you referring to the house of Josephine Clam?

A Yes.

Q Were there people there when you arrived there?

A Yes, Josephine Clam, Roger Segun, my son and others.

Q Did you agree to recruitment that your son will be brought to Cabanatuan City?

A Yes.

Q Why did you agree?

A Because of the promise that they would receive good salary.

 Q Did he went there personally?

A No.

xxx

FISCAL BALABAGAN

Q How was your son recruited by the accused in this case?

A As they promised that the salary is quite big.42

On cross-examination, Elena said:

Q You were not present when your son was allegedly recruited by the accused?

A I was there.

Q The accused in this case did not offer to your son but it was your son who asked helped (sic) to find a
job?

A My son was recruited that he would be given work.

COURT

Q The 2 accused never approached your son they have work in Cabanatuan City?

A Yes, they said that.

ATTY. BAYRON

Q The accused tell (sic) your son that they will help your son to find a job?

A Yes, sir.43

Elenas testimony fails to state the specific act constituting the recruitment. Elena merely declared that her son
was "recruited" a legal conclusion. Appellants also supposedly said that "they have work in Cabanatuan City"
and that "they will help [her] son to find a job." Elena did not state the context and the circumstances under which
these statements were made. Moreover, the statements attributed to appellants are ambiguous and hardly
incongruous with appellants claim that they assisted their neighbors find work, which assistance does not
necessarily translate to an act of recruitment. That there was a supposed promise of a good salary is also ambiguous
for, as noted earlier, the reference to good wages could mean that the rates of compensation in Cabanatuan City are
higher compared to those in Lanao del Norte.1wphi1.nt

In sum, the prosecution failed to elicit from many of its witnesses the specific acts constituting the recruitment of the
other alleged victims. The prosecution was able to prove that appellants performed recruitment activities only in the
cases of Victoria Collantes and Loreta Cavan. The third element of illegal recruitment, i.e., that the offender
commits the acts of recruitment against three or more persons is, therefore, absent. Consequently, appellants can be
convicted only of two counts of "simple" illegal recruitment.

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court is MODIFIED. Appellants are found GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of two counts of illegal recruitment, as defined and punished by Article 38 (a) of the Labor Code,
in relation to Articles 13 (b) and 39 thereof. They are each sentenced to suffer for each count imprisonment of four
(4) to five (5) years.

SO ORDERED.