People v.

Ocden
Facts:
That sometime during the period from October to December, 1998 in the City of Baguio,
Dolores Ocden, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
defraud JEFFRIES C. GOLIDAN, by way of false pretenses, which are executed prior to
or simultaneous with the commission of the fraud, as follows, to wit: the accused
knowing fully well that she is not authorized job recruiter for persons intending to secure
work abroad convinced said Jeffries C. Golidan and pretended that she could secure a
job for him/her abroad, for and in consideration of the sum of P70,000.00 when in truth
and in fact they could not; the said Jeffries C. Golidan deceived and convinced by the
false pretenses employed by the accused parted away the total sum of P70,000.00, in
favor of the accused, to the damage and prejudice of the said Jeffries C. Golidan in the
aforementioned amount of SEVENTY THOUSAND PESOS (P70,000,00), Philippine
Currency.
Issue:
1. Whether accused-appellant is guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale? Yes.
2. Whether the accused may be convicted for illegal recruitment and estafa? Yes.
Held:
1. Yes. Article 13, paragraph (b) of the Labor Code defines and enumerates the
acts which constitute recruitment and placement: (b) Recruitment and
placement refers to any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting,
utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract services,
promising for 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. The amendments to the Labor Code introduced by
Republic Act No. 8042, otherwise known as the Migrant Workers and Overseas
Filipinos Act of 1995, broadened the concept of illegal recruitment and provided
stiffer penalties, especially for those that constitute economic sabotage, i.e.,
illegal recruitment in large scale and illegal recruitment committed by a syndicate.
It is well-settled that to prove illegal recruitment, it must be shown that appellant
gave complainants the distinct impression that he 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.
In the instant case, as testified to by Mana-a, Ferrer, and Golidan, Ocden gave such
an impression through the following acts: (1) Ocden informed Mana-a, Ferrer, and
Golidan about the job opportunity in Italy and the list of necessary requirements for
application; (2) Ocden required Mana-a, Ferrer, and Golidans sons, Jeffries and
Howard, to attend the seminar conducted by Ramos at Ocdens house in Baguio
City; (3) Ocden received the job applications, pictures, bio-data, passports, and the
certificates of previous employment (which was also issued by Ocden upon payment
of P500.00), of Mana-a, Ferrer, and Golidans sons, Jeffries and Howard; (4) Ocden
personally accompanied Mana-a, Ferrer, and Golidans sons, Jeffries and Howard,
for their medical examinations in Manila; (5) Ocden received money paid as
placement fees by Mana-a, Ferrer, and Golidans sons, Jeffries and Howard, and
even issued receipts for the same; and (6) Ocden assured Mana-a, Ferrer, and
Golidans sons, Jeffries and Howard, that they would be deployed to Italy.
It is not necessary for the prosecution to present a certification that Ocden is a non-
licensee or non-holder of authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and
placement of workers. Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042 enumerates particular
acts which would constitute illegal recruitment whether committed by any person,
whether a non-licensee, non-holder, licensee or holder of authority. Among such
acts, under Section 6(m) of Republic Act No. 8042, is the [f]ailure to reimburse
expenses incurred by the worker in connection with his documentation and
processing for purposes of deployment, in cases where the deployment does not
actually take place without the workers fault.
Ocden further argues that the prosecution did not sufficiently establish that she
illegally recruited at least three persons, to constitute illegal recruitment on a large
scale. Out of the victims named in the Information, only Mana-a and Ferrer testified
in court.
The court held that 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. While it is true that the law does not require that at least
three victims testify at the trial, nevertheless, it is necessary that there is sufficient
evidence proving that the offense was committed against three or more persons. In
this case, there is conclusive evidence that Ocden recruited Mana-a, Ferrer, and
Golidans sons, Jeffries and Howard, for purported employment as factory workers in
Italy.

2. Yes. 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.
 Both these elements are present in the instant case. Ocden represented to Ferrer,
Golidan, and Golidans two sons, Jeffries and Howard, that she could provide them
with overseas jobs. Convinced by Ocden, Ferrer, Golidan, and Golidans sons paid
substantial amounts as placement fees to her. Ferrer and Golidans sons were
never able to leave for Italy, instead, they ended up in Zamboanga, where, Ocden
claimed, it would be easier to have their visas to Italy processed. Despite the fact
that Golidans sons, Jeffries and Howard, were stranded in Zamboanga for almost
a month, Ocden still assured them and their mother that they would be able to
leave for Italy. There is definitely deceit on the part of Ocden and damage on the
part of Ferrer and Golidans sons, thus, justifying Ocdens conviction for estafa in
Criminal Case Nos. 16316-R, 16318-R, and 16964-R.

People v. Romero
Facts:
A recruiter was accused of illegal recruitment but the complainantsBernardo
Salazar and Richard Quillope executed a Joint Affidavit of Desistance.

Issue: Whether the affidavit of desistance may serve to exculpate the accused?

Held:

No. Insofar as the case for illegal recruitment is concerned since the Court looks
with disfavor the dropping of criminal complaints upon mere affidavit of desistance
of the complainant, particularly where the commission of the offense, as is in this
case, is duly supported by documentary evidence.

Generally, the Court attaches no persuasive value to affidavits of desistance,

especially when it is executed as an afterthought. It would be a dangerous rule for
courts to reject testimonies solemnly taken before the courts of justice simply
because the witnesses who had given them, later on, changed their mind for one
reason or another, for such rule would make solemn trial a mockery and place the
investigation of truth at the mercy of unscrupulous witness.

Complainants Bernardo Salazar and Richard Quillope may have a change of heart
insofar as the offense wrought on their person is concerned when they executed
their joint affidavit of desistance but this will not affect the public prosecution of the
offense itself. It is relevant to note that the right of prosecution and punishment for
a crime is one of the attributes that by a natural law belongs to the sovereign power
instinctly charged by the common will of the members of society to look after, guard
and defend the interests of the community, the individual and social rights and the
liberties of every citizen and the guaranty of the exercise of his rights. This cardinal
principle which states that to the State belongs the power to prosecute and punish
crimes should not be overlooked since a criminal offense is an outrage to the
sovereign State.

People v. Yabut
Facts:
Appellant is a former policeman while the co-accused, Irene Yabut, is his common-law
wife. Both were charged with estafa and illegal recruitment in large scale, but only
appellant stood trial as Yabut has eluded arrest and remains at-large. appellant testified
on his behalf. Appellant admitted that accused Irene Yabut was his live-in partner with
whom he has a child, but he washed his hands of any participation in her business
activities. He further insisted that Yabut was not engaged in recruitment of workers for
overseas employment but only in the processing of visas. He also denied any
knowledge of the special power of attorney executed in his favor by Yabut for the refund
of the PAL tickets of several recruits. Moreover, he claimed that he was not present at
any given time when large sums of money were received by Yabut and that he never
gave any assurances to complainants regarding their departure to Japan. Appellant
argues, the sole person guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale should be Yabut since
she was the only one who signed the receipts for the amounts received from the
complainants. He contends that the mere fact that he is romantically linked with Yabut
does not mean he acted in conspiracy with her.
The RTC acquitted him of Estafa but convicted him of the crime of Illegal Recruitment in
a large scale.
Issue: Whether appellant could be convicted of illegal recruitment in large scale despite
his acquittal of the crime of estafa.
Ruling:
No. 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.[10] 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.[11] Conviction for offenses under the Labor Code does
not bar conviction for offenses punishable by other laws.[12] 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.
Indisputably, all three (3) elements exist in the case at bar. First, the complaining
witnesses have satisfactorily established that appellant had actively promised them
employment, gave assurance of their placement overseas, and with his co-accused
received certain sums as fees therefor. Second, the Licensing Division of the Philippine
Overseas Employment Administration issued a Certification dated March 1, 1993 that
JAWOH GENERAL MERCHANDISING[16] represented by Irene Yabut and Fernando
Cortez are neither licensed nor authorized by the POEA to recruit workers for overseas
employment.[17]In fact, the defense even entered into a stipulation during trial that
appellant is not authorized by the POEA to recruit overseas workers. [18] Third, appellant
and co-accused undertook recruitment of not less than eight (8) workers complainants
herein, who were recruited individually on different occasions. For purposes of illegal
recruitment, however, the law makes no distinction whether the workers were recruited
as a group or individually.

People v. Gallo
Facts:
Dela Caza was introduced by Eleanor Panuncio to accused-appellant Gallo, Pacardo,
Manta, Mardeolyn, Lulu Mendanes, Yeo Sin Ung and another Korean national at the
office of MPM International Recruitment and Promotion Agency (MPM Agency)
located in Malate, Manila.
Dela Caza was told that Mardeolyn was the President of MPM Agency, while Nelmar
Martir was one of the incorporators.
Accused-appellant Gallo then introduced himself as a relative of Mardeolyn and
informed Dela Caza that the agency was able to send many workers abroad. Together
with Pacardo and Manta, he also told Dela Caza about the placement fee of 150K with
a down payment of 45K and the balance to be paid through salary deduction.
Dela Caza, together with the other applicants, were briefed by Mardeolyn about the
processing of their application papers for job placement in Korea as a factory worker
and their possible salary.
With accused-appellants assurance that many workers have been sent abroad, he paid
45K to MPM Agency through accused-appellant Gallo who, while in the presence of
Pacardo, Manta and Mardeolyn, issued and signed Official Receipt No. 401.
2 weeks after paying MPM Agency, Dela Caza went back to the agencys office in
Malate, Manila only to discover that the office had moved to a new location to Makati.
He proceeded to the new address and found out that the agency was renamed to New
Filipino Manpower Development & Services, Inc. (New Filipino). At the new office, he
talked to Pacardo, Manta, Mardeolyn, Lulu Mendanes and accused-appellant Gallo. He
was informed that the transfer was done for easy accessibility to clients and for the
purpose of changing the name of the agency.
Dela Caza decided to withdraw his application and recover the amount he paid but
Mardeolyn, Pacardo, Manta and Lulu Mendanes talked him out from pursuing his
decision. On the other hand, accused-appellant Gallo even denied any knowledge
about the money.
After 2 more months of waiting in vain to be deployed, Dela Caza and the other
applicants decided to take action. The first attempt was unsuccessful because the
agency again moved to another place. However, with the help of the Office of
Ambassador Seeres and the Western Po lice District, they were able to locate the new
address at 500 Prudential Building, Carriedo, Manila. The agency explained that it had
to move in order to separate those who are applying as entertainers from those applying
as factory workers. Accused-appellant Gallo, together with Pacardo and Manta, were
then arrested.
The testimony of prosecution witness Armando Albines Roa, a POEA employee, was
dispensed with, that the New Filipino Manpower Development & Services, Inc., with
office address at 1256 Batangas St., Brgy. San Isidro, Makati City, was a licensed
landbased agency whose license expired on December 10, 2001 and was delisted from
the roster of licensed agencies on December 14, 2001. And that MPM International
Recruitment and Promotion is not licensed by the POEA to recruit workers for overseas
employment.
RTC acquitted Pacardo and Manta but convicted Gallo with the crime of Illegal
Recruitment.
Issue: Whether one who is not an employee nor an officer of the recruitment agency
may be convicted of the crime of Illegal Recruitment?
Held:
Yes. In the instant case, accused-appellant committed the acts enumerated in Sec. 6 of
R.A. 8042. Testimonial evidence presented by the prosecution clearly shows that, in
consideration of a promise of foreign employment, accused-appellant received the
amount of Php 45,000.00 from Dela Caza. When accused-appellant made
misrepresentations concerning the agencys purported power and authority to recruit for
overseas employment, and in the process, collected money in the guise of placement
fees, the former clearly committed acts constitutive of illegal recruitment.
Dela Caza appeared very firm and consistent in positively identifying accused-appellant
as one of those who induced him and the other applicants to part with their money. His
testimony showed that accused-appellant made false misrepresentations and promises
in assuring them that after they paid the placement fee, jobs in Korea as factory workers
were waiting for them and that they would be deployed soon. In fact, Dela Caza
personally talked to accused-appellant and gave him the money and saw him sign and
issue an official receipt as proof of his payment. Without a doubt, accused-appellants
actions constituted illegal recruitment.
Additionally, accused-appellant cannot argue that the trial court erred in finding that he
was indeed an employee of the recruitment agency. On the contrary, his active
participation in the illegal recruitment is unmistakable. The fact that he was the one who
issued and signed the official receipt belies his profession of innocence.

People v. Melissa Chua

Facts:
Melissa Chua was charged of Illegal Recruitment in large scale and Estafa.
In her defense, appellant Chua denies having recruited private complainants for
overseas employment. According to appellant, she was only a cashier at Golden Gate,
which is owned by Marilen Callueng. However, she allegedly lost to a robbery her
identification card evidencing her employment with the agency. Appellant denied any
knowledge of whether the agency was licensed to recruit workers during her tenure as it
has been delisted.
Issue: Whether appellant can be convicted of Illegal Recruitment?
Held:
Appellant Chua maintains that she was merely a cashier of Golden Gate International.
She disowns liability for allegedly merely acting under the direction of [her] superiors18
and for being unaware that [her] acts constituted a crime.
In order to hold a person liable for illegal recruitment, the following elements must
concur: (1) the offender undertakes any of the activities within the meaning of
recruitment and placement under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code, or any of the
prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code (now Section 6 of
Republic Act No. 8042) and (2) the offender has no valid license or authority required by
law to enable him to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers. In the
case of illegal recruitment in large scale, a third element is added: that the offender
commits any of the acts of recruitment and placement against three or more persons,
individually or as a group. All three elements are present in the case at bar.
Inarguably, appellant Chua engaged in recruitment when she represented to private
complainants that she could send them to Taiwan as factory workers upon submission
of the required documents and payment of the placement fee. The four private
complainants positively identified appellant as the person who promised them
employment as factory workers in Taiwan for a fee of P80,000. More importantly,
Severino Maranan the Senior Labor Employment Officer of the POEA, presented a
Certification dated December 5, 2002, issued by Director Felicitas Q. Bay, to the effect
that appellant Chua is not licensed by the POEA to recruit workers for overseas
employment.
Appellant cannot escape liability by conveniently limiting her participation as a cashier of
Golden Gate. The provisions of Article 13(b) of the Labor Code and Section 6 of R.A.
No. 8042 are unequivocal that illegal recruitment may or may not be for profit. It is
immaterial, therefore, whether appellant remitted the placement fees to the agencys
treasurer or appropriated them. The same provision likewise provides that the persons
criminally liable for illegal recruitment are the principals, accomplices and accessories.
Just the same, therefore, appellant can be held liable as a principal by direct
participation since she personally undertook the recruitment of private complainants
without a license or authority to do so. Worth stressing, the Migrant Workers and
Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 is a special law, a violation of which is malum
prohibitum, not mala in se. Intent is thus, immaterial26 and mere commission of the
prohibited act is punishable.

People v. Ong
Facts:

Complainant Noel B. Bacasnot is an optometrist by profession. Accused-appellant

represented to Bacasnot that he had contacts in Taiwan who were looking for workers.
Factory workers would be paid P15,000.00 a month, while construction workers would
be paid P1,200.00 a day. According to him, his mother was in Taiwan and could help
Bacasnot get a job as an optometrist. A week later, accused-appellant told Bacasnot
that, after talking to his mother, he thought it would be better if he (Bacasnot) worked
initially as a factory worker for six months. Bacasnot agreed. He paid necessary
processing fees. Bacasnot was assured by accused-appellant that upon completion of
his papers, he would leave for Taiwan within three to four months thereafter. On the
other hand, upon learning of job opportunities abroad, complainants Ruth A. Eliw,
Sally Kamura and Solidad Malinias also sought the assistance of accused-appellant.
They were charged a higher placement fee of P40,000.00 each. In a handwritten
agreement prepared by wife of Noel B. Bacasnot, accused-appellant acknowledged
payment of P45,000.00, representing the balance of P15,000.00 from each of
complainants and promised them that they would leave for Taiwan in three weeks. Also
he promised that he will return the money in case deployment did not materialize.

Accused-appellant never fulfilled his promise and went into hiding. So complainants
sought the help of NBI and later on, appellant was arrested and charged of the crime of
illegal recruitment in a large scale. For his defense, appellant contended that he merely
suggested an agency to complainants.

Issue: Whether he is guilty of illegal recruitment?

Held:
Yes. To prove illegal recruitment, it must be shown that the accused-appellant gave
complainants the distinct impression that he 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. Accused-appellant represented himself to complainants
as one capable of deploying workers abroad and even quoted the alleged salary rates
of factory and construction workers in Taiwan. He advised Bacasnot to accept a job as
a factory worker first because it would be then easier for him to transfer jobs once he
got to Taiwan. Accused-appellant said his mother, who was based in Taiwan, could help
Bacasnot. Bacasnot paid accused-appellant an initial placement fee agreeing to pay the
balance through salary deductions once he was employed. Accused-appellant also
promised jobs to Eliw and the other complainants. He accompanied them to Manila so
that they could be interviewed and physically examined at the Steadfast Recruitment
Agency with which accused-appellant represented he was connected. These acts of
accused-appellant created the distinct impression on the eight complainants that he was
a recruiter for overseas employment.

Even if accused-appellant did no more than suggest to complainants where they could
apply for overseas employment, his act constituted referral within the meaning of Art.
13(b) of the Labor Code. Indeed, the testimonial and documentary evidence in the
record shows that accused-appellant did more than just make referrals. The evidence
shows that he made misrepresentations to them concerning his authority to recruit for
overseas employment and collected various amounts from them for placement fees.
Clearly, accused-appellant committed acts constitutive of large scale illegal recruitment.

Romero v. People

Facts:

Sometime in August 2000, ARTURO SIAPNO went to petitioner's stall. He was

convinced by the petitioner that if he could give her US$3,600.00 for the processing of
his papers, he could leave the country within 1 to 2 weeks for a job placement in Israel.
Arturo was able to secure the amount neede through relatives help then petitioner
processed Arturo's papers and contacted Jonney Erez Mokra. Jonney instructed Arturo
to attend a briefing in Dau, Mabalacat, Pampanga. Afterwards, Arturo left for Israel
sometime in September 2000. He was able to work and receive US$800.00 salary per
month. After three months of stay in Israel, he was caught by the immigration officials,
incarcerated for ten days and was eventually deported. After arriving in the country,
Arturo immediately sought the petitioner who then promised him that she would send
him back to Israel, which did not happen.

Meanwhile, sometime in September 2000, ROMULO PADLAN went to petitioner's stall

at Calasiao, Pangasinan to inquire about securing a job in Israel. Convinced by
petitioner's words of encouragement and inspired by a high potential salary, Romulo
asked petitioner the amount of money required in order for him to be able to go to Israel.
Petitioner informed him that as soon as he could give her US$3,600.00, his papers
would be immediately processed. When he was able to raise the amount, Romulo went
back to petitioner and handed her the money. Petitioner contacted JonneyErezMokra
who instructed Romulo to attend a briefing at his house in Dau, Mabalacat, Pampanga.
Romulo was able to leave for Israel on October 26, 2000 and was able to secure a job
but unfortunately, after two and a half months, he was caught by Israel's immigration
police and detained for 25 days. He was subsequently deported because he did not
possess a working visa. On his return, Romulo demanded from petitioner the return of
his money, but the latter refused and failed to do so.

Petitioner also claims that the testimony of Arturo Siapno saying that he paid a certain
amount of money to the former must not be given any credence due to the absence of
any receipt or any other documentary evidence proving such.

ISSUE:

Whether or not DELIA D. ROMERO is guilty of the act of Illegal Recruitment.

Held:

Yes. As testimonies of SIAPNO and PADLAN shows that petitioner was able to
convince the private respondents to apply for work in Israel after parting with their
money in exchange for the services she would render. Such act of the petitioner,
without a doubt, falls within the meaning of recruitment and placement as defined in
Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code.

The Court ruled that in illegal recruitment cases, the failure to present receipts for
money that was paid in connection with the recruitment process will not affect the
strength of the evidence presented by the prosecution as long as the payment can be
proved through clear and convincing testimonies of credible witnesses.

People v. Alvarez

Facts:

Appellant was convicted of Illegal Recruitment in large scale. However appellant claims
that only two of the complainants were able to show receipts issued by her (Carmelita).

Issue: Whether she is guilty of Illegal Recruitment in large scale?

Held:

Yes. The finding of illegal recruitment in large scale is justified wherever the elements
previously mentioned concur with this additional element: the offender commits the crime
against three (3) or more persons, individually or as a group. Appellant recruited at least
three persons. All the witnesses for the prosecution categorically testified that it was she
who had promised them that she could arrange for and facilitate their employment in
Taiwan as factory workers.
The Court has already ruled that the absence of receipts in a case for illegal recruitment
is not fatal, as long as the prosecution is able to establish through credible testimonial
evidence that accused-appellant has engaged in illegal recruitment. Such case is made,
not by the issuance or the signing of receipts for placement fees, but by engagement in
recruitment activities without the necessary license or authority.

People v. Pabalan
Facts:
Accused-Appellant Restituto C. Pabalan was charged with illegal recruitment in large
scale and three counts of estafa in separate informations filed before the RTC Valenzuela.
Appellant posits that he cannot be convicted of illegal recruitment because of the absence
of receipts indicating that complainants did pay him fees in consideration of his services.
Issue: Whether appellant should not be convicted of Illegal Recruitment because of the
absence of the receipts?
Held:
No. Although not all of the amounts testified to by complainants were covered by receipts,
the fact that there were no receipts for some of the amounts delivered to him does not
mean that appellant did not accept or receive such payments. This Court has ruled in
several cases that the absence of receipts in a criminal case for illegal recruitment does
not warrant the acquittal of the accused and is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. As
long as the witnesses had positively shown through their respective testimonies that the
accused is the one involved in the prohibited recruitment, he may be convicted of the
offense despite the want of receipts.
The Statute of Frauds and the rules of evidence do not require the presentation of receipts
in order to prove the existence of a recruitment agreement and the procurement of fees
in illegal recruitment cases. The amounts may consequently be proved by the testimony
of witnesses.
Appellant also asserts that his version should have been believed by the court below
since the fact that complainants reached Japan indicates that he did not recruit them.
Just like the lower court, we find it hard to believe the story presented by appellant that
he merely helped Barrera and Luciano in going to Japan as tourists. Barrera was without
gainful work and Luciano was merely a farmer at the time they met appellant. It is
incompatible with human behavior and contrary to ordinary experience that people
already in dire financial straits will make their lives more miserable by borrowing money
and mortgaging their properties just so they can visit and tour a foreign land.

People v. Ochoa
Facts:
For a period covering the months of February 1997 up to April 1998 in Novaliches,
Quezon city, Rosario Ochoa recruited fifteen (15) persons namely : Robert Gubat, Junior
Agustin, Cesar Aquino, Richard Luciano, Fernando Rivera, Mariano R. Mislang, Helen B.
Palogo, Joebert Decolongon, Corazon S. Austria, Cristopher A. Bermejo, Letecia D.
Londonio, Alma Borromeo, Francisco Pascual, Raymundo A. Bermejo and Rosemarie A.
Bermejo. Ochoa promised them an employment in Taiwan and Saudi Arabia for a
consideration ranging from Two Thousand Pesos ( 2,000.00) to Thirty Two Thousand
Pesos (32,000.00). She collected total amount of One Hundred Twenty Four Thousand
Pesos (124,000.00) as placement fee. Ochoa received the payments even though she
does not have license or authority to do so.

Ochoas promise of employment did not materialize thus the complainants asked for a
refund of their money. However Ochoa was not able to give back their money hence they
decided to file a case of illegal recruitment in large scale and estafa against Ochoa.

Ochoa contends that she was employed by AXIL International Services and Consultant
(AXIL) as recruiter on December 20, 1997. AXIL had a temporary license to recruit Filipino
workers for overseas employment. That she remitted the money she received to AXIL;
however AXIL failed to issue receipt.

Regional Trial Court rendered a Decision finding Ochoa guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the crimes of illegal recruitment in large scale and estafa.

Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of RTC but ordered the case to be forwarded to
Supreme Court since it does not have jurisdiction over the case.

Issues :

1. Is Ochoa guilty of illegal recruitment? Illegal recruitment in large scale?

2. Can Ochoa be charged and convicted separately of illegal recruitment and estafa?

Held :

1. Yes. It is well-settled that to prove illegal recruitment, it must be shown that appellant
gave 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. All eight private complainants in this case consistently declared
that Ochoa offered and promised them employment overseas. Ochoa required private
complainants to submit their resumes, birth certificates and passports, which the private
complainants did. Moreover, Ochoa can also be convicted for illegal recruitment based
on Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042, which clearly provides that any person, whether
or not a licensee or holder of authority may be held liable for illegal recruitment for certain
acts as enumerated in paragraphs (a) to (m). Among such acts is the failure to reimburse
expenses incurred by the worker in connection with his documentation and processing
for purposes of deployment, in cases where the deployment does not actually take place
without the workers fault. In this case, Ochoa received placement and medical fees from
private complainants and failed to reimburse the private complainants the amounts they
had paid when they were not able to leave for Taiwan and Saudi Arabia, through no fault
of their own.

Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or
more persons individually or as a group.

2. Yes. A person may be charged and convicted separately of illegal recruitment under
Republic Act No. 8042, in relation to the Labor Code, and estafa under Article 315,
paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code. The offense of illegal recruitment is malum
prohibitum, while estafa is malum in se. In this case, therefore, Ochoa may also be
charged and correspondingly held liable for estafa since all the elements for the crime are
present in Criminal Case Nos. 98-77301, 98-77302, and 98-77303. Ochoas deceit was
evident in her false representation to private complainants Gubat, Cesar, and Agustin that
she possessed the authority and capability to send said private complainants to
Taiwan/Saudi Arabia for employment as early as one to two weeks from completion of
the requirements, among which were the payment of placement fees and submission of
a medical examination report.

More importantly, Ochoa could still be convicted of illegal recruitment even if we disregard
the POEA certification, for regardless of whether or not Ochoa was a licensee or holder
of authority, she could still have committed illegal recruitment. Section 6 of Republic Act
No. 8042 clearly provides that any person, whether a non-licensee, non-holder, licensee
or holder of authority may be held liable for illegal recruitment for certain acts as
enumerated in paragraphs (a) to (m) thereof. Among such acts, under Section 6(m) of
Republic Act No. 8042, is the [f]ailure to reimburse expenses incurred by the worker in
connection with his documentation and processing for purposes of deployment, in cases
where the deployment does not actually take place without the workers fault. Ochoa
committed illegal recruitment as described in the said provision by receiving placement
and medical fees from private complainants, evidenced by the receipts issued by her, and
failing to reimburse the private complainants the amounts they had paid when they were
not able to leave for Taiwan and Saudi Arabia, through no fault of their own.

People v. Lalli
Facts:

The complainant here was approached by one of the accused asking her if she wanted
a job in Malaysia as a restaurant entertainer. However, she didnt have a passport and
was chided by the accused to use her sisters passport instead. One of the accused
assured that it will not be a problem as they have a contact in the DFA who will arrange
it. Upon arrival in Malaysia, she and her companions were brought to a restaurant
where they found out from another Filipino worker that it is a prostitution den and that
the women there are prostitutes. She eventually worked as a prostitute there and was
subjected to sexual intercourse with different men. One day she was able to contact her
other sister and informed her about her situation. One day her sisters husband came to
the restaurant and helped her escape.

Issue:

W/N the accused are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of illegal recruitment
and trafficking in persons

Held:

Yes. It is clear that a person or entity engaged in recruitment and placement activities
without the requisite authority from the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE),
whether for profit or not, is engaged in illegal recruitment. The Philippine Overseas
Employment Administration (POEA), an agency under DOLE created by Executive
Order No. 797 to take over the duties of the Overseas Employment Development
Board, issues the authority to recruit under the Labor Code. The commission of illegal
recruitment by three or more persons conspiring or confederating with one another is
deemed committed by a syndicate and constitutes economic sabotage.

In People v. Gallo, the Court enumerated the elements of syndicated illegal recruitment,
to wit: the offender undertakes either any activity within the meaning of recruitment and
placement defined under Article 13(b), or any of the prohibited practices enumerated
under Art. 34 of the Labor Code; he has no valid license or authority required by law to
enable one to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers; and the illegal
recruitment is committed by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring or
confederating with one another.

Aringoy claims and admits that he only referred Lolita to Lalli for job opportunities to
Malaysia. Such act of referring, whether for profit or not, in connivance with someone
without a POEA license, is already considered illegal recruitment, given the broad
definition of recruitment and placement in the Labor Code.

In this case, Lolita would not have been able to go to Malaysia if not for the concerted
efforts of Aringoy, Lalli and Relampagos. First, it was Aringoy who knew Lolita, since
Aringoy was a neighbor of Lolitas grandfather. It was Aringoy who referred Lolita to Lalli,
a fact clearly admitted by Aringoy. Second, Lolita would not have been able to go to
Malaysia if Lalli had not purchased Lolitas boat ticket to Malaysia.

It is clear that through the concerted efforts of Aringoy, Lalli and Relampagos, Lolita was
recruited and deployed to Malaysia to work as a prostitute. Such conspiracy among
Aringoy, Lalli and Relampagos could be deduced from the manner in which the crime
was perpetrated each of the accused played a pivotal role in perpetrating the crime of
illegal recruitment, and evinced a joint common purpose and design, concerted action
and community of interest.

The crime of Trafficking in Persons is qualified when committed by a syndicate, as

provided in Section 6(c) of RA 9208:

(c) When the crime is committed by a syndicate, or in large scale. Trafficking is deemed
committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons
conspiring or confederating with one another. It is deemed committed in large scale if
committed against three (3) or more persons, individually or as a group.

Trafficking in Persons under Sections 3(a) and 4 of RA 9208 is not only limited to
transportation of victims, but also includes the act of recruitment of victims for trafficking.
In this case, since it has been sufficiently proven beyond reasonable doubt, as
discussed in Criminal Case No. 21930, that all the three accused (Aringoy,Lalli and
Relampagos) conspired and confederated with one another to illegally recruit Lolita to
become a prostitute in Malaysia, it follows that they are also guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of Qualified Trafficking in Persons committed by a syndicate under
RA 9208 because the crime of recruitment for prostitution also constitutes trafficking.