People v Panis As we see it, the proviso was intended neither to impose a condition on the basic

142 SCRA 664 (1986) rule nor to provide an exception thereto but merely to create a presumption. The
presumption is that the individual or entity is engaged in recruitment and placement
Facts: whenever he or it is dealing with two or more persons to whom, in consideration of a
fee, an offer or promise of employment is made in the course of the "canvassing,
Four informations were filed on January 9, 1981, in the Court of First Instance of enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring (of) workers."
Zambales and Olongapo City alleging that Serapio Abug, private respondent herein,
"without first securing a license from the Ministry of Labor as a holder of authority to At any rate, the interpretation here adopted should give more force to the campaign
operate a fee-charging employment agency, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully against illegal recruitment and placement, which has victimized many Filipino
and criminally operate a private fee-charging employment agency by charging fees workers seeking a better life in a foreign land, and investing hard-earned savings or
and expenses (from) and promising employment in Saudi Arabia" to four separate even borrowed funds in pursuit of their dream, only to be awakened to the reality of a
individuals named therein, in violation of Article 16 in relation to Article 39 of the cynical deception at the hands of their own countrymen.
Labor Code.

Abug filed a motion to quash on the ground that the informations did not charge an PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. LETICIA SAGAYAGA, ALAMA SO,
offense because he was accused of illegally recruiting only one person in each of the VICENTE SO YAN HAN and ORLANDO BURGOS, accused LETICIA SAGAYAGA,
four informations. Under the proviso in Article 13(b), he claimed, there would be appellant (G. R No. 123726 February 23, 2004)
illegal recruitment only "whenever two or more persons are in any manner promised
or offered any employment for a fee." FACTS: Complainants, Elmer Janer, Eric Farol and Elmer Ramos filed a case of
Illegal Recruitment against the accused, Sagaya, So, So Yan Han and Burgos who
The posture of the petitioner is that the private respondent is being prosecuted under were the personnels of the Alvis Placement Service Corporation. They promised the
Article 39 in relation to Article 16 of the Labor Code; hence, Article 13(b) is not complainants an overseas job (Factory Worker) in Taiwan. Upon completion of the
applicable. However, as the first two cited articles penalize acts of recruitment and necessary requirements for employment and the placement fee amounting to Php
placement without proper authority, which is the charge embodied in the 70, 000 Php 75, 000, the accused failed to render the job that was promised.
informations, application of the definition of recruitment and placement in Article The complainant contested a refund but the accused failed to render and reimburse
13(b) is unavoidable. the money which made them decide to file a complaint of Illegal Recruitment to the
court. The other accused remained at large while Sagayaga, in her expense,
Issue: pleaded not guilty contesting that she had no participation in the operation of the
Alavis Placement Service Corporation and she was just part of her job as a treasurer
Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of violating Article 13(b) of P. D. 442, otherwise of the said company to receive the placement fees of the complainants.
known as the Labor Code.
ISSUE: Whether or not the appellant Sagayaga will be held guilty of Illegal
Held: Recruitment?

Article 13(b) of P. D. 442, otherwise known as the Labor Code, states that, "(b)
'Recruitment and placement' refers to any act of canvassing, 'enlisting, contracting,
transporting, 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."
RULING: YES. Wherefore, the appeal of Sagayaga was erred without merit for she
acted as a principal by direct participation on the offense of Illegal Recruitment. She
participated actively and consciously in the illegal recruitment as manifested by the
fact that she signed in her capacity as the corporation s Assistant General
Manager. The court also erred the provisions under Republic Act No. 8042 Section
6, which provides that illegal recruitment shall be considered an offense involving
economic sabotage if committed in large scale, viz, committed agaiits three (3) or
more persons individually or as a group, the imposable penalty for which is life
imprisonment and a fine not less than Php 500, 000 nor more that Php 1,000,000. In
which, in this case, there were three (3) private complainants, namely, Elmer Janer,
Eric Farol and Elmer Ramos. Thus, the trial court denied the appeal and convicted
the appellant of large scale illegal recruitment and sentenced her to suffer life
imprisonment.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. DOMINGA CORRALES
FORTUNA, appellant.
Facts
On 29 September 1998, Dominga Corrales Fortuna, herein appellant, was
charged with illegal recruitment in large scale under Section 6, paragraph (m), of
Republic Act No. 8042, said to have been committed thusly:
That sometime in the month of July, 1998, in the City of Cabanatuan, Republic of the
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused who is neither a licensee nor holder of authority in the overseas private
recruitment or placements activities, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously undertake a recruitment activity by inducing and convincing REBECCA P.
DE LEON, ANNIE M. NUQUE, NENITA A. ANDASAN, ANGELYN N. MAGPAYO,
LINA N. GANOT and EDGARDO C. SALVADOR, that she could secure for them a
job in Taiwan, and as a result of such enticement, said Rebecca P. De Leon, Annie
M. Nuque, Nenita A. Andasan, Angolan N. Magpayo, Lina N. Ganot and Edgardo C.
Salvador, who were interested to have such employment, gave and delivered to the
accused the total sum of THIRTY TWO THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED PESOS
(P32,400.00), Philippine Currency, representing medical fees in connection thereof,
to the latters damage and prejudice as they were not able to get a job in Taiwan
through no fault of their own as promised by the accused, who likewise failed to
reimburse to herein complainants the aforementioned amount despite repeated
demands; that considering that there are six (6) or more complainants prejudiced by
the unlawful acts of the accused, the same is deemed committed in large scale and
considered an offense involving economic sabotage.[1]
When arraigned on 29 February 2000, appellant Dominga Fortuna, with the
assistance of counsel, pleaded not guilty to the crime charged; trial then ensued.
Taking the witness stand for the prosecution were private complainants Lina
Ganot, Nenita Andasan and Angelyn Magpayo.
Lina N. Ganot, Angelyn N. Magpayo, Nenita A. Andasan, Rebecca P. De Leon,
Annie M. Nuque and Edgardo L. Salvador met Dominga Fortuna y Corrales in a
seminar on Tupperware products being then promoted for sale in Cabanatuan
City. Fortuna took the occasion to converse with private complainants, along with
some of the attendees, offering job placements in Taiwan. Convinced that Fortuna
could actually provide them with jobs abroad, private complainants, on 06 July 1998,
each gave her the amount of P5,400.00 to take care of the processing fee for
medical examination and other expenses for securing their respective passports. On
13 July 1998, private complainants took the medical examination in Manila. Weeks
went by but the promised departure had not materialized. Suspecting that something
was not right, they finally demanded that Fortuna return their money. Fortuna, in the
meanwhile, went into hiding. After having later learned that Fortuna had neither a
license nor an authority to undertake recruiting activities, Angelyn Magpayo filed a
complaint which, in due time, ultimately resulted in the indictment of Fortuna for
illegal recruitment. During the preliminary investigation, as well as later at the trial,
Fortuna gave assurance to have the money she had received from private
complainants returned to them but, except for the amount of P1,250.00 paid to
Angelyn Magpayo, Fortuna was unable to make good her promise.
Dominga Fortuna, in her testimony, admitted having attended the seminar on
June 1998 where she then met Annie Nuque, Rebecca De Leon, Nenita Andasan,
Edgardo Salvador, Angelyn Magpayo and Lina Ganot. During the seminar, she
purchased Tupperware products from private complainants after she was convinced
to be their sub-agent. Initially, she was able to remit payments to private
complainants on her sales but, when she failed to make subsequent remittances,
she was threatened with criminal prosecution. In order to settle the matter, she
executed separate promissory notes. When she again failed to pay, private
complainants filed the case for illegal recruitment against her. Originally, there were
six private complainants but eventually only three of them pursued the case because
the others were finally able to leave for abroad.
ISSUE:
WON there was illegal recruitment.
RULING:
YES. For purposes of this act, illegal recruitment shall mean any act of canvassing,
enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers and includes
referring, contract of services, promising or advertising for employment abroad,
whether for profit or not, when undertaken by a non-license or non-holder of authority
contemplated under Article 13(f) of Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended,
otherwise known as the Labor Code of the Philippines: Provided, that any such non-
licensee or non-holder who, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment
abroad to two or more persons shall be deemed so engaged.
Illegal recruitment 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. There is no showing that any of the complainants had ill-motives
against accused Dominga Fortuna other than to bring her to the bar of
justice. Furthermore, appellant was a stranger to private complainants before the
recruitment. It is contrary to human nature and experience for persons to conspire
and accuse a stranger of such a serious crime like this that would take the latters
liberty and send him or her to prison. Against the prosecutions overwhelming
evidence, accused could only offer a bare denial and an obviously concocted story.
Doctrinally, the assessment made on testimonial evidence by the trial judge is
accorded the highest respect for it is he who has the distinct opportunity to directly
perceive the demeanor of witnesses and personally ascertain their reliability. The
rule has been said that a person charged with illegal recruitment may be convicted
on the strength of the testimony of the complainants, if found to be credible and
convincing, and that the absence of receipts to evidence payment to the recruiter
would not warrant an acquittal, a receipt not being fatal to the prosecution's cause.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROMULO SAULO,
AMELIA DE LA CRUZ, and CLODUALDO DE LA CRUZ, accused.
ROMULO SAULO, accused-appellant.
FACTS:
Benny Maligaya, having learned from a relative of accused-appellant that the
latter was recruiting workers for Taiwan, went to accused-appellants house in San
Francisco del Monte, Quezon City, together with Angeles Javier and Amelia de la
Cruz, in order to discuss her chances for overseas employment. During that meeting
which took place sometime in April or May, 1990, accused-appellant told Maligaya
that she would be able to leave for Taiwan as a factory worker once she gave
accused-appellant the fees for the processing of her documents. Sometime in May,
1990, Maligaya also met with Amelia de la Cruz and Clodualdo de la Cruz at their
house in Baesa, Quezon City and they assured her that they were authorized by the
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) to recruit workers for
Taiwan.Maligaya paid accused-appellant and Amelia de la Cruz the amount of
P35,000.00, which is evidenced by a receipt dated May 21, 1990 signed by accused-
appellant and Amelia de la Cruz (Exhibit A in Crim. Case No. Q-91-21908). Seeing
that he had reneged on his promise to send her to Taiwan, Maligaya filed a
complaint against accused-appellant with the POEA.[4]
Angeles Javier, a widow and relative by affinity of accused-appellant, was told
by Ligaya, accused-appellants wife, to apply for work abroad through accused-
appellant. At a meeting in accused-appellants Quezon City residence, Javier was
told by accused-appellant that he could get her a job in Taiwan as a factory worker
and that she should give him P35,000.00 for purposes of preparing Javiers
passport. Javier gave an initial amount of P20,000.00 to accused-appellant, but she
did not ask for a receipt as she trusted him. As the overseas employment never
materialized, Javier was prompted to bring the matter before the POEA.[5]
On April 19, 1990, Leodigario Maullon, upon the invitation of his neighbor Araceli
Sanchez, went to accused-appellants house in order to discuss his prospects for
gaining employment abroad. As in the case of Maligaya and Javier, accused-
appellant assured Maullon that he could secure him a job as a factory worker in
Taiwan if he paid him P30,000.00 for the processing of his papers. Maullon paid
P7,900.00 to accused-appellants wife, who issued a receipt dated April 21, 1990
(Exhibit A in Crim. Case No. Q-91-21910). Thereafter, Maullon paid an additional
amount of P6,800.00 in the presence of accused-appellant and Amelia de la Cruz,
which payment is also evidenced by a receipt dated April 25, 1990 (Exhibit B in Crim.
Case No. Q-91-21910). Finally, Maullon paid P15,700.00 to a certain Loreta Tumalig,
a friend of accused-appellant, as shown by a receipt dated September 14, 1990
(Exhibit C in Crim. Case No. Q-91-21910). Again, accused-appellant failed to deliver
on the promised employment. Maullon thus filed a complaint with the POEA.
ISSUE:
WON the recruitment was illegal.
RULING:
YES.
After a careful and circumspect review of the records, the Court finds that the
trial court was justified in holding that accused-appellant was engaged in unlawful
recruitment and placement activities. The prosecution clearly established that
accused-appellant promised the three complainants - Benny Maligaya, Angeles
Javier and Leodigario Maullon employment in Taiwan as factory workers and that he
asked them for money in order to process their papers and procure their passports.
Relying completely upon such representations, complainants entrusted their hard-
earned money to accused-appellant in exchange for what they would later discover
to be a vain hope of obtaining employment abroad. It is not disputed that accused-
appellant is not authorized[11] nor licensed[12] by the Department of Labor and
Employment to engage in recruitment and placement activities. The absence of the
necessary license or authority renders all of accused-appellants recruitment activities
criminal.
Under Art. 13 (b) of the Labor 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.
Accused-appellants asseverations are self-serving and uncorroborated by clear
and convincing evidence. They cannot stand against the straightforward and explicit
testimonies of the complainants, who have identified accused-appellant as the
person who enticed them to part with their money upon his representation that he
had the capability of obtaining employment for them abroad. In the absence of any
evidence that the prosecution witnesses were motivated by improper motives, the
trial courts assessment of the credibility of the witnesses shall not be interfered with
by this Court.[13]
The fact that accused-appellant did not sign all the receipts issued to
complainants does not weaken the case of the prosecution. A person charged with
illegal recruitment may be convicted on the strength of the testimonies of the
complainants, if found to be credible and convincing.[14] The absence of receipts to
evidence payment does not warrant an acquittal of the accused, and it is not
necessarily fatal to the prosecutions cause.