cases batch 2.doc

7/28/2019 Cases Batch 2.doc

1/51

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

EN BANC

G.R. Nos. L-58674-77 July 11, 1990

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.HON. DOMINGO PANIS, Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Zambales &Olongapo City, Branch III and SERAPIO ABUG, respondents.

CRUZ, J:

The basic issue in this case is the correct interpretation of Article 13(b) of P.D. 442, otherwiseknown as the Labor Code, reading as follows:

(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 o r 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 deemedengaged in recruitment and placement.

Four informations were filed on January 9, 1981, in the Court of First Instance of Zambalesand 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 operate a fee-chargingemployment agency, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and criminally operate a private feecharging employment agency by charging fees and expenses (from) and promisingemployment in Saudi Arabia" to four separate individuals named therein, in violation of Article16 in relation to Article 39 of the Labor Code. 1

Abug filed a motion to quash on the ground that the informations did not charge an offensebecause he was accused of illegally recruiting only one person in each of the fourinformations. Under the proviso in Article 13(b), he claimed, there would be illegal recruitmentonly "whenever two or more persons are in any manner promised or offered any employmentfor a fee. " 2

Denied at first, the motion was reconsidered and finally granted in the Orders of the trial court

dated June 24 and September 17, 1981. The prosecution is now before us on certiorari. 3

The posture of the petitioner is that the private respondent is being prosecuted under Article39 in relation to Article 16 of the Labor Code; hence, Article 13(b) is not applicable. However,as the first two cited articles penalize acts of recruitment and placement without proper

authority, which is the charge embodied in the informations, application of the definition ofrecruitment and placement in Article 13(b) is unavoidable.

The view of the private respondents is that to constitute recruitment and placement, all theacts mentioned in this article should involve dealings with two or m re persons as an indispensable requirement. On the other hand, the petitioner argues that the requirement of

two or more persons is imposed only where the recruitment and placement consists of anoffer or promise of employment to such persons and always in consideration of a fee. The

other acts mentioned in the body of the article may involve even only one person and are notnecessarily for profit.

Neither interpretation is acceptable. We fail to see why the proviso should speak only of anoffer or promise of employment if the purpose was to apply the requirement of two or morepersons to all the acts mentioned in the basic rule. For its part, the petitioner does not explain

why dealings with two or more persons are needed where the recruitment and placementconsists of an offer or promise of employment but not when it is done through "canvassing,enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring (of) workers.

As we see it, the proviso was intended neither to impose a condition on the basic rule nor toprovide an exception thereto but merely to create a presumption. The presumption is that the

individual or entity is engaged in recruitment and placement whenever he or it is dealing withtwo or more persons to whom, in consideration of a fee, an offer or promise of employment ismade in the course of the "canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring orprocuring (of) workers. "

The number of persons dealt with is not an essential ingredient of the act of recruitment andplacement of workers. Any of the acts mentioned in the basic rule in Article 13(b) winconstitute recruitment and placement even if only one prospective worker is involved. Theproviso merely lays down a rule of evidence that where a fee is collected in consideration of apromise or offer of employment to two or more prospective workers, the individual or entitydealing with them shall be deemed to be engaged in the act of recruitment and placement.

The words "shall be deemed" create that presumption.

This is not unlike the presumption in article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, for example,regarding the failure of a public officer to produce upon lawful demand funds or propertyentrusted to his custody. Such failure shall beprima facie evidence that he has put them topersonal use; in other words, he shall be deemed to have malversed such funds or property.In the instant case, the word "shall be deemed" should by the same token be given the forceof a disputable presumption or of prima facie evidence of engaging in recruitment andplacement. (Klepp vs. Odin Tp., McHenry County 40 ND N.W. 313, 314.)

It is unfortunate that we can only speculate on the meaning of the questioned provision forlack of records of debates and deliberations that would otherwise have been available if the

Labor Code had been enacted as a statute rather than a presidential decree. The trouble withpresidential decrees is that they could be, and sometimes were, issued without previous


2/51


3/51

Articles 38 and 39 of P.D. No. 442, otherwise known as the Labor Code of thePhilippines, and conformable thereto, hereby sentences the said accused to sufferthe penalty of Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of One Hundred Thousand(P100,000.00) pesos without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvencypursuant to law.

The accused shall serve the penalties herein imposed against him successively orone after the other according to their severity. 2

Based on the evidence adduced before the trial court, the facts of the case are as follows:

Sometime in April of 1987, accused-appellant Fernando Manungas, Jr. went to BarangayLegaspi, Tayug, Pangasinan where he stayed in the house of Arturo and Lilia de Vera torecruit workers for employment abroad. During his stay, accused-appellant was able toconvince complainants Wilfrey Mabalot, Danilo Ramirez, Leonardo Estanoco and CrisantoCollado to apply as janitors in Saudi Arabia. He told them to bring all the necessarydocuments for the processing of their applications to his office in Manila.

On April 29, 1987, complainants went to accused-appellant's office located at Room 611, Land S Bldg., 1414 Roxas Blvd., Ermita, Manila and paid accused-appellant P250.00 each fortheir medical examination. Thereafter, accused-appellant required the complainants to pay, on

various occasions, placement fees and other expenses incurred in the processing of theirpapers and issued corresponding receipts for said amounts. The total amount paid by thecomplainants to accused-appellant are the following: Wilfrey Mabalot P16,800.00; DaniloRamirez P17,550.00, Leonardo Estanoco 18,600.00, and Crisanto Collado 13,300.00

When complainants failed to leave for Saudi Arabia, they requested Luis "Jing" Ramirez, toverify with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) whether accused-appellant was licensed to recruit workers for abroad. They subsequently learned that he wasnot as shown by the Certification issued by the POEA.3

Thereafter, complaints filed against accused-appellant complaints for Estafa defined underpar. 2(a), Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code and Illegal Recruitment on a Large Scale. Indue course, informations fro three (3) counts of Estafa (Criminal Cases Nos. L-3993, L-3994and L-3996) and Illegal Recruitment on a Large Scale (Criminal Case No. L-4000) were filed

against accused-appellant before the Regional Trial Court of Lingayen, Pangasinan.

On the other hand, accused-appellant maintained that he was the operations manager of theZG Recruitment and Placement Agency, a duly licensed recruitment agency. Sometime inApril 1987, he went to Barangay Legaspi, Tayug, Pangasinan and recruited complainants to

work in Saudi Arabia as janitors. Unfortunately, the job order for the janitorial services wasawarded to Express Placement Agency instead of ZG Recruitment and Placement agency.Thereafter, accused-appellant transferred complainants' application for overseas employment

to Nora Cunanan of Express Placement Agency. Accused-appellant also turned over the feespaid by the complainants to Nora Cunanan as evidenced by the receipts 4issued by the latter.

When Nora Cunanan absconded with the money of the complainants, accused-appellant filedan estafa case against Nora Cunanan after securing a Special Power of Attorney from thecomplainants to prosecute and collect their money. However, he was not able to attend thehearing as he was arrested in connection with the these cases.

Accused-appellant maintains that he did not make false representations to the complainantswhen he requited the latter for employment abroad as he had told complainants that he is onlyan employee of a licensed recruitment agency in Manila. He further claims that he was not

motivated by any deceitful intentions and had not caused any damage to the complainantsbecause the amounts of money given to him by the latter were actually spent for their medicaltests and other documents necessary for their overseas employment.

Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code defines "Recruitment and Placement" as:

Any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring orprocuring workers, and includes referrals, contract services, promising or advertisingfor employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not: Provided, That anyperson or entity which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment totwo or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement.

In the instant case, accused-appellant told complainants to submit to him their pictures, birthcertificates, NBI clearances and the necessary documents for the processing of theiremployment in Saudi Arabia. Thereafter, accused-appellant collected from each of thecomplainants payment for the their respective passport, training fee, placement fee, medicaltests and other sundry expenses which unquestionably constitutes acts of recruitment withinthe meaning of the law. Besides, there is illegal recruitment when one gives the impression ofhis ability to send a worker abroad 5 and there is evidence that accused-appellant hadrepresented to the complainants that he could send them abroad as janitors in Saudi Arabia.And because of his representation, complainants gave their hard-earned money to accused-appellant in consideration of the same representation. As pointed out by the Solicitor Generalin his brief:

It may be that at the time appellant recruited private complainants, he was then the

operations manager of the ZGR Placement Agency, a duly licensed recruitmentagency. But, as amply established by the evidence, the recruitment of privatecomplainants was appellant's own personal undertaking. He did not do it for theagency. This is clearly shown by the sequence of events that led to theconsum[m]ation of the transaction in question. Thus: it was appellant who talkedprivate complainants into applying for employment abroad; when privatecomplainants signified their interest, he alone was the one who informed them of thedocuments that they have to secure; he too was the one who demanded andreceived from them the fees for medical examination, passport, authentication,training, placement and psycho and AIDS test; also, he was the one who assured

them of employment abroad and of the return of their money in the event of their


4/51

non-deployment; moreover, it was he who undertook to inform private complainantsof their departure.

But that is not all. When private complainants failed to receive notice of theirdeparture as promised them by appellant, they had somebody verify with the POEAif appellant was a licensed recruiter. This circumstance shows all the more thatindeed appellant represented himself to be the recruiter, otherwise it would havebeen the status of the agency with which he allegedly worked for, that private

complainants would have requested to be verified.6

As to accused-appellant's claim that he did not misappropriate the money given to him by thecomplainants as he had turned over the latters' placement fees to Nora Cunanan, whosubsequently absconded with the complainant's money, the trial court correctly held that:

The version of the defense has the nature of a cock and bull story which is difficultand hard to accept. It is something that is fantastic and ridiculous. It is within therealm of fiction and patently a mere fabrication to exculpate the accused from theconsequences of his nefarious and deceitful activities. If it is really true that thecomplainants were transferred and accommodated by the agency of Nora Cunanan,

why did not the accused and Mrs. Lydia Zamora who appear to be both intelligent

take the necessary prudence and caution of putting the supposed agreement totransfer in writing considering the amounts of funds involved in the alleged transfer.Logic and common sense dictate that under such a situation, the accused and Mrs.Zamora take ordinary care of their concerns. To impress the court that there wasreally a transfer made, the accused claimed that there was a estafa case filedagainst Mrs. Cunanan before the City Fiscal's Office in Manila. It is howeversurprising why Atty. Jose Torrefranca who was engaged by the accused to file theestafa case did not present any letter-complaint or any charged sheet filed againstMrs. Cunanan. He did not even mention the Fiscal who investigated the case. Moreintriguing is the fact that counsel does not know what happened to the alleged case

of estafa after he filed the same. Likewise, when Mrs. Lydia Zamora declared, sheclaimed that the case filed against Nora Cunanan was before the Regional Trial

Court and not in the City Fiscal's Office.

Defense also made capital of the special power of atty. executed by thecomplainants (exhibit 4) and their letters sent to the accused (exhibits 5, 6, 7 and 8)to convince the court that the real culprit in the whole mess in Nora Cunanan. Thecomplainants made convincing explanation why they signed the special power ofattorney. Wilfrey Mabalot declared that when the accused asked him to sign thedocument, he was told that its purpose is to facilitate their departure and when hesigned the letter exhibit "6" he was just told to sign by the accused and because thelatter was in [a] hurry, he signed without knowing its contents. He likewise explained

that being a mere high school graduate he was not able to understand the importsof its contents. Danilo Ramirez explained that when he signed the special power of

attorney, he did not read the contents because the accused was in [a] hurry inreturning to Manila and that he sent the three letters to the accused while he was

confined in jail because Manungas asked him to help him (accused) recover themoney given to Mrs. Cunanan. Leonardo Estanoco declared, that he signed exhibit"4" because the accused told him that the document will be used to facilitate theprocessing of their papers. He did not understand its contents because he onlyunderstands little English. 7

Thus accused-appellant is guilty of the crimes of Estafa and Illegal Recruitment. Under Article38 of the Labor Code, as amended, the crime of illegal recruitment is qualified when the same

is committed against three (3) or more persons.

A person who violates any of the provisions under Article 13(b) and Article 34 of the LaborCode can be charged and convicted separately of illegal recruitment and estafa [RevisedPenal Code, Article 315, 2(a)] because illegal recruitment is a malum prohibitum where thecriminal intent of the accused is not necessary for a conviction while estafa is a malum insewhere criminal intent of the accused is necessary for a conviction.

WHEREFORE, finding the accused-appellant guilty of the crimes of estafa and illegalrecruitment in a large scale, decision of the trial court is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 129577-80 February 15, 2000

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BULU CHOWDURY, accused-appellant.

PUNO, J.:

In November 1995, Bulu Chowduly and Josephine Ong were charged before the RegionalTrial Court of Manila with the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale committed as follows:

That sometime between the period from August 1994 to October 1994 in the City ofManila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, representing themselves to have the capacity to contract, enlistand transport workers for employment abroad, conspiring, confederating andmutually helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously

recruit the herein complainants: Estrella B. Calleja, Melvin C. Miranda and Aser S.Sasis, individually or as a group for employment in Korea without first obtaining the


5/51

required license and/or authority from the Philippine Overseas EmploymentAdministration.1

They were likewise charged with three counts of estafa committed against privatecomplainants.2 The State Prosecutor, however, later dismissed the estafa charges againstChowdury3 and filed an amended information indicting only Ong for the offense. 4

Chowdury was arraigned on April 16, 1996 while Ong remained at large. He pleaded "not

guilty" to the charge of illegal recruitment in large scale.5

Trial ensued.

The prosecution presented four witnesses: private complainants Aser Sasis, Estrella Callejaand Melvin Miranda, and Labor Employment Officer Abbelyn Caguitla.

Sasis testified that he first met Chowdury in August 1994 when he applied with CraftradeOverseas Developers (Craftrade) for employment as factory worker in South Korea.Chowdury, a consultant of Craftrade, conducted the interview. During the interview, Chowduryinformed him about the requirements for employment. He told him to submit his passport, NBIclearance, passport size picture and medical certificate. He also required him to undergo aseminar. He advised him that placement would be on a first-come-first-serve basis and urgedhim to complete the requirements immediately. Sasis was also charged a processing fee ofP25,000.00. Sasis completed all the requirements in September 1994. He also paid a totalamount of P16,000.00 to Craftrade as processing fee. All payments were received by Ong for

which she issued three receipts. 6 Chowdury then processed his papers and convinced him tocomplete his payment.7

Sasis further said that he went to the office of Craftrade three times to follow up his applicationbut he was always told to return some other day. In one of his visits to Craftrade's office, he

was informed that he would no longer be deployed for employment abroad. This promptedhim to withdraw his payment but he could no longer find Chowdury. After two unsuccessful

attempts to contact him, he decided to file with the Philippine Overseas EmploymentAdministration (POEA) a case for illegal recruitment against Chowdury. Upon verification withthe POEA, he learned that Craftrade's license had already expired and has not been renewedand that Chowdury, in his personal capacity, was not a licensed recruiter. 8

Calleja testified that in June 1994, she applied with Craftrade for employment as factoryworker in South Korea. She was interviewed by Chowdury. During the interview, he askedquestions regarding her marital status, her age and her province. Toward the end of theinterview, Chowdury told her that she would be working in a factory in Korea. He required herto submit her passport, NBI clearance, ID pictures, medical certificate and birth certificate. Healso obliged her to attend a seminar on overseas employment. After she submitted all thedocumentary requirements, Chowdury required her to pay P20,000.00 as placement fee.

Calleja made the payment on August 11, 1994 to Ong for which she was issued areceipt.9 Chowdury assured her that she would be able to leave on the first week of

September but it proved to be an empty promise. Calleja was not able to leave despite severalfollow-ups. Thus, she went to the POEA where she discovered that Craftrade's license hadalready expired. She tried to withdraw her money from Craftrade to no avail. Calleja filed acomplaint for illegal recruitment against Chowdury upon advice of POEA's legal counsel. 10

Miranda testified that in September 1994, his cousin accompanied him to the office ofCraftrade in Ermita, Manila and introduced him to Chowdury who presented himself asconsultant and interviewer. Chowdury required him to fill out a bio-data sheet before

conducting the interview. Chowdury told Miranda during the interview that he would send himto Korea for employment as factory worker. Then he asked him to submit the followingdocuments: passport, passport size picture, NBI clearance and medical certificate. After hecomplied with the requirements, he was advised to wait for his visa and to pay P25,000.00 asprocessing fee. He paid the amount of P25,000.00 to Ong who issued receiptstherefor.11 Craftrade, however, failed to deploy him. Hence, Miranda filed or complaint with thePOEA against Chowdury for illegal recruitment. 12

Labor Employment OfficerAbbelyn Caguitla of the Licensing Branch of the POEA testifiedthat she prepared a certification on June 9, 1996 that Chowdury and his co-accused, Ong,

were not, in their personal capacities, licensed recruiters nor were they connected with anylicensed agency. She nonetheless stated that Craftrade was previously licensed to recruit

workers for abroad which expired on December 15, 1993. It applied for renewal of its li censebut was only granted a temporary license effective December 16, 1993 until September 11,1994. From September 11, 1994, the POEA granted Craftrade another temporary authority toprocess the expiring visas of overseas workers who have already been deployed. The POEAsuspended Craftrade's temporary license on December 6, 1994. 13

For his defense, Chowdurytestified that he worked as interviewer at Craftrade from 1990 until1994. His primary duty was to interview job applicants for abroad. As a mere employee, heonly followed the instructions given by his superiors, Mr. Emmanuel Geslani, the agency'sPresident and General Manager, and Mr. Utkal Chowdury, the agency's Managing Director.

Chowdury admitted that he interviewed private complainants on different dates. Their officesecretary handed him their bio-data and thereafter he led them to his room where he

conducted the interviews. During the interviews, he had with him a form containing thequalifications for the job and he filled out this form based on the applicant's responses to hisquestions. He then submitted them to Mr. Utkal Chowdury who in turn evaluated his findings.He never received money from the applicants. He resigned from Craftrade on November 12,1994.14

Another defense witness, Emelita Masangkaywho worked at the Accreditation Branch of thePOEA presented a list of the accredited principals of Craftrade Overseas Developers15 and alist of processed workers of Craftrade Overseas Developers from 1988 to 1994.16

The trial court found Chowdury guiltybeyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal

recruitment in large scale. It sentenced him to life imprisonment and to pay a fine ofP100,000.00. It further ordered him to pay Aser Sasis the amount of P16,000.00, Estrella


6/51

Calleja, P20,000.00 and Melvin Miranda, P25,000.00. The dispositive portion of the decisionreads:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, the prosecution havingproved the guilt of the accused Bulu Chowdury beyond reasonable doubt of thecrime of Illegal Recruitment in large scale, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the

penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P100,000.00 under Art. 39 (b) of the NewLabor Code of the Philippines. The accused is ordered to pay the complainants Aser

Sasis the amount of P16,000.00; Estrella Calleja the amount of P20,000.00; MelvinMiranda the amount of P25,000.00.17

Chowdury appealed.

The elements of illegal recruitment in large scale are:

(1) The accused undertook any recruitment activity defined under Article 13 (b) orany prohibited practice enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code;

(2) He did not have the license or authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment andplacement of workers; and

(3) He committed the same against three or more persons, individually or as agroup.18

The last paragraph of Section 6 of Republic Act (RA) 8042 19 states who shall be held liable forthe offense, thus:

The persons criminally liable for the above offenses are the principals, accomplicesand accessories. In case of juridica l persons, the off icers havingcontrol, management or direction of their business shall be liable.

The Revised Penal Code which supplements the law on illegal recruitment 20 defines who arethe principals, accomplices and accessories. The principals are: (1) those who take a directpart in the execution of the act; (2) those who directly force or induce others to commit it; and(3) those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act without which it

would not have been accomplished.21 The accomplices are those persons who may not beconsidered as principal as defined in Section 17 of the Revised Penal Code but cooperate inthe execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous act. 22 The accessories are those

who, having knowledge of the commission of the crime, and without having participated

therein, either as principals or accomplices, take part subsequent to its commission in any ofthe following manner: (1) by profiting themselves or assisting the offenders to profit by theeffects of the crime; (2) by concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the effects orinstruments thereof, in order to prevent its discovery; and (3) by harboring, concealing, or

assisting in the escape of the principal of the crime, provided the accessory acts with abuse ofhis public functions or whenever the author of the crime is guilty of treason, parricide, murder,

or an attempt at the life of the chief executive, or is known to be habitually guilty of some othercrime.23

Citing the second sentence of the last paragraph of Section 6 of RA 8042, accused-appellantcontends that he may not be held liable for the offense as he was merely an employee ofCraftrade and he only performed the tasks assigned to him by his superiors. He argues that

the ones who should be held liable for the offense are the officers having control,management and direction of the agency.

As stated in the first sentence of Section 6 of RA 8042, the persons who may be held liable forillegal recruitment are the principals, accomplices and accessories. An employee of acompany or corporation engaged in illegal recruitment may be held liable as principal,together with his employer,24 if it is shown that he actively and consciously participated inillegal recruitment.25 It has been held that the existence of the corporate entity does not shieldfrom prosecution the corporate agent who knowingly and intentionally causes the corporationto commit a crime. The corporation obviously acts, and can act, only by and through its humanagents, and it is their conduct which the law must deter, The employee or agent of acorporation engaged in unlawful business naturally aids and abets in the carrying on of such

business and will be prosecuted as principal if with knowledge of the business, its purposeand effect, he consciously contributes his efforts to its conduct and promotion, however slight

his contribution may be.26

The law of agency, as applied in civil cases, has no application incriminal cases, and no man can escape punishment when he participates in the commissionof a crime upon the ground that he simply acted as an agent of any party. 27 The culpability ofthe employee therefore hinges on his knowledge of the offense and his active participation inits commission. Where it is shown that the employee was merely acting under the direction ofhis superiors and was unaware that his acts constituted a crime, he may not be held criminallyliable for an act done for and in behalf of his employer. 28

The fundamental issue in this case, therefore, is whether accused-appellant knowingly andintentionally participated in the commission of the crime charged.

We find that he did not.

Evidence shows that accused-appellant interviewed private complainants in the months ofJune, August and September in 1994 at Craftrade's office. At that time, he was employed asinterviewer of Craftrade which was then operating under a temporary authority given by thePOEA pending renewal of its license. 29 The temporary license included the authority to recruit

workers.30 He was convicted based on the fact that he was not registered with the POEA asemployee of Craftrade. Neither was he, in his personal capacity, licensed to recruit overseas

workers. Section 10 Rule II Book II of the Rules and Regulation Governing OverseasEmployment (1991) requires that every change, termination or appointmentof officers,representatives and personnelof licensed agencies be registered with the POEA. Agents orrepresentatives appointed by a licensed recruitment agency whose appointments are not

previously approved by the POEA are considered "non-licensee" or "non-holder of authority"

and therefore not authorized to engage in recruitment activity .31


7/51

Upon examination of the records, however, we find that the prosecution failed to prove thataccused-appellant was aware of Craftrade's failure to register his name with the POEA andthat he actively engaged in recruitment despite this knowledge. The obligation to register itspersonnel with the POEA belongs to the officers of the agency. 32 A mere employee of theagency cannot be expected to know the legal requirements for its operation. The evidence athand shows that accused-appellant carried out his duties as interviewer of Craftrade believingthat the agency was duly licensed by the POEA and he, in turn, was duly authorized by hisagency to deal with the applicants in its behalf. Accused-appellant in fact confined his actionsto his job description. He merely interviewed the applicants and informed them of therequirements for deployment but he never received money from them. Their payments werereceived by the agency's cashier, Josephine Ong. Furthermore, he performed his tasks underthe supervision of its president and managing director. Hence, we hold that the prosecutionfailed to prove beyond reasonable doubt accused-appellant's conscious and activeparticipation in the commission of the crime of illegal recruitment. His conviction, therefore, is

without basis.

This is not to say that private complainants are left with no remedy for the wrong committedagainst them. The Department of Justice may still file a complaint against the officers havingcontrol, management or direction of the business of Craftrade Overseas Developers(Craftrade), so long as the offense has not yet prescribed. Illegal recruitment is a crime of

economic sabotage which need to be curbed by the strong arm of the law. It is important,however, to stress that the government's action must be directed to the real offenders, thosewho perpetrate the crime and benefit from it.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the assailed decision of the Regional Trial Court is REVERSED andSET ASIDE. Accused-appellant is hereby ACQUITTED. The Director of the Bureau ofCorrections is ordered to RELEASE accused-appellant unless he is being held for some othercause, and to REPORT to this Court compliance with this order within ten (10) days fromreceipt of this decision. Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Secretary of theDepartment of Justice for his information and appropriate action. 1wphi1.nt

SO ORDERED.

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 132311. September 28, 2000]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,plaintiff-appellee, vs. MINA LIBRERO, accused-appellant.

D E C I S I O N

BELLOSILLO, J.:

MINA LIBRERO appeals from the Decision of the Regional Trial Court[1]convicting her

of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale in Crim. Case No. 97-593 and eight (8) counts

ofEstafa in Crim. Cases Nos. 97-594, 97-597, 97-598, 97-599, 97-560, 97-561, 97-562 and

97-563.

The Information for Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale charged that in October 1996 in Makati

City accused-appellant Mina Librero, representing herself as having the capacity to deploy

complainants Liza Peclaro, Elizalde Capillo, Elenor Gramonte, Ramonito Bautista, Allan

Joseph Nones, Arthur Osias, Edgar Amparo, Leonardo Fortun, John William Green and

Andres Apatas to either Taiwan or Brunei as factory workers, salesladies or domestic helpers,

in conspiracy with one Ana Laurente, feloniously recruited them and collected from them as

placement fees various amounts ranging from P20,000.00 to P75,000.00 which complainants

paid to the two (2) recruiters who did not possess any license or authority from the Philippine

Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) as required by law and and who were unable to

reimburse the amounts despite demands therefor.[2]

The eight (8) Informations for Estafa under Art. 315, par. 2, subpar. (a), of the Revised Penal

Code charged that on or about October 7 and 25, 1996, November 6, 18, 21 and 27, 1996,

and January 9 and 24 1997, in Makati City, accused-appellant Mina Librero together with Ana

Laurente feloniously recruited John William Green, Leonardo Fortun, Elizalde Caspillo,

Edgar Amparo, Arthur Osias, Allan Joseph Nones, Ramonito Bautista as factory workers in

Taiwan for a consideration ranging from P38,000.00 to P75,000.00, Andres Apatas as a metal

worker in Taiwan for P75,000.00, Liza Peclaro as saleslady in Brunei for P50,000.00 as well

as Elenor Gramonte as domestic helper in Taiwan for P20,000.00 knowing fully well that they

(Mina Librero and Ana Laurente) had no power or lawful authority whatsoever to do so and

succeeded in exacting the aforesaid amounts from complainants to the latter's damage and

prejudice.[3]

Of the ten (10) original complaining witnesses eight (8) testified for the prosecution. CriminalCases Nos. 97-595 and 97-596 were provisionally dismissed with the conformity of
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn3


8/51

complainants Leonardo Fortun and Elizalde Caspillo. [4] Only Mina Librero was tried as Ana

Laurente has remained at large.

ARTHUR OSIAS testified that on 15 November 1996 he went to the KGW International Office

(KGW) at Raman Condominium, Pasong Tamo, Makati City, to apply for a job abroad. [5]There

he met accused-appellant Mina Librero who promised him a job as a factory worker in Taiwan

with a monthly salary of P15,360.00 or its equivalent in Taiwanese dollars.[6] She required him

to submit his passport and NBI clearance and gave him a referral for medical examination.[7]He was told to give P75,000.00 as placement fee for the job abroad. That day he paid

Librero P55,000.00, a fact he noted down in his diary. [8]Upon payment of the balance

of P20,000.00 on 18 November 1996[9]she issued him a receipt for the full amount

of P75,000.00. In the first week of January 1997 when she failed to send him abroad as

agreed Osias demanded from her the refund of his money. Osias never got to leave nor

receive his money back.

ALLAN JOSEPH NONES went to KGW in the second week of November and met accused-

appellant Mina Librero. She told him that if he had P75,000.00 cash for placement fee she

could send him immediately to Taiwan as a factory worker. [10]Nones at once gave

her P65,000.00 on 18 November 1996 and P10,000.00 on 21 November 1996. Librero issued

Nones the corresponding receipts.[11]Then she required him to submit his passport, medical

certificate and NBI clearance, which he promptly submitted, as well as a certificate of

attendance at the Pre-departure Orientation Seminar (PREDOS) which he would submit after

the seminar.

Librero undertook to send Nones abroad in the third week of November 1996. When she

failed to send him as scheduled, she again promised to deploy him in the first week of

December 1996. Nones even waited after the third and fourth promises. But after the first

week of January 1997, he demanded a refund of his money which she could not give. So,

Nones verified Librero's status from the POEA only to find out that she had no license. [12]

RAMONITO BAUTISTA and Mina Librero met on 16 October 1996 at Raman Condominium,

Pasong Tamo, Makati City. Librero represented to Bautista that she could immediately send

him to Taiwan as a factory worker for a monthly salary of P15,000.00 in Taiwanese dollars if

he would shell out P75,000.00.[13]On 19 November 1996 at the KGW office Bautista paid

Librero the P75,000.00 placement fee for which she issued a receipt. [14]

Librero assured Bautista since the last week of November 1996 that she would send him

abroad. However, in the first week of February 1997 Bautista got disgruntled that he went to

Librero's office only to find out that Librero was no longer there. Bautista never got his money

back.[15]

ANDRES APATAS went to the Raman Condominium in Makati City on 18 November 1996 to

apply for the supposed "reserved position" of metal cutter in Taiwan. [16] At KGW he met

Librero who assured him that he could work in Taiwan as metal cutter earning P14,860.00 a

month in Taiwanese dollars if he could give a placement fee of P75,000.00.[17]On 27

November 1996 Apatas gave P75.000.00 to Librero for which the latter issued the

corresponding receipt.[18]When Librero failed to send him abroad and return his money

Apatas filed a complaint with the POEA.[19]

EDGAR AMPARO, in his desire to work abroad, made some inquiries and learned that

somebody from KGW could send workers abroad. On 6 November 1996 he went to the KGW

office where he saw Librero who introduced herself as one of the ranking employees of KGW.[20] She told him that if he submitted pictures, his passport, application form and other

documents as well as P75,000.00 as placement fee she could easily send him

abroad. Although Amparo submitted the required documents he could give only P55,000.00

as downpayment for which Librero gave him a receipt [21] written on a piece of paper.[22]He was

just as unlucky as the others.[23]

ELENOR GRAMONTE heard of Mina Librero from a friend, a certain Ma. Luisa who was also

an applicant for a job abroad. On 24 August 1996 Gramonte went to the KGW where she met

Librero. She told Gramonte that she could deploy her abroad as a domestic helper in Taiwan

if the latter could submit her passport, NBI clearance, medical certificate and P30,000.00 as

placement fee. Gramonte submitted the required documents but paid only P20,000.00 on 24

January 1997[24]for which she was issued a receipt for the amount. [25]

On 10 February 1997, the date she was supposed to be sent abroad, Gramonte went to

Librero's office only to find out that it was already closed. Gramonte looked for Librero at her

home and called her up but she was never deployed abroad; her money was not also

returned.[26]

JOHN WILLIAM GREEN met Librero in Cavite City in September 1996 who told him that she

was recruiting workers for abroad. Interested in taking advantage of the opportunity, Green

went to Raman Bu ilding, Pasong Tamo, Makati City, to apply. He met Librero who assured

him that he could be sent abroad as soon as he give her P45,000.00 as placement fee .[27]So,

on 23 September 1996 Green gave P25,000.00 to Librero who brought him to Amberlyn

Service Contractor Corporation (AMBERLYN) at Pasong Tamo, Makati City. A receipt signed

by Ana Laurente[28]was later issued to Green. Librero then promised Green that he could

leave on or before 14 November 1996. But the trip never materialised, although Green was a

little fortunate than the others. At least he was able to get back from Librero P2,000.00 of

his P25,000.00 placement fee.[29]

LIZA PECLARO also met Librero in Cavite City on 12 November 1996 during its townfiesta. Librero informed her that she could send workers abroad and that she owned KGW.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn29


9/51

[30] On 15 November 1996 Peclaro went to the KGW office in Makati City and filled up

application forms for a saleslady job in Brunei with a monthly salary of P15,000.00 in Brunei

dollars.[31]She also had a medical examination. On 9 January 1997 she paid the P50,000.00

placement fee.[32]Librero however gave a receipt only for P40,000.00 [33] with a promise to

Peclaro that the latter could leave in a week's time. When Librero failed to fulfill her

commitment Peclaro asked for a refund and refused the plane ticket offered to her with her

name on it. She never got a refund.

Edwin Cristobal testified as Senior Labor and Employment Officer of the POEA Licensing

Branch.[34]He confirmed that until 29 January 1997 Librero was not registered with any

licensed agency of the POEA.[35]Cristobal stated that a person should be connected with an

agency in order to recruit workers for overseas jobs because the POEA did not grant

individual licenses.[36]He further explained that all employees of a registered agency

regardless of their positions must be reported to the POEA otherwise they could not be

involved with any recruitment activities.[37]He reiterated that per POEA records Librero was

not listed as a personnel of KGW.[38]

On 29 September 1997 the trial court convicted Mina Librero as charged and rendered

judgment as follows: (a) In Crim. Case No. 97-593 she was sentenced to life imprisonment

and to pay a fine of P500,000.00 and the costs; (b) In Crim. Case No. 97-594 she was

sentenced to suffer imprisonment from six (6) years ofprision correccionalto ten (10) years

ofprision mayor; to pay John William Green the sum of P43,000.00, and to pay the cost; (c) In

Crim. Case No. 97-597 she was sentenced to suffer imprisoment from six (6) years of prision

correccionalto eleven (11) years ofprision mayor, to pay Edgar Amparo P55,000.00, and to

pay the cost; (d) In Crim. Case No. 97-598 she was sentenced to suffer imprisonment from

eight (8) years ofprision mayorto thirteen (13) years of reclusion temporal, to pay Arthur

Osias P75,000.00, and to pay the costs; (e) In Crim. Case No. 97-599 she was sentenced to

suffer imprisonment from eight (8) years ofprision mayorto thirteen (13) years of reclusion

temporal, to pay Allan Joseph Nones P75,000.00, and to pay the costs; (f) In Crim. Case No.

97-600 she was sentenced to suffer imprisonment from eight (8) years of prision mayortothirteen (13) years of reclusion temporal, to pay Ramonito Bautista P75,000.00, and to pay the

costs; (g) In Crim. Case No. 97-601 she was sentenced to suffer imprisonment from eight (8)

years ofprision mayorto thirteen (13) years ofreclusion temporal, to pay Andres

Apatas P75,000.00, and to pay the costs; (h) In Crim. Case No. 97-602 she was sentenced to

suffer imprisoment from six (6) years of prision correccionalto ten (10) years ofprision mayor,

to pay Liza Peclaro P50,000.00, and to pay the costs; and, (i) In Crim. Case No. 97-603 she

was sentenced to suffer imprisonment from two (2) years four (4) months and one (1) day

ofprision correccionalto six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, to pay Elenor

Gramonte P20,000.00, and to pay the costs.

Accused-appellant Librero now assails her conviction and contends that the court a quo erred

(a) in not dismissing the Information as defective for including Ana Asuncion Laurente as co-

accused, whose name and participation have never been mentioned by the complainants

before the POEA or the DOJ; (b) in not taking into account the apparent and obviously

inconsistent statements of complainants, especially as to the number of employees and

condition of Librero's office; (c) in not finding Librero to be a mere employee; (d) in not

blaming the complainants for recklessly giving their money to somebody without prior

verification from the POEA; (e) in not finding that a person as an individual alone could not

secure a license as a recruitment agency and therefore could not be charged with illegal

recruitment without including the management of the agency; and, (f) in not considering the

receipts issued by Librero as those by a mere employee whose amounts she turned over to

co-accused Laurente who is the Vice-President of the agency.

We affirm her conviction. We reject the contention of accused-appellant Librero that the

charges in the Informations against her were defective for the sole reason that Laurente, her

co-accused, was never mentioned by complainants either at the POEA or the DOJ.

It should be noted that the records showed that complainant Green linked Ana Laurente with

Librero's recruiting activities. He testified that accused-appellant brought him over to

Laurente's office where he was given a receipt signed by Laurente.[39]Moreover, the settled

rule is that the determination of who should be criminally charged in court is essentially an

executive function, not a judicial one. As the officer authorized to direct and control the

prosecution of all criminal actions, the prosecutor is tasked to ascertain whether there is

sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that an offense has been committed and

that the accused is probably guilty thereof.[40]Contrarily, accused-appellant in her second,

third, fifth and sixth assigned errors insists that she was only a mere employee of Ana

Laurente. As such, she should be acquitted on the theory that as an employee she need not

secure a license, did not personally profit from the undertaking, and had no knowledge of the

illegality of their recruitment activities.

That accused-appellant was a mere employee of her co-accused Ana Laurente is a matter of

affirmative defense.Thus, it is her duty to prove, with the quantum of evidence required bylaw, the employment relationship between her and Laurente, the legitimacy of the operations

of Laurente's agency and accused-appellant's involvement therein during the period that

complainants relied on her representations. [41] But this, accused-appellant absolutely failed to

do.

Firstly, accused-appellant claims to be an employee of AMBERLYN under Laurente since 1

September 1996. The records of POEA however show that as of 14 February 1997 the name

of Librero did not appear in the list of employees submitted by AMBERLYN.[42]The

presumption then is that she was not an employee of AMBERLYN. As Edwin Cristobal of the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn42


10/51

POEA averred, all the employees, whatever be their positions in the recruitment agency, were

required to be registered with the POEA.

Secondly, defense witness Josephine Basco tried to impress the trial court that she saw

accused-appellant working at AMBERLYN. She even testified to seeing a meeting between

the two (2) on 16 January 1997 wherein Laurente was giving accused-appellant instructions.[43] Yet accused-appellant herself testified that after Laurente was arrested on 22 December

1996, she no longer saw Laurente.[44]

Thirdly, assuming that Basco was telling the truth, the fact is that all the complainants testified

that they all applied at Librero's KGW office. Even Green, whose receipt was signed by

Laurente, applied at KGW and was brought to AMBERLYN only for the receipt signing of his

first payment. Green's second payment was also made at KGW and the receipt signed by

accused-appellant.

Fourthly, accused-appellant did not deny that she knew the complainants. [45] What she denies,

however, is that the recruitment took place at KGW.

The testimonies of the complainants on the matter are affirmative in nature and sufficiently

corroborative of each other to be less than credible. It is hard to imagine how eight (8) people,not knowing each other and residing in different areas far from each other, could fabricate

such a detailed and almost symmetrical

account of their respective unpleasantexperiences with accused-appellant.[46] More so, when

we bear in mind that accused-appellant has denied ever knowing the complainants

before. In People v. Villas[47]we observed that it was contrary to human nature and experience

for persons to conspire and accuse a stranger of a crime that would take the latter's liberty

and send him to prison just to appease their feeling of rejection and vindicate the frustration of

their dreams to work abroad. It is in this light that we find any inconsistencies that accused-

appellant harps on in the testimonies of the complainants to be inconsequential. What is

important is that they have positively identified accused-appellant as their illegal recruiter. [48]

From the foregoing, the question that must be asked is: If accused-appellant indeed worked

for Laurente under AMBERLYN, why was accused-appellant usually seen at work at the KGW

office? It could only mean that the arrangement between Laurente and accused-appellant,

whatever it may be, was not officially acknowledged or sanctioned by AMBERLYN. Hence,

accused-appellant may not be allowed to take refuge behind AMBERLYN's mantle.

What is clear from the evidence on record is that accused-appellant was categorically named

by the complainants as their recruiter. She was the one pointed to by the complainants as

representing herself to have the capacity to send them overseas with cushy jobs waiting for

them. She was the one who received their payments and issued receipts.She informed them

of the requirements for deployment abroad. She named KGW as her office and worked in an

office under the name of KGW. Yet at the time that she was working ostensibly for KGW she

was not in the list of its employees nor was KGW licensed or existing because it was delisted

from the roster of POEA licensed agencies on 16 August 1996. [49]

Thus, the aforementioned facts show that accused-appellant was neither an employee of

AMBERLYN nor of KGW. Not being an employee of registered recruiting agencies, accused-

appellant necessarily had no license to recruit complainants, hence, her promises of

employment abroad for a fee to the eight (8) complainants were tainted with the presumption

of being within the purview of "illegal recruitment" in large scale under Sec. 6 of RA 8042 -

Sec.6. Definition. - For purposes of this Act, illegal recruitment shall mean any act of

canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers and

includes referring, contract services, promising or advertising for employment abroad, whether

for profit or not, when undertaken by a non-license or non-holder of authority contemplated

under Art. 13 (f) of Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, otherwise known as the Labor

Code of the Philippines; Provided, that any such non-licensee or non-holder who, in any

manner, offers or promises for a fee employment abroad to two or more persons shall be

deemed so engaged x x x x Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large

scale shall be considered an offense involving economic sabotage.

Illegal recruitment is deemed committed x x x in large scale if committed against three (3) or

more persons individually or as a group.

Accused-appellant failed to rebut the presumption in the face of the overwhelming evidence of

the prosecution. Her defenses of lack of profit and lack of criminal intent are pointless. It is the

lack of the necessary license or authority which renders the recruitment activity unlawful or

criminal.[50]Worth reiterating is the rule that illegal recruitment in large scale is malum

prohibitum, not malum in se, and the fact alone that a person has violated the law warrants

her conviction.[51]

As if desperate in her bid to free herself from the predicament she was in, accused-appellant

would put the blame on the complainants themselves, imputing recklessness to them in

parting with their money. This Court recognizes the difficult times we are in and realizes that

hopes for a better future for many Filipinos lie in overseas employment. [52]But illegal recruiters

have taken undue advantage of this reality. These present-day predators should not be

allowed to feast on the gullibility of their countrymen whose only desire is to improve their lot.

The Court likewise affirms the conviction of accused-appellant for Estafa committed against

the eight (8) complainants. Conviction under RA 8042 or The Labor Code of the

Philippines does not preclude punishment under the Revised Penal Code for the crime of

estafa.[53]The abovementioned facts established by the prosecution proved that the following

elements of estafa had been committed by accused-appellant, to wit: (a) accused-appellant
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn47http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn48http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn49http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn50http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn50http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn50http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn51http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn52http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn52http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn53http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn53http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn47http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn48http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn49http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn50http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn51http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn52http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn53


11/51

defrauded another by abuse of confidence, or by means of deceit, and (b) the offended party

suffered damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation. [54] However, the trial court

apparently erred in the computation of penalties for estafa. Article 315 of the Revised Penal

Code provides -

Art. 315. Swindling (estafa) - Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means

mentioned herein below shall be punished by:

1st. The penalty ofprision correccionalin its maximum period toprision mayorin its minimumperiod, if the amount of the fraud is over P12,000.00 pesos but does not exceed P22,000.00

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 P10,000.00 pesos; but

the total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such case, and in

connection with the accessory penalties which may be imposed and for the purpose of the

other provisions of this Code, the penalty shall be termedprision mayoror reclusion temporal,

as the case may be; xxxx

Under Sec. 1 of 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. In People v. Gabres[55]we elucidated -

The penalty next lower should be based on the penalty prescribed by the Code for the

offense, without first considering any modifying circumstance 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.

The fact that the amounts involved in the instant case exceed P22,000.00 should not be

considered in the initial determination of the indeterminate penalty; instead, that matter should

be so taken as analogous to modifying circumstances in the imposition of the maximum term

of the full indeterminate sentence. This interpretation of the law accords with the rule that

penal laws should be construed in favor of the accused. Since the penalty prescribed by law

for the estafa charge against accused-appellant isprision correccionalmaximum toprision

mayorminimum, the penalty next lower would then beprision correccionalminimum 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 while the maximumterm of

the indeterminate sentence should at least be six (6) years and one (1) day because the

amounts involved exceeded P22,000.00, plus an additional one (1) year for each

additional P10,000.00.

Accordingly, the penalties imposed by the trial court should thus be modified -

In Crim. Case No.97-594 the amount involved is P43,000.00. Hence, the minimum penalty

should be reduced to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccionalwhich is the

maximum of the allowable minimum penalty of the indeterminate sentence. The maximum

penalty should at least be six (6) years, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days ofprision

mayor(the maximum prescribed by Art. 315) plus a period of two (2) years [one (1) year for

each additional P10,000.00] for a total maximum period of eight (8) years, eight (8) months

and twenty-one (21) days ofprision mayor. The same penalty should also be imposed in Crim.

Case No. 97-602 where the amount involved is P50,000.00.

In Crim. Case No. 97-597 the amount involved is P55,000.00. Again, the minimum penalty

should also be reduced to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional.The

maximum penalty should again be at least six (6) years, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21)

days ofprision mayorplus three (3) years (for each additional P10,000.00) or a total

maximum period of nine (9) years, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days of prision

mayor.

Criminal Cases Nos. 97-598, 97-599, 97-600 and 97-601 involve the uniform amount

of P75,000.00. The minimum penalty in each case should be reduced to four (4) years and

two (2) months ofprision correccional. Each maximum penalty should be eleven (11) years,

eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days of prision mayoras the sum total of at least six (6)

years, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days of prision mayorplus five (5) years [one (1)

year for each additional P10,000.00].

Criminal Case No. 97-603 involves the amount of P20,000.00, thus the penalty imposed by

the court a quo of two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, to six

(6) years and one (1) day of prision mayoris within the proper range.

WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision finding accused-appellant MINA LIBRERO guilty

of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale and eight (8) counts of Estafa is AFFIRMEDsubject to

the MODIFICATION insofar as the penalties therein imposed are concerned -

(1) In Crim. Case No. 97-593 accused-appellant MINA LIBRERO is sentenced to life

imprisonment, and to pay the fine of P500,000.00, plus costs;

(2) In Crim. Cases Nos. 97-594 and 97-602 accused-appellant MINA LIBRERO

is sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision

correccionalas minimum to eight (8) years, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days

ofprision mayoras maximum. She is also ordered to pay John William Green the amount

ofP43,000.00 and Liza Peclaro the amount of P50,000.00, plus the costs;
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn54http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn55http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn54http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/132311.htm#_edn55


12/51

(3) In Crim. Case No. 97-597 accused-appellant MINA LIBRERO is sentenced to an

indeterminate prison term of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccionalas

minimum to nine (9) years, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days of prision mayoras

maximum and to pay Edgar Amparo the sum of P55,000.00 plus the costs;

(4) In Crim. Cases Nos. 97-598 , 97-599, 97-600 and 97-601 accused-appellant MINA

LIBRERO is sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of four (4) years and two (2) months

ofprision correccionalas minimum to eleven (11) years, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21)

days ofprision mayoras maximum, and to pay Arthur Osias, Allan Joseph Nones, Ramonito

Bautista and Andres Apatas each the sum of P75,000.00, plus the costs; and,

(5) In Crim. Case No. 97-603 accused-appellant MINA LIBRERO is sentenced to an

indeterminate prison term of two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day

ofprisioncorreccionalto six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, and to pay Elenor

Gramonte the sum of P20,000.00, plus the costs.

SO ORDERED.

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 135382. September 29, 2000]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,plaintiff-appellee, vs. LOURDES GAMBOAalias Des or Lourdes Gamboa y Golfe, BONIFACIO MIOZA (at large), MELBA MIOZAalias Melba, Eva Mioza (at large) and GLORIA SARMIENTO (at large), accused.

LOURDES GAMBOA alias Des or Lourdes Gamboa y Golfe, accused-appellant.

D E C I S I O N

BELLOSILLO, J.:

This is an appeal from the Partial Decision of the Regional Trial Court finding accused

LOURDES GAMBOA alias Des or Lourdes Gamboa y Golfe guilty of Illegal Recruitment in

Large Scale under RA 8042, otherwise known as TheMigrant Workers and Overseas

Filipinos Act of 1995, and imposing upon her life imprisonment and a fine ofP500,000.00. [1]

From March 1996 to August 1997 the four (4) accused led by Bonifacio Mioza and Melba

Mioza promised overseas employment for a fee to complaining witnesses Marissa Balina,

Anna Marie Pili, Romulo Macaraeg, Ernesto Magadan, Domingo Magadan, Jr., Roger Castro

and Nemia Beri. The accused were then holding office at Room 302, Ermita Building, Arquiza

St., Ermita, Manila, where they conducted most of their recruitment activities. To entice

complainants the accused represented to them that they were affiliated with Bemil

Management Trading and Manpower Services, a duly licensed recruitment agency, and that

they had the capacity to send workers to Taiwan, Brunei and Japan. Thus, on different dates,

complainants went to the office of the accused and filed their applications together with their

NBI Clearances, pictures and other supporting documents. The accused then collected from

them placement fees: (a) Marissa Balina, P40,000.00, (b) Anna Marie Pili, P40,000.00, (c)

Romulo Macaraeg, P25,000.00, (d) Ernesto Magadan, P20,000.00, (e) Domingo Magadan,

Jr., P20,000.00, (f) Roger Castro, P24,000.00, and (g) Nemia Beri, P10,000.00, in addition

to P900.00 for medicare and P70.00 for Pre-Departure Orientation Seminar (PREDOS).

However, despite the promises and assurances made by the accused, not one of the

complainants was deployed for employment abroad, nor were they able to recover the money

they paid to the accused. Hence, complainants lodged separate complaints against the

accused before the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). [2]

On 15 August 1997 PNP Senior Inspector Ligaya Cabal of the POEA-CIG Task Force Anti-

Illegal Recruitment spearheaded a police operation to entrap the accused. Elements of the

PNP together with some members of the media proceeded to Ermita Building and placed it

under surveillance. Police Officer Cabal, who was in civilian clothes, went alone to the office of

the accused in the third floor and posed as a job applicant. The accused inquired if she was

applying as there was a vacancy for chambermaid in Brunei. When Officer Cabal answered

yes, the accused forthwith furnished her bio-data and visa application forms and instructed her

to fill them up.[3]

Officer Cabal promptly accomplished the bio-data and application forms. To obviate any

suspicion on the part of the accused as to her true identity, she used the assumed name"Joy

S. Garcia."[4]The accused then required Officer Cabal to pay the initial amount of P1,500.00

for medical and processing fees. At the instruction of the accused, a certain Teresita

Reyoberos received the marked money from Officer Cabal and issued the correspondingreceipt therefor.[5]The police dragnet having been laid, Officer Cabal with the use of her

cellular phone made the pre-arranged signal to the police operatives waiting outside the

building that the marked money had been delivered. [6]Accused Lourdes Gamboa and Teresita

Reyoberos were thus apprehended, but the rest of their cohorts eluded arrest and remained at

large.

Later, however, Teresita Reyoberos was not included in the criminal information after State

Prosecutor Zenaida M. Lim found that she was also a job applicant at the office of the

accused who merely acceded to the request of accused Melba Mioza to temporarily man the

office in her absence. [7]Consequently, only Lourdes Gamboa was hailed to court and indicted

for Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/135382.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/135382.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/135382.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/135382.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/135382.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/135382.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/135382.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/135382.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/135382.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/135382.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/135382.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/135382.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/135382.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/135382.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/135382.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/135382.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/135382.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/135382.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/135382.htm#_edn7


13/51

In convicting accused-appellant Lourdes Gamboa of the crime charged, the trial court held -

x x x x the proofs adduced by the prosecution have clearly and conclusively demonstrated that

the accused, conspiring and confederating with three others, has offered, enlisted and

promised overseas employment to [complainants]. Against the mass of evidence arrayed by

the prosecution, all that the accused could offer was her bare and unconfirmed denials and

explanation x x x x The court, however, is not inclined to uphold and sustain the denials and

explanations of the accused, which are negative in character and self-serving in nature. Her

unconfirmed version cannot, certainly, outweigh and command greater evidentiary measure

than the overwhelming testimonies of the Peoples principal witnesses, who narrated in vivid

and clear-cut details the various aspects of her recruitment and placement activities.

x x x x the evidence for the People has likewise conclusively established that the accused is

neither personally licensed nor authorized by the POEA to recruit workers for overseas

employment (Exhibit B).Although the defense has shown that the license and authority of the

Bemil Management Trading and Manpower Services to recruit, process and deploy land-

based workers had been renewed and validated for the period from October 26, 1995 to

October 25, 1997 (Exhibit 11), the evidence clearly indicates that the accused was neither an

employee of, nor was she connected with, the said management and manpower services. It

was not also proved that any of her cohorts from whom the accused derived her authority to

recruit workers were authorized personnel of Bemil, notwithstanding the fact that the POEA

has records of the officers and employees of Bemil from the highest to the lowest.

In this appeal, accused-appellant faults the court a quo in finding her guilty of Illegal

Recruitment in Large Scale. The centerpiece of her defense is three-fold: first, the prosecution

failed to prove conspiracy between her and the other accused; second, she was not

responsible for the recruitment of the complaining witnesses nor for their non-deployment

abroad since she was also a job applicant herself at the office of the other accused and was

merely utilized as a worker thereat while waiting for her deployment abroad, just like Teresita

Reyoberos; and third, she cannot be held liable for illegal recruitment since she neverrepresented to the complainants that she had the capacity to send them abroad for

employment.

We find no reason to reverse accused-appellants conviction, hence, we affirm.

Preliminarily, the proliferation of illegal job recruiters and syndicates preying on innocent

people anxious to obtain employment abroad is one of the primary considerations that led to

the enactment of The Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995.[8]Aimed at

affording greater protection to overseas Filipino workers, it is a significant improvement on

existing laws in the recruitment and placement of workers for overseas

employment. Otherwise known as the Magna Carta of OFWs, it broadened the concept ofillegal recruitment under the Labor Code [9] and provided stiffer penalties thereto, especially

those that constitute economic sabotage, i.e., Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale andIllegal

Recruitment Committed by a Syndicate .[10]

In a litany of cases we held that to constitute Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale three (3)

elements must concur: (a) the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to

enable him to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers; (b) the offender

undertakes any of the activities within the meaning of "recruitment and placement" under Art.

13, par. (b), of the Labor Code, or any of the prohibited practices enumerated under Art. 34 of

the same Code (now Sec. 6 of RA 8042); and, (c) the offender committed the same against

three (3) or more persons, individually or as a group .[11]

In the case at bar, there can be no question that the foregoing elements were sufficiently

proved by the prosecution. The POEA certified that accused Melba Mioza and her group,

which included accused-appellant Lourdes Gamboa, were neither licensed nor authorized to

recruit workers for overseas employment.[12] That they recruited seven (7) persons - herein

complaining witnesses Marissa Balina, Anna Marie Pili, Romulo Macaraeg, Ernesto Magadan,

Domingo Magadan, Jr., Roger Castro and Nemia Beri - not to mention Police Officer Ligaya

Cabal, who disguised herself as a job applicant, whom accused-appellant likewise attempted

to recruit. Evidently, the illegal recruiters gavecomplainants the impression that they had the

power and ability to send the latter to work in various foreign destinations, when in fact they

had none. Relying on their assurances and promises of employment abroad, complainants,

with much hope and expectation for immediate deployment, agreed to part with their hard-

earned money to expedite the processing and approval of their applications.

We find no cogent reason likewise to disturb the lower courts findings on the existence of a

conspiracy since each accused played a part in the recruitment of complainants. [13]Indeed, the

testimonies of the complaining witnesses indubitably show a delineation of roles among the

accused. Bonifacio Mioza and Melva Mioza were the managers/heads of the illegal

recruitment office. Gloria Sarmiento was the field recruiter actively enlisting prospective job

applicants together with Bonifacio and Melba Mioza. Accused-appellant Lourdes Gamboawas the office assistant who answered the queries of applicants and performed clerical

work. Conspiracy to defraud aspiring overseas contract workers was evident from the acts o f

the malefactors whose conduct before, during and after the commission of the crime clearly

indicated that they were one in purpose and united in its execution. Direct proof of previous

agreement to commit a crime is not necessary as it may be deduced from the mode and

manner in which the offense was perpetrated or inferred from the acts of the accused pointing

to a joint purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest. [14]As such, all the

accused, including accused-appellant, are equally guilty of the crime of illegal recruitment

since in a conspiracy the act of one is the act of all.

Accused-appellant assails the factual basis of the trial court in ruling that she engaged inillegal recruitment, arguing that she was just an applicant herself whom accused Melba
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/135382.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/135382.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/135382.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/135382.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/135382.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/135382.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/135382.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/135382.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/135382.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/135382.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/135382.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/135382.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/135382.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/135382.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/135382.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/135382.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/135382.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/135382.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/135382.htm#_edn14


14/51

Mioza utilized to help in the office work while waiting for deployment abroad. Her active

participation however in the illegal recruitment process belies her profession of

innocence.Complainant Roger Castro testified -

Q: What else happened?

A: x x x Melba Mioza told Lourdes to prepare the application form, madam.

Q: And what happened next?

A: I was taught by Lourdes how to fill up, madam?

Q: What?

A: The application form, madam.

Q: After filling up the application form, what did you do?

A: x x x Lourdes asked me if I have the money to pay, madam.

Q: And what did you tell her? x x x x

A: I was told that on the 29th after I have paid in a months time I will be able to leave, madam.

Q: And who was telling you these things?

A: It was Lourdes Gamboa who told me that, madam x x x x

Q: x x x but what were those documents being required of you to submit?

A: NBI Clearance, my passport and we have (sic) to undergo training as a bell boy, madam.

Q: Who told you to submit these documents?

A: Lourdes Gamboa, madam.[15]

Complaining witness Nemia Beri testified -

Q: What did Lourdes Gamboa tell you?

A: She told me just to apply with them because if I will apply for Taiwan, it will take a long

time, while in their office just 2 to 3 weeks, [after] I submit the papers.

Q: Why, was she in what country?

A: In Brunei.

Q: As what?

A: Chambermaid.

Q: What else did she tell you as to your employment as chambermaid?

A: What I have to do is to submit all the necessary requirements to her and pay the amount x

x x x

Q: So you submitted those documents, to whom did you say?

A: To Lourdes Gamboa.

Q: Who required you to undergo training?

A: Lourdes Gamboa, everytime I called her up when I am in Bicol, she always told me to

cases batch 2.doc

Documents