Labor 08.20 Digesting

G.R. No.
113161 August 29, 1995
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
LOMA GOCE y OLALIA, DAN GOCE and NELLY D. AGUSTIN,
accused. NELLY D. AGUSTIN, accused-appellant.
REGALADO, J.:
On January 12, 1988, an information for illegal recruitment

committed by a syndicate and in large scale, punishable under
Articles 38 and 39 of the Labor Code (Presidential Decree No.
442) as amended by Section 1(b) of Presidential Decree No.
2018, was filed against spouses Dan and Loma Goce and herein
accused-appellant Nelly Agustin in the Regional Trial Court of
Manila, Branch 5, alleging —
the said accused, conspiring and confederating together

and helping one another, representing themselves to
have the capacity to contract, enlist and transport
Filipino workers for employment abroad, did then and
there willfully and unlawfully, for a fee, recruit and
promise employment/job placement abroad without
first having secured the required license or authority
from the Department of Labor.1
Four of the complainants testified for the prosecution. Rogelio

Salado was the first to take the witness stand and he declared
that sometime in March or April, 1987, he was introduced by
Lorenzo Alvarez, his brother-in-law and a co-applicant, to Nelly
Agustin in the latter's residence at Factor, Dongalo, Parañaque,
Metro Manila. Representing herself as the manager of the Clover
Placement Agency, Agustin showed him a job order as proof that
he could readily be deployed for overseas employment. Salado
learned that he had to pay P5,000.00 as processing fee, which
amount he gave sometime in April or May of the same year. He
was issued the corresponding receipt.9
Also in April or May, 1987, Salado, accompanied by five other
applicants who were his relatives, went to the office of the
placement agency at Nakpil Street, Ermita, Manila where he saw
Agustin and met the spouses Dan and Loma Goce, owners of the
agency. He submitted his bio-data and learned from Loma Goce
that he had to give P12,000.00, instead of the original amount of
P5,000.00 for the placement fee. Although surprised at the new
and higher sum, they subsequently agreed as long as there was
an assurance that they could leave for abroad.10
Thereafter, a receipt was issued in the name of the Clover

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

Aquiles Ortega, applied for a job in Oman with the Clover
Placement Agency at Parañaque, the agency's former office
address. There, Masaya met Nelly Agustin, who introduced
herself as the manager of the agency, and the Goce spouses, Dan
and Loma, as well as the latter's daughter. He submitted several
pertinent documents, such as his bio-data and school
credentials. 14
On November 19, 1993, the trial court rendered judgment finding

herein appellant guilty as a principal in the crime of illegal
recruitment in large scale, and sentencing her to serve the
penalty of life imprisonment, as well as to pay a fine of
P100,000.00. 21
Herein appellant is accused of violating Articles 38 and 39 of the
Labor Code. Article 38 of the Labor Code, as amended by
Presidential Decree No. 2018, provides that any recruitment
activity, including the prohibited practices enumerated in Article
34 of said Code, undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of
authority shall be deemed illegal and punishable under Article 39
thereof. The same article further provides that illegal recruitment
shall be considered an offense involving economic sabotage if any
of these qualifying circumstances exist, namely, (a) when illegal
recruitment is committed by a syndicate, i.e., if it is carried out
by a group of three or more persons conspiring and/or
confederating with one another; or (b) when illegal recruitment is
committed in large scale, i.e., if it is committed against three or
more persons individually or as a group.
Under said Code, recruitment and placement refers to any act of

canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or
procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract services,
promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad,
whether for profit or not; provided, that any person or entity
which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to
two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and
placement. 25 On the other hand, referral is the act of passing
along or forwarding of an applicant for employment after an initial
interview of a selected applicant for employment to a selected
employer, placement officer or bureau. 26
Hence, the inevitable query is whether or not appellant Agustin

merely introduced complainants to the Goce couple or her actions
went beyond that. The testimonial evidence hereon show that she
indeed further committed acts constitutive of illegal recruitment.
All four prosecution witnesses testified that it was Agustin whom
they initially approached regarding their plans of working
overseas. It was from her that they learned about the fees they
had to pay, as well as the papers that they had to submit. It was
after they had talked to her that they met the accused spouses
who owned the placement agency.
As correctly held by the trial court, being an employee of the
Goces, it was therefore logical for appellant to introduce the
applicants to said spouses, they being the owners of the agency.
As such, appellant was actually making referrals to the agency of
which she was a part. She was therefore engaging in recruitment
activity. 27
Despite Agustin's pretensions that she was but a neighbor of the

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

having the ability to send a worker abroad." 29 It is undisputed
that appellant gave complainants the distinct impression that she
had the power or ability to send people abroad for work such that
the latter were convinced to give her the money she demanded in
order to be so employed. 30
It cannot be denied that Agustin received from complainants

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

collections/payments from complainants to appellant." On the
contrary, xerox copies of said receipts/vouchers were presented
by the prosecution. For instance, a cash voucher marked as
Exhibit D, 32 showing the receipt of P10,000.00 for placement fee
and duly signed by appellant, was presented by the prosecution.
Another receipt, identified as Exhibit E, 33 was issued and signed
by appellant on February 5, 1987 to acknowledge receipt of
P4,000.00 from Rogelio and Ramona Salado for "processing of
documents for Oman." Still another receipt dated March 10, 1987
and presented in evidence as Exhibit F, shows that appellant
received from Ernesto Alvarez P2,000.00 for "processing of
documents for Oman." 34
Apparently, the original copies of said receipts/vouchers were

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

prosecution as secondary evidence are not allowable in court, still
the absence thereof does not warrant the acquittal of appellant.
In People vs. Comia, 36where this particular issue was involved,
the Court held that the complainants' failure to ask for receipts
for the fees they paid to the accused therein, as well as their
consequent failure to present receipts before the trial court as
proof of the said payments, is not fatal to their case. The
complainants duly proved by their respective testimonies that
said accused was involved in the entire recruitment process. Their
testimonies in this regard, being clear and positive, were declared
sufficient to establish that factum probandum.
Indeed, the trial court was justified and correct in accepting the
version of the prosecution witnesses, their statements being
positive and affirmative in nature. This is more worthy of credit
than the mere uncorroborated and self-serving denials of
appellant. The lame defense consisting of such bare denials by
appellant cannot overcome the evidence presented by the
prosecution proving her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 37
The presence of documentary evidence notwithstanding, this case

essentially involves the credibility of witnesses which is best left
to the judgment of the trial court, in the absence of abuse of
discretion therein. The findings of fact of a trial court, arrived at
only after a hearing and evaluation of what can usually be
expected to be conflicting testimonies of witnesses, certainly
deserve respect by an appellate court. 38 Generally, the findings
of fact of the trial court on the matter of credibility of witnesses
will not be disturbed on appeal. 39
In a last-ditch effort to exculpate herself from conviction,

appellant argues that there is no proof of conspiracy between her
and the Goce couple as to make her liable for illegal recruitment.
We do not agree. The evidence presented by the prosecution
clearly establish that appellant confabulated with the Goces in
their plan to deceive the complainants. Although said accused
couple have not been tried and convicted, nonetheless there is
sufficient basis for appellant's conviction as discussed above.
In People vs. Sendon, 40 we held that the non-prosecution of

another suspect therein provided no ground for the appellant
concerned to fault the decision of the trial court convicting her.
The prosecution of other persons, equally or more culpable than
herein appellant, may come later after their true identities and
addresses shall have been ascertained and said malefactors duly
taken into custody. We see no reason why the same doctrinal rule
and course of procedure should not apply in this case.
WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment of the court a quo is hereby
AFFIRMED in toto, with costs against accused-appellant Nelly D.
Agustin.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LOMA

GOCE y OLALIA, DAN GOCE and NELLY D. AGUSTIN,
accused, NELLY D. AGUSTIN, accused-appellant.
G.R. No. 113161

August 29, 1995
Facts:
On January 12, 1988, an information for illegal recruitment

committed by a syndicate and in large scale, punishable under
Articles 38 and 39 of the Labor Code (Presidential Decree No.
442) as amended by Section 1(b) of Presidential Decree No.
2018, was filed against spouses Dan and Loma Goce and herein
accused-appellant Nelly Agustin in the Regional Trial Court of
Manila, Branch 5, alleging —
That in or about and during the period comprised between May

1986 and June 25, 1987, both dates inclusive, in the City of
Manila, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring and
confederating together and helping one another, representing
themselves to have the capacity to contract, enlist and transport
Filipino workers for employment abroad, did then and there
willfully and unlawfully, for a fee, recruit and promise
employment/job placement abroad, to (1) Rolando Dalida y
Piernas, (2) Ernesto Alvarez y Lubangco, (3) Rogelio Salado y
Savillo, (4) Ramona Salado y Alvarez, (5) Dionisio Masaya y de
Guzman, (6) Dave Rivera y de Leon, (7) Lorenzo Alvarez y
Velayo, and (8) Nelson Trinidad y Santos, without first having
secured the required license or authority from the Department of
Labor.
Four of the complainants testified for the prosecution. Rogelio

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

applicants who were his relatives, went to the office of the
placement agency at Nakpil Street, Ermita, Manila where he saw
Agustin and met the spouses Dan and Loma Goce, owners of the
agency. He submitted his bio-data and learned from Loma Goce
that he had to give P12,000.00, instead of the original amount of
P5,000.00 for the placement fee. Although surprised at the new
and higher sum, they subsequently agreed as long as there was
an assurance that they could leave for abroad.
Thereafter, a receipt was issued in the name of the Clover

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

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

placement agency requiring them to report to its office because
the "NOC" (visa) had allegedly arrived. Again, around February,
or March, 1987, Rogelio gave P2,000.00 as payment for his and
his wife's passports. Despite follow-up of their papers twice a
week from February to June, 1987, he and his wife failed to leave
for abroad.
Complainant Dionisio Masaya, accompanied by his brother-in-law,

Aquiles Ortega, applied for a job in Oman with the Clover
Placement Agency at Parañaque, the agency's former office
address. There, Masaya met Nelly Agustin, who introduced
herself as the manager of the agency, and the Goce spouses, Dan
and Loma, as well as the latter's daughter. He submitted several
pertinent documents, such as his bio-data and school
credentials.
In May, 1986, Masaya gave Dan Goce P1,900.00 as an initial

downpayment for the placement fee, and in September of that
same year, he gave an additional P10,000.00. He was issued
receipts for said amounts and was advised to go to the placement
office once in a while to follow up his application, which he
faithfully did. Much to his dismay and chagrin, he failed to leave
for abroad as promised. Accordingly, he was forced to demand
that his money be refunded but Loma Goce could give him back
only P4,000.00 in installments.
As the prosecution's fourth and last witness, Ernesto Alvarez took

the witness stand on June 7, 1993. He testified that in February,
1987, he met appellant Agustin through his cousin, Larry Alvarez,
at her residence in Parañaque. She informed him that "madalas
siyang nagpapalakad sa Oman" and offered him a job as an
ambulance driver at the Royal Hospital in Oman with a monthly
salary of about $600.00 to $700.00.
On March 10, 1987, Alvarez gave an initial amount of P3,000.00

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

asserted that Dan and Loma Goce were her neighbors at Tambo,
Parañaque and that they were licensed recruiters and owners of
the Clover Placement Agency. Previously, the Goce couple was
able to send her son, Reynaldo Agustin, to Saudi Arabia. Agustin
met the aforementioned complainants through Lorenzo Alvarez
who requested her to introduce them to the Goce couple, to
which request she acceded.
Denying any participation in the illegal recruitment and

maintaining that the recruitment was perpetrated only by the
Goce couple, Agustin denied any knowledge of the receipts
presented by the prosecution. She insisted that the complainants
included her in the complaint thinking that this would compel her
to reveal the whereabouts of the Goce spouses.
On November 19, 1993, the trial court rendered judgment finding

herein appellant guilty as a principal in the crime of illegal
recruitment.
Issue:
Whether or not Agustin’s act of introducing couple Goce falls

within the meaning of illegal recruitment and placement under Art
13(b) in relation to Art 34 of the Labor Code.
Held:
The testimonial evidence hereon show that she indeed further

committed acts constitutive of illegal recruitment.
All four prosecution witnesses testified that it was Agustin whom

they initially approached regarding their plans of working
overseas. It was from her that they learned about the fees they
had to pay, as well as the papers that they had to submit. It was
after they had talked to her that they met the accused spouses
who owned the placement agency.
As correctly held by the trial court, being an employee of the
Goces, it was therefore logical for appellant to introduce the
applicants to said spouses, they being the owners of the agency.
As such, appellant was actually making referrals to the agency of
which she was a part. She was therefore engaging in recruitment
activity.
There is illegal recruitment when one gives the impression of

having the ability to send a worker abroad. It is undisputed that
appellant gave complainants the distinct impression that she had
the power or ability to send people abroad for work such that the
latter were convinced to give her the money she demanded in
order to be so employed.
WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment of the court a quo is hereby

AFFIRMED in toto, with costs against accused-appellant Nelly D.
Agustin.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 93723-27 May 6, 1994

vs.
ZENAIDA E. VILLAFUERTE, accused-appellant.
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Herrera, Laurel, De los Reyes, Roxas and Teehankee for accused-

appellant.
ROMERO, J.:
This is an appeal from the February 16, 1990 Decision of the

Quezon City Regional Trial Court, Branch 89, finding accused-
appellant Zenaida E. Villafuerte guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of estafa under the Revised Penal Code and illegal
recruitment in large scale under the Labor Code.
Four separate informations for estafa under Art. 315, par. 2(a) of
the Revised Penal Code 1 were filed against appellant on April 10,
1989. The information in Criminal Case No. Q-89-3276 reads as
follows:
That on or about the 13th and the 20th of May 1988 in

Quezon City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with
intent of gain and by means of false pretenses or
fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with
the commission of the fraud, did then and there,
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud one
URSULITO B. MANZANO in the following manner, to
wit: on the date and place aforementioned, accused
falsely pretended to the offended party that she had
connection and capacity to deploy workers for overseas
employment and she could secure
employment/placement for said URSULITO B.
MANZANO, and believing said misrepresentation, the
offended party was later induced to give accused, as in
fact he did give the total amount of P15,660.00,
Philippine Currency, and once in possession of said
amount and far from complying from her commitment
and despite repeated demands made upon her to
return said amount, did then and there, wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously, and with intent to defraud,
misappropriate, misapply and convert the same to her
own personal use and benefit, to the damage and
prejudice of the said offended party in the
aforementioned amount and in such amount as may be
awarded to her under the provisions of the New Civil
Code of the Philippines.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 2
The three other informations contained basically the same

allegations except for the name of the offended party, the
amount involved and the time of the commission of the crime:
Criminal Case No. Q-89-3277 alleged that in April 1988, appellant
defrauded Norberto Cayabyab of the amount of
P16,770.00; 3 Criminal Case No. Q-89-3278 stated that on March
21, 1988, Hermelina D. de Vera was defrauded by the appellant
in the amount of P15,000.00; 4 and Criminal Case No. Q-89-3279
inculpated appellant with having defrauded Isidro A. Arias, Jr. in
the amount of P12,365.00 in April 1988. 5
On the same day, another information for violation of Arts. 38

and 39 of the Labor Code (P.D. No. 442) as amended by P.D. No.
2018 6 was filed against appellant and docketed as Criminal Case
No. Q-89-3280. It states as follows:
That on or about the period comprised from March

1988 up to June 1988, in Quezon City, Philippines and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, without any authority of law,
did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously
recruit and promise employment abroad, to the
following:
1. EDWIN M. ESTABILO — P6,365.00

2. AURORA S. GERONIMO — 7,365.00
3. JOSELITO S. GERONIMO — 7,865.00
4. CLODEVIO E. BALBEDINA — 125.00
5. NORBERTO CAYABYAB — 16,770.00
6. ERLE M. JAVIER — 5,605.00
7. LETICIA M. QUINSAY — 7,500.00
8. URSULITO B. MANZANO — 15,660.00
9. ISIDRO A. ARIAS — 12,365.00
10. ROLANDO E. DE GUIA — 18,365.00
11. HERMILINA D. DE VERA — 15,000.00
12. CATHERINE M. JAVIER — 4,000.00
after requiring them to submit certain documentary

requirements and exacting from them the said amount,
as recruitment fees, such recruitment activities being
done without the required license or authority from the
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration,
Department of Labor.
That the crime described above is committed in large

scale as the same was perpetrated against 3 or more
persons under Articles 38 & 39 of PD 442 as amended.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 7
Upon arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty to the

charges. 8 All five cases were thereafter jointly tried.
The evidence for the prosecution consisted of the testimonies of

private complainants and the receipts issued them.
Prosecution witness Edwin Estabillo 9 testified that in the months

of March and April 1988, his officemate, Sally Valdemina,
introduced appellant to him. Looking for an overseas job, he and
Rolly de Guia, Aurora Geronimo, and Joselito Geronimo went to
appellant's residence in Quezon City. Appellant promised them
jobs abroad and required them to submit their respective filled-up
bio-data forms.
Before the date of his promised departure or on April 27, 1988,

Estabillo gave appellant herself the amount of P6,000.00 for
which the latter signed a receipt in his presence. 10 When
appellant failed to fulfill her promise, some of the complainants
verified with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration
(POEA) and found out that appellant was not authorized to recruit
workers. The POEA, through Hermogenes C. Mateo, chief of its
licensing branch, issued a certification to that effect. 11 Estabillo's
group thereafter verbally requested appellant several times to
return to them the money they had given her as processing fees
but she failed to do so. Hence, Estabillo and the others filed a
complaint against her.
Norberto Cayabyab 12 also applied for a job abroad through

appellant. In April 1988, he submitted his bio-data form, passport
and clearances to appellant at her residence at No. 32, Moore St.,
San Francisco del Monte, Quezon City. Cayabyab gave appellant
in her house the amount of P15,700.00 and P1,020.00 for
"terminal fees" but she signed and issued a receipt only for
P15,750.00. 13 Unable to leave for abroad, Cayabyab sought
verification from the POEA and learned that appellant was not a
licensed recruiter. For several times, they demanded that
appellant return to them the amounts they had given her but to
no avail. When their demands remained unheeded, they filed a
complaint against appellant.
According to Hermelina D. de Vera, 14 sometime in February

1988, appellant went to her house in 61-B Ocampo St., U.P.
Diliman, Quezon City and presented to her certain papers
purportedly showing that appellant was a licensed recruiter.
Enticed to work in Australia, de Vera secured the following papers
required by appellant: NBI clearance, police clearance and her
bio-data. Appellant also asked her to pay a recruitment fee of
P15,000.00 which de Vera gave appellant in the latter's residence
in two (2) payments: P5,000.00 in the first week of March, 1988
and the balance of P10,000.00 a week later. She did not demand
a receipt for the first payment because appellant promised her
that she would issue a receipt upon her payment of the second
installment. It was de Vera herself who prepared the receipt but
appellant signed it in her presence. 15 Appellant kept on
promising her that she would leave for abroad soon. When such
promises were not realized, de Vera went to appellant's house
and demanded the return of her money. Appellant having failed
to give her back the amount, de Vera went to the POEA and
found out that appellant was not a licensed recruiter. Hence, de
Vera and her companions went to the NBI and lodged a complaint
against appellant.
For his part, Ursulito Manzano 16 testified that appellant recruited

him for a janitorial job abroad. As with the others, appellant told
him to get a passport and an NBI clearance and to submit his bio-
data. She also asked Manzano for P600.00 for which no receipt
was issued. The second time around, appellant asked Manzano
for P10,000.00 which he gave and a receipt was correspondingly
issued stating that the amount was "for processing fee." 17 It was
Manzano's father who gave appellant an additional P5,000.00 on
May 20,
1988. 18
Appellant promised him that he would leave for abroad as soon

as he made the payments. However, there were no developments
even after giving her the required amounts. In July 1988, he
demanded from appellant the return of his money but appellant
failed to make the reimbursement. With his companions, they
sought verification from the POEA and was informed that she was
not licensed to recruit.
Isidro Arias, Jr. 19 was promised a cashier's job in London by

appellant sometime in April 1988. Having complied with the
requirements of submission of passport, quarantine certification,
NBI clearance and bio-data, Arias gave appellant the amount of
P12,000.00 on a "staggered basis" — P6,000.00 on April 30,
1988, P3,000.00 on May 3, 1988 and another P3,000.00 on May
9, 1988. All these amounts were covered by receipts signed by
appellant in Arias' presence. 20 Appellant then told Arias that in
one or two weeks' time, he would be leaving for abroad. Arias
waited for the "go signal" from appellant but it never came.
Hence, like the other complainants, he verified from the POEA
about appellant's status as a recruiter and found to his dismay
that appellant was not a licensed recruiter. Consequently, he filed
a complaint with the NBI.
It was towards the end of May 1988 that Leticia Quinsay 21 went
to appellant's residence looking for an overseas job. Appellant
offered her the job of a personal secretary and asked her to
submit the necessary papers and to pay the processing and
placement fees. Quinsay gave appellant an initial payment of
P5,000.00 and on June 7, 1988, a second payment in the amount
of P7,000.00. She paid appellant the said amounts at the latter's
residence in San Francisco del Monte in Quezon City and
appellant issued a temporary receipt therefor but only for
P7,500.00. 22Quinsay followed up her application through
telephone calls but after a month, appellant could not produce
the necessary papers for her employment and those of her
friends Aurora and Joselito Geronimo. Like the rest of the
complainants, Quinsay found out that appellant was not a
licensed recruiter.
The prosecution also presented Hermogenes C. Mateo, the Chief

of the Licensing Division of the POEA, who authenticated the
document he had issued certifying that appellant was "not
authorized in her private capacity to undertake recruitment." 23
The defense presented appellant 24 as its sole witness. She denied

that she had recruited the complainants and asserted that she
"was not the one who got money from them but Rosalina
Balbedina and John del Valle" who were the officemates of the
complainants. Balbedina and del Valle who was her partner in her
scrap iron business in Coto Mines, Zambales were holding office
at 2698-B Dominga St., Malate, Manila so that appellant failed to
see the "actual giving of the money" but del Valle asked her to
prepare the receipts.
Appellant, however, was unable to explain why Estabillo,

Cayabyab, Manzano, Arias, de Vera and Quinsay would file a
complaint against her. Appellant insisted that Balbedina and del
Valle were the recruiters. On cross-examination, appellant
admitted that she did not only prepare the receipts but that she
signed them. However, she qualified this by stating that Exhibits
"D", "G", "H" and "J" were in Balbedina's handwriting but she was
made to sign the receipts.
On February 16, 1990, appellant was convicted in a decision

penned by Judge Rodolfo A. Ortiz, the dispositive portion of which
states:
ACCORDINGLY, judgment is hereby rendered as

follows:
1. Convicting the accused, ZENAIDA E. VILLAFUERTE,

beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa under
Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code
charged in Criminal Case Nos. Q-89-3276. Q-89-3277
and Q-89-3278, and in accordance therewith, the said
accused is sentenced in each case to suffer the
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of from FOUR
(4) YEARS and TWO (2) MONTHS of prision
correccional in its medium period, as the minimum, to
SIX (6) YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS and TWENTY (20)
DAYS of prision mayor in its minimum period, as the
maximum, with all the accessory penalties provided for
by law and to return to: private complainant Ursulito
Manzano the amount of P15,660.00; private
complainant Norberto Cayabyab the amount of
P16,770.00; private complainant Hermelina de Vera the
amount of P15,000.00 as well as to pay the costs in
each case.

beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa under
Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code
charged in Criminal Case No. Q-89-3279. and in
accordance therewith, the said accused is sentenced to
suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of
from FOUR (4) MONTHS and TWENTY (20) DAYS
of arresto mayor in its maximum period, as the
minimum, to TWO (2) YEARS, ELEVEN (11) MONTHS
and TEN (10) DAYS ofprision correccional in its medium
period, as the maximum, with all the accessory
penalties provided for by law and to return to private
complainant Isidro Arias, Jr., the sum of P12,000.00 as
well as to pay the costs.

beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of
Articles 38 and 39 of the Labor Code, as amended,
charged in Criminal Case No. Q-89-3280, and in
accordance therewith the said accused is sentenced to
suffer the penalty of life imprisonment, or reclusion
perpetua, and to pay a fine of P100,000.00 without
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency since the
penalty imposed is more than prision correccional and
to return to: private complainant Aurora S. Geronimo
the amount of P7,000.00; private complainant Joselito
Geronimo the amount of P7,400.00; private
complainant Erle Javier the amount of P5,000.00;
private complainant Leticia M. Quimsay (sic) the
amount of P7,500.00 and to private complainant
Rolando de Guia the amount of P8,000.00 and to pay
the costs.
The accused being detained, and conformably with the

practice in the Quezon City Jail for all detention
prisoners to agree in writing that they be governed by
the same rules concerning convicted prisoners, she is
credited with the full extent of the period during which
she was under detention.
SO ORDERED. 25
Hence, the instant appeal wherein appellant contends that the

trial court erred in declaring that (a) she received the monies
from the offended parties and (b) she recruited the offended
parties for overseas employment.
It is the position of appellant that she did not actually receive the
money from the complainants but was merely instructed by del
Valle and/or Balbedina to sign the receipts. Because of this, the
receipts do not express the true intent and agreement of the
parties. Therefore, parol evidence consisting of her testimony
should be admitted in accordance with Section 9, Rule 130 of the
Rules of Court. Moreover, appellant avers that assuming she
issued the receipts and received the money, it is not conclusive of
the fact that she recruited the complainants.
We view this position of the appellant as a pathetic and belated

attempt to extricate herself from the situation she had single-
handedly gotten herself into.
Appellant admitted that she prepared and signed all the receipts
except Exhibits "D", "G", "H" and "J" which were supposedly in
Balbedina's handwriting but were signed by her as instructed by
the former. That someone else prepared the receipt is not
material as even prosecution witness Hermelina D. de Vera
testified that she wrote the receipt and accused simply signed it.
What is important is that private complainants were united in
stating that appellant personally signed the receipts in their
presence after receiving money from them. 26
Her allegation that she did not actually receive the monies given
by the complainants is worthless considering that it is based on
her own self-serving testimony. By her failure to present the
persons who were allegedly responsible for the recruitment of
private complainants, appellant risked the adverse inference and
legal presumption that evidence suppressed would be adverse if
produced. 27 In People v. Bodozo, 28 the appellants therein
similarly tried to exculpate themselves by passing on the liability
to third persons. The Court in rejecting such argument explained:
Accused-appellants point to a certain Belen Hernandez,

a manager of Mcgleo International Management and
Service Contractor a duly registered and licensed
recruiter, and Jing Evangelista of Ultragen, Inc. as the
persons who were responsible for the recruitment of
private complainants. If such allegations were true,
why did accused-appellants not present any one of
them as witness to corroborate their claim? For reasons
only known to them, they chose to suppress such
testimony as evidence and instead risked the adverse
inference and legal presumption that "evidence wilfully
suppressed would be adverse if produced."
Besides, if it was Belen Hernandez and Jing Evangelista

who were the recruiters, why did accused-appellants
issue the receipts acknowledging payments made by
private complainants.
Accused-appellant Nimfa Bodozo alleged that she was

forced to issue and sign receipts marked as Exhibits J
and N because private complainants Prudencio Renon
and Fernando Gagtan were mad and refused to leave
the house. On the other hand, accused-appellant Joey
Bodozo claimed that he, too, was forced to issue and
sign Exhibits L and E at Kalaw Street, Ermita, Manila
because private complainants Angelino Obiacoro and
Domingo Obiacoro would kill him.
We find accused-appellant's alibi not convincing. Such

allegations are self-serving. No evidence of force was
represented by accused-appellant Nimfa Bodozo to
bolster her claim that she was forced except to state
that she was afraid of private complainants' anger. In
the case of accused-appellant Joey Bodozo, it will be
noted that the alleged force happened in a busy public
street. Neither did the accused-appellants file any case
against private complainants for forcing them to sign
and issue said receipts. At most, their claim of force
may be said to be merely an afterthought to exculpate
themselves from the charges levelled against them by
private complainants. 29
Appellant denied that she ever recruited private complainants to
work abroad. Such denial will not prevail over the positive
testimony of private complainants that appellant was the person
who promised them employment abroad, who received money
from them as placement fees, processing fees or terminal fees
and required them to submit such documents as NBI clearance,
bio-data, passport, etc. The undisputable fact was that she gave
private complainants the distinct impression that she had the
power or ability to send people abroad for work so that they were
convinced to give her the money she demanded to enable them
to be employed abroad. 30 Moreover, appellant was not able to
explain what motivated private complainants in filing the cases
against her. The absence of evidence as to an improper motive
actuating the principal witnesses of the prosecution strongly
tends to sustain no improper motive existed and their testimony
is worthy of full faith and credit. 31 Accused-appellant's denial
cannot prevail over the positive assertions of complainants who
had no motive to testify falsely against her except to tell the
truth. 32
The dispositive portion of the lower court's decision must be

modified in accordance with the following guidelines. Firstly, in
the charge of illegal recruitment committed in large scale or
involving economic sabotage, the appealed decision sentenced
appellant "to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment or reclusion
perpetua, and to pay a fine of P100,000.00 . . ." Once again, we
point out that the penalty of reclusion perpetua, not being
synonymous with life imprisonment, is imposable only on crimes
committed under the Revised Penal Code. The penalty that
attaches to a violation of Article 38 of the Labor Code, as
amended, is life imprisonment and a fine of One Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00). 33 Secondly, the amounts
ordered to be reimbursed to private complainants Ursulito
Manzano and Norberto Cayabyab were those stated in the
information, i.e., P15,660.00 and P16,770.00, respectively.
However, during the trial, they were able to prove that they
incurred only the amounts of P15,600.00 and P16,720.00,
respectively. Thirdly, other discrepancies with respect to private
complainant Joselito Geronimo are: the information showed that
he paid P7,865.00; the lower court ordered reimbursement of
P7,400.00 while the receipt showed he paid P7,500.00
Except for the foregoing modifications, the Court finds every

reason to affirm the rulings of the lower court finding appellant
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the charge of illegal
recruitment in large scale or involving economic sabotage under
Article 38 in relation to Article 39 of P.D. No. 442, as amended by
P.D. No. 2018, in Criminal Case No. Q-89-3280 and of four
counts of estafa through false pretenses under Article 315, par.
2(a) of the Revised Penal Code in Criminal Cases Nos. Q-89-
3276, Q-89-3277, Q-89-3278 and Q-89-3279. The Court accords
great respect to the factual findings of the lower court. This
applies with greater force to criminal cases which generally hang
on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies, for it is the
trial court which has the fullest opportunity to observe the
demeanor of witnesses as they testify. 34
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED subject

to the deletion of the phrase "or reclusion perpetua" and the
modification in the amounts to be reimbursed to the following
complainants, as properly proved during the trial:
1. Ursulito Manzano — P15,600.00

2. Norberto Cayabyab — 16,720.00
3. Joselito Geronimo — 7,500.00
G.R. No. 96621 October 21, 1992

vs.
JOEY BODOZO y BULA, and NIMFA BODOZO y
NERI, accused-appellant.
CAMPOS, JR., J.:

This is an appeal 1 interposed by accused Joey Bodozo and Nimfa
Bodozo, husband and wife, from the decision 2of the Regional
Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region, Branch XLIX, Manila,
in Criminal Case Nos. 89-73608-SCC to 89-73613-SCC, finding
them guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal
recruitment defined in and penalized by Article 13 in relation to
Article 38 of the Labor Code, as amended, and sentencing each of
them to suffer the penalty of Life Imprisonment.
Accused-appellants were charged before the Regional Trial Court

with five (5) counts of Estafa (docketed as Criminal Case No. 89-
73609 to 89-73613) and a separate charge for Illegal
Recruitment (docketed as Criminal Case NO. 89-73608).
With regards to the charge of Estafa, accused-appellants were

acquitted of the crime charged. hence this appeal refers only to
the crime of illegal recruitment.
On May 30, 1989, the Assistant Prosecutor filed the following

information for illegal recruitment against Joey Bodozo and Nimfa
Bodozo, to wit:
The undersigned accused JOEY BODOZO y BULA and

NIMFA BODOZO y NERI of a violation of Article 38 (a),
Presidential Decree No. 1412, amending certain
provisions of Book I, Presidential Decree No. 442 (New
Labor Code of the Philippines), in relation to Article 13
(b) and (c) of said Code, as further amended by
Presidential Decree No. 1693 and Presidential Decree
No. 1920, committed in a large scale, as follows:
That in or about and during the period comprised

between October 3, 1988 and April 8, 1989, in the City
of Manila, Philippines, the said accused conspiring and
confederating together and mutually helping each
other, representing themselves to have the capacity to
contract, enlist and transport Filipino workers for
employment abroad, did then and there wilfully and
unlawfully, for a fee, recruit and promise
employment/job placement abroad to Domingo
Obiacoro y Gagtan, Ludivico Gagtan y Lopez, Angelino
Obiacoro y Aspiras, Prudencio Renon y Lopez and
Fernando Gagtan y Lopez, without first having secured
the required license or authority from the Department
of Labor and Employment.
Contrary to Law. 3
On arraignment, accused-appellants, Joey Bodozo and Nimfa

Bodozo, assisted by their counsel de oficio, pleaded not guilty to
the information.
On July 6, 1990, the trial court rendered judgment, the decretal

portion of which reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in these

cases as follows:
1. In People versus Joey Bodozo and Nimfa Bodozo,

Criminal Case No. 89-73608, the Court finds both
Accused guilty, beyond reasonable doubt, of the crime
of illegal recruitment defined in and penalized by Article
13 in relation to Article 38 of the Labor Code, as
amended, and hereby metes on each of them the
penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and hereby condemns
each of them "to pay" a fine of P100,000.00, without
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
2. In People versus Joey Bodozo and Nimfa Bodozo,

Criminal Case Nos. 89-73609 to 89-73613, the Court
finds that the Prosecution failed to establish the guilt of
the Accused beyond reasonable doubt for the crimes
charged therein and hereby acquits them of said
charges.
Both Accused are hereby ordered to refund, jointly and

severally, to the following Private Complainants the
amounts appearing opposite their respective names, as
follows:
1. Prudencio Renon P19,000.00
2. Fernando Gagtan 20,000.00
3. Angelino Obiacoro 20,000.00
4. Ludovico Gagtan 10,000.00
With costs against the accused.
SO ORDERED. 4
Hence the instant appeal by the accused Joey Bodozo and Nimfa
Bodozo.
Accused-appellants raised the following assignment of errors, to

wit:
IN FAILING TO APPRECIATE THE QUANTUM OF

EVIDENCE IN FAVOR OF THE CLAIM OF BOTH
ACCUSED THAT THEY ONLY HELPED THE PRIVATE
COMPLAINANTS APPLIED FOR JOB ABROAD, THAT
THEY WERE NOT RECRUITERS.
II
IN HOLDING THAT THE PROSECUTION HAS

MARSHALLED THE DEGREE OF PROOF WHICH
PRODUCED THE CONVICTIONS OF BOTH ACCUSED.
The main thrust of this case hinges on whether or not the guilt of
the accused-appellants have been proven beyond reasonable
doubt.
As found by the trial court, the facts as could be gleaned from the
evidence on record, were as follows:
When the accused Nimfa Bodozo was in Luna, La,

Union, she told the private complainants, who are
simple farmers, and at the time unemployed, that she
was recruiting workers for employment in Saudi Arabia
and Singapore. The accused Nimfa Bodozo required the
five (5) private complainants to submit to her, in
addition to their respective applications, NBI clearances
and medical certificates in connection with their
applications. The private complainants Prudencio Renon
and Fernando Gagtan were told by the accused Nimfa
Bodozo that their salary in Saudi Arabia was
US$200.00 a month, while the accused Nimfa Bodozo
assured private complainant, Angelino Obiacoro,
Ludovico Gagtan and Domingo Obiacoro that they were
going to be paid, by their respective employers, in
Singapore, the amount of Singapore 16.00 dollars a
day. The private complainant Prudencio Renon and
Fernando Gagtan submitted their application forms,
duly filled up, passports, their NBI clearances and
medical certificates to the accused Nimfa Bodozo in
their residence at Quirino Avenue, Manila, Domingo
Obiacoro, Angelino Obiacoro and Ludovico Gagtan
likewise submitted to the accused their NBI clearances
and medical certificates as required by the accused.
Moreover, the accused demanded from the private
complainant Prudencio Renon the amount of
P19,000.00 in connection with his application for
employment abroad. Of the said amount, P15,000.00
was to be used by the accused as processing fee for the
application and papers of the private complainant for
his employment abroad Prudencio Renon paid to the
accused Nimfa Bodozo, on October 3, 1988, the
amount of P15,000.00 for which the said accused
signed a Receipt. 5 The mother of Prudencio Renon paid
the balance of P4,000.00 to the same accused but the
latter did not issue any receipt for said amount.
The accused Nimfa Bodozo demanded from the private

complainant Fernando Gagtan the amount of
employment abroad. Fernando Gagtan paid to the
accused Nimfa Bodozo, also on October 3, 1988, the
amount of P12,000.00 for which the said accused
signed and issued Receipts 6 and the amount of
P8,000.00 through Maxima Gagtan the mother of
Fernando Gagtan, for which the accused Nimfa Bodozo
issued a Receipt dated April 8, 1989. 7
The accused Nimfa Bodozo demanded from Domingo

Obiacoro the amount of P20,000.00 in connection with
hi application for employment abroad. Of the amount,
P10,000.00 will be used for the purchase of a plane
ticket for the private complainant for Singapore and the
balance of P10,000.00 was to be used as placement fee
for the application of the private complainant for
employment abroad. Domingo Obiacoro paid
P10,000.00 to the accused Nimfa Bodozo in the house
of the friend of the accused in Luna, La Union but the
accused did not issue any Receipt for the amount at the
time. Domingo Obiacoro paid the balance of
P10,000.00 to the accused Nimfa Bodozo in the house
of the accused Joey Bodozo later signed and issued a
Receipt for the said amount of P20,000.00. 8
The accused Joey Bodozo demanded from Angelino

Obiacoro the payment of P20,000.00 in connection with
the latter's application for employment abroad.
Angelino Obiacoro gave to the accused Joey Bodozo the
amount of P10,000.00 in two (2) installments on
different occasion for which the accused Joey Bodozo
later signed and issued a Receipt. 9
The accused Joey Bodozo likewise demanded from
Ludovico Gagtan the payment of the amount of
employment abroad. Ludovico Gagtan, through his
mother, Maxima Gagtan, gave to the accused Nimfa
Bodozo the amount of P10,000.00 but the latter failed
to issue any receipt at that time. However, considering
that the private complainant did not have the amount
of P10,000.00 to pay the balance of the P20,000.00
demanded by the accused, but the latter offered to
advance the amount for the account of private
complainant for which the latter and his mother,
Maxima Gagtan, signed a "Promissory Note" in favor of
the accused Joey Bodozo.10 However, the accused
added the amount of P4,000.00 to the P10,000.00
purportedly advanced by the accused for the private
complainant by the way of interests on said loan. The
accused Nimfa Bodozo later signed and issued a
Receipt 11 for the amount of P10,000.00 remitted to her
by the mother of Ludivico Gagtan. 12
After a careful scrutiny of the evidence, We found no cause to

disapprove the facts as stated above and we adopt the same as
Our findings of facts. In the absence of any substantial proof that
the trial court's decision was grounded entirely on speculations,
surmises or conjectures, the same must be accorded full
consideration and respect. After all, the trial court is in a much
better position to observe and correctly appreciate the respective
parties' evidence as they were presented. 13
The crime of illegal recruitment is defined under Article 38 (a) in

relation to Article 13 (b) and 34, and penalized under Article 39 of
the Labor Code as amended by PD 1920 and PD 2018.
Article 38 (a) of the Labor Code provides as follows:
Art. 38. Illegal Recruitment. — (a) Any recruitment

activities, including the prohibited practices
enumerated under Article 34 of this Code, to be
undertaken by the non-licensees or non-holders of
authority shall be deemed illegal and punishable under
Article 39 of this Code. The Ministry of Labor and
Employment or any law enforcement officer may
initiate complaints under this Article. (Emphasis
supplied.)
Under Article 13 (b) Recruitment and Placement is

defined as:
Any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting

transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers and
includes referrals, contract services, promising or
advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether
for profit or not. Provided that any person or entity
which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee
employment to two or more persons shall be deemed
engaged in recruitment and placement. (Emphasis
supplied.)
It should be noted that any of the acts mentioned in Article 13 (b)

can lawfully be undertaken only by the licensees or holders of
authority to engage in the recruitment and placement workers.
The crime of illegal recruitment has two elements:
1 The offender is a non-license or non-holder of

authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment or
placement of workers; and
2 That the offender undertakes either any recruitment

activities defined under Article 13 (b), or any prohibited
practices enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor
Code.
In this case at bar, it is undisputed that accused-appellants Joey

Bodozo and Nimfa Bodozo are neither licensed not authorized to
recruit workers for overseas employment as shown by the
certification 14 issued by the Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration (POEA).
Accused-appellants want this Court to believe that they merely

helped private complainants apply for overseas employment.
Evidences on record, however, show otherwise. Accused-
appellants not only asked private complainants to fill up
application forms but also to submit to them their NBI clearances,
passports and medical certificates. In addition thereto, accused-
appellants collected payment for processing fee and other sundry
expenses from private complainants, all which constitutes acts of
recruitment within the meaning of the law.
Accused-appellants point to a certain Belen Hernandez, a

manager of Mcgleo International Management and Service
Contractor a duly registered and licensed recruiter, and Jing
Evangelista of Ultragen, Inc. as the persons who were responsible
for the recruitment of private complainants. If such allegations
were true, why did accused-appellants not present any one of
them as witness to corroborate their claim? For reasons only
known to them, they chose to suppress such testimony as
evidence and instead risked the adverse inference and legal
presumption that "evidence wilfully suppressed would be adverse
if
produced. 15
Besides, if it was Belen Hernandez and Jing Evangelista who were

the recruiters, why did accused-appellants issue the
receipts 16 acknowledging payments made by private
complainants?
Accused-appellants Nimfa Bodozo alleged that she was forced to

issue and sign receipts marked as Exhibits J and N because
private complainants Prudencio Renon and Fernando Gagtan were
mad and refused to leave the house. On the other hand, accused-
appellant Joey Bodozo claimed that he, too, was forced to issue
and sign Exhibits L and E at Kalaw Street, Ermita, Manila because
private complainants Angelino Obiacoro and Domingo Obiacoro
would kill him.
We find accused-appellants' alibi not convincing. Such allegations

are self-serving. No evidence of force was represented by
accused-appellant Nimfa Bodozo to bolster her claim that she was
forced except to state that she was afraid of private
complainants' anger. In the case of accused-appellant Joey
Bodozo, it will be noted that the alleged force happened in a busy
public street. Neither did the accused-appellants file any case
against private complainants for forcing them to sign and issue
said receipts. At most, their claim of force may be said to be
merely an afterthought to exculpate themselves from the charges
levelled against them by private complainants.
Moreover, We agree with the findings of the trial court that no

improper motives may be attributed to private complainants to
charge accused-appellants with a serious crime as illegal
recruitment.
Records show that private complainants are simple farmers,

unemployed and natives of La Union, who see employment
abroad as a means to alleviate their living conditions, only to find
out that they have been the victims of illegal recruiters preying
on poor workers. It has been held that "the abscence of evidence
as to an improper motive actuating the principal witnesses of the
prosecution strongly tends to sustain no improper motive existed
and their testimony is worthy of full faith and credit. 17
Lastly , under Article 38 of the Labor Code, as amended, the

crime of illegal recruitment is qualified when the same is
committed against three (3) or more persons, individually or as a
group. Accused-appellant having committed the crime of illegal
recruitment against Prudencio Renon, Fernando Gagtan, Angelino
Obiacoro and Ludovico Gagtan, the penalty of life imprisonment
and the fine of P100,000.00 (Article 39 (a) Labor Code of the
Philippines as amended) was correctly imposed by the trial court.
In the light of foregoing findings and for reasons indicated, We
hold that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict finding
the accused guilty of the crime of illegal recruitment as charged.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Regional Trial Court is hereby
AFFIRMED with no pronouncement to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Feliciano, Regalado and Nocon, JJ., concur.
Narvasa, C.J., is on leave.
[G.R. Nos. 120835-40. April 10, 1997.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TAN

TIONG MENG alias "TOMMY TAN", Accused-Appellant.
The Solicitor General for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Public Attorney’s Office for Accused-Appellant.
SYLLABUS
1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY;

PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT; ESTABLISHED. — Several
revealing circumstances belie the version for the defense. And
there is no showing that any of the complainants had ill-motives
against Tan other than to bring him to the bar of justice. The
testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution were straight-
forward, credible and convincing. The constitutional presumption
of innocence in Tan’s favor has been overcome by proof beyond
reasonable doubt and we affirm his convictions.
2. LABOR LAW; ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT IN LARGE SCALE;

COMMITTED IN CASE AT BAR; PENALTY. — Accused-appellant’s
acts of accepting placement fees from job applicants and
representing to said applicants that he could get them jobs in
Taiwan constitute recruitment and placements defined under the
Labor Code. The same Labor Code prohibits any person or entity,
not authorized by the POEA, from engaging in recruitment and
placement activities, thus, the POEA living certified that accused-
appellant is not authorized to recruit workers for overseas
employment, it is clear that the offense committed against the six
(6) complainants in this case is illegal recruitment in large scale
punishment under Article 39 (a) of the Labor Code with life
imprisonment and a fine of One Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P100,000.00). The argument that the deceit employed was not
by accused-appellant is ridiculous. All the complainants agreed
that it was accused-appellant Tan who assured them of jobs in
Taiwan. The assurances were made intentionally to deceive the
would-be job applicants to part with their money.
3. CRIMINAL LAW; PERSON CONVICTED FOR ILLEGAL

RECRUITMENT CAN ALSO BE CONVICTED FOR ESTAFA;
ELEMENTS. — A person convicted for illegal recruitment under the
Labor Code can be convicted for violation of the Revised Penal
Code provision on estafa provided the elements of the crime are
present. Thus: a) that the accused defrauded another by abuse of
confidence or by means of deceit, and b) that damage or
prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the
offended party or third person. Both elements have been proven
in this case.
4. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; STATE POLICIES; ON LABOR;

CAMPAIGN AGAINST ILLEGAL RECRUITERS. — The campaign and
drive against illegal recruiters should be continuous and
unrelenting. Government should not be content with bringing to
justice but a number of these diabolic denizens of society who
thrive on the dreams of our countrymen of having a better life.
Only when the last of their tribe has been convicted and punished
can the government rightfully claim that it has fulfilled the
constitutional mandate to protect the rights and promote the
welfare of workers.
DECISION
PADILLA, J.:
Accused-appellant Tan Tiong Meng alias "Tommy Tan" was

charged with Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale and six (6) counts
of estafa.chanrobles.com : virtual law library
The information for large scale illegal recruitment

reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"That on or about the period comprising June 1993 to August,

1993, in the City of Cavite, Republic of the Philippines and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, using a business name RAINBOW SIM FACTORY, a
private employment recruiting agency, and misrepresenting
himself to have the capacity to contract, enlist and transport
Filipino workers for employment abroad with the ability to
facilitate the issuance and approval of the necessary papers in
connection therewith, when in fact he did not possess the
authority or license from the Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration to do so, did, then and there, wilfully, unlawfully
and knowingly for a fee, recruit in a large scale and promise
employment in Taiwan to the following persons, to
wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
Ernesto Orcullo y Nicolas P15,000.00
Manuel Latina y Nicanor P15,000.00
Neil Mascardo y Guiraldo P15,000.00
Librado C. Pozas P15,000.00

Edgardo Tolentino y Vasquez P15,000.00
Cavino Asiman P15,000.00
as in fact, the said persons gave and delivered the abovestated

amount, respectively, to the herein accused who know fully well
that the aforesaid persons could not be sent to Taiwan, to the
damage and prejudice of said aforementioned private
complainants." 1
The informations for estafa aver substantially the same

allegations as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"In Criminal Case No. 277-93:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
That on or about June 7, 1993, in the City of Cavite, Republic of

the Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the above-named accused by means of false representations that
he can secure an employment in Taiwan for Ernesto Orcullo y
Nicolas as a factory worker induced the latter to entrust to him
the amount of P15,000.00, in consideration of the promised
employment, but the herein accused, once in possession of the
amount, with intent to defraud, with grave abuse of confidence
and without fulfilling his promise, did, then and there, wilfully,
unlawfully and knowingly, misapply, misappropriate and convert
the same to his own personal use and benefit and
notwithstanding repeated demands made upon him for the return
of the amount, Accusedherein failed and refused to do so, to the
damage and prejudice of Ernesto Orcullo y Nicolas in the amount
of P15,000.00, Philippine Currency." 2
The other informations for estafa involve the following

complainants and amounts.
1) Neil Mascardo P15,000.00
2) Manuel Latina P15,000.00

3) Ricardo Grepo P20,000.00
4) Librado Pozas P15,000.00
5) Gavino Asiman P15,000.00
Accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to all the informations and

all seven (7) cases were tried jointly.
On 12 May 1995, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 88, Cavite City
rendered a decision * the dispositive part of which
reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as

follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
1. In Criminal Case No. 278-93, the Court finds the accused

GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal
recruitment in large scale defined and penalized under Article 38
of the Labor Code, as amended in relation to Article 39 thereof,
and hereby sentences him to a penalty of life imprisonment, and
to pay a fine of P100,000, without subsidiary imprisonment in
case of insolvency;chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary

GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa defined
and penalized under Article 315 (2) (a) of the Revised Penal Code
and hereby sentences him to a penalty of imprisonment of two
(2) years as minimum, to six (6) years as the maximum; and to
pay ERNESTO ORCULLO the sum of P15,000 as actual damages
and P15,000 as moral and exemplary damages;

and penalized under Article 315 (2) (a) of the Revised Penal
Code, and hereby sentences him to a penalty of imprisonment of
two (2) years as minimum, to six (6) years as the maximum, and
to pay NEIL MASCARDO the sum of P15,000 as actual damages
and P15,000 as moral and exemplary damages;

and penalized under Article 315 (2) (a) of the Revised Penal Code
and hereby sentences him to a penalty of imprisonment of two
(2) years as minimum, to six (6) years as maximum; and to pay
MANUEL LATINA the sum of P15,000 as actual damages, and
P15,000 as moral and exemplary damages;

two (2) years as minimum, to six (6) years as maximum; and to
pay RICARDO GREPO the sum of P20,000 as actual damages and

two (2) years as minimum, to six (6) years as maximum and to
pay LIBRADO POZAS the sum of P15,000 as actual damages and

two (2) years as minimum, to six (6) years as maximum; and to
pay GAVINO ASIMAN the sum of P15,000 as actual damages and
P15,000 as moral and exemplary damages.
In addition to the foregoing penalties, the accused being an alien,

shall be deported without further proceedings after service of
sentence.
In the service of his sentence, the accused shall be credited with
the full time during which he underwent preventive
imprisonment, provided he voluntarily agreed in writing to abide
by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners,
otherwise, he shall be credited with only four-fifths (4/5) thereof
(Article 29, RPC, as amended by RA No. 6127 and BP Blg. 85).
SO ORDERED." 3
On appeal to this Court, Accused-appellant assigns a single error

allegedly committed by the trial court,
thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED

GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE OFFENSE OF
ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT IN A LARGE SCALE UNDER CRIMINAL
CASE NO. 278-93 AND ESTAFA IN CRIMINAL CASE NOS. 277-93,
279-93, 280-93, 343-93, 365-93, AND 371-93." 4
The case for the prosecution averred the following

facts:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
Gavino Asiman testified that a certain Jose Percival Borja who

was a friend of his relative informed him that a job recruiter
would be at Borja’s house at Capt. Villareal St., Cavite City, in
case anyone was interested in an overseas job in Taiwan. Asiman
further recalled that on 18 August 1993, he and his friend,
Librado Pozas went to Borja’s house where they met the accused-
appellant who told them he could get them jobs as factory
workers in Taiwan with a monthly salary of P20,000.00. Accused-
appellant required them to submit their passport, bio-data and
their high school diploma as well as to pay P15,000.00 each for
placement and processing fees. The former issued two (2)
receipts which he signed in the presence of Asiman and Pozas. 5
Accused-appellant assured them that they could leave for Taiwan
twelve (12) days later. Asiman stated that they filed the
complaints for illegal recruitment when they learned that
accused-appellant was arrested for illegal recruitment activities.
Librado Pozas corroborated the testimony of Asiman. He added
that Borja had no participation in the offense as his house was
merely used as a meeting place by Accused-Appellant.
Neil Mascardo testified that he met accused-appellant through a

friend and also through Jose Borja. Mascardo narrated that on 7
July 1993, he went to Borja’s house to meet accused-appellant
who assured him of getting him an employment in Taiwan at the
Rainbow Ship Co., a marble and handicraft factory with a monthly
salary of P20,000.00. He further testified that he paid P15,000.00
to accused-appellant for placement and processing fees as shown
by a receipt signed by Accused-Appellant. 6 Accused-appellant
first told him he could leave on 15 July 1993. When he later
inquired about his departure date, Accused-appellant told him he
could leave by the end of July 1993. After July, Accused-appellant
told him he would leave on 15 August 1993 together with his
uncle Manuel Latina. When he failed to leave on the last
mentioned date and accused-appellant told him he would leave
on 28 August 1993, Mascardo told accused-appellant he wanted
his money back. Accused-appellant told him that a refund was
not possible since he had already sent the money to his brother-
in-law in Taiwan. Mascardo decided to file a complaint for illegal
recruitment on 28 August 1993. On 31 August 1993, he, Manuel
Latina and Ernesto Orcullo went to the Philippine Overseas
Employment Administration (POEA) where they found out that
accused-appellant was not a licensed or authorized overseas
recruiter.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary:red
Ricardo Grepo testified that on 11 August 1993, he went to

Borja’s house where he met with accused-appellant who received
from him P15,000.00 for placement and processing fees.
Accused-appellant told him he could get a job as a factory worker
in Taiwan with a monthly salary of P20,000.00. Accused-appellant
gave him a signed typewritten receipt 7 and assured him he could
leave for Taiwan on 28 August 1993. Accused-appellant later told
him that his visa was not yet ready and he thereafter learned
from Jose Borja that accused-appellant had been arrested for
illegal recruitment activities. Grepo filed his complaint on 30
August 1993.
Lucita Mascardo-Orcullo testified that she is the wife of Ernesto

Orcullo, one of the complainants. She stated that on 7 June 1993,
she went with her husband to Borja’s house where they gave
Ernesto’s passport and other papers to accused-appellant who
assured them that Ernesto could get a job as a factory worker in
Taiwan. Lucita further averred that they paid P15,000.00 to
accused-appellant for placement and processing fees as shown by
a receipt signed by Accused-Appellant. 8
Dionisa Latina testified that she is the wife of complainant Manuel

Latina. She stated that on 9 June 1993, she and her husband
went to Borja’s house to meet accused-appellant who told them
that Manuel could get a job at a toy factory in Taiwan. They paid
P15,000.00 to accused-appellant who issued a receipt 9 and
assured them Manuel could leave on 30 June 1993. After said
date, Accused-appellant kept on promising them that Manuel
would be able to leave for Taiwan. The promises were never
fulfilled.
Angelina de Luna, a Senior Labor Employment Officer of the

POEA, testified that their office received a subpoena from the trial
court requiring the issuance of a certification stating whether or
not Tan Tiong Meng alias Tommy Tan was authorized by the
POEA to recruit workers for overseas employment. De Luna
presented a certification signed by Ma. Salome S. Mendoza, Chief,
Licensing Branch of the POEA dated 7 July 1994 stating that
accused-appellant is neither licensed nor authorized by the POEA
to recruit workers for overseas employment. 10
Accused-appellant Tan Tiong Meng alias Tommy Tan was the only
witness for the defense. He testified that he is a Singaporean
national married to Estelita Oribiana, a Filipino-Chinese. He added
that he works as a sales representative for Oribiana Laboratory
Supplies, a company owned by his brother-in-law which sells
laboratory equipment to various schools in Cavite.
Tan alleged that Jose Percival Borja was introduced to him by a
certain Malou Lorenzo at the office of their laboratory supplies in
Sta. Cruz, Manila. Lorenzo allegedly told him that Borja needed
his help in processing job applications for abroad. When he talked
to Borja, the latter told him that he could help in convincing
applicants that they could work in Taiwan. Borja offered him a
P1,000.00 commission from the amount paid by each applicant.
Tan admitted having received money from all the complainants

but he said that all the money was turned over to Borja after
deducting his commission. Tan likewise admitted that he and his
wife are respondents in about seventy (70) cases of estafa and
illegal recruitment but that it was Lorenzo who was the main
recruiter.
The prosecution presented Jose Percival Borja as a rebuttal

witness. Borja testified that Tan was introduced to him by Malou
Lorenzo. Accused-appellant told him that they were direct
recruiters for jobs in Taiwan and that he has relatives there. Tan’s
offer was attractive considering that he charged only P15,000.00
while the prevailing rate for job placements was P45,000.00-
P60,000.00. Borja added that he even told his friends and
relatives to apply with Accused-Appellant. Tan had told him that
he sometimes comes to Cavite to deliver laboratory equipment.
When Tan called him up to tell him he was in the area, Borja told
him to come to his house. It was at his house where Tan
accepted money from several job applicants most of whom he
(Borja) did not know. When Borja realized that Tan had cheated
the applicants, he helped set up a trap and had Tan arrested by
his neighbor Tony Guinto, a Cavite City policeman. Borja later
learned that Tan had victimized several people in Batangas and
Metro Manila.
In the present appeal, Accused-appellant would have the Court

believe that he merely acted as a collector of money for the
principal recruiter Borja who made the representations that he
(Tan) could give the applicants jobs in Taiwan. He maintains that
he merely received commissions from the transactions and that
the deceit was employed not by him but by Borja who introduced
him as a job recruiter.
The Court is not impressed by such bizarre pretensions.
Several revealing circumstances belie the version for the defense,

namely:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
1. Neil Mascardo testified that accused-appellant told him he

could no longer return his money because he had already sent it
to his brother-in-law Lee Shut Kua in Taiwan;
2. All the receipts issued to complainants were signed by

accused-appellant;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
3. Tan admitted that he and his wife are respondents in about

seventy (70) cases for estafa and illegal recruitment in Batangas;
11
4. Tan executed a sworn statement dated 13 September 1993

before SPO2 Eduardo G. Nover, Jr. in the presence of his lawyer
Atty. Florendo C. Medina wherein he admitted receiving
P15,000.00 from Gavino Asiman; 12
5. The complainants all pointed to Tan and not Borja as the one
who had represented to them that he could give them jobs in
Taiwan.
There is no showing that any of the complainants had ill-motives

against Tan other than to bring him to the bar of justice. The
testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution were straight-
forward, credible and convincing. The constitutional presumption
of innocence in Tan’s favor has been overcome by proof beyond
reasonable doubt and we affirm his convictions.
The Labor Code defines recruitment and placement

"(A)ny act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting,
utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, and includes referrals,
contract services, promising or advertising for employment,
locally or abroad, whether for profit or not; 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." 13
It is clear that accused-appellant’s acts of accepting placement

fees from job applicants and representing to said applicants that
he could get them jobs in Taiwan constitute recruitment and
placement under the above provision of the Labor Code.
The Labor Code prohibits any person or entity, not authorized by

the POEA, from engaging in recruitment and placement activities
"(a) Any recruitment activities, including the prohibited practices

enumerated under Article 34 of this Code, to be undertaken by
non-licensees or non-holders of authority shall be deemed illegal
and punishable under Article 39 of this Code . . .
(b) Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large

scale shall be considered an offense involving economic sabotage
and shall be penalized in accordance with Article 39 hereof.
Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried

out by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring and/or
confederating with one another in carrying out any unlawful or
illegal transaction, enterprise or scheme defined under the first
paragraph hereof. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in
large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons
individually or as a group." 14
The POEA having certified that accused-appellant is not

authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment, it is clear
that the offense committed against the six (6) complainants in
this case is illegal recruitment in large scale punishable under
Article 39 (a) of the Labor Code with life imprisonment and a fine
of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00).
Accused-appellant’s guilt of six (6) separate crimes of estafa has

likewise been proven.
The argument that the deceit was employed by Jose Percival

Borja and not by accused-appellant is specious, even ridiculous.
All the complainants agreed that it was accused-appellant Tan
who assured them of jobs in Taiwan. The assurances were made
intentionally to deceive the would-be job applicants to part with
their money.
In People v. Calonzo, 15 the Court reiterated the rule that a

person convicted for illegal recruitment under the Labor Code can
be convicted for violation of the Revised Penal Code provisions on
estafa provided the elements of the crime are present. In People
v. Romero 16 the elements of the crime were stated
thus:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
a) that the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or

by means of deceit, and
b) that damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is

caused to the offended party or third person.
Both elements have been proven in this case.
One final point. The names of a certain Malou Lorenzo and Chit
Paulino have been mentioned by accused-appellant as being
illegal recruiters whom he contends are either the main recruiters
or their agents. It also appears that accused-appellant’s wife
Estelita Oribiana who is a co-accused in the other illegal
recruitment complaints may be a part of a large syndicate
operating in Batangas, Cavite and Metro Manila. There is nothing
on the record to show that attempts were made to investigate
these three (3) people.
The campaign and drive against illegal recruiters should be
continuous and unrelenting. Government should not be content
with bringing to justice but a number of these diabolic denizens of
society who thrive on the dreams of our countrymen of having a
better life. Only when the last of their tribe has been convicted
and punished can the government rightfully claim that it has
fulfilled the constitutional mandate to protect the rights and
promote the welfare of workers. 17
WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from finding accused-

appellant Tan Tiong Meng alias "Tommy Tan" guilty of illegal
recruitment in large scale and six (6) counts of estafa, is hereby
AFFIRMED. Costs against Accused-Appellant. cdtech
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, Vitug and Kapunan, JJ., concur.
Hermosisima, Jr., J., is on leave.

[G.R. No. 113547. February 9, 1995.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANITA

BAUTISTA y LATOJA, Accused-Appellant.
DECISION
PUNO, J.:
Four (4) separate Informations 1 were filed before the Regional

Trial Court of Manila (Branch XLI) against accused ANITA
BAUTISTA y LATOJA, charging her with the crimes of Illegal
Recruitment In Large Scale 2 and Estafa. 3
Upon arraignment on January 29, 1992, Accused pleaded NOT

GUILTY. 4 The four (4) cases were tried jointly.
After trial, the court a quo found accused guilty as charged. 5 In

the illegal recruitment case, she was meted the penalty of life
imprisonment and ordered to pay P100,000.00 as fine. In the
estafa cases, she was sentenced from two (2) years, eight (8)
months and twenty one (21) days of prision correccional as
minimum, to six (6) years, five (5) months and eleven (11) days
of prision mayor as maximum for each count of estafa, and pay
each complainant the amount of P 40,000.00 as civil indemnity.
Accused, thru counsel, filed her Notice of Appeal, dated March 6,

1992, indicating her desire to elevate her case to this Court. 6
The records of the case were, however, transmitted by the trial
court to the Court of Appeals. In its Decision 7 dated November
26, 1993, the appellate court affirmed appellant's conviction.
However, it modified the penalty for the three (3) estafa cases.
The dispositive portion of the decision of the appellate court
states:nadchanroblesvirtualawlibrary
"WHEREFORE, in Criminal Case No. 92-102377, the Court finds

accused Anita Bautista GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of
the crime of illegal recruitment, described and penalized under
Article 13 (b), Article 38 (a) and (b) and Article 39 (a) of the
Labor Code, and imposes upon her the penalty of life
imprisonment and fine of P100,000.00. . . .
"Insofar as Criminal Case No. 92-102378, Criminal Case No. 92-

102379 and Criminal Case No. 92-102380, the Court renders
judgment, finding accused Anita Bautista GUILTY BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT of the crime of estafa, described and
penalized under Article 315 par. 2 (a) of the Revised Penal Code,
and sentencing her in each criminal case to the indeterminate
penalty of (sic) from FOUR (4) YEARS and TWO (2) MONTHS
of prision correccional, as minimum, to NINE (9) YEARS of prision
mayor, as maximum, and to pay each complainants Remigio
Fortes, Anastacio Amor and Dominador Costales, the amount of
P40,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency, with costs. Accordingly, the penalty imposed upon
accused by the lower court is MODIFIED.
"IT IS SO ORDERED."
Pursuant to Section 13 of Rule 124, the appellate court elevated

to us the records of the case for review. Notice was given to
appellant for her to file additional Brief if she so desires. None
was filed in her behalf.
The facts are as found by the appellate

court:nadchanroblesvirtualawlibrary
"Sometime in August 1991, Accused Anita Bautista approached

Romeo Paguio at the latter's restaurant at 565 Padre Faura St.,
Manila, and offered job openings abroad. At that time, Paguio had
relatives who were interested to work abroad. Accused, who also
operated a restaurant nearby at Padre Faura, informed Paguio
that she knew somebody who could facilitate immediate
employment in Taiwan for Paguio's relatives. Accused Anita
Bautista introduced Rosa Abrero to Paguio. Abrero informed him
that the applicants could leave for Taiwan within a period of one-
month from the payment of placement fees. They informed
Paguio that the placement fee was P40,000.00 for each person.
Paguio contacted his relatives, complainants Remigio Fortes and
Dominador Costales who were his brothers-in-law, and Anastacio
Amor, a cousin, who lost no time raising the needed money and
gave the same to Paguio. The three were to work as factory
workers and were to be paid $850.00 monthly salary each.
Paguio gave Rosa Abrero P20,000.00, which would be used in
following up the papers of the complainants; later he gave
accused P40,000.00 and P60,000.00 in separate amounts,
totalling P100,000.00, as the remaining balance. Abrero and
accused Bautista promised Paguio and complainants that the
latter could leave for Taiwan before September 25, 1991. As
September 25, 1991 approached, Accused Bautista informed
Paguio and complainants that there was a delay in the latter's
departure because their tickets and visas had not yet been
released. Accused re-scheduled the complainants' departure to
October 10, 1991. Came October 10, 1991, and complainants
were still not able to leave. Paguio then required accused Bautista
to sign the "Acknowledgment Receipt," dated October 11, 1991,
in which accused admitted having received the sum of
P100,000.00 from Paguio, representing payment of plane tickets,
visas and other travel documents (Exhibit A). Paguio asked
accused to return complainants' money; accused, however,
promised that complainants could leave for Taiwan before
Christmas. From POEA, Paguio secured a certification, dated
January 9, 1992 attesting that Annie Bautista and Rosa Abrero
are not licensed or authorized to recruit workers for overseas
employment (Exhibit B). Complainants Fortes, Amor and
Costales, as well as Paguio, gave their written statements at the
Office of the Assistant Chief Directorial Staff for Intelligence of the
WPDC, complaining about their being victims of illegal
recruitment by Rosa Abrero and Annie Bautista (Exhibits C, D, E
and F)."
The issue boils down to whether or not reasonable doubt exists to

warrant the acquittal of appellant Anita Bautista.
We find none.
The Labor Code defines recruitment and placement as referring 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." 8
It is settled that the essential elements of the crime of illegal

recruitment in large scale are: (1) the accused engages in the
recruitment and placement of workers, as defined under Article
13 (b) or in any prohibited activities under Article 34 of the Labor
Code; (2) accused has not complied with the guidelines issued by
the Secretary of Labor and Employment, particularly with respect
to securing of a license or an authority to recruit and deploy
workers, either locally or overseas; and (3) accused commits the
same against three (3) or more persons, individually or a group.
9
For her exculpation, appellant denied she recruited complainants

for employment abroad. She claimed Romeo Paguio was the one
who approached her and asked for someone who could help his
relatives work abroad. She thus introduced Rosa Abrero, a
regular customer at her restaurant, to Paguio. In turn, Paguio
introduced Abrero to complainants in their subsequent meeting.
Further, appellant testified she was present during the
recruitment of complainants since their meeting with Abrero was
held at her restaurant. Appellant likewise stressed she did not
receive the amount of P100,000.00, as stated in the
Acknowledgment Receipt, dated October 11, 1991, but merely
acknowledged that said sum was received by Rosa Abrero from
Romeo Paguio.
Appellant's defense does not persuade us.
Appellant's active participation in the recruitment process of

complainants belies her claim of innocence. Complainants'
recruitment was initiated by appellant during her initial meeting
with Romeo Paguio. She gave the impression to Romeo Paguio
and the complainants that her cohort, Rosa Abrero, could send
workers for employment abroad. She introduced Rosa Abrero to
Romeo Paguio. Both women assured the departure of
complainants to Taiwan within one month from payment of the
placement fee of P40,000.00 per person. They even claimed that
complainants could work as factory workers for a monthly salary
of $850.00 per person. Moreover, it was appellant who informed
Romeo Paguio that complainants' scheduled trip to Taiwan would
be on October 10, 1991, instead of the original departure date of
September 25, 1991, due to some problems on their visas and
travel documents.
Her close association with Rosa Abrero is further strengthened by

the Acknowledgment Receipt, dated October 11, 1991, which was
prepared by Romeo Paguio for the protection of complainants.
The receipt reads:nadchanroblesvirtualawlibrary
"ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT
P100,000.00 October 11, 1991
RECEIVED FROM: ROMEO PAGUIO, the amount of ONE HUNDRED

THOUSAND (P100,000.00) PESOS, Philippine Currency,
representing the payment (of) plane ticket, visa and other travel
documents.
CONFORME: By:nadchanroblesvirtualawlibrary
(Sgd.) ROMEO PAGUIO (Sgd.) MRS. ANNIE BAUTISTA
c/o Rosa Abrero
SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF:nadchanroblesvirtualawlibrary
(Sgd.) Anastacio Amor Remigio Fortes
Dominador Costales
Said receipt shows that appellant collected the P100,000.00 for

and in behalf of Rosa Abrero, and bolsters Romeo Paguio's
allegation that he gave P20,000.00 to Rosa Abrero, while the rest
was received by appellant. Notably, in its Decision, dated
February 14, 1992, the trial court
observed:nadchanroblesvirtualawlibrary
"The denial(s) made by the accused of any participation in the

recruitment of the complainants do not persuade. The evidence at
hand shows that she acknowledged in writing the receipt of
P100,000.00 from witness Romeo Paguio who was all along
representing the complainants in securing employment for them
in Taiwan. Her denial of having actually received the money in
the sum of P100,000.00, the receipt of which she voluntarily
signed is not convincing. By her own admission, she is a
restaurant operator. In other words, she is a business woman. As
such, she ought to know the consequences in signing any receipt.
That she signed Exh. "A" only goes to show that fact, as claimed
by Romeo Paguio, that she actually received the same."
It is uncontroverted that appellant and Rosa Abrero are not

authorized or licensed to engage in recruitment activities. 10
Despite the absence of such license or authority, appellant
participated in the recruitment of complainants. Since there are
at least three (3) victims in this case, appellant is correctly held
criminally liable for illegal recruitment in large scale. 11
We shall now discuss appellant's culpability under the Revised

Penal Code, specifically Article 315 thereof, inasmuch as her
conviction for offenses under the Labor Code does not avert
punishment for offenses punishable by other laws. 12
The elements of estafa are as follows: (1) that the accused

defrauded another (a) by abuse of confidence, or (b) by means of
deceit; and (2) that damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary
estimation is caused by the offended party or third party.
In the case at bench, it is crystal clear that complainants were

deceived by appellant and Rosa Abrero into believing that there
were, indeed, jobs waiting for them in Taiwan. The assurances
given by these two (2) women made complainants part with
whatever resources they have, in exchange for what they thought
was a promising job abroad. Thus, they sold their carabaos,
mortgaged or sold their parcels of land and even contracted loans
to raise the much needed money, the P40,000.00 placement fee,
required of them by accused and Rosa Abrero.
The penalty for estafa depends on the amount defrauded. Article
315 of the Revised Penal Code provides: "the penalty of prision
correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its
minimum period (or imprisonment ranging from 4 years, 2
months and 1 day to 8 years), if the amount of the fraud is over
P12,000.00 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 (6 years, 8
months and 21 days to 8 years), 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 other provisions of this Code, the penalty
shall be termed prision mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case
may be."
The amount defrauded in such estafa case (Criminal Case Nos.

92-102378, 92-102379, 92-102380) is P 40,000.00. As
prescribed in Article 315, supra, the penalty should be imposed in
the maximum period (6 years, 8 months and 21 days to 8 years)
plus one (1) year, there being only one (1) P10,000.00 in excess
of P22,000.00. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the
maximum penalty should be taken from the aforesaid period,
while the minimum term of the indeterminate penalty shall be
within the range of the penalty next lower in degree, that is —
prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods which
has a duration of 6 months, 1 day to 4 year and 2 months.
Considering the foregoing, the appellant court correctly imposed

the indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months
of prision correccional, as minimum, to nine (9) years of prision
mayor, as maximum.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of the Court of

Appeals, finding appellant ANITA BAUTISTA guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crimes of Illegal Recruitment in Large
Scale (Criminal Case Nos. 92-102377) and Estafa (Criminal Case
Nos. 92-102378, 92-102379, 92-102380) is AFFIRMED. No Costs.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., Bidin, Regalado and Mendoza, JJ., concur.

Labor 08.20 Digesting

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Labor 08.20 Digesting

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

113161 August 29, 1995

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

On January 12, 1988, an information for illegal recruitment

the said accused, conspiring and confederating together

Four of the complainants testified for the prosecution. Rogelio

Thereafter, a receipt was issued in the name of the Clover

Complainant Dionisio Masaya, accompanied by his brother-in-law,

On November 19, 1993, the trial court rendered judgment finding

Under said Code, recruitment and placement refers to any act of

Hence, the inevitable query is whether or not appellant Agustin

Despite Agustin's pretensions that she was but a neighbor of the

There is illegal recruitment when one gives the impression of

It cannot be denied that Agustin received from complainants

Appellant further argues that "there is no evidence of receipts of

Apparently, the original copies of said receipts/vouchers were

Even assuming arguendo that the xerox copies presented by the

The presence of documentary evidence notwithstanding, this case

In a last-ditch effort to exculpate herself from conviction,

In People vs. Sendon, 40 we held that the non-prosecution of

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LOMA

G.R. No. 113161

On January 12, 1988, an information for illegal recruitment

That in or about and during the period comprised between May

Four of the complainants testified for the prosecution. Rogelio

Also in April or May, 1987, Salado, accompanied by five other

Thereafter, a receipt was issued in the name of the Clover

Ramona Salado, the wife of Rogelio Salado, came to know

Much later, the Salado couple received a telegram from the

Complainant Dionisio Masaya, accompanied by his brother-in-law,

In May, 1986, Masaya gave Dan Goce P1,900.00 as an initial

As the prosecution's fourth and last witness, Ernesto Alvarez took

On March 10, 1987, Alvarez gave an initial amount of P3,000.00

Only herein appellant Agustin testified for the defense. She

Denying any participation in the illegal recruitment and

On November 19, 1993, the trial court rendered judgment finding

Whether or not Agustin’s act of introducing couple Goce falls

The testimonial evidence hereon show that she indeed further

All four prosecution witnesses testified that it was Agustin whom

There is illegal recruitment when one gives the impression of

WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment of the court a quo is hereby

G.R. No. 93723-27 May 6, 1994

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.

Herrera, Laurel, De los Reyes, Roxas and Teehankee for accused-

This is an appeal from the February 16, 1990 Decision of the

That on or about the 13th and the 20th of May 1988 in

The three other informations contained basically the same

On the same day, another information for violation of Arts. 38

That on or about the period comprised from March

1. EDWIN M. ESTABILO — P6,365.00

after requiring them to submit certain documentary

That the crime described above is committed in large

Upon arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty to the

The evidence for the prosecution consisted of the testimonies of

Prosecution witness Edwin Estabillo 9 testified that in the months

Before the date of his promised departure or on April 27, 1988,

Norberto Cayabyab 12 also applied for a job abroad through

According to Hermelina D. de Vera, 14 sometime in February

For his part, Ursulito Manzano 16 testified that appellant recruited

Appellant promised him that he would leave for abroad as soon

Isidro Arias, Jr. 19 was promised a cashier's job in London by