People vs Segun GR 119076 (Large Scale Illegal Recruitment)

Facts:

Appellants Roger Segun and Josephine Clam without any license and/or authority to engage
in recruitment and placement of workers from the Department of Labor and Employment,
recruited the 13persons allegedly to work in Manila namely: Mario Tambacan, Mary Jane
Cantil, Richard Aranas, Victoria Collantes, Christine Collantes, Rogelio Collantes, Luther Caban, Loreta
Caban, Jonard Genemelo, JhonelyGenemelo, Pedro Ozarraga, Pablo Ozarraga and Pacifico
Villaver. They all came from Linamon, Lanao del Norte. All of them have different stories on how they
were recruited by the appellants to work in Manila. It was also allegedly claimed that the transportation
to Manila wasfree. It was established by the prosecution that the said appellants were neither licensed
nor authorized by the DOLE to recruit workers. Secondly, it was corroboratedby the Mayor of Linamon
that appellants per records were not authorized to conduct recruitment for local oroverseas
employment. On the other hand, both Roger and Josephine admitted that they did not have
any license to recruit. They only helped their neighbors find jobs because they took pity on them
when their neighbors begged them for jobs. However, the Iligan City RTC convicted appellants for
violating Article 38 of the Labor Code.

Issue: Whether or not the appellants are guilty of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale?

Ruling:

No. The crime of illegal recruitment in large scale is committed when three elements concur. First,
the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to lawfully engage in recruitment and
placement of workers. Second, he or she undertakes either any activity within the meaning of
“recruitment and placement” under Article 13(b) or any prohibited acts enumerated under
Article 34 of the Labor Code. Third, offender commits said acts against three or more persons,
individually or as a group. In the case at hand, the first element is present when a certification
issued by DOLE states that appellants were not authorized to conduct recruitment for local and
overseas employment. The appellants also conceded that they have no license to recruit. As to the
second element, the trial court was able to deduced the testimonies of different witnesses and came up
with the conclusions that most of their testimonies were hearsay and that during their direct or cross
examinations, they used the term “recruit” which according to the Supreme Court is a conclusion of law.
The prosecution failed to elicit from them the specific act constituting the recruitment. The victims must
testify as to the facts that would prove recruitment. It does not suffice that the witness simply state
that the accused “recruited” the “victim”. In sum, the prosecution failed to elicit from many witnesses
the specific acts constituting the recruitment of the alleged victims. However, the prosecution was able
to prove that appellants performed recruitment activity only in cases of Victoria Collantes and Loreta
Cavan. Since the third element which is that the offender commits theacts against three or more persons
is absent, therefore, appellants is only guilty of two counts of simple illegal recruitment.