ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT

People v. Cabacang
ISSUE: Whether representation as recruiter is needed to be charged of the crime of illegal
recruitment.
It is incorrect to maintain that to be liable for illegal recruitment, one must represent himself/herself to
the victims as a duly-licensed recruiter.
To prove illegal recruitment, only two elements need to be shown: (1) the person charged with the
crime must have undertaken recruitment activities - 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; and (2) said
person does not have a license or authority to do so.

In the case at bench, since appellant was charged with and convicted of illegally recruiting four (4)
people, her crime is classified as having been committed in large scale. As such, it is considered as
involving economic sabotage.
People v. Duque
ISSUE: Should the criminal offense of the accused prescribe and if yes, how should prescriptive
period be computed?
Appellant Duque contends that the prescriptive period in the case at bar commenced from the time
money in consideration of promises for overseas employment was parted with by complainants.

Labor Code Art. 290. Offenses penalized under this Code and the rules and
regulations issued pursuant thereto shall prescribe in three (3) years.
Section 2 of Act No. 3326 shows that there are two (2) rules for determining the beginning of the
prescriptive period: (a) on the day of the commission of the violation, if such commission be
known; and (b) if the commission of the violation was not known at the time, then from
discovery thereof and institution of judicial proceedings for investigation and punishment.

Art. 38. Illegal Recruitment. — (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. The Ministry of Labor and
Employment or any law enforcement officer may initiate complaints under this Article.

(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.

(c) The Minister of Labor and Employment or his duly authorized representatives shall have the power
to cause the arrest and detention of such non-license or non-holder of authority if after investigation it
is determined that his activities constitute a danger to national security and public order or will lead to
further exploitation of job-seekers. The Minister shall order the search of the office or premises and
seizure of documents, paraphernalia, properties and other implements used in illegal recruitment
activities and the closure of companies, establishments and entities found to be engaged in the
recruitment of workers for overseas employment, without having been licensed or authorized to do so.
Recruitment for overseas employment is not in itself necessarily immoral or unlawful. It is the lack of
necessary license or permit that renders such recruitment activities unlawful and criminal. Such lack
of necessary permit or authority, while certainly known to appellant Duque back in January 1986,
was not known to private complainants at that time. Even if it be assumed arguendo that ordinary
prudence required that a person seeking overseas employment ought to check the authority or
status of persons pretending to be authorized or to speak for a recruitment or placement agency, the
offended parties' failure to do so did not start the running of the prescriptive period. In the nature of
things, acts made criminal by special laws are frequently not immoral or obviously criminal
in themselves; for this reason, the applicable statute requires that if the violation of the special law is
not known at the time, then prescription begins to run only from the discovery thereof, i.e., discovery
of the unlawful nature of the constitutive act or acts.
The applicable prescriptive period in the case at bar began to run from the time the recruitment
activities of appellant Duque were ascertained by the complainants and by the POEA to have been
carried out without any license or authority from the government.
People v. Segun
ISSUE: Whether appellants’ acts were sufficient to constitute as an act of recruitment and
placement
A conviction for large scale illegal recruitment must be based on a finding in each case of illegal
recruitment of three (3) or more persons whether individually or as a group. While the law does not
require that at least three (3) victims testify at the trial, it is necessary that there is sufficient evidence
proving that the offense was committed against three (3) or more persons

"Recruit" is a legal conclusion. The witness 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.

Rogelio used the term "recruit" which is a conclusion of law; the prosecution did not elicit from him
the specific act constituting the recruitment. Section 36, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court states that a
witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge. He is not
permitted to testify as to a conclusion of law

People v. Laogo
ISSUE: Whether appellant is guilty of illegal recruitment event though the transactions and payments
were made not with her but to another.
Article 38(a) of the Labor Code, as amended, specifies that recruitment activities undertaken by non-
licensees or non-holders of authority are deemed illegal and punishable by law. And when the illegal
recruitment is committed against three or more persons, individually or as a group, then it is deemed
committed in large scale and carries with it stiffer penalties as the same is deemed a form of
economic sabotage.
But to prove illegal recruitment, it must be shown that the accused, without being duly authorized by
law, gave complainants the distinct impression that he had the power or ability to send them abroad
for work, such that the latter were convinced to part with their money in order to be employed. It is
important that there must at least be a promise or offer of an employment from the person posing as
a recruiter, whether locally or abroad.
People v. Turda

ISSUE:
There is no doubt that the acts of appellant and his wife conclusively established a common criminal
design mutually deliberated upon and accomplished through coordinated moves. Such acts
constitute enlisting, contracting or procuring workers or promising them overseas employment under
Art. 13, par. (b), of the Labor Code. 5 Since appellant did not have the license or authority to recruit
6 and yet recruited at least three (3) persons, he is guilty of large-scale illegal recruitment under Art.
38, penalized under Art. 39, of the Labor Code.
Imelda Darvin v. CA
ISSUE: Whether the accused-appellant indeed engaged in recruitment activities, as defined under
the Labor Code.
To prove that accused-appellant was engaged in recruitment activities as to commit the crime of
illegal recruitment, it must be shown that the accused appellant gave private respondent the distinct
impression that she had the power or ability to send the private respondent abroad for work such
that the latter was convinced to part with her money in order to be so employed.
By themselves, procuring a passport, airline tickets and foreign visa for another individual, without
more, can hardly qualify as recruitment activities. Aside from the testimony of private respondent,
there is nothing to show that accused-appellant engaged in recruitment activities. We also note that
the prosecution did not present the testimonies of witnesses who could have corroborated the
charge of illegal recruitment.

People v. Dino Alforte

ISSUE:
It was Dino himself who represented the group as being connected with the recruitment agency and
capable of placing complainants abroad in certain specified jobs in exchange for certain fees. It was
accused-appellant's assurances and promises of employment abroad which had induced them to
part with large sums of money.
The five culprits including accused-appellant represented themselves as a group; hence when
private complainants paid the sums of money to accused-appellant, the issuance of the receipts by
the other members would be entirely reasonable and proper. In fact, this delineation of their
respective roles strongly shows that the group were acting in concert in the defraudation of private
complainants.
People v. Bengzon Ong
ISSUE:
 People v. Francisco Hernandez
ISSUE:
In the case at bar, the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused-
appellants engaged in activities that fall within the definition of recruitment and placement under the
Labor Code. The evidence on record shows that they promised overseas employment to private
complainants and required them to prepare the necessary documents and to pay the placement fee,
although they did not have any license to do so. There is illegal recruitment when one who does not
possess the necessary authority or license gives the impression of having the ability to send a
worker abroad.
Each information was filed by only one complainant. We agree with accused-appellants that they
could not be convicted for illegal recruitment committed in large scale based on several informations
filed by only one complainant. The Court held in People vs. Reyes:

“When the Labor Code speaks of illegal recruitment 'committed against three (3) or more
persons individually or as a group,' it must be understood as referring to the number of
complainants in each case who are complainants therein, otherwise, prosecutions for single crimes
of illegal recruitment can be cummulated to make out a case of large scale illegal recruitment. In
other words, a conviction for large scale illegal recruitment must be based on a finding in each
case of illegal recruitment of three or more persons whether individually or as a group."
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 of Article 38 of the Labor Code.