ELARDO, SEBASTIAN GABRIEL M.

20180200435
FINALS FILCRO:

1. RECRUITMENT
PEOPLE VS. FORTUNA
G.R. No. 148137 January 16, 2003
VITUG, J.:
FACTS: Appellant herein was charged with illegal recruitment in large scale. According
to private complainants, they were convinced by herein appellant Fortuna that she could
provide them with jobs abroad. Each of them gave her the amount of P5,400.00 to take
care of processing fee for medical examination and other expenses for securing their
respective passports. Weeks went by, but the promised departure had not materialized.
After having learned later that Fortuna had neither license nor an authority to undertake
recruiting activities, one of the complainants, Angelyn Magpayo, filed a complaint which
ultimately resulted in the indictment of Fortuna for illegal recruitment. After trial, the
Regional Trial Court held appellant guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale and was
sentenced to life imprisonment. Appellant went to the Supreme Court to seek the
reversal of her conviction.
ISSUE: W/N Fortune is guilty of Large Scale Recruitment?
LAWS: The requisites constituting the offense of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale
have sufficiently been proven by the prosecution. First, ,undeniably, has not been duly
licensed to engage in recruitment activities; second, she has engaged in illegal
recruitment activities, offering private complainants employment abroad for a fee; and
third, she has committed the questioned illegal recruitment activities against three or
more persons. Illegal recruitment in large scale (when committed against three or more
persons), like illegal recruitment committed by a syndicate (when carried out by a group
of three or more persons), would be deemed constitutive of economic sabotage carrying
a penalty, under Section 7, paragraph (b), of Republic Act 8042, of life imprisonment
and a fine of not less than five hundred thousand (P500,000.00) pesos nor more than
one million (P1,000,000.00) pesos. The sentence imposed by the trial court thus
accords with the penalty prescribed by law.
CASE HISTORY: No two cases are exactly alike; almost invariably, surrounding
circumstances vary from case to case. It is this reality that must have compelled the
adoption by the Revised Penal Code of the scheme of graduated penalties providing,
correspondingly, for the circumstances that affect criminal liability. The system allows
the judge to have a good latitude in the sentencing process. Indeed, in other
jurisdictions, a bifurcated proceeding is prescribed in order to help make certain that the
penalty is commensurate to the wrong done. Under this procedure, the guilt and the
innocence of the accused is first determined and then, after a verdict of plea or guilt, a
pre-sentence hearing is conducted where the judge or a jury would hear argument and
receive additional evidence on such matters as the nature of the offense, manner of its
commission, the milieu of time and place, as well as the education, religion, physical
and mental state of the accused, along with still other conditions or circumstances, that
may find relevance in either mitigating or aggravating the punishment to be meted, all
calculated to enhance a fair judgment. Statutory provisions for a single penalty, like
those prescribed in Republic Act No. 8042, virtually ignore these safeguards that help
obviate the danger of imposing either too great or too little a punishment for the offense.
RULING: According to the Court, the testimony presented at the trial by the complaining
witnesses adequately established the commission of the offense. The narration made
by the complaining witnesses appeared to be straightforward, credible and convincing
to the Court and, hence, it agreed with the trial court's evaluation of their credibility. The
requisites constituting the offense of illegal recruitment in large scale was sufficiently
proven by the prosecution. Thus, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of the
appellant, as well as the sentenced imposed upon the appellant. However, the Court
recommended to the President of the Philippines a possible commutation of sentence.
OPINION: I find the Court’s ruling sufficient in form and substance. While the
information cited Section 6, paragraph (m), of Act No. 8042, its factual averments,
however, are sufficient to constitute the crime of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale
under the aforequoted provisions of the law. It is not the specific designation of the
offense in the information that controls but it is the allegations therein contained directly
apprising the accused of the nature and cause of the accusation against him that
matter.
2. RECRUITMENT
PEOPLE VS. ALVAREZ
G.R. No. 142981 August 20, 2002
PANGANIBAN, J.:
FACTS: CARMELITA ALVAREZ testified that sometime in 1991, she met Director
Angeles Wong at the Office of the Deputy Administrator of the POEA, Manuel Quimson,
who happened to be her 'compadre.' Sometime in November 1993, Director Wong
called her about a direct-hire scheme from Taiwan which is a job order whereby people
who want to work abroad can apply directly with the POEA. The said director told her
that there were six (6) approved job orders from Labor
Attache Ellen Canasa. Seeing this as a good opportunity for her son, Edelito Gonzales,
who was then a new graduate, she recommended him and his son's friends, namely,
Reynaldo Abrigo, Renato Abrigo and two others surnamed Lucena, for employment.
Unfortunately, Director Wong called off the scheduled departure because the quota of
workers for deployment was not met. To remedy the situation, she approached
Josephine Lomocso and a certain recruiter named Romeo Dabilbil, who also
recommends people to Director Wong with ready passports. When the thirty (30) slots
needed for the direct-hiring scheme were lled up, Director Wong set the tentative
schedule of departure on February 23, 1994. In view of the said development, Mr.
Dabilbil contacted the recruits from
Cebu who even stayed at her (Conchita's) place in Capiz Street, Del Monte, Quezon
City for three (3) days to one (1) week while waiting to be deployed. On the night of their
scheduled departure and while they were having their despedida party, Director Wong
sent a certain Ross to inform them that a telex was received by him informing him
(Director Wong) that the factory where the recruits were supposed to work was gutted
by a re. She was later advised by Director Wong to wait for the deployment order to
come from Taiwan. While the people from Cebu were staying in her house waiting for
development, the accused even advised them to le a complaint against Mr. Dabilbil
before the Presidential Anti-Crime Commission at Camp Crame. Surprisingly, she was
also arrested for illegal recruitment on May 31, 1994 and thereafter learned that on June
1, 1994, the Damian brothers led a complaint against her before the POEA.
After her apprehension, the accused further testi ed that there was some sort of
negotiation between her lawyer, Atty. Orlando Salutandre, and the apprehending o cer,
Major Umbao, regarding her release. According to her, if she [would] be able to raise
the amount of [t]hirty [t]housand [p]esos (P30,000.00), Major Umbao [would] not
anymore refer her for inquest, but would only recommend her case for further
investigation and then she would be released. Since she failed to raise the said amount,
she was brought to the inquest fiscal.
REYNALDO ABRIGO testified that it was Director Angeles Wong who was actually
recruiting workers for deployment abroad because of a certain document which Alvarez
showed to them bearing the name of the said POEA Official.
ISSUE: W/N Alvarez is guilty of Illegal Recruitment?
LAWS: Prior to the enactment of RA No. 8042, the crime of illegal recruitment was
defined under Article 38(a) in relation to Articles 13(b) and 34 and penalized under
Article 39 of the Labor Code. It consisted of any recruitment activity, including the
prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of the Code, undertaken by a non-
licensee or non-holder of authority. It is committed when two elements concur: (1) the
offenders have no valid license or authority required by law to enable them to lawfully
engage in the recruitment and placement of workers; and (2) the offenders undertake
either any activity within the meaning of recruitment and placement defined under
Article 13(b) or any prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34.
CASE HISTORY: Illegal recruitment is an offense that is essentially committed by a
non-licensee or non-holder of authority. A non-licensee means any person, corporation
or entity to which the labor secretary has not issued a valid license or authority to
engage in recruitment and placement; or whose license or authority has been
suspended, revoked or cancelled by the POEA or the labor secretary. A license
authorizes a person or an entity to operate a private employment agency, while
authority is given to those engaged in recruitment and placement activities. Likewise
constituting illegal recruitment and placement activities are agents or representatives
whose appointments by a licensee or holder of authority have not been previously
authorized by the POEA.
RULING: The Supreme Court ruled that the finding of illegal recruitment in large scale is
justified wherever the following elements concur: (1) the offenders have no valid license
or authority required by law to enable them to lawfully engage in the recruitment and
placement of workers; (2) the offenders undertake either any activity within the meaning
of recruitment and placement defined under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code or any
prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of the Code; and (3) the offenders
commit the crime against three or more persons, individually or as a group. All the
foregoing elements are present in the case at bar. Appellant had been neither licensed
nor authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment. Appellant recruited at least
three persons. All the witnesses for the prosecution categorically testified that it was she
who had promised them that she could arrange for and facilitate their employment in
Taiwan as factory workers. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court.
OPINION: I find the Supreme Court’s ruling sufficient in form and in substance. This
case accurately depicted the elements of illegal recruitment in large scale and applied it
to its ruling, sufficiently sentencing the accused guilty.
3. WAGES
JUANA T. VDA. DE. RACHO VS. MUNICIPALITY OF ILAGAN
G.R. No. L-23542 January 2, 1968
BENGZON, J.P., J.:
FACTS: Plaintiff Juana T. Vda. de Racho and the decedent, Manuel Racho, were
spouses and had five minor children. On July 1, 1954 the decedent was appointed as
market cleaner in the Municipality of Ilagan, Isabela, at the rate of P660.00 per annum
(P55.00 monthly) which amount he received up to June 30, 1958. On July 1, 1958,
decedent's salary was increased to P720.00 per annum (P60.00 monthly) by virtue of a
promotional appointment extended to him by the Municipal Mayor. He received this
amount until January 6, 1960 when he tendered his resignation effective July 7, 1960.
Decedent was then paid the money value of his accumulated leaves from January 7,
1960 to May 23, 1960 at the rate of P60.00 a month.
On October 5, 1960, decedent died intestate at Ilagan. Plaintiff then filed on December
9, 1960 a claim for salary differentials with the Regional Office of the Department of
Labor, which dropped the case later on for lack of jurisdiction.
Based on the foregoing facts, the Court of First Instance of Isabela, in an action brought
on December 5, 1961, by plaintiff, in her own behalf and as guardian ad litem of her
minor children, ruled that defendant Municipality of Ilagan must pay P1,766.00 to
plaintiff representing the wage differentials and adjusted terminal leave of the decedent
from December 9, 1957 1 to May 23, 1960, based on the monthly wage rate of P120.00
pursuant to the Minimum Wage Law.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Municipality of Ilagan is validly exempted from complying
with the Minimum Wage Law due to its shortage and lack of available funds and
expected revenue
LAWS: Under R.A. 602 or the Minimum Wage Law, private sector workers and
government employees should receive the applicable minimum wages not lower than
those prescribed by the Regional Boards under existing wage orders. At present, the
prescribed minimum wages are for normal working hours, which shall not exceed eight
hours per day.
CASE HISTORY: The Supreme Court has already answered the question posed in
Rivera vs. Colago, L-12323, February 24, 1961, wherein they ruled that lack of funds of
a municipality does not excuse it from paying the statutory minimum wages to its
employees, which, after all, is a mandatory statutory obligation of the municipality. To
uphold such defense of lack of available funds would render the Minimum Wage Law
futile and defeat its purpose. This also disposes of the implication appellant is trying to
make that its duty to pay minimum wages is not a statutory obligation which would
command preference in the municipal budget and appropriation ordinance.
RULING: The appeal must be dismissed. The Supreme Court cannot sanction
appellant's proposition that it would eventually and gradually implement the Minimum
Wage Law, "if and when its revenues can afford." The law — insofar as it affects
government employees — took effect in 1952. It should have been implemented — or at
least steps to implement it should have been taken — right then. To excuse the
defendant municipality now would be to permit it to benefit from its nonfeasance. It
would also make the effectivity of the law dependent upon the will and initiative of said
municipality without statutory sanction. Defendant's remedy, therefore, is not to seek an
excuse from implementing the law but, as the lower court suggested, to upgrade and
improve its tax collection machinery with a view towards realizing more revenues. Or, it
could for the present forego all non-essential expenditures.