MELISSA CHUA

FACTS:

Private petitioners Rey Tajadao, Billy Danan, Alberto Aglanao and Roylan Ursulum filed a complaint for

illegal recruitment before the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA) against respondent
Melissa Chua. Petitioners claimed that respondent offered them a job as factory worker to be deployed
in Taiwan. 

The respondent then required petitioners to secure passports,

undergo medical examination, and a pay of placement fee amounting to Php. 80,000.00. Respondent
Chua assured the petitioners that whoever pays the application fee the earliest can leave sooner.

Private petitioners paid the amount of Php. 80,000.00 to Melissa Chua. Rey Tajadao, Billy Danan and
Alberto Aglanao were able to secure a voucher for their payment of placement fee from respondent.
However, Roylan Ursulum failed to secure the same. Billy Danan, upon follow up on the status of their
deployment, respondent Chua informed Danan that his departure was re-scheduled as Taiwan had
suspended admission of overseas workers until after the festival. Hence, petitioners only learned that
respondent was not authorized and licensed to recruit workers for overseas employment. The
prosecution likewise presented as witness Severino Maranan, Senior Labor Employment
Officer of the POEA.

Maranan confirmed that respondent Chua was neither licensed nor authorized to recruit workers for

overseas employment. In support, he presented to the court a certification issued by the POEA to that
effect. In the defense of the respondent, she denied having recruited complainants  foroverseas
employment. According to her, she was only a cashier at Golden Gate which is owned by Marilen
Callueng.

The Regional Trials Court found Melissa Chua guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal recruitment in
large scale and four counts of estafa. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court.
Hence, Chua elevated the case by filing a Notice of Appeal.

ISSUE:

WON the prosecution was able to prove that Melissa Chua is guilty for the crime of illegal recruitment in
large scale.

HELD (RATIO DECIDENDI):

Yes. In order to hold a person liable for illegal recruitment, the following elements must concur:
1. The  offender  undertakes  any  of  the  activities  within  the  meaning  of
"recruitment and placement" under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code, or any of the prohibited practices
enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code (now Section 6 of Republic Act 8042); and

2. The offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable him to lawfully engage in
recruitment and placement of workers. In the case of illegal recruitment in large scale a third element is
added: that the offender commits any of  the acts of  recruitment and placement  against three  or more
person, individually or as a group. All three elements are present in the case at bar.

FALLO / WHEREFORE CLAUSE:

The decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby affirmed with modification in that the appellant was
ordered to pay a fine of Php. 1,000,000.00 and to indemnify each of the private complainants Alberto
Aglanao, Billy Danan and Rey Tajadal in the amount of Php. 80,000.00. With costs against accused-
appellant.