NASI-VILLAR v.

PEOPLE
G.R. No. 176169, 14 November 2008
TINGA, J.:

FACTS:
On or about the month of January 1993, Rosario Nasi-Villar, conspiring together,
confederating with and mutually helping one another through fraudulent representation
and deceitful machination, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously recruit
Nila Panilag for employment abroad, demand and receive the amount of PhP6,500.00 as
placement fee, the said accused being a non-licensee or non-holder of authority to engage
in the recruitment of workers abroad to the damage and prejudice of the herein offended
party.

On 3 July 2002, After due trial, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) found the evidence
presented by the prosecution to be more credible than that presented by the defense and
thus held petitioner liable for the offense of Illegal Recruitment under the Republic Act
No. 8042 (Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995).
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) raising as sole issue the alleged error by
the trial court in finding her guilty of illegal recruitment on the basis of the trial court’s
appreciation of the evidence presented by the prosecution. The appellate court affirmed
with modification the decision of the RTC, declaring that petitioner should have been
charged under the Labor Code and not under R.A. No. 8042.
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration under an Information that erroneously
designated the offense as covered by R.A. No. 8042, but alleged in its body acts which are
punishable under the Labor Code, but was denied by the CA.

ISSUE:
WHETHER OR NOT the CA erred in failing to consider that R.A. No. 8042 cannot be given
retroactive effect and the decision of the RTC constitutes a violation of the constitutional
prohibition against ex post facto law.

RULING:
No. the CA’s conviction of petitioner under the Labor Code is correct. There is no violation
of the prohibition against ex post facto law nor a retroactive application of R.A. No. 8042,
as alleged by petitioner.

Effectivity of Labor Code of the Philippines and R.A. No. 8042, reads:

Article 2. Date of effectivity. — This Code shall take effect six months after its
promulgation. (1 November 1974, supplied)

Section 43. Effectivity Clause. — This Act shall take effect after fifteen (15) days from its
publication in the Official Gazette or in at least two (2) national newspapers of general
circulation whichever comes earlier. (15 July 1995, supplied)
In this case, what was applicable in 1993 is the Labor Code, where under Art. 38, in
relation to Art. 39, the violation of the Code is penalized with imprisonment of not less than
four (4) years nor more than eight (8) years or a ne of not less than P20,000.00 and not
more than P100,000.00 or both. On the other hand, Sec. 7(c) of R.A. No. 8042 penalizes
illegal recruitment with a penalty of imprisonment of not less than six (6) years and one (1)
day but not more than twelve (12) years and a ne not less than P200,000.00 nor more
than P500,000.00.
The basic rule is that a criminal act is punishable under the law in force at the time of its
commission. Since R.A. No. 8042, a special penal law, did not yet exist in January 1993
when the crime was allegedly committed, the law cannot be used as the basis of fling a
criminal action for illegal recruitment, unless it is in favor of the accused. However, the
penalty of imprisonment provided in the Labor Code was raised or increased by R.A. No.
8042. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that as it was proven that petitioner had
committed the acts she was charged with, she was properly convicted under the Labor
Code, and not under R.A. No. 8042.