People vs.

Melissa Chua
G.R. No. 187052
13 September 2012
Facts:
Melissa Chua represented herself to have the capacity to contract, enlist, and transport
Filipino workers to Taiwan. She promised employment to 4 people in exchange for
fees and without the required license. The fees charged were higher than the allowable
amount. She ultimately failed to deploy the 4 complainants and reimburse them the
expenses incurred for the processing of their documents.
Issue:
W/N Melissa Chua committed the crime of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale and
Estafa.
Held:
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)20 of the Labor Code, or any of the prohibited
practices enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code (now Section 6 of
Republic Act No. 8042)
(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 persons,
individually or as a group. All three elements are present in the case at bar.
Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of
three (3) or more persons conspiring or confederating with one another. It is deemed
committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons individually
or as a group.
Her defense that she is merely a cashier is untenable. Appellant cannot escape liability

by conveniently limiting her participation as a cashier of Golden Gate. The provisions

of Article 13(b) of the Labor Code and Section 6 of R.A. No. 8042 are unequivocal
that illegal recruitment may or may not be for profit. It is immaterial, therefore,
whether appellant remitted the placement fees to the agencys treasurer or
appropriated them. The same provision likewise provides that the persons criminally
liable for illegal recruitment are the principals, accomplices and accessories.
A person may be charged and convicted for both illegal recruitment and estafa. The
reason therefor is not hard to discern: illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum, while
estafa is mala in se.
Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code is committed by
any person who defrauds another by using fictitious name, or falsely pretends to
possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or
imaginary transactions, or by means of similar deceits executed prior to or
simultaneously with the commission of fraud.
The elements of estafa by means of deceit are the following:
(a) that there must be a false pretense or fraudulent representation as to his power,
influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions;
(b) that such false pretense or fraudulent representation was made or executed prior to
or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud;
(c) that the offended party relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent
means and was induced to part with his money or property; and
(d) that, as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.
Here, Melissa Chua defrauded the complainants by misrepresenting herself as having
the capacity to send them to Taiwan for work. This came before they gave her the
placement fee. As a consequence, they suffered damages as the promised employment
never materialized and their money was not returned.

People vs. Benzon Ong

G.R. No. 119594
January 18, 2000
Facts:
The accused misrepresented himself to have the capacity to contract, enlist, hire, and
transport Filipino workers to Taiwan. He then recruited and promised employment to
9 persons for a fee and without the required license or authority. Upon the complaint
of one of the victims, the NBI conducted an entrapment operation wherein the said
accused was placed under arrest.
Issue:
W/N accused is liable for illegal recruitment in large scale and estafa
Held:
Accused-appellant is charged with violation of Art. 38 of the Labor Code, as amended
by Presidential Decree No. 2018, which provides that any recruitment activity,
including the prohibited practices enumerated in Art. 34 of said Code, undertaken by
persons who have no license or authority to engage in recruitment for overseas
employment is illegal and punishable under Art. 39. Under Art. 13(b) of the Labor
Code, "recruitment and placement" refer to any act of 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; provided, that any person or entity which, in any manner,
offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons, is considered
engaged in recruitment and placement. On the other hand, "referral" is defined as the
act of passing along or forwarding of an applicant for employment after an initial
interview of a selected applicant for employment to a selected employer, placement
officer or bureau.
On the other hand, illegal recruitment is considered an offense involving economic
sabotage if any of these qualifying circumstances exist, namely, (a) when illegal
recruitment is committed by a syndicate, i.e., if it is carried out by a group of three or
more persons conspiring and/or confederating with one another; or, (b) when illegal

recruitment is committed in large scale, i.e., if it is committed against three or more

persons individually or as a group. The essential elements of the crime of illegal
recruitment in large scale are: (1) the accused engages in acts of recruitment and
placement of workers defined under Art. 13(b) or in any prohibited activities under
Art. 34 of the Labor Code; (2) the accused has not complied with the guidelines
issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment, particularly with respect to the
securing of a license or an authority to recruit and deploy workers, either locally or
overseas; and (3) the accused commits the unlawful acts against three or more
persons, individually or as a group. As defined, a "license" is that which is issued by
the Department of Labor and Employment authorizing a person or entity to operate a
private employment agency, while an "authority" is that issued by the DOLE entitling
a person or association to so engage in recruitment and placement activities as a
private recruitment agency. It is the lack of the necessary license or authority that
renders the recruitment unlawful or criminal.
To prove illegal recruitment, it must be shown that the accused-appellant gave
complainants the distinct impression that he had the power or ability to send
complainants abroad for work such that the latter were convinced to part with their
money in order to be employed. The acts of accused-appellant created the distinct
impression on the eight complainants that he was a recruiter for overseas
employment. There is no question that he was neither licensed nor authorized to
recruit workers for overseas employment. Nor is there any question that he dealt with
complainants. What he claims is that he merely "suggested" to complainants to apply
at the Steadfast Recruitment Agency, which is a recruitment agency.
Even if accused did no more than "suggest" to complainants where they could apply
for overseas employment, his act constituted "referral" within the meaning of Art.
13(b) of the Labor Code. Indeed, the testimonial and documentary evidence in the
record shows that accused-appellant did more than just make referrals. The evidence
shows that he made misrepresentations to them concerning his authority to recruit for
overseas employment and collected various amounts from them for placement fees.
Clearly, accused-appellant committed acts constitutive of large scale illegal
recruitment.
The following elements of estafa are present in these cases, to wit: (1) the accused has
defrauded the offended party by means of abuse of confidence or by deceit; and (2) as
a result, damage or prejudice, which is capable of pecuniary estimation, is caused to
the offended party or third person. Accused-appellant misrepresented himself to

complainants as one who can make arrangements for job placements in Taiwan, and
by reason of his misrepresentations, false assurances and deceit, complainants were
induced to part with their money, thus causing them damage and prejudice.
Delia Romero vs. People
G.R. No. 171644
November 23, 2011
Facts:
On separate occasions, the complainants asked the accused how they can secure jobs
in Israel. They were informed that upon payment of $3,600.00, their papers would be
immediately processed. They were deployed to Israel and were able to work for a
couple of months before being deported for not possessing the required working visa.
Upon going to the accused, the accused did not return their money and promised that
she will send them back to Israel which she ultimately failed to do.
Issue:
W/N accused is liable for illegal recruitment
Held:
Yes. Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code defines, recruitment and placement as: any act
of 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: Provided, that any person or
entity which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee, employment to two or more
persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement.
The crime of illegal recruitment is committed when two elements concur, namely: (1)
the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable one to
lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers; and (2) he undertakes
either any activity within the meaning of "recruitment and placement" defined under
Article 13 (b), or any prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor
Code.

It is apparent that petitioner was able to convince the private respondents to apply for
work in Israel after parting with their money in exchange for the services she would
render. The said act of the petitioner, without a doubt, falls within the meaning of
recruitment and placement as defined in Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code.

People vs. Alvarez

G.R. No. 142981
August 20, 2002
Facts:
The 3 complainants allege that the accused promised that they will be deployed to
Taiwan if they can produce certain amounts each. Two of them were given receipts for
the processing fee, visas, passport and processing of other documents, while 1 paid
but was never given the receipts for the said payments.
Issue:
1. W/N accused is liable for illegal recruitment in large scale
2. W/N failure to present receipts is fatal to the prosecution
Held:
1. Yes. 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
Under Article 13(b), recruitment and placement refers to any act of 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. In the simplest terms, illegal
recruitment is committed when a person, who is not authorized by the
government, gives the impression that he or she has the power to send workers
abroad.

Since only two complainants were able to show receipts issued by appellant,
petitioner claims that the prosecution failed to prove illegal recruitment in large
scale. The court disagrees. The finding of illegal recruitment in large scale is
justified wherever the elements previously mentioned concur with this additional
element: the offender commits the crime against three (3) or more persons,
individually or as a group. Accused 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.

2. The absence of receipts in a case for illegal recruitment is not fatal, as long as the
prosecution is able to establish through credible testimonial evidence that accusedappellant has engaged in illegal recruitment. Such case is made, not by the
issuance or the signing of receipts for placement fees, but by engagement in
recruitment activities without the necessary license or authority

People vs. Rosario Ochoa

G.R. No. 173792
August 31, 2011
Facts:
The private complainants were recruited by the accused for deployment to Taiwan and
Saudi Arabia in exchange for fees of various amounts. The accused stated under oath
that she was employed by AXIL International Services as a recruiter. AXIL had a
temporary license to recruit Filipino workers for overseas employment. She admitted
recruiting private complainants and receiving from them different amounts as
placement fees and medical fees.
Issue:
W/N the accused committed illegal recruitment in large scale and estafa
Held:
Yes. It is well-settled that to prove illegal recruitment, it must be shown that appellant
gave complainants the distinct impression that she had the power or ability to send
complainants abroad for work such that the latter were convinced to part with their
money in order to be employed. All eight private complainants herein consistently
declared that Ochoa offered and promised them employment overseas. Ochoa
required private complainants to submit their bio-data, birth certificates, and
passports, which private complainants did. Private complainants also gave various
amounts to Ochoa as payment for placement and medical fees as evidenced by the
receipts Ochoa issued to Gubat, Cesar, and Agustin. Despite private complainants
compliance with all the requirements Ochoa specified, they were not able to leave for
work abroad. Private complainants pleaded that Ochoa return their hard-earned
money, but Ochoa failed to do so.
More importantly, Ochoa could still be convicted of illegal recruitment even if we
disregard the POEA certification, for regardless of whether or not Ochoa was a
licensee or holder of authority, she could still have committed illegal
recruitment. Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042 clearly provides that any person,
whether a non-licensee, non-holder, licensee or holder of authority may be held liable

for illegal recruitment for certain acts as enumerated in paragraphs (a) to (m)
thereof. Among such acts, under Section 6(m) of Republic Act No. 8042, is the
[f]ailure to reimburse expenses incurred by the worker in connection with his
documentation and processing for purposes of deployment, in cases where the
deployment does not actually take place without the workers fault. Ochoa committed
illegal recruitment as described in the said provision by receiving placement and
medical fees from private complainants, evidenced by the receipts issued by her, and
failing to reimburse the private complainants the amounts they had paid when they
were not able to leave for Taiwan and Saudi Arabia, through no fault of their own.
Under the last paragraph of Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042, illegal recruitment
shall be considered an offense involving economic sabotage if committed in a large
scale, that is, committed against three or more persons individually or as a
group. Here, there are eight private complainants who convincingly testified on
Ochoas acts of illegal recruitment.
The elements of estafa are: (a) that the accused defrauded another by abuse of
confidence or by means of deceit, and (b) that damage or prejudice capable of
pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party or third person. Both elements
are present in Criminal Case Nos. 98-77301, 98-77302, and 98-77303.Ochoas deceit
was evident in her false representation to private complainants Gubat, Cesar, and
Agustin that she possessed the authority and capability to send said private
complainants to Taiwan/Saudi Arabia for employment as early as one to two weeks
from completion of the requirements, among which were the payment of placement
fees and submission of a medical examination report. Ochoa promised that there were
already existing job vacancies overseas for private complainants, even quoting the
corresponding salaries. Ochoa carried on the deceit by receiving application
documents from the private complainants, accompanying them to the clinic for
medical examination, and/or making them go to the offices of certain
recruitment/placement agencies to which Ochoa had actually no connection at
all. Clearly deceived by Ochoas words and actions, private complainants Gubat,
Cesar, and Aquino were persuaded to hand over their money to Ochoa to pay for their
placement and medical fees. Sadly, private complainants Gubat, Cesar, and Aquino
were never able to leave for work abroad, nor recover their money.

People vs. Hadja Jarona Lalli

G.R. No. 195419
October 12, 2011
Facts:
The complainant here was approached by one of the accused asking her if she wanted
a job in Malaysia as a restaurant entertainer. However, she didnt have a passport and
was chided by the accused to use her sisters passport instead. One of the accused
assured that it will not be a problem as they have a contact in the DFA who will
arrange it. Upon arrival in Malaysia, she and her companions were brought to a
restaurant where they found out from another Filipino worker that it is a prostitution
den and that the women there are prostitutes. She eventually worked as a prostitute
there and was subjected to sexual intercourse with different men. One day she was
able to contact her other sister and informed her about her situation. One day her
sisters husband came to the restaurant and helped her escape.
Issue:
W/N the accused are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of illegal
recruitment and trafficking in persons
Held:
Yes. It is clear that a person or entity engaged in recruitment and placement activities
without the requisite authority from the Department of Labor and Employment
(DOLE), whether for profit or not, is engaged in illegal recruitment. The Philippine
Overseas Employment Administration (POEA), an agency under DOLE created by
Executive Order No. 797 to take over the duties of the Overseas Employment
Development Board, issues the authority to recruit under the Labor Code. The
commission of illegal recruitment by three or more persons conspiring or
confederating with one another is deemed committed by a syndicate and constitutes
economic sabotage.

In People v. Gallo, the Court enumerated the elements of syndicated illegal

recruitment, to wit:

1.

the offender undertakes either any activity within the meaning of recruitment
and placement defined under Article 13(b), or any of the prohibited practices
enumerated under Art. 34 of the Labor Code;

2.

he has no valid license or authority required by law to enable one to lawfully

engage in recruitment and placement of workers; and

3.

the illegal recruitment is committed by a group of three (3) or more persons

conspiring or confederating with one another.

Aringoy claims and admits that he only referred Lolita to Lalli for job opportunities to
Malaysia. Such act of referring, whether for profit or not, in connivance with someone
without a POEA license, is already considered illegal recruitment, given the broad
definition of recruitment and placement in the Labor Code.
In this case, Lolita would not have been able to go to Malaysia if not for the concerted
efforts of Aringoy, Lalli and Relampagos. First, it was Aringoy who knew Lolita,
since Aringoy was a neighbor of Lolitas grandfather. It was Aringoy who referred
Lolita to Lalli, a fact clearly admitted by Aringoy. Second, Lolita would not have
been able to go to Malaysia if Lalli had not purchased Lolitas boat ticket to Malaysia.
It is clear that through the concerted efforts of Aringoy, Lalli and Relampagos, Lolita
was recruited and deployed to Malaysia to work as a prostitute. Such conspiracy
among Aringoy, Lalli and Relampagos could be deduced from the manner in which
the crime was perpetrated each of the accused played a pivotal role in perpetrating the
crime of illegal recruitment, and evinced a joint common purpose and design,
concerted action and community of interest.

The crime of Trafficking in Persons is qualified when committed by a syndicate, as

provided in Section 6(c) of RA 9208:

(c) When the crime is committed by a syndicate, or in large scale. Trafficking

is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or
more persons conspiring or confederating with one another. It is deemed

committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons,

individually or as a group.
Trafficking in Persons under Sections 3(a) and 4 of RA 9208 is not only limited to
transportation of victims, but also includes the act of recruitment of victims for
trafficking. In this case, since it has been sufficiently proven beyond reasonable doubt,
as discussed in Criminal Case No. 21930, that all the three accused
(Aringoy,Lalli and Relampagos) conspired and confederated with one another to
illegally recruit Lolita to become a prostitute in Malaysia, it follows that they are also
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Qualified Trafficking in Persons
committed by a syndicate under RA 9208 because the crime of recruitment for
prostitution also constitutes trafficking.