Sie sind auf Seite 1von 10

G.R. No. 173198 People vs.

Ocden
June 1,2011 ROSALIE SANTAJ. FLORENTIN
I, J.DE CASTRO FILRO: 001

FACTS:

During the period from May to December, 1998, in Baguio City, Dolores Ocden
recruited and promised employment as factory workers in Italy to more than three (3)
persons including, but not limited to the following: Jeffries Golidan, Howard C. Golidan,
Karen M. Simeon, Jean S. Maximo, Norma Pedro, Marlyn Mana-a, Rizalina Ferrer, and
Milan Daring without having first secured the necessary license or authority from the
Department of Labor and Employment. None of the applicants were able to work in Italy.
They asked Ocden to refund their hard-earned money but Ocden failed to return. The
RTC found Ocden guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale and suffer life imprisonment
and a fine of P100,000 and was erroneously filed before CA, but the latter correctly
submitted to SC.

ISSUE:

Is Ocden guilty of illegal recruitment?

LAWS INVOLVED:

Art. 13(b) in relation to Articles 38(b), 34 and 39 of the Labor Code.


Sec. 6(m) of RA 8042.

RULING:

The Supreme Court found Ocden guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale and
estafa; and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.
Since illegal recruitment under Section 6(m) can be committed by any person, even
by a licensed recruiter, a certification on whether Ocden had a license to recruit or not, is
inconsequential. Ocden committed illegal recruitment as described in said provision by
receiving placement fees from Mana-a, Ferrer, and Golidans two sons, Jeffries and
Howard, evidenced by receipts Ocden herself issued; and failing to reimburse/refund to
Mana-a, Ferrer, and Golidans two sons the amounts they had paid when they were not
able to leave for Italy, through no fault of their own.

OPINION:

G.R. No. 173792 People vs. Ochoa


August 31,2011 ROSALIE SANTAJ. FLORENTIN
I, J.DE CASTRO FILRO: 002

FACTS:

That on or about the period covering the months of February 1997 up to April 1998
in Quezon City, Rosario Ochoa recruited Robert Gubat, Junior Agustin, Cesar Aquino,
Richard Luciano, Fernando Rivera, Mariano R. Mislang, Helen B. Palogo, Joebert
Decolongon, Corazon S. Austria, Cristopher A. Bermejo, Letecia D. Londonio, Alma
Borromeo, Francisco Pascual, Raymundo A. Bermejo and Rosemarie A. Bermejo as
overseas workers in Saudi Arabia and Taiwan for a consideration ranging from P2,000.00
to P32,000.00 or a total amount of P124,000.00 as placement fee which the complainants
paid to herein accused without the accused having secured the necessary license from the
Department of Labor and Employment.

ISSUE:

Is Ochoa guilty of illegal recruitment?

LAWS INVOLVED:

Sec. 6, (l) and (m); and Sec. 7 (b) of RA 8042.

RULING:

Ochoa was charged with violation of Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042. Said
provision broadens the concept of illegal recruitment under the Labor Code and provides
stiffer penalties, especially for those that constitute economic sabotage, i.e., illegal
recruitment in large scale and illegal recruitment committed by a syndicate.
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.

OPINION:

G.R. No. 171644 Romero vs. People


November 23,2011 ROSALIE SANTAJ. FLORENTIN
III, J.PERALTA FILRO: 003

FACTS:

That sometime in the month of August and September 2000 in Calasiao,


Pangasinan, Delia D. Romero, not being licensee or holder of authority, recruited
Arturo Siapno and Romulo Padlan to a supposed job abroad particularly in Israel,
for a fee, without first securing the necessary license and permit to do the same. The
victims testified that when they went to the accused stall, the latter encouraged
them to apply abroad and they were convinced. They attended a briefing with
Jonney, a friend of Delia, in Dau, Mabalacat, Pampanga. They were able to work in
Israel for more or less three months but they were later caught by the immigration
officials, incarcerated for a couple of days and then deported because they have no
working visas.

ISSUE:

Is Delia Romero guilty of illegal recruitment?

LAWS INVOLVED:

Arts. 38 and 13 (b) of the Labor Code.

RULING:

Delia Romero is guilty of illegal recruitment and estafa.


The Court held that 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. From the above testimonies, 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.

OPINION:

G.R. No. 195419 People vs. Lalli


November 23,2011 ROSALIE SANTAJ. FLORENTIN
II, J. CARPIO FILRO: 004
FACTS:

Ronnie Aringoy asked Lolita Plando if she wants to work as restaurant entertainer
in Malaysia, since Lolita is interested, she inquired how she could apply. Ronnie brought
Lolita to Nestor Relampagos and Hadja Lalli. The latter accompanied Lolita and other
women in Malaysia by boat from Zamboanga to Sandakan, Malaysia and then boarded a
van going to Kota Kinabalu. They were forced to work as prostitutes in pipen Club in
Labuan, Malaysia. Lolita worked as a prostitute from June 14 to July 8, 2005. Every night, a
customer used her. She had at least one customer or more a night, and at most, she had
around five customers a night. They all had sexual intercourse with her. Lolita was saved
by her brother-in-law who acted as a customer.

ISSUE:

Is Lalli, Relampagos and Aringoy guilty of syndicated illegal recruitment and


trafficking in persons?

LAWS INVOLVED:

Secs. 6 and 7 of RA 8042


Art. 13 (f) of the Labor Code

RULING:

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 EO 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, for which the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine
of not less than 500,000 but not more than 1,000,000 shall be imposed. In this case, the
trial court, as affirmed by the appellate court, found Lalli, Aringoy and Relampagos to
have conspired and confederated with one another to recruit and place Lolita for work in
Malaysia, without a POEA license. The three elements of syndicated illegal recruitment are
present in this case, in particular: (1) the accused have no valid license or authority
required by law to enable them to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of
workers; (2) the accused engaged in this activity of recruitment and placement by actually
recruiting, deploying and transporting Lolita to Malaysia; and (3) illegal recruitment was
committed by three persons (Aringoy, Lalli and Relampagos), conspiring and
confederating with one another.

OPINION:

G.R. No. 187730 People vs. Gallo


June 29, 2010 ROSALIESANTAJ. FLORENTIN
I, J. VELASCO, JR. FILRO: 005
FACTS:

Accused-appellant made false misrepresentations and promises in assuring Dela


Caza and the other victims that after they paid the placement fee, jobs in Korea as factory
workers were waiting for them and that they would be deployed soon. In fact, Dela Caza
personally talked to accused-appellant and gave him the money and saw him sign and
issue an official receipt as proof of his payment.

ISSUE:

Whether Gallo and others are guilty of syndicated illegal recruitment and estafa.

LAWS INVOLVED:

Articless 13 (b) and 34 of the Labor Code.

RULING:

In the instant case, accused-appellant committed the acts enumerated in Sec. 6 of


R.A. 8042. Testimonial evidence presented by the prosecution clearly shows that, in
consideration of a promise of foreign employment, accused-appellant received the amount
of Php 45,000.00 from Dela Caza. When accused-appellant made misrepresentations
concerning the agencys purported power and authority to recruit for overseas
employment, and in the process, collected money in the guise of placement fees, the
former clearly committed acts constitutive of illegal recruitment. 1[ In this case, it cannot be
denied that the accused-appellent together with Mardeolyn and the rest of the officers and
employees of MPM Agency participated in a network of deception. Verily, the active
involvement of each in the recruitment scam was directed at one single purpose to divest
complainants with their money on the pretext of guaranteed employment abroad. The
prosecution evidence shows that complainants were briefed by Mardeolyn about the
processing of their papers for a possible job opportunity in Korea, as well as their possible
salary. Likewise, Yeo Sin Ung, a Korean national, gave a briefing about the business and
what to expect from the company. Then, here comes accused-appellant who introduced
himself as Mardeolyns relative and specifically told Dela Caza of the fact that the agency
was able to send many workers abroad. Dela Caza was even showed several workers visas
who were already allegedly deployed abroad. Later on, accused-appellant signed and
issued an official receipt acknowledging the down payment of Dela Caza. Without a
doubt, the nature and extent of the actions of accused-appellant, as well as with the other
persons in MPM Agency clearly show unity of action towards a common undertaking.
Hence, conspiracy is evidently present.

OPINION:

G.R. No. 187730 People vs. Gallo


June 29, 2010 ROSALIESANTAJ. FLORENTIN
I, J. VELASCO,JR. FILRO: 006

FACTS:

1
That on or about the period comprising March 21, 2003 to March 28, 2003, in Pasay
City, Rachel Balagan, Rosabel Balagan and Herminia Avila conspired and confederated
together and mutually helped one another, by falsely represented themselves to have the
capacity to contract, enlist, employ, and recruit workers for overseas
deployment/employment as Factory Worker in Ireland, for a fee recruited and promised
overseas deployment/employment to private complainant Michael O. Fernandez without
first securing the required license or authority from the POEA.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the three accused are guilty of syndicated illegal recruitment?

LAWS INVOLVED:

RULING:

In the case for Syndicated Illegal Recruitment, the appellate court credited the
position of the Office of the Solicitor General that the prosecution failed to establish that
the illegal recruitment was committed by a syndicate. It instead found appellants culpable
of Simple Illegal Recruitment.

OPINION:

G.R. No. 179907 Lapasaran vs. People


February 12, 2009 ROSALIE SANTAJ. FLORENTIN
III, J. NACHURA FILRO: 007

FACTS:

In September 2001, private complainant Menardo Villarin (Menardo) and his sister
Vilma Villarin (Vilma) met petitioner Arlene N. Lapasaran, who worked at Silver Jet
Travel Tours Agency (Silver Jet) at SIMCAS Building, Makati. For a fee of P85,000.00,
petitioner undertook the processing of the papers necessary for the deployment (under a
tourist visa) and employment of Menardo in South Korea. Petitioner informed Menardo
that he would be employed as factory worker, which was, subsequently, changed to
bakery worker. Thereafter, Menardo paid the said fee in installments.
After two postponements in his flight schedule, Menardo finally left for South
Korea on November 25, 2001. Unfortunately, he was incarcerated by South Korean
immigration authorities and was immediately deported to the Philippines because the
travel documents issued to him by the petitioner were fake. He immediately contacted
petitioner and informed her of what happened. Thereupon, petitioner promised to send
him back to South Korea, but the promise was never fulfilled. Consequently, Menardo
and his sister Vilma demanded the return of the money they paid, but petitioner refused
and even said, Magkorte na lang tayo. It was later found out that petitioner was no longer
connected with Silver Jet.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the laws on illegal recruitment and estafa are applicable in the case
at bar.

LAWS INVOLVED:

Secs.6 and 7 (a) of RA 8042.

RULING:

Illegal recruitment is committed when it is shown that petitioner gave the


complainant the distinct impression that she had the power or ability to send the
complainant abroad for work, such that the latter was convinced to part with his money in
order to be employed. To be engaged in the practice of recruitment and placement, it is
plain that there must, at least, be a promise or an offer of employment from the person
posing as a recruiter whether locally or abroad. Petitioners misrepresentations concerning
her purported power and authority to recruit for overseas employment, and the collection
from Menardo of various amounts, clearly indicate acts constitutive of illegal recruitment.

OPINION:

G.R. No. 181475 People vs. Domingo


April 7, 2009 ROSALIE SANTAJ. FLORENTIN
II, J. CARPIO-MORALES FILRO: 008

FACTS:

That in or about the month of November 1999 to January 20, 2000, in Malolos,
Bulacan, accused Domingo, being a non-licensee or non-holder of authority from the
Department of Labor and Employment recruited and/or placed workers under local or
overseas employment, did then and there willfully and feloniously, with false pretenses,
undertake illegal recruitment, placement or deployment of Wilson A. Manzo, Florentino
M. Ondra, Feliciano S. del Rosario, Leo J. Cruz, Norberto S. Surio, Genaro B. Rodriguez,
Mariano Aguilar, Dionisio Aguilar, Mario J. Sorel, Marcial "Boy" A. dela Cruz, Edgardo P.
Jumaquio, Midel Clara Buensuceso, Remigio S. Carreon, Jr., Romeo Manasala, Magno D.
Balatbat, Jose Armen F. Sunga, Rogelio M. Cambay, Junior Balisbis, Ma. Leah Vivas,
Simeon S. Cabigao, Edcil P. Mariano, Juanito C. Bartolome, Angelito R. Acevedo,
Godofredo P. Samson, Eugenio del Rosario y Tolentino, William B. Bautista, Rodolfo M.
Marcelino, Roberto B. Bohol, Felipe H. Cunanan, Carlos P. Dechavez, Carlos J. Cruz,
Reynaldo C. Chico, Renato D. Jumaquio, Narciso F. Sunga, Enrico R. Espiritu, Leonardo C.
Sunga, Jr., and Iglecerio H. Perez.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Domingo is guilty of illegal recruitment in a large scale.

LAWS INVOLVED:

Articles 13 (b) and 38 of the Labor Code.

RULING:

The Court finds that the prosecution ably discharged its onus of proving the guilt
beyond reasonable doubt of appellant of the crimes of illegal recruitment in a large scale.

That no receipt or document in which appellant acknowledged receipt of money for


the promised jobs was adduced in evidence does not free him of liability. For even if at the
time appellant was promising employment no cash was given to him, he is still considered
as having been engaged in recruitment activities, since Article 13(b) of the Labor Code
states that the act of recruitment may be for profit or not. It suffices that appellant
promised or offered employment for a fee to the complaining witnesses to warrant his
conviction for illegal recruitment.

OPINION:

G.R. No. 179934 People vs. Abordo


May 21, 2009 ROSALIE SANTAJ. FLORENTIN
I, J. CARPIO FILRO: 009

FACTS:

From February to December 1994 at Brgy. Poblacion, Villasis, Pangasinan, accused


Erlinda Abordo and Vina Cabanlong recruited Jesus Rayray, Jaime Fernandez, Exequiel
Mendoza and Esmenia Carino for employment abroad without first securing the requisite
license or authority from DOLE. The complainants filed separate informations.
ISSUE:

Whether Abordo guilty of simple illegal recruitment or in a large scale.

LAW INVOLVED:

Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code.

RULING:

Since, the accused were prosecuted under several information for different
complainants, the penalty imposed should be for each information charged. To convict the
accused for illegal recruitment in large scale, there must be one information that must
include all the complainants. Hence, the accused were guilty of simple illegal recruitment.

OPINION:

G.R. No. 179931 People vs. Adeser


October 26, 2009 ROSALIE SANTAJ. FLORENTIN
II, J. QUISUMBING FILRO: 010

FACTS:

Sometime in November 2002, private complainant Josephine R. Palo met the


spouses Tiongson, agents of Naples Travel and Tours. They introduced Palo to appellant
Adeser, owner and general manager of Naples, to discuss employment opportunities in
Australia. After Palo made her payments, she was required to submit her resume and
pictures and was promised that she would be employed in three months. More than three
months passed, Palo was not deployed in Australia. Neither did she get her Australian
Visa.

ISSUE:

Is appellant Adeser guilty of syndicated illegal recruitment.

LAWS INVOLVED:

Articles 13 (b) and 34 of the Labor Code.

RULING:

Undoubtedly, what transpired in the instant case is illegal recruitment by a


syndicate. As categorically testified by Palo and Caraig, appellant, together with her co-
accused, made representations to Palo that they could send her to Australia to work as an
apple picker. There is no denying that they gave Palo the distinct impression that they had
the power or ability to send her abroad for work such that the latter was convinced to part
with a huge amount of money as placement fee in order to be employed. And this act was
committed by appellant and her co-accused
even if they did not have the required license to do so. Hence, they are guilty of syndicated
estafa.

OPINION: