7/13/2017 G.R. No.

113161

TodayisThursday,July13,2017

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

SECONDDIVISION

G.R.No.113161August29,1995

PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,plaintiffappellee,
vs.
LOMAGOCEyOLALIA,DANGOCEandNELLYD.AGUSTIN,accused.NELLYD.AGUSTIN,accused
appellant.

REGALADO,J.:

OnJanuary12,1988,aninformationforillegalrecruitmentcommittedbyasyndicateandinlargescale,punishable
under Articles 38 and 39 of the Labor Code (Presidential Decree No. 442) as amended by Section 1(b) of
PresidentialDecreeNo.2018,wasfiledagainstspousesDanandLomaGoceandhereinaccusedappellantNelly
AgustinintheRegionalTrialCourtofManila,Branch5,alleging

ThatinoraboutandduringtheperiodcomprisedbetweenMay1986andJune25,1987,bothdates
inclusive, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring and confederating together
andhelpingoneanother,representingthemselvestohavethecapacitytocontract,enlistandtransport
Filipinoworkersforemploymentabroad,didthenandtherewillfullyandunlawfully,forafee,recruitand
promise employment/job placement abroad, to (1) Rolando Dalida y Piernas, (2) Ernesto Alvarez y
Lubangco, (3) Rogelio Salado y Savillo, (4) Ramona Salado y Alvarez, (5) Dionisio Masaya y de
Guzman,(6)DaveRiveraydeLeon,(7)LorenzoAlvarezyVelayo,and(8)NelsonTrinidadySantos,
withoutfirsthavingsecuredtherequiredlicenseorauthorityfromtheDepartmentofLabor.1

OnJanuary21,1987,awarrantofarrestwasissuedagainstthethreeaccusedbutnotoneofthemwasarrested.2
Hence,onFebruary2,1989,thetrialcourtorderedthecasearchivedbutitissuedastandingwarrantofarrestagainstthe
accused.3

Thereafter,onlearningofthewhereaboutsoftheaccused,oneoftheoffendedparties,RogelioSalado,requested
onMarch17,1989foracopyofthewarrantofarrest.4Eventually,ataroundmiddayofFebruary26,1993,NellyAgustin
wasapprehendedbytheParaaquepolice.5OnMarch8,1993,hercounselfiledamotiontorevivethecaseandrequested
thatitbesetforhearing"forpurposesofdueprocessandfortheaccusedtoimmediatelyhaveherdayincourt" 6Thus,on
April15,1993,thetrialcourtreinstatedthecaseandsetthearraignmentforMay3,1993,7onwhichdateofAgustinpleaded
notguilty8andthecasesubsequentlywenttotrial.

Fourofthecomplainantstestifiedfortheprosecution.RogelioSaladowasthefirsttotakethewitnessstandandhe
declaredthatsometimeinMarchorApril,1987,hewasintroducedbyLorenzoAlvarez,hisbrotherinlawandaco
applicant, to Nelly Agustin in the latter's residence at Factor, Dongalo, Paraaque, Metro Manila. Representing
herself as the manager of the Clover Placement Agency, Agustin showed him a job order as proof that he could
readily be deployed for overseas employment. Salado learned that he had to pay P5,000.00 as processing fee,
whichamounthegavesometimeinAprilorMayofthesameyear.Hewasissuedthecorrespondingreceipt.9

AlsoinAprilorMay,1987,Salado,accompaniedbyfiveotherapplicantswhowerehisrelatives,wenttotheofficeof
theplacementagencyatNakpilStreet,Ermita,ManilawherehesawAgustinandmetthespousesDanandLoma
Goce, owners of the agency. He submitted his biodata and learned from Loma Goce that he had to give
P12,000.00,insteadoftheoriginalamountofP5,000.00fortheplacementfee.Althoughsurprisedatthenewand
highersum,theysubsequentlyagreedaslongastherewasanassurancethattheycouldleaveforabroad.10

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1995/aug1995/gr_113161_1995.html 1/6
7/13/2017 G.R. No. 113161
Thereafter,areceiptwasissuedinthenameoftheCloverPlacementAgencyshowingthatSaladoandhisaforesaid
coapplicants each paid P2,000.00, instead of the P5,000.00 which each of them actually paid. Several months
passedbutSaladofailedtoleaveforthepromisedoverseasemployment.Hence,inOctober,1987,alongwiththe
other recruits, he decided to go to the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) to verify the real
status of Clover Placement Agency. They discovered that said agency was not duly licensed to recruit job
applicants. Later, upon learning that Agustin had been arrested, Salado decided to see her and to demand the
returnofthemoneyhehadpaid,butAgustincouldonlygivehimP500.00.11

Ramona Salado, the wife of Rogelio Salado, came to know through her brother, Lorenzo Alvarez, about Nelly
Agustin. Accompanied by her husband, Rogelio, Ramona went to see Agustin at the latter's residence. Agustin
persuaded her to apply as a cutter/sewer in Oman so that she could join her husband. Encouraged by Agustin's
promisethatsheandherhusbandcouldlivetogetherwhileworkinginOman,sheinstructedherhusbandtogive
AgustinP2,000.00foreachofthemasplacementfee,orthetotalsumofP4,000.00.12

Muchlater,theSaladocouplereceivedatelegramfromtheplacementagencyrequiringthemtoreporttoitsoffice
becausethe"NOC"(visa)hadallegedlyarrived.Again,aroundFebruary,orMarch,1987,RogeliogaveP2,000.00
aspaymentforhisandhiswife'spassports.DespitefollowupoftheirpaperstwiceaweekfromFebruarytoJune,
1987,heandhiswifefailedtoleaveforabroad.13

ComplainantDionisioMasaya,accompaniedbyhisbrotherinlaw,AquilesOrtega,appliedforajobinOmanwith
theCloverPlacementAgencyatParaaque,theagency'sformerofficeaddress.There,MasayametNellyAgustin,
whointroducedherselfasthemanageroftheagency,andtheGocespouses,DanandLoma,aswellasthelatter's
daughter.Hesubmittedseveralpertinentdocuments,suchashisbiodataandschoolcredentials.14

In May, 1986, Masaya gave Dan Goce P1,900.00 as an initial downpayment for the placement fee, and in
Septemberofthatsameyear,hegaveanadditionalP10,000.00.Hewasissuedreceiptsforsaidamountsandwas
advisedtogototheplacementofficeonceinawhiletofollowuphisapplication,whichhefaithfullydid.Muchtohis
dismay and chagrin, he failed to leave for abroad as promised. Accordingly, he was forced to demand that his
moneyberefundedbutLomaGocecouldgivehimbackonlyP4,000.00ininstallments.15

Astheprosecution'sfourthandlastwitness,ErnestoAlvareztookthewitnessstandonJune7,1993.Hetestified
thatinFebruary,1987,hemetappellantAgustinthroughhiscousin,LarryAlvarez,atherresidenceinParaaque.
Sheinformedhimthat"madalassiyangnagpapalakadsaOman"andofferedhimajobasanambulancedriverat
theRoyalHospitalinOmanwithamonthlysalaryofabout$600.00to$700.00.16

On March 10, 1987, Alvarez gave an initial amount of P3,000.00 as processing fee to Agustin at the latter's
residence.Inthesamemonth,hegaveanotherP3,000.00,thistimeintheofficeoftheplacementagency.Agustin
assured him that he could leave for abroad before the end of 1987. He returned several times to the placement
agency'sofficetofollowuphisapplicationbuttonoavail.Frustrated,hedemandedthereturnofthemoneyhehad
paid,butAgustincouldonlygivebackP500.00.Thereafter,helookedforAgustinabouteighttimes,buthecouldno
longerfindher.17

OnlyhereinappellantAgustintestifiedforthedefense.SheassertedthatDanandLomaGocewereherneighbors
at Tambo, Paraaque and that they were licensed recruiters and owners of the Clover Placement Agency.
Previously, the Goce couple was able to send her son, Reynaldo Agustin, to Saudi Arabia. Agustin met the
aforementionedcomplainantsthroughLorenzoAlvarezwhorequestedhertointroducethemtotheGocecouple,to
whichrequestsheacceded.18

Denyinganyparticipationintheillegalrecruitmentandmaintainingthattherecruitmentwasperpetratedonlybythe
Goce couple, Agustin denied any knowledge of the receipts presented by the prosecution. She insisted that the
complainants included her in the complaint thinking that this would compel her to reveal the whereabouts of the
Gocespouses.Shefailedtodosobecauseintruth,sosheclaims,shedoesnotknowthepresentaddressofthe
couple.Allsheknewwasthattheyhadlefttheirresidencein1987.19

AlthoughsheadmittedhavinggivenP500.00eachtoRogelioSaladoandAlvarez,sheexplainedthatitwasentirely
fordifferentreasons.Saladohadsupposedlyaskedforaloan,whileAlvarezneededmoneybecausehewassickat
thattime.20

OnNovember19,1993,thetrialcourtrenderedjudgmentfindinghereinappellantguiltyasaprincipalinthecrimeof
illegalrecruitmentinlargescale,andsentencinghertoservethepenaltyoflifeimprisonment,aswellastopaya
fineofP100,000.00.21

Inherpresentappeal,appellantAgustinraisesthefollowingarguments:(1)heractofintroducingcomplainantsto
theGocecoupledoesnotfallwithinthemeaningofillegalrecruitmentandplacementunderArticle13(b)inrelation
toArticle34oftheLaborCode(2)thereisnoproofofconspiracytocommitillegalrecruitmentamongappellantand
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1995/aug1995/gr_113161_1995.html 2/6
7/13/2017 G.R. No. 113161
the Goce spouses and (3) there is no proof that appellant offered or promised overseas employment to the
complainants.22Thesethreeargumentsbeinginterrelated,theywillbediscussedtogether.

Herein appellant is accused of violating Articles 38 and 39 of the Labor Code. Article 38 of the Labor Code, as
amendedbyPresidentialDecreeNo.2018,providesthatanyrecruitmentactivity,includingtheprohibitedpractices
enumerated in Article 34 of said Code, undertaken by nonlicensees or nonholders of authority shall be deemed
illegal and punishable under Article 39 thereof. The same article further provides that illegal recruitment shall be
consideredanoffenseinvolvingeconomicsabotageifanyofthesequalifyingcircumstancesexist,namely,(a)when
illegalrecruitmentiscommittedbyasyndicate,i.e.,ifitiscarriedoutbyagroupofthreeormorepersonsconspiring
and/or confederating with one another or (b) when illegal recruitment is committed in large scale, i.e., if it is
committedagainstthreeormorepersonsindividuallyorasagroup.

At the outset, it should be made clear that all the accused in this case were not authorized to engage in any
recruitmentactivity,asevidencedbyacertificationissuedbyCeciliaE.Curso,ChiefoftheLicensingandRegulation
OfficeofthePhilippineOverseasEmploymentAdministration,onNovember10,1987.Saidcertificationstatesthat
DanandLomaGoceandNellyAgustinareneitherlicensednorauthorizedtorecruitworkersforoverseas
employment. 23Appellant does not dispute this. As a matter of fact her counsel agreed to stipulate that she was neither
licensednorauthorizedtorecruitapplicantsforoverseasemployment.Appellant,however,deniesthatshewasinanyway
guiltyofillegalrecruitment.24

It is appellant's defensive theory that all she did was to introduce complainants to the Goce spouses. Being a
neighborofsaidcouple,andowingtothefactthatherson'soverseasjobapplicationwasprocessedandfacilitated
bythem,thecomplainantsaskedhertointroducethemtosaidspouses.Allegedlyoutofthegoodnessofherheart,
shecompliedwiththeirrequest.Suchanact,appellantargues,doesnotfallwithinthemeaningof"referral"under
theLaborCodetomakeherliableforillegalrecruitment.

Under said Code, 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,locallyorabroad,whetherforprofitornotprovided,thatanypersonorentitywhich,inanymanner,
offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and
placement.25Ontheotherhand,referralistheactofpassingalongorforwardingofanapplicantforemploymentafteran
initialinterviewofaselectedapplicantforemploymenttoaselectedemployer,placementofficerorbureau.26

Hence,theinevitablequeryiswhetherornotappellantAgustinmerelyintroducedcomplainantstotheGocecouple
or her actions went beyond that. The testimonial evidence hereon show that she indeed further committed acts
constitutive of illegal recruitment. All four prosecution witnesses testified that it was Agustin whom they initially
approachedregardingtheirplansofworkingoverseas.Itwasfromherthattheylearnedaboutthefeestheyhadto
pay, as well as the papers that they had to submit. It was after they had talked to her that they met the accused
spouseswhoownedtheplacementagency.

As correctly held by the trial court, being an employee of the Goces, it was therefore logical for appellant to
introduce the applicants to said spouses, they being the owners of the agency. As such, appellant was actually
makingreferralstotheagencyofwhichshewasapart.Shewasthereforeengaginginrecruitmentactivity.27

DespiteAgustin'spretensionsthatshewasbutaneighboroftheGocecouple,thetestimoniesoftheprosecution
witnessespaintadifferentpicture.RogelioSaladoandDionisioMasayatestifiedthatappellantrepresentedherself
asthemanageroftheCloverPlacementAgency.RamonaSaladowasofferedajobasacutter/sewerbyAgustin
the first time they met, while Ernesto Alvarez remembered that when he first met Agustin, the latter represented
herselfas"nagpapaalispapuntasaOman." 28Indeed,Agustinplayedapivotalroleintheoperationsoftherecruitment
agency,workingtogetherwiththeGocecouple.

There is illegal recruitment when one gives the impression of having the ability to send a worker abroad." 29It is
undisputedthatappellantgavecomplainantsthedistinctimpressionthatshehadthepowerorabilitytosendpeopleabroad
forworksuchthatthelatterwereconvincedtogiveherthemoneyshedemandedinordertobesoemployed.30

ItcannotbedeniedthatAgustinreceivedfromcomplainantsvarioussumsforpurposeoftheirapplications.Heract
of collecting from each of the complainants payment for their respective passports, training fees, placement fees,
medicaltestsandothersundryexpensesunquestionablyconstitutesanactofrecruitmentwithinthemeaningofthe
law.Infact,appellantdemandedandreceivedfromcomplainantsamountsbeyondtheallowablelimitofP5,000.00
undergovernmentregulations.Itistruethatthemereactofacashierinreceivingmoneyfarexceedingtheamount
allowed by law was not considered per se as "recruitment and placement" in contemplation of law, but that was
because the recipient had no other participation in the transactions and did not conspire with her coaccused in
defraudingthevictims.31Thatisnotthecasehere.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1995/aug1995/gr_113161_1995.html 3/6
7/13/2017 G.R. No. 113161
Appellant further argues that "there is no evidence of receipts of collections/payments from complainants to
appellant."Onthecontrary,xeroxcopiesofsaidreceipts/voucherswerepresentedbytheprosecution.Forinstance,
a cash voucher marked as Exhibit D, 32 showing the receipt of P10,000.00 for placement fee and duly signed by
appellant,waspresentedbytheprosecution.Anotherreceipt,identifiedasExhibitE, 33wasissuedandsignedbyappellant
onFebruary5,1987toacknowledgereceiptofP4,000.00fromRogelioandRamonaSaladofor"processingofdocuments
forOman."StillanotherreceiptdatedMarch10,1987andpresentedinevidenceasExhibitF,showsthatappellantreceived
fromErnestoAlvarezP2,000.00for"processingofdocumentsforOman."34

Apparently,theoriginalcopiesofsaidreceipts/voucherswerelost,henceonlyxeroxcopiesthereofwerepresented
and which, under the circumstances, were admissible in evidence. When the original writing has been lost or
destroyedorcannotbeproducedincourt,uponproofofitsexecutionandlossordestruction,orunavailability,its
contentsmaybeprovedbyacopyorarecitalofitscontentsinsomeauthenticdocument,orbytherecollectionof
witnesses.35

Even assuming arguendo that the xerox copies presented by the prosecution as secondary evidence are not
allowable in court, still the absence thereof does not warrant the acquittal of appellant. In People vs. Comia, 36
wherethisparticularissuewasinvolved,theCourtheldthatthecomplainants'failuretoaskforreceiptsforthefeestheypaid
to the accused therein, as well as their consequent failure to present receipts before the trial court as proof of the said
payments, is not fatal to their case. The complainants duly proved by their respective testimonies that said accused was
involvedintheentirerecruitmentprocess.Theirtestimoniesinthisregard,beingclearandpositive,weredeclaredsufficient
toestablishthatfactumprobandum.

Indeed, the trial court was justified and correct in accepting the version of the prosecution witnesses, their
statementsbeingpositiveandaffirmativeinnature.Thisismoreworthyofcreditthanthemereuncorroboratedand
selfservingdenialsofappellant.Thelamedefenseconsistingofsuchbaredenialsbyappellantcannotovercome
theevidencepresentedbytheprosecutionprovingherguiltbeyondreasonabledoubt.37

The presence of documentary evidence notwithstanding, this case essentially involves the credibility of witnesses
whichisbestlefttothejudgmentofthetrialcourt,intheabsenceofabuseofdiscretiontherein.Thefindingsoffact
of a trial court, arrived at only after a hearing and evaluation of what can usually be expected to be conflicting
testimoniesofwitnesses,certainlydeserverespectbyanappellatecourt. 38Generally,thefindingsoffactofthetrial
courtonthematterofcredibilityofwitnesseswillnotbedisturbedonappeal.39

In a lastditch effort to exculpate herself from conviction, appellant argues that there is no proof of conspiracy
between her and the Goce couple as to make her liable for illegal recruitment. We do not agree. The evidence
presentedbytheprosecutionclearlyestablishthatappellantconfabulatedwiththeGocesintheirplantodeceivethe
complainants.Althoughsaidaccusedcouplehavenotbeentriedandconvicted,nonethelessthereissufficientbasis
forappellant'sconvictionasdiscussedabove.

InPeoplevs.Sendon,40weheldthatthenonprosecutionofanothersuspectthereinprovidednogroundfortheappellant
concernedtofaultthedecisionofthetrialcourtconvictingher.Theprosecutionofotherpersons,equallyormoreculpable
than herein appellant, may come later after their true identities and addresses shall have been ascertained and said
malefactorsdulytakenintocustody.Weseenoreasonwhythesamedoctrinalruleandcourseofprocedureshouldnotapply
inthiscase.

WHEREFORE,theappealedjudgmentofthecourtaquoisherebyAFFIRMEDintoto,withcostsagainstaccused
appellantNellyD.Agustin.

SOORDERED.

Narvasa,C.J.,Puno,MendozaandFrancisco,JJ.,concur.

Footnotes

1OriginalRecord,1.

2Ibid.,89.

3Ibid.,17.

4Ibid.,24.

5Ibid.,27.

6Ibid.,30.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1995/aug1995/gr_113161_1995.html 4/6
7/13/2017 G.R. No. 113161
7Ibid.,33.

8Ibid.,44.

9TSN,May12,1993,23,8,12.

10Ibid.,id.,35,10,13.

11Ibid.,id.,78,1216.

12Ibid.,May25,1993,1517.

13Ibid.,id.,1820.

14Ibid.,id.,35,1112.

15Ibid.,id.,59.

16Ibid.,June7,1993,25.

17Ibid.,id.,410.

18Ibid.,June30,23.

19Ibid.,id.,5.

20Ibid.,id.,67.

21PennedbyPresidingJudgeCesarJ.Mindaro.

22Appellant'sBrief,10Rollo,194.

23OriginalRecord,153.

24TSN,June11,1993,8.

25Article13(b),LaborCode.

26Webster'sThirdNewInternationalDictionary,1986Ed.,1908.

27Decision,7OriginalRecord,172.

28TSN.,June7,1993,3.

29Peoplevs.Manungas,Jr.,G.R.Nos.9155255,March10,1994,231SCRA1.

30Peoplevs.Villafuerte,G.R.Nos.9372327,May6,1994,232SCRA225.

31Peoplevs.Gaoat,G.R.No.97028,May21,1993,222SCRA385.

32OriginalRecord,155.

33Ibid.,156.

34Ibid.,157.

35Section4,Rule130,RulesofCourt.

36G.R.No.109761,September1,1994,236SCRA185.

37Peoplevs.Resuma,G.R.Nos.10664042,June15,1994.

38Peoplevs.Jumaoas,G.R.No.101334,February14,1994,230SCRA70.

39Peoplevs.Yap,G.R.No.103517,February9,1994,229SCRA787.

40G.R.Nos.10157989,December15,1993,228SCRA489.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1995/aug1995/gr_113161_1995.html 5/6
7/13/2017 G.R. No. 113161

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1995/aug1995/gr_113161_1995.html 6/6