Republic of the Philippines v. PASEI, G.R. No.

167590, 13
November 2012.

Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. (PASEI) filed a petition for declaratory relief and prohibition
with prayer for issuance of TRO and writ of preliminary injunction before the RTC of Manila, seeking to annul
Sections 6, 7, and 9 of R.A. 8042(Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995) for being
unconstitutional. PASEI also sought to annul a portion of Section 10.

Section 6 defines the crime of "illegal recruitment" and enumerates the acts constituting the
same.

SEC. 6. Definition. – For purposes of this Act, illegal recruitment shall mean any act of canvassing,
enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, procuring workers and includes referring, contract
services, promising or advertising for employment abroad, whether for profit or not, when
undertaken by a non-license or non-holder of authority contemplated under Article 13(f) of
Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, otherwise known as the Labor Code of the Philippines:
Provided, That such non-license or non-holder, who, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee
employment abroad to two or more persons shall be deemed so engaged. It shall likewise include the
following acts, whether committed by any person, whether a non-licensee, non-holder, licensee or
holder of authority

The RTC of Manila declared Section 6 unconstitutional after hearing on the ground that its definition of "illegal
recruitment" is vague as it fails to distinguish between licensed and non-licensed recruiters 11 and for that
reason gives undue advantage to the non-licensed recruiters in violation of the right to equal protection of
those that operate with government licenses or authorities.

SUPREME COURT: But "illegal recruitment" as defined in Section 6 is clear and unambiguous and, contrary to
the RTC’s finding, actually makes a distinction between licensed and non-licensed recruiters. By its terms,
persons who engage in "canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers"
without the appropriate government license or authority are guilty of illegal recruitment whether or not they
commit the wrongful acts enumerated in that section. On the other hand, recruiters who engage in the
canvassing, enlisting, etc. of OFWs, although with the appropriate government license or authority, are guilty
of illegal recruitment only if they commit any of the wrongful acts enumerated in Section 6.

(Constitutionality of Section 10, last sentence of 2nd paragraph)

SEC. 10. Money Claims. – x x x

The liability of the principal/employer and the recruitment/placement agency for any and all claims
under this section shall be joint and several. This provision shall be incorporated in the contract for
overseas employment and shall be a condition precedent for its approval. The performance bond to
be filed by the recruitment/placement agency, as provided by law, shall be answerable for all money
claims or damages that may be awarded to the workers. If the recruitment/placement agency is a
juridical being, the corporate officers and directors and partners as the case may be, shall
themselves be jointly and solidarily liable with the corporation or partnership for the aforesaid
claims and damages.

the Quezon City RTC held as unconstitutional the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph of Section 10 of R.A.
8042. It pointed out that, absent sufficient proof that the corporate officers and directors of the erring
company had knowledge of and allowed the illegal recruitment, making them automatically liable would
violate their right to due process of law.
SUPREME COURT has held, pending adjudication of this case, that the liability of corporate directors and
officers is not automatic. To make them jointly and solidarily liable with their company, there must be a finding
that they were negligent in directing the affairs of that company, such as sponsoring or tolerating the conduct
of illegal activities.
People v. Engr. Diaz, 328 Phil. 794,

The complainants in this case were all enrolled at the Henichi Techno Exchange Cultural Foundation in Davao
City, studying Niponggo. Their teacher was Mrs. Remedios Aplicador.

One day Mrs. Aplicador told them that if they wanted to go and work abroad, particularly Brunei where they
could earn a salary of "$700.00 for four hours daily work," she would refer them to Mr. Paulo Lim who knew
one Engr. Erwin Diaz who was recruiting applicants for Brunei.

Accompanied by Mrs. Aplicador, the three complainants went to Mr. Paulo Lim who explained to them that he
was not the one recruiting workers but Engr. Diaz. Mr. Lim informed them that his children had already applied
with Engr. Diaz and he told them the requirements needed. Telling them that he knew "pretty well the recruiter"
Engr. Diaz and that "We don't have to worry we can really go abroad and as a matter of fact he said that his
three children were applying (to go) to Brunei," he offered to accompany them to Engr. Erwin Diaz at the office
of the CITIZENSHIP IMMIGRATION SERVICES.

On July 18, Mr. Paulo Lim and Mrs. Remedios Aplicador accompanied the three complainants to Engr. Diaz
who was then being detained in the CIS Detention Center in Davao City and introduced them to him. The
complainants asked Engr. Diaz why he was "inside the cell," and he explained that four applicants had filed a
case against him "because they could not accept that they were sick of hepatitis and that the CIS elements are
just making money out of it" (tsn, 9-8-92, p. 35). They asked him if he was "recruiting applicants for Brunei"
and "he said yes", and told them the requirements.

After submitting to the accused all the required papers and undergoing medical examination (before the return
of said amounts to the complainants), they asked him when they could leave. The accused told them to wait for
three to four weeks as his papers were still being processed by the CIS. During this period when the accused had
already been released from detention, the complainants kept inquiring from him when they would be leaving for
Brunei, going to his house several times where they saw many other applicants like them. But the accused just
kept saying that his papers were still with the CIS.

When he was still detained, he told the complainants that "the name of his agency is confidential but the owner
thereof is Erlinda Romualdez" who "used to be her (sic) mistress" assuring them that "we don't have to worry
about it because he said it is government project that they are applying for.

At the POEA the three complainants learned that the "agency represented by Engr. Diaz was a fake agency" and
were never granted an authority to conduct recruitment for overseas employment in Davao City or in any part of
Region XI, and that the agency of the former known as Phil Jap Constr'n and Tanaka and Diaz Asso. were never
been a licensed agency for overseas recruitment.

They filed a case of(large scale) Illegal Recruitment.

On September 2, 1993 the trial court rendered a decision finding the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the offense of large scale illegal recruitment.

CONTENTION OF DIAZ

Denied these complainants' allegations. He asserted that he never made a promise in favor of
complainants for employment abroad but assisted them in the procurement of passports
and medical certificates, that he was only a facilitator of travel documents and not a recruiter.
ISSUE:

WON ENGR. DIAZ IS GULITY OF ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT

in People v. Cabacang[5] this Court ruled that the crime of illegal recruitment is committed when two elements
concur, namely:

1]  That 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]  That the offender undertakes either any activity within the meaning of recruitment and placement defined
under Article 13(b), or any prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34.

"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; 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."

A non-licensee or non-holder of authority means any person, corporation or entity which has not been issued a
valid license or authority to engage in recruitment and placement by the Secretary of Labor, or whose license or
authority has been suspended, revoked or cancelled by the POEA or the Secretary

The elements of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale, which are undoubtedly present in this case are:

1]  the offender is a non-licensee or non-holder of authority to engage in recruitment and placement activity,

2]  the offender undertakes recruitment and placement activity defined under Article 13(b), or any prohibited
practices enumerated under Article 34, and

3]  illegal recruitment is committed against three or more persons individually or as a group.[

As to the third element of the crime, there were obviously three persons who were victims of the
appellant's nefarious act of large scale illegal recruitment.

The acts of the appellant, which were clearly described in the lucid testimonies of the three victims, such as
collecting from each of the complainants payment for passport, medical tests, placement fee, plane tickets
and other sundry expenses, promising them employment abroad, contracting and advertising for
employment, unquestionably constitute acts of large scale illegal recruitment.

it is hard to believe that services promised by the appellant to the three complainants were to consist
only of his assistance in the procurement of passports and medical certificates for each of them for they
themselves could have easily secured these documents at a lesser cost. Moreover, the fact that the
appellant still collected P2,000 from Theresa Fabricante who already had a passport belies his claim
that his services were limited only to procuring a passport and medical certificate."

Likewise, it is the settled rule that a person is guilty of illegal recruitment when he gives the impression that he
has the power to send workers abroad.[22] Appellant Diaz manifestly gave that impression to the three
complainants that he had the ability to send workers abroad. Misrepresenting himself as a recruiter of workers
for Brunei, he promised them work for a fee and convinced them to give their money for the purpose of getting
an employment overseas.
G.R. No. 195419               October 12, 2011

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
HADJA JARMA LALLI y PURIH, RONNIE ARINGOY y MASION, and NESTOR RELAMPAGOS (at
large), Accused.
HADJA JARMA LALLI y PURIH and RONNIE ARINGOY Accused-Appellants.

Lolita Sagadsad Plando was on her way to the house of her grandfather, she met Ronnie Masion Aringoy and
Rachel Aringoy Cañete. Ronnie greeted Lolita and Rachel asked Lolita if she is interested to work in Malaysia.
Lolita was interested so she gave her cellphone number to Ronnie.

On June 4, 2005, at about 7:00 o’clock in the morning, Lolita received a text message from Ronnie Aringoy
they eventually met and Lolita inquired what job is available in Malaysia. Ronnie told her that she will work as
a restaurant entertainer. All that is needed is a passport. Lolita told Ronnie that she does not have a passport.
Ronnie said that they will look for a passport so she could leave immediately. Lolita informed him that her
younger sister, Marife Plando, has a passport. Ronnie chided her for not telling him immediately. He told Lolita
that she will leave for Malaysia on June 6, 2005 and they will go to Hadja Jarma Lalli who will bring her to
Malaysia. Ronnie sent a text message to Lalli but the latter replied that she was not in her house. She was at the
city proper.

On June 5, 2005, at about 6:00 o’clock in the evening, Ronnie Aringoy and Rachel Aringoy Cañete arrived at
the house where Lolita was staying. Ronnie asked if Lolita already had a passport. Lolita said that she will
borrow her sister’s passport. Ronnie, Rachel and Lolita went to the house of Hadja Jarma Lalli,Ronnie
introduced Lolita to Hadja Jarma, saying that Lolita is interested in going to Malaysia. Hadja Jarma introduced
Nestor to Lolita as their financier who will accompany them to Malaysia. x x x Lolita noticed three other
women in Hadja Jarma’s house. They were Honey, about 20 years old; Michele, 19 years old, and another
woman who is about 28 years old.

Ronnie gave to Lolita her boat ticket for the vessel M/V Mary Joy bound for Sandakan, Malaysia; a passport in
the name of Marife Plando but with Lolita’s picture on it, and ₱1,000.00 in cash. Hadja Jarma, Lolita, Honey,
Michele and two other women boarded the boat M/V Mary Joy bound for Sandakan.

M/V Mary Joy arrived at the port of Sandakan, Malaysia. Nestor Relampagos introduced to Lolita and her
companions a Chinese Malay called "Boss" as their employer. After looking at the women, "Boss" brought
Lolita, Honey, Diane and Lorraine to a restaurant near the hotel. Diane and Lorraine were also on baord M/V
Mary Joy when it left the port of Zamboanga for Sandakan on June 6, 2005. When they were already at the
restaurant, a Filipina woman working there said that the place is a prostitution den and the women there are
used as prostitutes. Lolita and her companions went back to the hotel. They told Hadja Jarma and Nestor that
they do not like to work as prostitutes. they were told that they owe the club 2,000 ringgits each as payment
for the amount given by the club to Hadja Jarma Lalli and Nestor Relampagos.

SHE WAS FORCED TO WORK IN THE CLUB AS A PROSTITUTE.

Eventually, Lolita was able to contact by cellphone her sister Janet Plando, who helped her return to the
Philippines.

Upon arrival to the Pihilippines, she went and look for Ronnie, who said that he is not involved in what
happened to her. Lolita asked Ronnie to accompany her to the house of Nestor Relampagos. Ronnie refused. He
told Lolita not to let them know that she had already arrived from Malaysia.

Lolita was advised to file a complaint with the police regarding her ordeal in Malaysia. Lolita Plando went to
Zamboanga Police Office at Gov. Lim Avenue to file her complaint.
CONTENTION OF LALLI

Hadja Jarma Lalli admitted that she met Lolita Plando on June 6, 2005 on board M/V Mary Joy while the said
vessel was at sea on its way to Sandakan, Malaysia. The meeting was purely coincidental. By coincidence also,
Hadja Jarma, Nestor Relampagos and Lolita Plando boarded the same van for Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia. Upon
arrival, they parted ways. They did not see each other anymore at Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia. She did not know
what happened to them. She went to Kota Kinabalu to visit his son-in-law. She denied having recruited Lolita
Plando for employment abroad

CONTENTION OF RONNIE

Lolita borrowed ₱1,000.00 from Ronnie because she wanted to go to Malaysia to work as a guest relation
officer (GRO)..Ronnie lent her ₱1,000.00. He told her that he knows "a certain Hadja Jarma Lalli, distant
neighbor, who frequents to Malaysia and with whom she can ask pertinent information on job
opportunities." That Lolita worked as a GRO (guest relation officer) and massage attendant at Magic 2
Videoke and Massage Parlor, that Lolita Plando has four children sired by different men; and that she knows for
a fact that Lolita Plando has been going to and from Malaysia to work in bars.

RTC DECISION

The trial court found that the accused, without a POEA license, conspired in recruiting Lolita and
trafficking her as a prostitute, resulting in crimes committed by a syndicate. The trial court did not
pronounce the liability of accused-at-large Nestor Relampagos (Relampagos) because jurisdiction was not
acquired over his person.

The Decision of the Court of Appeals

On 26 February 2010, the Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the RTC Decision and found accused-appellants
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of Illegal Recruitment and Trafficking in Persons.

ISSUE:

WON the accused are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of Illegal Recruitment and Trafficking in
Persons.

RULING

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.

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.
Article 13(b) of the Labor Code of the Philippines 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."

Clearly, given the broad definition of recruitment and placement, even the mere act of referring someone for
placement abroad can be considered recruitment. Such act of referral, in connivance with someone without
the requisite authority or POEA license, constitutes illegal recruitment. In its simplest terms, illegal
recruitment is committed by persons who, without authority from the government, give the impression
that they have the power to send workers abroad for employment purposes.

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.

WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 26 February 2010, affirming the
Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Zamboanga City dated 29 November 2005, finding accused Lalli and
Aringoy guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of Illegal Recruitment and Trafficking in Persons
committed by a syndicate, with the following MODIFICATIONS:

1. In Criminal Case No. 21908, each of the accused is sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE
IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of ₱ 2,000,000;

2. In Criminal Case No. 21930, each of the accused is sentenced to suffer the penalty of
LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of ₱ 500,000;

3. Each of the accused is ordered to pay the offended party Lolita Plando y Sagadsad, jointly and severally, the
sum of ₱ 500,000 as moral damages, and ₱ 100,000 as exemplary damages for the crime of Trafficking in
Persons; and to pay the costs.

The Court cannot pronounce the liability of accused-at-large Nestor Relampagos as jurisdiction over his person
has not been acquired.

SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 120141 April 21, 1999

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
LORNA B. GUEVARRA, JOSIE BEA and PEDRO BEA, JR., accused-appellants.

Lorna Guevarra visited Rizalina Belbes in her house and offered her an opportunity to work in Malaysia, She
also approached Wilfredo, the brother Rizalina, to convince him to work abroad. Guevarra assured them that she
had the capability of sending workers abroad.

Guevarra also went to the house of Ermelita Balbin Bocato, also promising her overseas employment. Guevarra
also introduced Ermelita to accused spouses Bea. All three accused kept persuading Ermelita to pay thirty
thousand pesos (P30,000.00) as placement fee for the opportunity to work abroad. Ermelita finally agreed and
gave five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) as initial payment, in the presence of Rizalina Belbes, who also gave her
initial payment of four thousand pesos (P4,000.00). They also eventually paid their balance.

Lorna also enticed other individuals in the name of Alan Banico and Arnel Basaysay.

All the complainants trusted Lorna Guevarra, as they all resided in the same barrio. 13 Complainants believed
that the proposed overseas employment was legitimate, so they did not ask too many questions on the authority
of the three accused. The complainants also trusted Pedro Bea, Jr. and Josie Bea, who gave assurances that
complainants were not being fooled. 

They eventually recived their passports and plane tickets. The complainants left the Manila airport at 3:30 in the
afternoon. Upon arrival in Kuala Lumpur three hours later, the complainants waited in the airport for someone
to meet them.

After several days and realizing that there was no work for them in Malaysia, Rizalina Belbes, Wilfredo Belbes
and Ermelita Bocato returned to the Philippines on September 30, 1993. 19 Alan Banico and Arnel Basaysay
followed suit on October 2, 1993. 

The complainants claimed that their lives were endangered because they were stranded in a foreign country
without a place to stay or any means of subsistence. They also suffered embarrassment and humiliation. 21 The
complainants confronted the three accused, who promised to refund the money. Later, however, the accused
challenged complainants to file a case. So they filed a case of of illegal recruitment by a syndicate in large scale.

CONTENTION OF LORNA GUEVARRA

Lorna Guevarra, insisted that she was merely a housewife with three children, not a recruiter. She testified that,
Ermelita and Rizalina went to her house in order to ask how her brothers and niece were able to go abroad.
Guevarra told Ermelita and Rizalina that her brothers were assisted by an agency and that they should go to
Manila to look for that agency. Since that time, Guevarra did not see Ermelita Bocato. Rizalina Belbes,
however, insisted that she be accompanied to the house of Josie Bea, who financed the overseas trip.

Guevarra denied recruiting the complainants or collecting any amount from them. 

CONTENTION OF JOSIE BEA

likewise denied having recruited any of the complainants to work abroad, saying that she was engaged in the
manufacture of abaca slippers while her husband, Pedro Bea, Jr., was a jeepney driver. 

She also said that she was asked her how her brother-in-law was able to go to Malaysia. She told them that it
was through a travel agency When they asked to be accompanied there, Josie refused because she had just
delivered a child a few days earlier, and needed to rest. But she eventually helped them and brought them to a
certain George Serrano of Travel Orient Agency in San Juan, Manila. There, Ermelita and Rizalina
bought plane tickets for Malaysia. Josie went home that same day. 

RTC RULING:

Convicted accused Lorna B. Guevarra, Josie Bea and Pedro Bea, Jr., of illegal recruitment by a syndicate in
large scale.

the three accused-appellants alleged that they neither recruited nor received any payment from any of the
complainants. They denied even knowing the complainants before the filing of the case. They also maintained
that the lower court erred in finding the existence of conspiracy, and qualifying the illegal recruitment to one
committed by a syndicate or in large scale.

ISSUE

WON the accused are guilty of illegal recruitment by a syndicate in large scale.

RULING

YES.

As seen from the testimonies of the witnesses, the accused-appellants committed acts of recruitment such as
promises of profitable employment to complainants and acceptance of placement fees. Such acts fall
squarely within the definition of recruitment and placement under the Labor Code. With the certification from
the Department of Labor and Employment stating that appellants were not authorized to recruit workers for
overseas employment, it is clear that the offense committed against the five complainants is illegal
recruitment in large scale. 

Recruitment for overseas employment is not in itself necessarily immoral or unlawful. It is the lack of the
necessary license or permit, or the engagement of prohibited activities enumerated in the Labor Code that render
such recruitment activities unlawful or criminal. 34 Illegal recruitment is qualified into large scale recruitment
when three or more persons are victimized. If such recruitment is carried out by a group of three (3) or more
persons conspiring and/or confederating with one another in carrying out any unlawful or illegal transaction,
enterprise or scheme, it becomes one committed by a syndicate.

In this case, Lorna Guevarra and Josie Bea were neither license nor authorized by the Department of Labor and
Employment and the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration to recruit workers for overseas
employment. 36 Pedro Bea Jr. had no such authority or license.

Complainants in this case comprise five persons, or more than the minimum number or persons required by law
to constitute illegal recruitment in large scale.

The accused-appellants asserted that the offense should not have been qualified into illegal recruitment by a
syndicate since there was no proof that they acted in conspiracy with one another.

However, the acts of accused-appellants showed unity of purpose. Guevarra would visit each of the
complainants in their houses for several times, convincing them to work abroad, and giving them the impression
that she had the capability of sending them abroad. She would accompany them to the house of the spouses Bea,
who, in turn, would collect the placement fees and process the passports and plane tickets. All these acts of the
appellants established a common criminal design mutually deliberated upon and accomplished through
coordinated moves.
G.R. No. 120353 February 12, 1998

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
FLOR N. LAUREL, accused-appellant.

Flor N. Laurel promised employment abroad for a fee to Ricardo San Felipe, Rosauro San Felipe, Juanito Cudal
and Cenen Tambongco, Jr. However, after receiving P12,000.00 from Tambongco, Jr., P11,000.00 from each of
the San Felipe brothers and P6,000.00 from Cudal, Laurel did not fulfil on her promises and went into hiding.
Verification with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) revealed that Laurel was neither
licensed nor authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment. 1 Consequently, she was haled to court and
charged with large scale illegal recruitment.

Laurel did not deny the charge against her. Instead, when called to the witness stand, she presented an
affidavit of desistance by Juanito Cudal as well as several receipts, signed by the other private
complainants acknowledging payment by her of the amounts taken from them in "full settlement" of her
obligation. 2 Thus, on the basis of these documents, she moved to dismiss the case.

But the court a quo denied her motion on the ground that the elements of large scale illegal recruitment were
established beyond reasonable doubt through the combined testimonies of the four (4) offended parties. The
court a quo noted that the affidavit of desistance as well as the receipts for payments made were prepared
and signed after the prosecution had already rested its case. Consequently, the trial judge rendered a
decision convicting the accused Flor N. Laurel and sentenced her to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of
P100,000.00 conformably with Art. 39, par. (a), of the Labor Code. In addition, the accused was ordered to
return the balance of what she had received from each complainant. 

CONTENTION OF LAUREL

She contends however that she should have been convicted only of simple illegal recruitment and not of large
scale illegal recruitment.

She argues that for illegal recruitment to be considered committed in large scale it should have been
committed by a syndicate. Hence, an individual who commits an act of illegal recruitment even if it be
against three (3) or more persons cannot be charged with illegal recruitment in large scale.

ISSUE

WON LAUREL COMMITED LARGE SCALE ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT.

RULING

YES.

Article 38, par. (b), of the Labor Code reads:

Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall be considered an offense involving

economic sabotage . . . .
Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons
conspiring and/or confederating with one another in carrying out any unlawful or illegal transaction, enterprise
or scheme defined under the first paragraph hereof.

Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons

individually or as a group (emphasis supplied).

The language of the law is very clear that illegal recruitment is committed in large scale if done against three
or more persons individually or as a group. The number of offenders, whether an individual or a syndicate, is
clearly not considered a factor in the determination of its commission. The rule is well-settled that when the
language of the statute is clear, plain and free from ambiguity there is no room for attempted interpretation or
extended court rationalization of the law. 4 The duty of the court is to apply it, not to interpret it. 5 

Counsel for accused-appellant was misled by the fact that illegal recruitment in large scale is defined
immediately after illegal recruitment by a syndicate. However, the only reason therefor is that they are both
considered offenses involving economic sabotage as the law itself so provides. Besides, we have affirmed time
and again the conviction of an individual for large scale illegal recruitment. 6

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila convicting accused-appellant Flor N. Laurel
of illegal recruitment in large scale penalized under Art. 38, par. (b), in relation to Art. 39, par. (a), of the Labor
Code and sentencing her to life imprisonment is AFFIRMED. However, the portion of the appealed decision
directing accused-appellant to pay the balance of what she had received from each of private complainants is
DELETED in view of the full settlement of her civil liability as acknowledged by private complainants
themselves.

SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 181244               August 9, 2010

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
ANITA "KENNETH" TRINIDAD, Defendant and Appellant.

The complainant in this case are victims of Kennetth Trinidad who promised them of possible job placement as
domestic helpers in Italy.  Convinced by Trinidad’s representation that she can send her to Italy, they agreed to
give her sum of money, representing the price of their ticket and the processing of their papers.

They eventually left the Philippines.11 However, instead of sending them to Italy, appellant and accused Mauro
Marasigan (Marasigan) sent them to Bangkok, Thailand and told them that they (appellant and Marasigan) will
secure the visas for Italy in Bangkok because it would be easier to get an Italian visa in Bangkok.12

In Bangkok, They met at the Benz Residence Hotel where appellant and Marasigan instructed all their recruits
to stay. There, they met appellant’s brother Daniel Trinidad (Trinidad), who likewise assured them that
appellant would be able to secure an Italian visa for them. 23 Appellant and Marasigan followed them to Bangkok
in the month of September but nothing happened insofar as their visas were concerned. 24 They stayed in
Bangkok for four months but because they could stay in Thailand for only one month at a time, they had to exit
to Malaysia two times to have their passports stamped to reflect their act of exiting Thailand so they could return
to Bangkok.25 For this, Dela Cruz incurred expenses in the total amount of US$200. 26 She incurred additional
expenses for the duration of her stay in Bangkok for calling collect to the Philippines, totaling ₱9,387.30. 27 For
her part, Hernandez spent a total of US$500 for board and lodging during her stay in Bangkok.28

After staying idle for four months in Bangkok, De Villa, Hernandez, and dela Cruz, together with other recruits,
were taken by appellant and Marasigan to Morocco, again, allegedly for the purpose of securing their Italian
visa there. For this, Hernandez and Dela Cruz each spent another US$2,700, which they gave to Marasigan and
his wife Louella Garen.29

The group stayed in Morocco for two months but appellant continued to fail to deliver her promise of securing
Italian visas for them. Hence, they returned to Bangkok and stayed there for another month during which
appellant persisted in dissuading them from returning to the Philippines, assuring them that she would send them
to Italy.30 They failed to be further dissuaded, however, and they returned to the Philippines on 27 March 1999
and on 29 March 1999, filed a complaint against appellant and her companions.

CONTENTION OF KENNETH TRINIDAD

TRINIDAND CONTENDS that the real illegal recruiter is Mauro Marasigan to whom she referred private
complainants when they sought her help regarding jobs abroad and that they complained against her only
because they could no longer locate Marasigan. And that she did not promise employment to complainants, that
she did not receive any money from them, and that the signature appearing on the receipt presented by them is
not hers.

Appellant maintains that she is a mere victim of circumstances in this case as the person responsible for the
crime imputed to her, Marasigan, is a fugitive from justice. Thus, in order for private complainants to recover
their money, they blamed her. She claims that she simply indorsed complainants to Marasigan, after which, she
no longer had any participation in their transactions.
RTC DECISION

Found ANITA "KENNETH" TRINIDAD GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of LARGE SCALE
ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT.

RTC gave credence to the respective testimonies of private complainants that they were recruited by appellant,
who was not duly licensed to conduct recruitment activities, as certified 34 by the Philippine Overseas
Employment Administration (POEA) and the testimony of prosecution witness Rosa Mangila, Senior Labor and
Employment Officer of the POEA.35

CA
Court of Appeals rendered the herein assailed Decision 36 affirming the judgment of the trial court.

ISSUE:

WON TRINIDAD COMMITED LARGE SCALE ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT.

RULING:

YES.
The respective testimonies of private complainants clearly established that appellant promised them
employment in Italy and that she asked money from them for the processing of their papers. Relying upon
appellant’s representations, complainants parted with their money. That appellant recruited them without the
requisite license from the POEA makes her liable for illegal recruitment.

Aimed at affording greater protection to Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs), it is a significant improvement on
existing laws in the recruitment and placement of workers for overseas employment. Otherwise known as the
Magna Carta of Overseas Filipino Workers, it broadened the concept of illegal recruitment under the Labor
Code and provided stiffer penalties therefor, especially those that constitute economic sabotage, i.e., Illegal
Recruitment in Large Scale and Illegal Recruitment Committed by a Syndicate.

in accordance with the penultimate paragraph of Section 6 Republic Act No. 8042 which provides, thus:

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.

In the instant case, appellant is guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale because it was committed against
three private complainants.
G.R. No. 199211               June 4, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,

vs.
JERIC FERNANDEZ y JAURIGUE, Appellant.

JERIC FERNANDEZ promised Airene Etac, Jowel A. Baja, Joemar Aquino, Luis M. Bernardo and Anthony M.
Canlas employment abroad. Fernandez represented to the complainants that he had the power and ability to
send them in Hongkong, and that by virtue of this representation and fraud, the complainants were convinced
to part with their money in order to be employed.

That did not happen, so they filed a case of illegal recruitment in large scale.

RTC RULING
convicted the appellant of the crimes of illegal recruitment in large scale and five ( 5) counts of estafa.

The CA Ruling

On appeal, the CA upheld the factual findings of the RTC. It agreed with the trial court that all the elements of
illegal recruitment, as defined under Article 13(b), in relation to Article 34 of the of the Labor Code, were
sufficiently established by the prosecution’s evidence. The CA held that the appellant’s acts of promising the
complainants that they would be deployed for work abroad after they paid him their placement fees, and his
misrepresentations concerning his purported power and authority despite the lack of license, are constitutive of
illegal recruitment in large scale.

The CA also declared that appellant’s assurances that he could deploy the complainants for employment in
Hongkong constitutes estafa.

ISSUE:
WON JERIC FERNANDEZ y JAURIGUE is guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale (YES)

RULING:

Article 38 of the Labor Code defines illegal recruitment as

"any recruitment activities, including the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of (the Labor Code),
to be undertaken by non-licensees or non holders of authority."

The term "recruitment and placement" refers to any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting,
utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, including 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 law imposes a higher penalty when the illegal recruitment is committed by a syndicate or in large
scale as they are considered an offense involving economic sabotage.

Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons
conspiring and/or confederating with one another in carrying out any unlawful or illegal transaction, enterprise
or scheme. It is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons individually or
as a group.3

For illegal recruitment in large scale to prosper, the prosecution has to prove three essential elements, namely:

(1) the accused undertook a recruitment activity under Article 13(b) or any prohibited practice under Article 34
of the Labor Code;

(2) the accused did not have the license or the authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of
workers; and

(3) the accused committed such illegal activity against three or more persons individually or as a group.

In the present case, the appellant promised the five complainants that there were jobs available for them in
Hongkong; and that through his help, they could be deployed for work within a month or two. He exacted
money from them for the plane ticket, hotel accommodation, processing of visa and placement fees. Notably,
the prosecution presented a Certification dated January 10, 2003 issued by Felicitas Q. Bay, Director II of the
Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA) Licensing Branch, showing that the appellant had no
authority or license to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers. These acts, to our
mind, constitute illegal recruitment. There is illegal recruitment when one who does not possess the necessary
authority or license gives the impression of having the ability to send a worker abroad. Corollarily, where the
offense is committed against three or more persons, as in this case, it is qualified to illegal recruitment in large
scale which provides a higher penalty under Article 39(a) of the Labor Code.

ESTAFA ISSUE

We point out that conviction under the Labor Code for illegal recruitment does not preclude punishment under
the Revised Penal Code for the crime of estafa.4 

We are convinced that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant violated Article 315(2)(a)
of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, which provides that estafa is committed by any person who defrauds
another by using a fictitious name; or by falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property,
credit, agency, business; by imaginary transactions or similar forms of deceit executed prior to or simultaneous
with the fraud.5

The appellant’s act of falsely pretending to possess power and qualifications to deploy the complainants to
Hongkong, even if he did not have the authority or license for the purpose, undoubtedly constitutes estafa under
Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code. The elements of deceit and damage are clearly present; the
appellant’s false pretenses were the very cause that induced the complainants to part with their money.
G.R. No. 146964 August 10, 2006

ROSA C. RODOLFO, Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

ROSA C. RODOLFO approached private complainants Necitas Ferre and Narciso Corpus individually

and invited them to apply for overseas employment  in Dubai. The ROSA C. RODOLFO being their neighbor,
private complainants agreed and went to the former’s office. This office which bore the business name
"Bayside Manpower Export Specialist". In that office, private complainants gave certain amounts to appellant
for processing and other fees. Appellant then told private complainants that they were scheduled to leave for
Dubai on September 8, 1984. However, private complainants and all the other applicants were not able to depart
on the said date as their employer allegedly did not arrive. Thus, their departure was rescheduled to September
23, but the result was the same. Suspecting that they were being hoodwinked, private complainants demanded of
appellant to return their money. Tired of excuses, private complainants filed the present case for illegal
recruitment against the accused-appellant.

To prove that accused-appellant had no authority to recruit workers for overseas employment, the prosecution
presented Jose Valeriano, a Senior Overseas Employment Officer of the Philippine Overseas Employment
Agency (POEA), who testified that accused-appellant was neither licensed nor authorized by the then Ministry
of Labor and Employment to recruit workers for overseas employment.

CONTENTION OF ROSA RODOLFO

SHE denied ever approaching private complainants to recruit them for employment in Dubai. Stating that, it was
the private complainants who asked her help in securing jobs abroad. As a good neighbor and friend, she
brought the private complainants to the Bayside Manpower Export Specialist agency because she knew Florante
Hinahon, 5 the owner of the said agency.

While accused-appellant admitted that she received money from the private complainants, she was quick to
point out that she received the same only in trust for delivery to the agency. the amounts she collected from
the private complainants were turned over to the agency through Minda Marcos and Florante Hinahon as
evidenced by provisional receipts which she presented in court . At any rate, she draws attention to People v.
Señoron 10 wherein this Court held that the issuance or signing of receipts for placement fees does not make
a case for illegal recruitment. 

RTC RULING

GUILTY of the offense of ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT

CA RULING

appellate court affirmed the judgment of the trial court

ISSUE:

WON ROSA C. RODOLFO is guilty of illegal recruitment (YES)

RULING :
The elements of the offense of illegal recruitment, which must concur, are:

(1) that the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to lawfully engage in recruitment and
placement of workers; and

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

*(3)If another element is present  that the accused commits the act against three or more persons,
individually or as a group, it becomes an illegal recruitment in a large scale. 

Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code defines "recruitment and placement" as "[a]ny 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." (Underscoring supplied)

That the first element is present in the case at bar, there is no doubt. Jose Valeriano, Senior Overseas
Employment Officer of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, testified that the records of the
POEA do not show that petitioner is authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment. 15 A Certification to
that effect was in fact issued by Hermogenes C. Mateo, Chief of the Licensing Division of POEA. 16

The second element is doubtless also present. The act of referral, which is included in recruitment, 18 is "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." 19 Petitioner’s admission that she brought
private complainants to the agency whose owner she knows and her acceptance of fees including those for
processing betrays her guilt.

That petitioner issued provisional receipts indicating that the amounts she received from the private
complainants were turned over to Luzviminda Marcos and Florante Hinahon does not free her from liability.
For the act of recruitment may be "for profit or not." It is sufficient that the accused "promises or offers for a
fee employment" to warrant conviction for illegal recruitment. 

On petitioner’s reliance on Señoron, 22 true, this Court held that issuance of receipts for placement fees does not
make a case for illegal recruitment. But it went on to state that it is "rather the undertaking of recruitment
activities without the necessary license or authority" that makes a case for illegal recruitment. 23
G.R. Nos. 116905-908               August 6, 2002

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
EDUARDO BALLESTEROS, accused-appellant.

Santiago Ricamonte, Arnel Viloria and Nenita Sorita all dreamt of seeking "greener pastures" in foreign
shores. They were introduced to Engineer Jose Mendoza, a recruiter of workers to Japan and in different
instances brought to the office of EDUARDO BALLESTEROS, Cecilia Legarbes Zabala and Alfredo Hunsayan, Jr .

They all suffered the same faith of returning one day to the office and seeing it padlocked, with no one inside.

Santiago Ricamonte, Arnel Viloria and Nenita Sorita, after conferring with each other and realizing that they
were defrauded, executed a "Joint Affidavit of Complaint" against the EDUARDO BALLESTEROS with the
Western Police District (Exhibit ‘D’) on May 11, 1993.

On the same date, members of the Western Police District arrested the EDUARDO BALLESTEROS. After the
Inquest Investigation, the Investigator recommended that the EDUARDO BALLESTEROS be charged
of estafa and large-scale illegal recruitment. Two days after the EDUARDO BALLESTEROS was arrested,
Cecilia Zabala was also arrested upon information received by the police that she was staying at the Arevalo
Building in Manila. The police found the passports of Arnel Viloria and Santiago Ricamonte and the receipts
signed by the EDUARDO BALLESTEROS in her possession and turned them over to Viloria and Ricamonte.
An Inquest Investigation was conducted on May 14, 1993. However, a month thereafter, Zabala managed to
escape from the Western Police and is, up to now, still at large.

DEFENSE OF BALLESTEROS:

denies having recruited or having been involved in the recruitment of the offended parties to Japan.

sometime in November 1992, Mendoza, Zabala, and Almonte arrived in his office and sought to rent one table
for a monthly rental of P2,000.00.

Appellant also states that he transferred his office to the Army and Navy Club upon the permission of a former
Assistant City Fiscal Crisanto Cornejo, who originally rented the office, and who was on vacation at that time.
Appellant claims that he arranged to pay for the rentals of the office, in exchange for its use since Cornejo was
three months in arrears in its payment.

He claims that Mendoza and Zabala were brokers besides being engaged in the recruitment of workers for
employment abroad. However, appellant claims that he never meddled in their business and tended to his
own.

RTC RULING

the trial court convicted appellant of illegal recruitment in large-scale and three counts of estafa, and was
sentenced to life imprisonment.

In view of the penalty of life imprisonment, the appellant filed his appeal directly with this Court.

ISSUE

First, the trial court erred in finding appellant responsible for the illegal recruitment of the complaining
witnesses and in finding that there was conspiracy between appellant and his alleged cohorts.
Second, the trial court erred in convicting appellant of estafa despite the failure of the prosecution to prove his
guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

Affirmed the ruling of the RTC.

to constitute illegal recruitment in large-scale, three elements must concur:

1. The accused undertook any recruitment activity defined under Art. 13 (b) or any prohibited practice
enumerated under Art. 34 of the Labor Code.

2. He did not have the license or the authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers.

3. He committed the same against three or more persons, individually or as a group.12

FIRST ELEMENT

 The Accused represented to and assured Santiago Ricamonte that, indeed, there was a job offer for a
construction worker in Japan and even told the latter to prepare and pay the amount of P80,000.00,
payable in installments for the processing of his papers for his employment in Japan and his plane ticket to
Japan.

 The Accused even impressed on Santiago Ricamonte that the matter of employment of workers in Japan
was a transaction only of people with money and unless the applicant has the amount demanded of him,
he could not possibly procure employment in Japan.

 Santiago Ricamonte relied on the assurances and representations of the Accused and his cohorts and was
impressed by the office of the Accused. After all, on one of the tables was the name plate of ‘Judge
Cornejo’. The Court cannot then begrudge Santiago Ricamonte into trusting the Accused and his cohorts
and in believing that they would not deceive and defraud him."

SECOND ELEMENT

 no need to show that appellant represented himself as a licensed recruiter since it is enough to show that
he did not possess the requisite authority or license to undertake recruitment activities.

 The prosecution established that the POEA did not authorize or license appellant and his cohorts to
engage in recruitment Activities. Despite the absence of such authority or license, appellant recruited the
complainants.

 The appellant need not have expressly represented that he had authority or license from POEA. It is
sufficient that appellant gave the impression that he could find jobs for complainants in Japan, inducing
complainants to agree to pay him recruitment fee

 Assuming arguendo that appellant did not actually receive any fee, his representations that he had the
capacity to secure employment for private complainants made him liable for illegal recruitment since he
had no authority or license from the POEA.

o the actual receipt of a fee is not an element of the crime

THIRD ELEMENT
 since there are at least three victims in this case, appellant thus committed large-scale illegal
recruitment

CONSPIRACY DEFENSE

Appellant also argues that the prosecution failed to prove that he conspired with the others in the commission of
the crime of illegal recruitment and estafa.

 As aptly pointed out by the trial court:

 Jose Mendoza and Ricky de la Torre looked for applicants who sought employment in Japan, Cecilia
Legarbes Zabala was the one tasked to receive the sums of money paid by the recruits signed and issued
Receipts for said amounts. EDUARDO BALLESTEROS, on the other hand, fixed the amounts to be paid by
the recruits and directly negotiated and transacted with them and received his commissions from Cecilia
Legarbes Zabala from the payments of the recruits

 Direct proof of previous agreement to commit a crime is not necessary Such previous agreement may be
deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated, or inferred from the acts of
the accused which point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest.
G.R. No. 169076             January 23, 2007

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,

vs.
JOSEPH JAMILOSA, Appellant.

G.R. No. 169076             January 23, 2007

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,
vs. JOSEPH JAMILOSA, Appellant.

FACTS

3 complainants: Imelda D. Bamba, Geraldine M. Lagman and Alma E. Singh. Provides their testimony.

 January 17, 1996 = Imelda D. Bamba met JOSEPH JAMILOSA on her way to SM North where she works as
a company nurse.
 JOSEPH JAMILOSA introduced himself as a recruiter of workers for employment abroad
 JOSEPH JAMILOSA told her that his sister is a head nurse in a nursing home in LA, USA and he could help
her get employed as a nurse at a monthly salary $2,000.00 and that she could leave in two (2) weeks’ time
 JOSEPH JAMILOSA also said that he’s US FBI agent, so he has connections with US embassy, and that
Imelda D. Bamba has to pay $300 for the US consul
 January 21, 1996 = Imelda D. Bamba handed the $300 and jewelries to JOSEPH JAMILOSA w/o receipt
 JOSEPH JAMILOSA promised to see her and some of his other recruits before their scheduled departure to
hand to them their visas and passports; however, the He failed to show up, and according to him his wife
died, so he’s in the province
 Imelda D. Bamba and some of his other recruits went to Joseph’s house but nobody knows Joseph or his
whereabouts.
 They also inquired from the US embassy and found out that there was no such person connected with the
said office. Thus, she decided to file a complaint with the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI)
 Geraldine Lagman who is also a nurse, went to visit her cousin Imelda Bamba, and that time, Bamba
informed her that she was going to meet the appellant who is an FBI agent and was willing to help nurses
find a job abroad
 Bamba invited Lagman to go with her to meet JOSEPH JAMILOSA
 JOSEPH JAMILOSA convinced them of his ability to send them abroad and told them that he has a sister in
the United States, and asked for $300 to secure an American visa and an additional amount P3,400.00 as
processing fee for other documents
 January 24, 1996 = Geraldine give the $300 and 2 bottles of Black Label without any receipt
 4 days later, Extelcom a telephone company called her, asked if she knew JOSEPH JAMILOSA because he
failed to pay his bills of 100k
 Geraldine became suspicious, so she told Bamba about the matter.
 One week later they called Joseph but the latter said he can’t meet them bec. Her mother died
 he appellant never showed up, prompting her to file a complaint with the NBI for illegal recruitment.
 Alma Singh who is also a registered nurse, met JOSEPH JAMILOSA when Imelda Bamba introduced the
latter to her
 JOSEPH JAMILOSA provided her the same info, that he’s an agent, he has a sister in US, and that he could
help them find jobs in the US as staff nurses
 Alma Singh gave joseph the $300 and a bottle of cognac as "grease money"
 Joseph did not meet Alma Singh also, so they paged JOSEPH JAMILOSA though his beeper to see him.
However, Joseph said he has many things to do
 When the appellant did not show up, they decided to file a complaint for illegal recruitment with the NBI.

RTC = JOSEPH JAMILOSA is guilty of Illegal Recruitment in large scale

CONTENTION OF JOSEPH JAMILOSA

 illegal recruitment specifically mentioned the phrase "for a fee," and as such, receipts to show proof of
payment are indispensable
 the three (3) complaining witnesses did not present even one receipt to prove the alleged payment of any
fee

ISSUE

WON Joseph Jamilosa was guilty of Illegal recruitment by large scale

SC RULING

 Article 13(b) of the Labor Code of the Philippines defines recruitment and placement as
o "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. 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
 Section 6 of R.A. No. 8042 defined when recruitment is illegal
o For purposes of this Act, illegal recruitment shall mean any act of canvassing, enlisting,
contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers and includes referring, contract
services, promising or advertising for employment abroad, whether for profit or not, when
undertaken by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority contemplated under Article 13(f) of
Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, otherwise known as the Labor Code of the Philippines:
Provided, That any such non-licensee or non-holder who, in any manner, offers or promises for a
fee employment abroad to two or more persons shall be deemed so engaged.
 Any recruitment activities to be undertaken by non-licensee or non-holder of contracts shall be deemed
illegal and punishable under Article 39 of the Labor Code of the Philippines. Illegal recruitment is deemed
committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group
 To prove illegal recruitment in large scale, the prosecution is burdened to prove three (3) essential
elements, to wit:
o (1) the person charged undertook a recruitment activity under Article 13(b) or any prohibited
practice under Article 34 of the Labor Code;
o (2) accused did not have the license or the authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and
placement of workers; and
o (3) accused committed the same against three or more persons individually or as a group

 As gleaned from the collective testimonies of the complaining witnesses which the trial court and the
appellate court found to be credible and deserving of full probative weight, the prosecution mustered the
 requisite quantum of evidence to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt for the crime
charged. Indeed, the findings of the trial court, affirmed on appeal by the CA, are conclusive on this Court
absent evidence that the tribunals ignored, misunderstood, or misapplied substantial fact or other
circumstance
 The failure of the prosecution to adduce in evidence any receipt or document signed by appellant where
he acknowledged to have received money and liquor does not free him from criminal liability. Even in the
absence of money or other valuables given as consideration for the "services" of appellant, the latter is
considered as being engaged in recruitment activities
 It can be gleaned from the language of Article 13(b) of the Labor Code that the act of recruitment may be
for profit or not. It is sufficient that the accused promises or offers for a fee employment to warrant
conviction for illegal recruitment.
 As the Court held in People v. Sagaydo
o The fact that private complainants Rogelio Tibeb and Jessie Bolinao failed to produce receipts as
proof of their payment to accused-appellant does not free the latter from liability. The absence of
receipts cannot defeat a criminal prosecution for illegal recruitment. As long as the witnesses can
positively show through their respective testimonies that the accused is the one involved in
prohibited recruitment, he may be convicted of the offense despite the absence of receipts