G.R. No. 173198 June 1,2011 FLORENTIN I, J.DE CASTRO
People vs. Ocden ROSALIE SANTAJ. 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 Golidan’s two sons, Jeffries and Howard, evidenced by receipts Ocden herself issued; and failing to reimburse/refund to Mana-a, Ferrer, and Golidan’s 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 August 31,2011 FLORENTIN I, J.DE CASTRO
People vs. Ochoa ROSALIE SANTAJ. 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 November 23,2011 III, J.PERALTA
Romero vs. People ROSALIE SANTAJ. FLORENTIN 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 November 23,2011 II, J. CARPIO
People vs. Lalli ROSALIE SANTAJ. FLORENTIN 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 June 29, 2010 I, J. VELASCO, JR.
People vs. Gallo ROSALIESANTAJ. FLORENTIN 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, accusedappellant received the amount of Php 45,000.00 from Dela Caza. When accused-appellant made misrepresentations concerning the agency’s 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 Mardeolyn’s 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.
1
OPINION:
G.R. No. 187730 June 29, 2010 I, J. VELASCO,JR.
People vs. Gallo ROSALIESANTAJ. FLORENTIN FILRO: 006
FACTS: 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 February 12, 2009 III, J. NACHURA
Lapasaran vs. People ROSALIE SANTAJ. FLORENTIN 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. Petitioner’s 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 April 7, 2009 II, J. CARPIO-MORALES
People vs. Domingo ROSALIE SANTAJ. FLORENTIN 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 May 21, 2009 I, J. CARPIO
People vs. Abordo ROSALIE SANTAJ. FLORENTIN 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 October 26, 2009 FLORENTIN II, J. QUISUMBING
People vs. Adeser ROSALIE SANTAJ. 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:
