Professional Documents
Culture Documents
People of The Phil. Vs Loma Goce, Et. Al. G.R. No. 113161, August 29, 1995
People of The Phil. Vs Loma Goce, Et. Al. G.R. No. 113161, August 29, 1995
Ponente: Regalado
Facts:
On January 1988, an information for illegal recruitment committed by a syndicate and in
large scale, punishable under Articles 38 and 39 of the labor code as amended by PD
2018, filed against Dan and Loma Goce and Nelly Agustin in the RTC of Manila,
alleging that in or about during the period comprised between May 1986 and June 25,
1987, both dates inclusive in the City of Manila, the accused conspired and represent
themselves to have the capacity to recruit Filipino workers for employment abroad.
January 1987, a warrant of arrest was issued against the 3 accused but none of them
was arrested. Hence, on February 1989, the RTC ordered the case archived but issued
a standing warrant of arrest against the accused.
Thereafter, knowing the whereabouts of the accused, Rogelio Salado requested for a
copy of the warrant of arrest and eventually Nelly Agustin was apprehended by the
Paranaque Police. Agustin's counsel filed a motion to revive the case and requested to
set a hearing for purpose of due process and for accused to immediately have her day
in court. On the arraignment, Agustin pleaded not guilty and the trial went on with four
complainants testified for the prosecution and receipts of the processing fees they paid.
Agustin for the defense asserted that Goce couple were licensed recruiters but denied
her participation in the recruitment and denied knowledge of the receipts as well.
On November 1993, trial court rendered judgment finding that Agustin as a principal in
the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale with sentence of life imprisonment and pay
P100,000.00.
Issues:
Agustin appealed with the following arguments: (1) her act of introducing the
complainants to the couple does not fall within the meaning of illegal recruitment and
placement under Article 13 in relation to Article 34 of the labor code; (2) there is no
proof of conspiracy and (3) there is no proof that appellant offered/promised overseas
employment to the complainants.
Ruling:
The testimonial evidence shows that Agustin indeed further committed acts constitutive
of illegal recruitment because, the complainants had a previous interview with Agustin
(as employee of the Goce couple) about fees and papers to submit that may constitute
as referral. Agustin collected the payments of the complainants as well as their
passports, training fees, medical tests and other expenses. On the issue of proof, the
court held that the receipts exhibited by the claimants are clear enough to prove the
payments and transaction made.