People v Senoron

267 SCRA 278;

FACTS:
Appellant Editha L. Señ oron and her co-accused Aquilino Ilano and one John Doe, both at large, were charged
in four separate informations with one count of illegal recruitment in large scale and three counts of estafa
before the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City.

Cesar, Corsega, Bueno: Met Senoron at accused Ilano's house in Malibay, Pasay City to apply for jobs abroad.
They were given job application forms which they filled up as told. Thereafter, they paid Ilano, in the presence
of Senoron, the amount of P20,000 as placement fee. They were told by Senoron to follow-up their
applications at her office or at Padre Faura, Manila. Ilano told Bueno that the money will be given to Senoron
who will be responsible in the processing of their papers for employment abroad. The promise to deploy the
three abroad did not materialize, hence, the three went to appellant, who showed them the list of the money
paid by them. Senoron advised the three to wait for notice of their employment abroad. Again, nothing
happened to their applications. They asked for the return of their money. Senoron issued an Interbank Check
in the amount of P135,000 in words but P130,000 in figures. The amount covers the payment given by 9
applicants including the, complainants However, the Interbank Check was never encashed because the check
was not sufficiently funded. This prompted them to file a complaint for illegal Recruitment and Estafa against
Senoron, a certain John Doe and Ilano before the NBI.

POEA: Senoron is not licensed by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration to be a recruiter.

Senoron: She only met the complainants at the NBI on September 1993. There is nothing on record which
says that placement fees received by Ilano from the 3 private complainants was turned over to her. She never
issued or signed any receipts and that as a matter of fact the receipts of payment of alleged placement fees
were received and receipted by accused Ilano. She admitted having issued the check just to accommodate
Ilano who promised that he will be the one to put funds on said check and but after the check bounced, she
contends that no notice whatsoever was given to her.

Trial Court: Rendered a decision convicting Senoron of illegal recruitment and 3 counts of Estafa.

Senoron appealed only her conviction for illegal recruitment as she neither questioned convictions for the 3
counts of estafa. The failure to appeal therefrom rendered the estafa convictions final and executory.

ISSUE:
WON Senoron is guilty of illegal recruitment (YES)

RULING:
Illegal recruitment is defined under Article 38 (a) of the Labor Code, as amended, as "any recruitment
activities, including the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of this Code, to be undertaken by
non-licensees or non-holders of authority." Article 13 (b) of the Code 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.

To prove illegal recruitment, two elements must be shown namely: (1) the person charged with the crime
must have undertaken recruitment activities, or any of the activities enumerated in Article 34 of the Labor
Code, as amended; and (2) said person does not have a license or authority to do so. Contrary to appellant's
mistaken notion, therefore, it is not the issuance or signing of receipts for the placement fees that makes a
case for illegal recruitment, but rather the undertaking of recruitment activities without the necessary license
or authority.
In this case, evidence on record provide that Senoron provided them the application form to be filled up. It
was also Senoron who told the complainant to follow it up at her residence or in her office in Padre Faura. She
issued an Interbank check for the refund of the payment.

Appellant made a distinct impression that she had the ability to send applicants for work abroad. She,
however, does not possess any license or authority to recruit which fact was confirmed by the duly
authenticated certification issued by the Manager of the Licensing Branch of the POEA, and by the testimony
of Ms. Socorro Landas representing the Licensing Division of the POEA. It is the lack of necessary license or
authority that renders the recruitment activity, as in this case, unlawful or criminal.

Appellant's residual arguments that she was just an accommodation maker in the issuance of the check and
that private complainants failed to notify her after the check bounced do not merit serious consideration. It
has to be emphasized that appellant is not being prosecuted for violation of the anti-bouncing check law
where the foregoing contentions may have an impact, but for illegal recruitment which the prosecution was
able to establish beyond reasonable doubt.
 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the HONORABLE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, the
HONORABLE SECRETARY OF DOLE, POEA, OWWA, NLRC, the HONORABLE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE,
the HONORABLE SECRETARY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS and the COA vs.
PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF SERVICE EXPORTERS, INC. (PASEI)
G.R. No. 167590

FACTS:
These consolidated cases pertain to the constitutionality of certain provisions of Republic Act 8042, otherwise
known as the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995.

Republic Act 8042 or the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, among other purposes, sets the
Government’s policies on overseas employment and establishes a higher standard of protection and
promotion of the welfare of migrant workers, their families, and overseas Filipinos in distress.

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 for being unconstitutional.

Section 6 defines the crime of "illegal recruitment" and enumerates the acts constituting the same. Section 7
provides the penalties for prohibited acts. Section 9 allowed the filing of criminal actions arising from "illegal
recruitment" before the RTC of the province or city where the offense was committed or where the offended
party actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense.

RTC of Manila: Declared Section 6 unconstitutional on the ground that its definition of "illegal recruitment" is
vague as it fails to distinguish between licensed and non-licensed recruiters 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. Section 7 was also unconstitutional on the ground that its sweeping
application of the penalties failed to make any distinction as to the seriousness of the act committed for the
application of the penalty imposed on such violation. Section was also unconstitutional on the ground that
allowing the offended parties to file the criminal case in their place of residence would negate the general rule
on venue of criminal cases which is the place where the crime or any of its essential elements were
committed.

ISSUE:
WON Sections 6,7 & 9 are unconstitutional (NO)

RULING:
Section 6
Illegal recruitment as defined in Section 6 is clear and unambiguous and 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.

Section 7
Congress was within its prerogative to determine what individual acts are equally reprehensible, consistent
with the State policy of according full protection to labor, and deserving of the same penalties. This legislative
policy has been further stressed in July 2010 with the enactment of R.A. 10022 which increased even more the
duration of the penalties of imprisonment and the amounts of fine for the commission of the acts listed under
Section 7. The law considered the unsettling fact that OFWs must work outside the country’s borders and
beyond its immediate protection. The law must, therefore, make an effort to somehow protect them from
conscienceless individuals within its jurisdiction who, fueled by greed, are willing to ship them out without
clear assurance that their contracted principals would treat such OFWs fairly and humanely.

As the Court held in People v. Ventura, the State under its police power "may prescribe such regulations as in
its judgment will secure or tend to secure the general welfare of the people, to protect them against the
consequence of ignorance and incapacity as well as of deception and fraud." Police power is "that inherent and
plenary power of the State which enables it to prohibit all things hurtful to the comfort, safety, and welfare of
society.

Section 9
There is nothing arbitrary or unconstitutional in Congress fixing an alternative venue for violations of Section
6 of R.A. 8042 that differs from the venue established by the Rules on Criminal Procedure. Section 15(a), Rule
110 of the latter Rules allows exceptions provided by laws.

Section 9 of R.A. 8042, as an exception to the rule on venue of criminal actions is, consistent with that law’s
declared policy15 of providing a criminal justice system that protects and serves the best interests of the
victims of illegal recruitment.

As a final note, R.A. 8042 is a police power measure intended to regulate the recruitment and deployment of
OFWs. It aims to curb, if not eliminate, the injustices and abuses suffered by numerous OFWs seeking to work
abroad. The rule is settled that every statute has in its favor the presumption of constitutionality. The Court
cannot inquire into the wisdom or expediency of the laws enacted by the Legislative Department. Hence, in
the absence of a clear and unmistakable case that the statute is unconstitutional, the Court must uphold its
validity.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. DELIA SADIOSA y CABENTA
G.R. No. 107084 May 15, 1998

FACTS:
Arsenia Conse went to Bayombong, Nueva Ecija and enticed the four complainant to apply for
overseas employment informing them that she had a cousin who could send them to Kuwait as
domestic helpers. Convinced, the four went with her to Manila. Upon arrival, they proceeded to
Diamond Building in Pasay City where Conse introduced the group to accused-appellant Delia
Sadiosa. The four then applied for work as domestic helpers.

Sadiosa assured the four that she could dispatch them to Kuwait and demanded P8,000 from each
of them for processing fee and P1,000 for passport. She assured the group that she would facilitate
the processing of all the necessary documents and that upon payment of the required fees, they
would be able to leave for Kuwait immediately. The four paid and was issued receipts.

Navarro and Tuliao: February 17, 1992, February 19, 1992 and on February 25, 1992
Domingo and Manzano: March 17, 1992, February 24, 1992 and on March 17, 1992.

Not one of them was able to leave for Kuwait. When they asked for the return of their money,
Sadiosa refused and ignored their demand. The four filed the complaint for illegal recruitment.

POEA: Sadiosa was neither licensed nor authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment.

Sadiosa: Claimed that she merely received the money as an officer on behalf of one Mrs. Ganura who
owned the recruitment agency called Staff Organizers, Inc. Presented evidence that she remitted the
money to Mrs. Ganura. Although she was not listed in the POEA as an employee of the recruitment
agency, she had a special power of attorney issued by her employer to receive payments from
applicants.

Trial Court: Found Sadiosa guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale defined by Article 38 (b) and
penalized under Article 39 (a) of the Labor Code, as amended by Presidential Decree Nos. 1920 and
2018.

ISSUE:
WON Sadiosa is guilty of illegal recruitment

RULING:
The information filed against accused-appellant sufficiently shows that it is for the crime of illegal
recruitment in large scale, as defined in Art. 38 (b) of the Labor Code and penalized in Art. 39 of the
same Code although it is designated as for "illegal recruitment" only.

Under the Code, the essential elements of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale are as
follows:
1. The accused engages in the recruitment and placement of workers, as defined under Article
13 (b) or in any prohibited activities under Article 34 of the Labor Code;
 2. Accused has not complied with the guidelines issued by the Secretary of Labor and
Employment, particularly with respect to the securing of a license or an authority to recruit
and deploy workers, whether locally or overseas; and
3. Accused commits the same against three (3) or more persons, individually or as a group.

All these elements are to be found in the information. It alleges that accused-appellant, knowing
fully well that she was "not a duly licensed job recruiter," falsely represented that she could "secure
employment as domestic helpers abroad" for the four complainants.

It is incorrect for accused-appellant to maintain that the information filed against her contained
conflicting and irreconcilable charges of illegal recruitment, estafa under Article 315 par. 1(b) of the
Revised Penal Code and estafa under the same article but under par. 2 (a) thereof. While on its face
the allegations in the information may constitute estafa, this Court agrees with the Solicitor General
that it merely describes how accused-appellant was able to consummate the act of illegal
recruitment — through false and fraudulent representation by pretending that she was a duly-
licensed recruiter who could secure employment for complainants in Kuwait. These allegations in
the information therefore do not render the information defective or multiplicitous.

It is apropos to underscore the firmly established jurisprudence that a person who has committed
illegal recruitment may be charged and convicted separately of illegal recruitment under the Labor
Code and estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code. The crime of illegal recruitment
is malum prohibitum where the criminal intent of the accused is not necessary for conviction, while
estafa is malum in se where the criminal intent of the accused is necessary for conviction.

In other words, a person convicted under the Labor Code may be convicted of offenses punishable
by other laws. However, 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. When
the persons recruited are three or more, the crime becomes illegal recruitment in large scale under
Art. 38 (b) of the Labor Code. In both bases, it is the lack of a necessary license or permit that
renders such recruitment activities unlawful and criminal.

In the case at bar, accused-appellant could have been validly charged separately with estafa under
the same set of facts in the illegal recruitment case, but she was fortunate enough not to have been
so charged. Nevertheless, there is no doubt from a reading of the information, that it accurately and
clearly avers all of the ingredients that constitute illegal recruitment in large scale. The prosecutor
simply captioned the information with the generic name of the offense under the Labor Code —
illegal recruitment. No misconceptions would have been engendered had he been more accurate in
the drafting of the information considering that there are at least four kinds of illegal recruitment
under the law. One is simple illegal recruitment committed by a licensee or holder of authority. The
law penalizes such offender with imprisonment of "not less than two years nor more than five years
or a fine of not less than P10,000 nor more than P50,000, or both such imprisonment and fine." Any
person "who is neither a licensee nor a holder of authority" commits the second type of illegal
recruitment. The penalty imposed for such offense is "imprisonment of not less than four years nor
more than eight years or a fine of not less than P20,000 nor more than P100,000 or both such
imprisonment and fine at the discretion of the court." The third type of illegal recruitment refers to
offenders who either commit the offense alone or with another person against three or more
persons individually or as a group. A syndicate or a group of three or more persons conspiring and
confederating with one another in carrying out the act circumscribed by the law commits the fourth
type of illegal recruitment by the law. For the third and fourth types of illegal recruitment the law
prescribes the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P100,000.

The prosecution evidence has shown beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant engaged in
unlawful recruitment and placement activities. Accused-appellant promised the four complainants
employment as domestic helpers in Kuwait. Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code defines recruitment
and placement as referring 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." All the essential elements of the crime of illegal
recruitment in large scale, which we have enumerated above, are present in this case.

For engaging in recruitment of the four complainants without first obtaining the necessary license
from the POEA, accused-appellant, therefore, is guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale, an offense
involving economic sabotage. She should, accordingly, be punished with life imprisonment and a
fine of P100,000 under Article 39 (a) of the Labor Code, as amended.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. HADJA JARMA LALLI y PURIH, RONNIE ARINGOY y MASION, and
NESTOR RELAMPAGOS (at large)
G.R. No. 195419 October 12, 2011

FACTS:
This is a consolidated criminal case filed against the accused-appellants for the crimes of Illegal Recruitment
and Trafficking in Persons.

While Lolita Plando was on her way to her grandfather’s house, she met Ronnie and Rachel Aringoy. Rachel
asked Lolita if she is interested to work in Malaysia. Lolita was interested. Next morning, Lolita received a text
from Ronnie inviting her to go to the latter’s house. Lolita was told that she will work as a restaurant
entertainer in Malaysia and all that is needed is a passport. She will be paid 500 Malaysian ringgits which is
equivalent to ₱7,000 pesos. Since Lolita does not have a passport Ronnie said that they will look for a passport
so she could leave 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 at the city proper. Lolita borrowed her sister’s passport. Marife refused but Lolita got the
passport.

Ronnie, Rachel and Lolita went to the house of Lalli just 200 meters away from the house of Ronnie. Lalli said
that the borrowed passport is not a problem because they have a connection with the DFA and Marife’s
picture in the passport will be substituted with Lolita’s picture.

Lalli introduced Nestor to Lolita as their financier who will accompany them to Malaysia. There were three
other women in the house. Which turned out to be her companions going to Malaysia.

Lolita met with Lalli, Ronnie Aringoy, and the others at the wharf. Ronnie gave to Lolita her boat ticket, the
passport and ₱1,000.00 in cash. Only Ronnie did not board the boat. After at Sandakan, Malaysia and passing
through the immigration office, all off them boarded a van for Kota Kinabalu. At the hotel, Nestor introduced
to Lolita and her companions a Chinese Malay called "Boss" as their employer. When they were 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 Lalli that they do not like to work as prostitutes. A van fetched them brought them
to Pipen Club owned by "Boss Awa", a Malaysian. At the club, they were told that they owe the club 2,000
ringgits each as payment for the amount given by the club to Lalli and Nestor. They will pay for the said
amount by entertaining customers. The customers will pay 300 ringgits for short time services of which 50
ringgits will go to the entertainer, and 500 ringgits for over night service of which 100 ringgits will be given to
the entertainer. Pipen Club is a big club in a two-storey building. There were about 100 women working in the
club, many of them were Filipina women. Lolita was forced to work as entertainer at Pipen Club where
customer will take her to a hotel and have sexual intercourse with her.

Lolita was able to contact her sister to ask for help. Her sister’s husband was able to rescue her. Lolita was
able to board a speedboat to Sibuto, Tawi-Tawi. Lolita filed a complaint.

Ronnie: He said he is not involved in what happened to her. He personally knows Lolita Plando since she was
a teenager. Lolita borrowed ₱1,000 because he wanted to go to Malaysia to work as a guest relation officer
GRO. He told her that he knows Lalli, distant neighbor, who frequents to Malaysia and with whom she can ask
pertinent information on job opportunities. Lolita is a known GRO and massage attendant at and 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.

Lalli: Admitted that she coincidentally met Lolita Plando on board M/V Mary Joy while the said vessel was at
sea on its way to Sandakan, Malaysia. They parted ways upon arrival at the hotel. 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.

Trial Court: Found Lalli and Ronnie guilty of Trafficking in Persons and Illegal Recruitment. The accused,
without a POEA license, conspired in recruiting Lolita and trafficking her as a prostitute, resulting in crimes
committed by a syndicate.

CA: Affirmed the RTC decision.

ISSUE:
WON the accused conspired to commit a crime of Syndicated Illegal Recruitment (YES)

RULING:
Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042 (RA 8042) defines illegal recruitment, as follows:

Illegal recruitment shall mean any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring,
or procuring workers and includes referring, contact 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.
xxx
Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall be considered an
offense involving economic sabotage.
xxx
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.

Article 13(f) of Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, otherwise known as the Labor Code of the
Philippines, defines "authority" as follows:

"Authority" means a document issued by the Department of Labor authorizing a person or association to
engage in recruitment and placement activities as a private recruitment entity.

It is clear that a person or entity engaged in recruitment and placement activities without the requisite
authority from the DOLE, whether for profit or not, is engaged in illegal recruitment. POEA, an agency under
DOLE 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.

The penalties in Section 7 of RA 8042 have already been amended by Section 6 of Republic Act No. 10022, and
have been increased to a fine of not less than ₱ 2,000,000 but not more than ₱ 5,000,000. However, since the
crime was committed in 2005, we shall apply the penalties in the old law, RA 8042.
In People v. Gallo, the 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
3. The illegal recruitment is committed by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring or
confederating with one another.

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, Lalli, Aringoy and Relampagos 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.

Aringoy claims and admits that he only referred Lolita to Lalli for job opportunities to Malaysia. Such act of
referring, whether for profit or not, in connivance with someone without a POEA license, is already
considered illegal recruitment, given the broad definition of recruitment and placement in the Labor Code.

Lalli, on the other hand, completely denies any involvement in the recruitment and placement of Lolita to
Malaysia, and claims she only met Lolita for the first time by coincidence on board the ship M/V Mary Joy.
Lalli’s denial does not deserve credence because it completely conflicts with the testimony of Aringoy who
claims he referred Lolita to Lalli who had knowledge of the job opportunities in Malaysia.

Aringoy claims that no conspiracy existed in illegal recruitment, as he denies even knowing Relampagos, who
is currently at-large. Lalli denies any involvement in the illegal recruitment, and claims that she only met
Relampagos through Lolita on board the ship M/V Mary Joy on 6 June 2005, and learned that Relampagos was
bringing Lolita and their other girl companions to Malaysia to work as sales ladies.

Under Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code, there is conspiracy "when two or more persons come to an
agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it."

In People v. Lago, the Court discussed conspiracy in this wise:

The elements of conspiracy are the following: (1) two or more persons came to an agreement, (2) the
agreement concerned the commission of a felony, and (3) the execution of the felony was decided upon. Proof
of the conspiracy need not be based on direct evidence, because it may be inferred from the parties’ conduct
indicating a common understanding among themselves with respect to the commission of the crime. Neither
is it necessary to show that two or more persons met together and entered into an explicit agreement setting
out the details of an unlawful scheme or objective to be carried out. The conspiracy may be deduced from the
mode or manner in which the crime was perpetrated; it may also be inferred from the acts of the accused
evincing a joint or common purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest. 47
In this case, Lolita would not have been able to go to Malaysia if not for the concerted efforts of Aringoy, Lalli
and Relampagos. First, it was Aringoy who knew Lolita, since Aringoy was a neighbor of Lolita’s grandfather. It
was Aringoy who referred Lolita to Lalli, a fact clearly admitted by Aringoy. Second, Lolita would not have
been able to go to Malaysia if Lalli had not purchased Lolita’s boat ticket to Malaysia. Lalli’s claim that she only
goes to Malaysia to visit her daughter and son-in-law does not explain the fact why she bought the boat tickets
of the other women passengers going to Malaysia. In fact, it appears strange that Lalli visited Malaysia nine
(9) times in a span of one year and three months just to visit her daughter and son-in-law. In Malaysia, it was
Relampagos who introduced Lolita and her companions to a Chinese Malay called "Boss" as their first
employer. When Lolita and her companions went back to the hotel to tell Relampagos and Lalli that they did
not want to work as prostitutes, Relampagos brought Lolita and the girls on board a van to Sangawan China
Labuan, where they stayed in a room for one night.

Flight in criminal law is the evading of the course of justice by voluntarily withdrawing oneself in order to
avoid arrest or detention or the institution or continuance of criminal proceedings. The unexplained flight of
an accused person may as a general rule be taken into consideration as evidence having a tendency to
establish his guilt. Clearly, in this case, the flight of accused Relampagos, who is still at-large, shows an
indication of guilt in the crimes he has been charged.

It is clear that through the concerted efforts of Aringoy, Lalli and Relampagos, Lolita was recruited and
deployed to Malaysia to work as a prostitute. Such conspiracy among Aringoy, Lalli and Relampagos could be
deduced from the manner in which the crime was perpetrated – each of the accused played a pivotal role in
perpetrating the crime of illegal recruitment, and evinced a joint common purpose and design, concerted
action and community of interest.

For these reasons, this Court affirms the CA Decision, affirming the RTC Decision, declaring accused Ronnie
Aringoy y Masion and Hadja Jarma Lalli y Purih guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal
recruitment committed by a syndicate in Criminal Case No. 21930, with a penalty of life imprisonment and a
fine of ₱ 500,000 imposed on each of the accused.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (at large), KARL REICHL, and YOLANDA
GUTIERREZ DE REICHL
G.R. No. 141221-36 March 7, 2002

FACTS:
8 informations for syndicated and large scale illegal recruitment and 8 informations for estafa were filed
against spouses Karl and Yolanda Reichl, together with Hernandez. Only the Reichl spouses were tried and
convicted by the trial court as Francisco Hernandez remained at large.

Complainant was introduced by Hernandez to spouses Reichl. Reichl told them that they could find them a job
as domestic helper in Italy. They, however, required her to pay the amount of P150,000 for the processing of
their papers and travel documents which they paid and was given receipt. They were promised to leave on a
certain date but it did not materialized. They were rescheduled the accused again made another promise.
Tired of the recruiters' unfulfilled promises, the applicants decided to withdraw their application. However,
Karl Reichl constantly assured them that they would land a job in Italy because he had connections in Vienna.
The promised employment, however, never materialized. Thus, Karl Reichl signed a document stating that he
would refund the payment made by the applicants plus interest and other expenses.

Defense: Karl denied any knowledge about Hernandez's recruitment activities. Hernandez merely told him
that he wanted to help his relatives go to Europe. He denied that he promised private complainants that he
would give them overseas employment. As regards the document where Mr. Reichl undertook to pay
P1,388,924. to private complainants, he claimed that he signed said document under duress. Hernandez
allegedly told him that private complainants would harm him and his family if he refused to sign it. He signed
the document as he felt he had no other option. Yolanda claimed that she was in Manila on the dates alleged in
the various informations, thus, she could not have committed the acts charged therein. Accuseds assert that
they merely undertook to secure Austrian visas for private complainants, which act did not constitute illegal
recruitment.

Trial Court: Found accused guilty of 1 count of illegal recruitment in large scale and 6 counts of estafa but not
guilty ofthe crime of syndicated and large-scale illegal recruitment

ISSUE:
WON the trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellant of the crime of illegal recruitment on a large
scale by cummulating five separate cases of illegal recruitment each filed by a single private complainant.
(NO)

RULING:
The evidence on record shows that they promised overseas employment to private complainants and
required them to prepare the necessary documents and to pay the placement fee, although they did not have
any license to do so. 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.

Private complainants categorically stated that Karl and Yolanda Reichl told them that they would provide
them overseas employment and promised them that they would be able to leave the country on a specified
date. Moreover, it was shown that Karl Reichl signed a document where he promised to refund the payments
given by private complainants for the processing of their papers. We are not inclined to believe Mr. Reichl's
claim that he was forced by Francisco Hernandez to sign said document. There is no showing, whether in his
testimony or in that of his wife, that private complainants threatened to harm them if he did not sign the
document. When he affixed his signature thereon, he in effect acknowledged his obligation to ensure the
departure of private complainants and to provide them gainful employment abroad. Such obligation arose
from the promise of overseas placement made by him and his co-accused to private complainants.

Yolanda Reichl, on the other hand, claimed that he was in Manila on the dates alleged in the various
informations. It is of judicial notice that Batangas City is only a few hours' drive from Manila. Thus, even if the
spouses were staying in Manila, it does not prevent them from going to Batangas to engage in their
recruitment business. Furthermore, it appears that the three accused worked as a team and they conspired
and cooperated with each other in recruiting domestic helpers purportedly to be sent to Italy. Francisco
Hernandez introduced Karl and Yolanda Reichl to the job applicants as his business partners. Karl and
Yolanda Reichl themselves gave assurances to private complainants that they would seek employment for
them in Italy. Francisco Hernandez remitted the payments given by the applicants to the Reichl spouses and
the latter undertook to process the applicants' papers. There being conspiracy, each of the accused shall be
equally liable for the acts of his co-accused even if he himself did not personally take part in its execution.

Accused-appellants argue that the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellants of illegal recruitment in
large scale by cummulating the individual informations filed by private complainants. We note that each
information was filed by only one complainant. We agree with accused-appellants that they could not be
convicted for illegal recruitment committed in large scale based on several informations filed by only one
complainant.

When the Labor Code speaks of illegal recruitment 'committed against three (3) or more persons individually
or as a group,' it must be understood as referring to the number of complainants in each case who are
complainants therein, otherwise, prosecutions for single crimes of illegal recruitment can be cummulated to
make out a case of large scale illegal recruitment. In other words, a conviction for large scale illegal
recruitment must be based on a finding in each case of illegal recruitment of three or more persons whether
individually or as a group."

The charge was not only for illegal recruitment committed in large scale but also for illegal recruitment
committed by a syndicate. 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 of Article 38 of the Labor Code. It
has been shown that Karl Reichl, Yolanda Reichl and Francisco Hernandez conspired with each other in
convincing private complainants to apply for an overseas job and giving them the guaranty that they would be
hired as domestic helpers in Italy although they were not licensed to do so. Thus, we hold that accused-
appellants should be held liable for illegal recruitment committed by a syndicate.

A person who is convicted of illegal recruitment may, in addition, be convicted of estafa under Art. 315 (2) of
the Revised Penal Code provided the elements of estafa are present. Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2 of
the Revised Penal Code is committed by any person who defrauds another by using a fictitious name, or
falsely pretends to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary
transactions, or by means of similar deceits executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the
fraud. The offended party must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means of the
accused-appellant and as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damages. It has been proved in this case
that accused-appellants represented themselves to private complainants to have the capacity to send
domestic helpers to Italy, although they did not have any authority or license. It is by this representation that
they induced private complainants to pay a placement fee of P150,000.00. Such act clearly constitutes estafa
under Article 315 (2) of the Revised Penal Code.

People v Trinidad, G.R. No. 181244, Aug. 9, 2010;

FACTS:
Private complainant De Villa was brought by their aunt Patricia to the house of Trinidad for possible job
placement as domestic helpers in Italy. A cousin of hers was earlier able to leave for abroad through the help
of Trinidad. Convinced by appellant’s representation that she can send her to Italy, De Villa agreed to give
appellant ₱240,000, representing the price of her ticket and the processing of her papers, which amount she
paid in three installments. The initial payment was covered by a handwritten receipt signed and issued by
appellant herself while the second and third installments were no longer covered by receipts because,
according to De Villa, appellant had won her trust as a result of the former’s assurances that she would be able
to send her to Italy.

de Villa and three other recruits left the Philippines. However, instead of sending them to Italy, Trinidad and
Marasigan sent them to Bangkok, Thailand and told them that they will secure the visas for Italy in Bangkok
because it would be easier to get an Italian visa in Bangkok.

Elma, a cousin of De Villa, was likewise introduced to appellant by their aunt Patricia. Hernandez asked if
Trinidad could really send her to Italy to work as a domestic helper, and appellant replied positively.
Whereupon, she agreed to give ₱240,000 to appellant representing the expenses for the processing of her
Italian visa. Hernandez paid this amount in three installments and initial payment was covered by a receipt
while no receipts were issued for the latter amounts. Appellant told her that she was tentatively scheduled to
leave in May 1998, but because the processsing of her papers were allegedly not completed on time, appellant
moved her flight to August. Hernandez was able to leave the Philippines on this later date but not for Italy as
agreed upon, but for Bangkok where appellant will allegedly secure her Italian visa.

Dela Cruz also has the same facts. 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. The group stayed in Morocco for two months but Trinidad
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 Trinidad persisted in dissuading them from returning to the
Philippines, assuring them that she would send them to Italy. They failed to be further dissuaded, however,
and they returned to the Philippines and filed a complaint against appellant and her companions.

Trial Court: Found Trinidad guilty of Large Scale Illegal Recruitment.

Trinidad: 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. 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.
POEA: Trinidad was not duly licensed to conduct recruitment activities,.

CA: The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court

ISSUE:
WON Trinidad is liable for illegal recruitment? (YES)

RULING:
Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042 or the "Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995" defines illegal
recruitment as "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.

All three private complainants testified in a categorical and straightforward manner; hence, the trial court
properly accorded full faith and credence to their declarations on the witness stand. The well-settled rule is
that the credibility of witnesses is best left to the judgment of the trial judge whose findings are generally not
disturbed on appeal, absent any showing that substantial errors were committed or that determinative facts
were overlooked which, if appreciated, would call for a different conclusion. The trial court has the advantage,
not available to the appellate courts, of observing the deportment of witnesses and their manner of testifying
during trial. Thus, the appellate courts confer highest respect to such findings and conclusions of the lower
courts.

Besides, the only defense offered by appellant against the allegations against her was mere denial, an
inherently weak defense which cannot prevail over the positive and unequivocal testimonies of complainants.
Bare denials, without clear and convincing evidence to support them, cannot sway judgment. They are self-
serving statements which can easily be put forward. It is inconceivable that private complainants would be
mistaken in their claim that it was appellant who recruited them considering that it was she who personally
talked with them on several occasions and received the sums of money for which she issued receipts. It is
contrary to human nature and experience for persons to conspire and accuse a stranger of a crime, or even a
casual acquaintance for that matter, that would take the latter’s liberty and send him to prison just to appease
their feeling of rejection and assuage the frustration of their dreams to go abroad.

In the instant case, appellant is guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale because it was committed against
three private complainants. This is 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.
 ROSITA SY vs PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 183879 April 14, 2010

FACTS:
Rosita Sy was charged with one count of illegal recruitment and one count of estafa. Sy was exonerated of the
illegal recruitment charge. However, she was convicted of the crime of estafa. Thus, the instant appeal involves
the crime of estafa.

Prosecution: Rosita Sy, accompanied Corazon, went to the house of Corazon’s sister, Felicidad to convince her
to work abroad. Rosita assured Felicidad of a good salary and entitlement to a yearly vacation if she decides to
take a job in Taiwan. She shall receive compensation in the amount of Php120,000. Appellant promised
Felicidad that she will take care of the processing of the necessary documents, including her passport and
visa.
Felicidad succumbed to Rosita’s offer. Felicidad handed to Rosita the amount of Php60,000 and another
P60,000 at another day. No receipt was issued by appellant to acknowledge receipt of the total amount of
Php120,000.00 paid by Felicidad.

Felicidad was brought to Uniwide in Sta. Cruz, Manila, where a male person showed to them the birth
certificate that Felicidad would use in applying for a Taiwanese passport. The birth certificate was that of a
certain Armida Lim, born to Margarita Galvez and Lim Leng. Felicidad was instructed on how to write Armida
Lim’s Chinese name.

In the Bureau of Immigration office, Felicidad, posed and affixed her signature as Armida G. Lim, filled out the
application forms for the issuance of Alien Certificate of Registration (ACR) and Immigrant Certificate of
Registration (ICR). She attached to the application forms her own photo. Felicidad agreed to use the name of
Armida Lim as her own because she already paid to appellant the amount of Php120,000. Rosita sent to
Felicidad the birth certificate of Armida Lim, the Marriage Contract of Armida Lim’s parents, ACR and ICR.
These documents were submitted to and eventually rejected by the Taiwanese authorities, triggering the filing
of illegal recruitment and estafa cases against appellant.

Defense: Denied offering a job to Felicidad or receiving any money from her. When she first spoke to Felicidad
at the latter’s house, she mentioned that her husband and children freely entered Taiwan because she was a
holder of a Chinese passport. Felicidad commented that many Filipino workers in Taiwan were holding
Chinese passports. Three weeks later, Felicidad and Corazon came to her house in Las Piñ as and asked her if
she knew somebody who could help Felicidad get a Chinese ACR and ICR for a fee. Rosita introduced a certain
Amelia Lim, who, in consideration of the amount of Php120,000, offered to Felicidad the use of the name of
her mentally deficient sister, Armida Lim. Felicidad agreed.

RTC: Acquitted Rosita Sy of the crime of illegal recruitment but found her guilty of the crime of estafa

CA: Affirmed the decision

RULING:
Swindling or estafa is punishable under Article 315 of the RPC. There are three ways of committing estafa,
viz.: (1) with unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence; (2) by means of false pretenses or fraudulent acts; or (3)
through fraudulent means. The three ways of committing estafa may be reduced to two, i.e., (1) by means of
abuse of confidence; or (2) by means of deceit.

The elements of estafa in general are the following: (a) that an accused defrauded another by abuse of
confidence, or by means of deceit; and (b) that damage and prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is
caused the offended party or third person.

The act complained of in the instant case is penalized under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the RPC, wherein
estafa is committed by any person who shall defraud another by false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed
prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud. It is committed by using fictitious name, or by
pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary
transactions, or by means of other similar deceits.

The elements of estafa by means of deceit are the following, viz.: (a) that there must be a false pretense or
fraudulent representation as to his power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or
imaginary transactions; (b) that such false pretense or fraudulent representation was made or executed prior
to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; (c) that the offended party relied on the false pretense,
fraudulent act, or fraudulent means and was induced to part with his money or property; and (d) that, as a
result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.

In the instant case, all the foregoing elements are present. Sy misrepresented and falsely pretended that she
had the capacity to deploy Felicidad for employment in Taiwan. The misrepresentation was made prior to
Felicidad’s payment to Sy of P120,000. It was Sy’s misrepresentation and false pretenses that induced
Felicidad to part with her money. As a result of Sy’s false pretenses and misrepresentations, Felicidad suffered
damages as the promised employment abroad never materialized and the money she paid was never
recovered.

The fact that Felicidad actively participated in the processing of the illegal travel documents will not exculpate
Sy from liability. Felicidad was a hapless victim of circumstances and of fraud committed by Sy. She was forced
to take part in the processing of the falsified travel documents because she had already paid ₱120,000.00.

Illegal recruitment and estafa cases may be filed simultaneously or separately. The filing of charges for illegal
recruitment does not bar the filing of estafa, and vice versa. Sy’s acquittal in the illegal recruitment case does
not prove that she is not guilty of estafa. Illegal recruitment and estafa are entirely different offenses and
neither one necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the other. A person who is convicted of illegal
recruitment may, in addition, be convicted of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the RPC. In the same
manner, a person acquitted of illegal recruitment may be held liable for estafa. Double jeopardy will not set in
because illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum, in which there is no necessity to prove criminal intent,
whereas estafa is malum in se, in the prosecution of which, proof of criminal intent is necessary.

The penalty prescribed for estafa under Article 315 of the RPC is prision correccional in its maximum period
to
Sunace International Management Services, Inc. v NLRC, G.R. No. 161757, Jan. 25, 2006;

Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc. v Cabiles, G.R. No. 170139, Aug. 5, 2014;

Antonio Serrano v Gallant Maritime Services, Inc., G.R. No. 167614, Mar. 24, 2009