Illegal recruitment in large scale - G.R. No. 185277

See  -  G.R. No. 185277





"x x x.

  Likewise, we find that the trial court and the Court of Appeals correctly found appellant guilty of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale under Republic Act No. 8042,[59] the pertinent provision of which provides:

            Sec. 6. Definition. – 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. x x x.

x x x x

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. x x x.

          To constitute illegal recruitment in large scale, three elements must concur:  (a) the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable him to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers; (b) the offender undertakes any of the activities within the meaning of “recruitment and placement” under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code, or any of the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of the same Code (now Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042); and, (c) the offender committed the same against three (3) or more persons, individually or as a group.[60]

Article 13(b) of the Labor 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.”  In the 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.[61]

We are persuaded that all three elements of illegal recruitment in large scale were proven in this case.

First, appellant had no valid license or authority to engage in the recruitment and placement of workers. This is established by theKaragdagang Salaysay executed by Pacardo on 8 March 2002, paragraph 6 of which states that while MPM applied for a license, it was never issued one, for which reason, it changed its name to New Filipino Manpower Development and Services, Inc.[62]

Second, despite not having such authority, appellant nevertheless engaged in recruitment activities, offering and promising jobs to private complainants and collecting from them various amounts as placement fees.  This is substantiated by the respective testimonies of the three private complainants.

Fernandez narrated that it was appellant who assured him that if he pays P45,000.00, he would be able to leave for Korea within two to three months.  Both Fernandez and Panlilio affirmed that they gave the money to appellant who issued a receipt therefore.  Filomeno testified that when she went to the office of Martir, the latter and appellant were in the process of accepting applicants for work overseas.  They told her that as a factory worker in Korea, she would have a monthly salary of US$500.00 with overtime pay.  Relying on their misrepresentations, she paid the placement fee to appellant and Martir.

Thus, the mere denials of appellant cannot stand against the clear, positive and straightforward testimonies of private complainants who positively identified appellant as one of two persons who undertook to recruit them for a supposed employment in Korea.  As already previously mentioned, absent any evidence that the prosecution witnesses were motivated by improper motives, the trial court’s assessment of the credibility of the witnesses shall not be interfered with by this Court.

x x x."