PP VS. PANIS The basic issue in this case is the correct interpretation of Article 13(b) of P.D.

442, otherwise known as the Labor Code, reading as follows: (b) Recruitment and placement' refers to any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, 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. Four informations were filed on January 9, 1981, in the Court of First Instance of Zambales and Olongapo City alleging that Serapio Abug, private respondent herein, "without first securing a license from the Ministry of Labor as a holder of authority to operate a fee-charging employment agency, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and criminally operate a private fee charging employment agency by charging fees and expenses (from) and promising employment in Saudi Arabia" to four separate individuals named therein, in violation of Article 16 in relation to Article 39 of the Labor Code. 1 Abug filed a motion to quash on the ground that the informations did not charge an offense because he was accused of illegally recruiting only one person in each of the four informations. Under the proviso in Article 13(b), he claimed, there would be illegal recruitment only "whenever two or more persons are in any manner promised or offered any employment for a fee. " 2 Denied at first, the motion was reconsidered and finally granted in the Orders of the trial court dated June 24 and September 17, 1981. The prosecution is now before us on certiorari. 3 The posture of the petitioner is that the private respondent is being prosecuted under Article 39 in relation to Article 16 of the Labor Code; hence, Article 13(b) is not applicable. However, as the first two cited articles penalize acts of recruitment and placement without proper authority, which is the charge embodied in the informations, application of the definition of recruitment and placement in Article 13(b) is unavoidable. The view of the private respondents is that to constitute recruitment and placement, all the acts mentioned in this article should involve dealings with two or mre persons as an indispensable requirement. On the other hand, the petitioner argues that the requirement of two or more persons is imposed only where the recruitment and placement consists of an offer or promise of employment to such persons and always in consideration of a fee. The other acts mentioned in the body of the article may involve even only one person and are not necessarily for profit. Neither interpretation is acceptable. We fail to see why the proviso should speak only of an offer or promise of employment if the purpose was to apply the requirement of two or more persons to all the acts mentioned in the basic rule. For its part, the petitioner does not explain why dealings with two or more persons are needed where the recruitment and placement consists of an offer or promise of employment but not when it is done through "canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring (of) workers.

and, as in the instant case, certain esoteric provisions that one cannot read against the background facts usually reported in the legislative journals. At any rate, the interpretation here adopted should give more force to the campaign against illegal recruitment and placement, which has victimized many Filipino workers seeking a better life in a foreign land, and investing hard- earned savings or even borrowed funds in pursuit of their dream, only to be awakened to the reality of a cynical deception at the hands of theirown countrymen. WHEREFORE, the Orders of June 24, 1981, and September 17, 1981, are set aside and the four informations against the private respondent reinstated. No costs. PP VS. MERIS This is an appeal from the Joint Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 1, convicting accused-appellant Leonida Meris y Padilla of illegal recruitment in largescale and six counts of estafa. The dispositive portion of the decision[1] reads as follows: WHEREFORE, this court finds the accused, Leonida Meris y Padilla, GUILTY, beyond reasonable doubt of six (6) counts of estafa in Criminal Cases Nos. 9194192 to 91-94197, and of illegal recruitment in large scale in Criminal Case No. 91-94198 and, as a consequence thereof, sentences her as follows:_____ Further, the accused shall indemnify the private complainants, Napoleon Ramos, Cristina Nava, Margarita Nadal, Purita Conseja and Leo delos Santos, the sum of P30,000.00 each and complainant Merlita Bombarda the amount of P20,000.00 with interest thereon at the legal rate from the date of institution of these cases, i.e., April 29, 1991, until fully paid. Costs against the accused in all the above-captioned cases. SO ORDERED. The above conviction stemmed from seven informations. The information in Criminal Case No. 91-94192 reads: That on or about and during the period comprised between January 12, 1991 and February 17, 1991, both dates inclusive, prior or subsequent thereto in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused conspiring and confederating with three others whose true names, identities and present whereabouts are still unknown, helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud NAPOLEON RAMOS y ESPEJO in the following manner, to wit: the said accused, by means of false manifestations and fraudulent representation which they made to said NAPOLEON E. RAMOS to the effect that they had the power and capacity to recruit and employ him as Factory Worker in Hongkong and could facilitate the processing of the pertinent papers if given the necessary amount to meet the requirements thereof, and by means of other similar deceits, induced and succeeded in inducing said NAPOLEON E. RAMOS to give and deliver, as in fact (he) gave and delivered to said accused the amount of P30,000.00 on the strength of said manifestations and representations, said accused well knowing that the same were false and fraudulent and were made solely to obtain, as in fact did obtain the amount of P30,000.00 which amount once in possession, with intent to defraud he (sic) willfully, unlawfully and feloniously misappropriated, misapplied and converted to their own personal use and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of said NAPOLEON E. RAMOS, in the aforesaid amount of P30,000.00, Philippine Currency.

As we see it, the proviso was intended neither to impose a condition on the basic rule nor to provide an exception thereto but merely to create a presumption. The presumption is that the individual or entity is engaged in recruitment and placement whenever he or it is dealing with two or more persons to whom, in consideration of a fee, an offer or promise of employment is made in the course of the "canvassing, enlisting, contracting, The information in Criminal Cases Nos. 91-94193, 91-94194, 91-94195, 91-94196 and transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring (of) workers. " 91-94197 likewise charged accused-appellant with Estafa and contain substantially the The number of persons dealt with is not an essential ingredient of the act of recruitment same allegations as the above-quoted information, except as to the name of the complainants and the amounts involved.[3] and placement of workers. Any of the acts mentioned in the basic rule in Article 13(b) win constitute recruitment and placement even if only one prospective worker is involved. The proviso merely lays down a rule of evidence that where a fee is collected in consideration of a promise or offer of employment to two or more prospective workers, the individual or entity dealing with them shall be deemed to be engaged in the act of recruitment and placement. The words "shall be deemed" create that presumption. This is not unlike the presumption in article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, for example, regarding the failure of a public officer to produce upon lawful demand funds or property entrusted to his custody. Such failure shall beprima facie evidence that he has put them to personal use; in other words, he shall be deemed to have malversed such funds or property. In the instant case, the word "shall be deemed" should by the same token be given the force of a disputable presumption or of prima facie evidence of engaging in recruitment and placement. (Klepp vs. Odin Tp., McHenry County 40 ND N.W. 313, 314.) It is unfortunate that we can only speculate on the meaning of the questioned provision for lack of records of debates and deliberations that would otherwise have been available if the Labor Code had been enacted as a statute rather than a presidential decree. The trouble with presidential decrees is that they could be, and sometimes were, issued without previous public discussion or consultation, the promulgator heeding only his own counsel or those of his close advisers in their lofty pinnacle of power. The not infrequent results are rejection, intentional or not, of the interest of the greater number

The seventh information in Criminal Case No. 91-94198 charged accused-appellant with illegal recruitment in large-scale, to wit: That on or about and during the period comprised between December 21, 1990 and February 17, 1991, inclusive, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring and confederating together with others still unknown and helping one another, and representing herself to have the capacity to contract, enlist and transport Filipino workers for employment abroad, did then and there willfully and unlawfully, for a fee, recruit and promise employment abroad to Leo D. delos Santos, Merlita L. Bombarda, Margarita R. madae (sic), Purita A. Conceja, Cristina I. Nava and Napoleon E. Ramos, without first securing the required license or authority from the Dept. of Labor. Criminal Case No. 91-94198 was originally filed before Branch 45 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila where, upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty.[5] The six other cases were filed before Branch I of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, where accused-appellant, likewise, entered a plea of "not guilty" to all the indictments. The cases were eventually consolidated and tried jointly before Branch I.[6] The evidence for the prosecution, as summarized by the trial court, is reproduced herein: Napoleon Ramos, complainant in Criminal Cases Nos. 91-94192 and 91-94198, testified that he was at the house of the accused on Estrada Street, Urdaneta, Pangasinan, in the

evening of January 9, 1991, between the hours of 7:00 and 8:00 oclock. Also in the house were Nadal, Conseja and Bombarda. The accused told the private complainants that she knew someone in Manila who could help them secure employment in Hongkong; that if they are interested she would take them to Manila on January 12, 1991, and that they should be prepared to make an initial payment of P15,000.00 each, for their placement fees. On the early morning of January 12, 1991, Ramos, Nadal, Conseja and Bombarda together with the accused proceeded to Manila by bus. They went directly to a house on Lardizabal Street, Sampaloc, Manila, where they were served breakfast. After a while, a woman arrived and was introduced by the accused to the private complainants as Julie Micua. The complainants were assured by Micua that she could get them overseas employment and upon payment of their placement fees of P35,000.00 each, they would leave for Hongkong within one month. Ramos, Nadal, Conseja and Bombarda made a downpayment of P5,000.00 each to the accused and her husband. The corresponding receipts, however, which were prepared by the accused, were in the name of and signed by Micua, Exhibits "E-1," "L," "H," "D," and "C." On January 14, 1991, Ramos went back to the House in Sampaloc, Manila, and handed to the accused the sum of P15,000.00. As in the first payment, the accused prepared a receipt in the name of Micua, who signed the same, Exhibit "E." On January 17, 1991, Ramos paid the accused an additional sum of P10,000.00 and the latter prepared a receipt in the name of Micua, who signed it, Exhibit "E-2." After Ramos failed to leave for Hongkong or secure overseas employment for more than two months since January 1991, he became suspicious and later realized that he and the other complainants had been hoodwinked. On April 26, 1991, Ramos and the other five complainants went to Manila and lodged with the Western Police District Command, Manila, criminal complaints for estafa and illegal recruitment against the accused, which led to her immediate arrest, Exhibit "A" and "B." On the other hand, Merlita Bombarda, complainant in Criminal Cases Nos. 91-94196 and 91-94198, declared that in 1987, the accused offered to recruit her for overseas employment in Japan, but she declined the offer, due to her singing engagement in Dagupan. Later, she worked in Singapore. Upon her return to the Philippine in 1990, she again met the accused in Urdaneta, Pangasinan. The accused told Bombarda that she knew of an agency that was recruiting people for overseas employment as factory workers in Hongkong, in consideration of a placement fee of P45,000.00. In the evening of January 9, 1991, she was at the accuseds house where she met the other complainants, Nadal, Ramos, Delos Santos and Conseja. The accused discussed with them the requirements for their overseas employment such as documentation, payment of placement fees and their trip to Manila. On the early morning of January 12, 1991, the complainants and the accused left by bus for Manila. They were taken by the accused to a house on Lardizabal Street, Sampaloc, Manila. Bombarda was assured by Micua that she would be employed in Hongkong as a factory worker with a monthly salary of H$4,000.00. She and the other complainants were asked by Micua to sign blank contracts of employment. After signing the blank contracts, complainants paid P5,000.00 each to the accused, who prepared the receipts that Micua signed. The receipt issued to Bombarda was marked as Exhibit "D-2." On January 17, she paid another P5,000.00 to the accused at the same house in Sampaloc, Manila, Exhibit "D-1." On February 17, she again paid P10,000.00 to the accused at the latters house in Urdaneta, Pangasinan, Exhibit "D," in the presence of Micua. She was told by the accused that she (Bombarda) would leave for Hongkong within two months, but she waited in vain. Neither was her money returned by the accused. Leo delos Santos, complainant in Criminal Case Nos. 91-94197 and 91-94198, asserted that he met the accused in Urdaneta, Pangasinan in October 1990. The accused persuaded him to apply for overseas employment, by telling him that she knew a recruiter who could deploy workers abroad. He was further advised by the accused to prepare P15,000.00 as initial payment of his placement fee. On December 21, 1990, January 21 and February 17, 1991, De los Santos gave to the accused the respective sums of P8,000.00, P10,000.00 and P12,000.00, Exhibits "F," "F-2," "F-3," and "F-4." The accused assured De los Santos that he would leave for Hongkong and work thereat as a factory worker within two months, but his projected trip never materialized. Neither was his money returned. When recalled to the witness stand by the prosecution as a witness for Margarita Nadal, complainant in Criminal Cases Nos. 91-94194 and 91-94198, Napoleon Ramos declared that Nadal was his neighbor in Urdaneta, Pangasinan; that on January 9, 1991, he was with Nadal when she applied with the accused a the latter's house in Urdaneta, Pampanga, for employment abroad; that he was present when Nadal handed to the accused the sum of P5,000.00 in Sampaloc, Manila, and he saw the accused prepare a receipt therefor that was signed by Micua, Exhibit "J;" that he was also present when Nadal gave an additional sum of P10,000.00 to the accused at her residence on Estrada Street, Urdaneta, Pangasinan, for which a receipt was issued by the accused, Exhibit "J3 that Nadal had gave (sic) to him other receipts of payments she had made to the accused on January 21 and 22, 1991 in the respective sums of P5,000 and P10,000.00, Exhibits "J-1" and "J-2," but he was not present when these two payments were made, and that Nadal was unable to testify, because she is now abroad.

The prosecution next presented Cristina Nava, complainant in Criminal Cases Nos. 9194193 and 91-94198, who testified that sometime in 1991, the accused went to her (Navas) house in San Nicholas, Villasis, Pangasinan, and offered to recruit her for overseas employment in Hongkong. Nava told the accused that she would consult her husband about the matter. A few weeks later, the accused again visited Nava and she (accused) succeeded in convincing the reluctant Nava to accept the offer. The accused told Nava that her placement fee would be P40,000.00 of which P30,000.00 was to be paid in advance and the balance of P10,000.00 would be deducted from her salary. On different occasions, Nava delivered to the accused various amounts totalling P30,000.00 as placement fee, Exhibit "G," "G-1," and "G-2." The accused assured Nava that she would leave for and work in Hongkong within two months, but the promised employment turned out to be a dud. Despite repeated demands from Nava, the accused has failed and refused to return the latters money. Testifying in her own defense, accused-appellant denied the charges of engaging in recruitment activities and of receiving money from complainants. She described herself as a public school teacher living in Pangasinan with her four children and unemployed husband. Like the other complainants, she claimed she was a victim of Julie Micua. She first met Micua on December 17, 1990, at the house of Lina Salcedo in Sampaloc, Manila. Micua was introduced to her as a recruiter of overseas workers. Interested, she applied for a job abroad. Micua informed her that she would be a factory worker and showed her a contract. Accused-appellant was required to submit her medical certificate and passport and to make an advance payment of P5,000.00 as part of the P40,000.00 placement.[8] When complainants learned that she had applied for overseas employment, they sought her help in going to the agency where she applied. Hence, on January 12, 1991, accusedappellant accompanied the complainants to see Julie Micua who assured them that they would be leaving for Hongkong within two or three months. They were also informed that their placement fee would be P45,000.00. On that day, accused-appellant and complainants gave Julie Micua the amount of P5,000.00. On February 17, 1991, accused-appellant gave Micua an additional P5,000.00. According to her, complainants were all given corresponding receipts for their payments. The receipts were issued and signed by Micua. Accused-appellant got to know complainant Ramos when she was invited by his wife Marita to a birthday party at the couples residence. In that party, they talked about applying for a job abroad and Marita convinced her husband to apply. It was Ramos who introduced accused-appellant to complainant Nadal. Ramos convinced Nadal to apply for overseas employment. On the other hand, accused-appellants co-teacher, Isabel Valdez, brought complainant Delos Santos to accused-appellants classroom and sought her assistance in applying for an overseas job through the agency she was using. With respect to Merlita Bombarda, accused-appellant met her through her cousin Nadal who also accompanied Merlita to accused-appellants house to apply. Purita Conceja, who was also introduced to accused-appellant, sought her help in applying for a job abroad through the agency she was using. As regards complainant Cristina Nava, accusedappellant met her through Cristinas husband who was a regular customer of her store. Accused-appellant claims she never represented herself as having the capacity to deploy workers abroad. She only told them that she could accompany them to the agency where she also applied. According to accused-appellant, two months after they were unable to leave for abroad, she and the complainants had a meeting. They discussed how they could recover their money. On April 26, 1991, upon Nadals invitation, she voluntarily joined the complainants in going to Manila. Their main purpose was to look for Julie Micua. In Manila, they went to Blumentritt where they met Blas Santos, a police officer whom Ramos knew. Accused-appellant saw Ramos collecting money from his companions. Afterwards, they proceeded to the United Nations Police Headquarters. Santos endorsed them to investigator Val Torres, who, in turn, typed the consolidated affidavits of complainants. The money collected by Ramos was given to the investigator. The complaint filed by the complainants included accused-appellant as one of the defendants. Lina Salcedo corroborated accused-appellants testimony. Salcedo testified that she owns the house on 1333 Lardizabal St., Sampaloc, Manila. Also living there was a house boarder named Paz Alonzo who had a friend named Julie Micua. Sometime in December 1990, Micua visited Paz at Salcedos boarding house when accused-appellant arrived. It was on this occasion that Julie Micua and accused-appellant met for the first time and they discussed how to get employment in HongKong. After Christmas, accused-appellant returned to Salcedos house with some companions. Salcedo saw the members of the group giving money to Julie Micua for which the latter issued corresponding receipts. It was Julia Micua who did all the explaining. Accused-appellant and her companions returned to Salcedos house on two other occasions. According to Salcedo, she was present when all the transactions took place and she observed that Julie Micua never gave money or any consideration to accused-appellant.[10] Lina Salcedos testimony was corroborated on the witness stand by her sister Violy Constantino.[11] On March 1, 1994, the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch I, rendered the decision now on appeal before this Court. In justifying accused-appellants conviction, the trial court gave full credence to the testimonies of the complainants as they were "clear and straightforward" and "reflect spontaneity and are replete with details, which conform to what appears from the other evidence on record." It found that the complainants "positively identified the accused as the one who had persuaded them to apply for overseas employment, accompanied them all the way from Pangasinan to Manila, [and]

personally received from them various sums as placement fees." Further, the trial court found no improper motive on the part of the complainants, thus: xxx it is hard to believe that the private complainants, who all reside in Urdaneta, Pangasinan, would undergo the expense, rigor and inconvenience of a public trial if their motive is not to bring to justice the person/s who had defrauded them. xxx[12] Accordingly, the trial court held that all the elements of Article 315, Paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code were proven in the cases for estafa. In likwise finding accusedappellant guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale, the trial court stated: x x x this court is convinced beyond moral certainty that there was unity of action, purpose and design between the accused and Julie Micua to recruit the private complainants for overseas employment in Hongkong without first securing a license or an authority therefor from the Philippine Overseas and Employment Agency. The accused took a direct and active participation in the recruitment of the private complainants by referring and persuading them to apply for deployment abroad, accompanying them all the way from Urdaneta, Pangasinan, to Manila to refer them to Micua, who presented herself as a recruiter of worker(s) for overseas employment, personally collecting and receiving from them various amounts for their placement fees, and preparing the receipts therefor. Hence, this appeal. Accused-appellant raises the following assignment of errors: THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT DISMISSING THIS CASE ON THE GROUND OF LACK OF JURISDICTION ON ITS PART OVER THE PERSON OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT BY REASON OF THE FACT THAT THE WARRANTLESS ARREST OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT WAS ILLEGAL. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT RECRUITED THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANTS FOR DEPLOYMENT AS LAND WORKERS IN HONGKONG. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FIND (SIC) THAT ALL THE ESSENTIAL REQUISITES OF ESTAFA AS DEFINED IN ARTICLE 315, REVISED PENAL CODE, ARE CONCURRENTLY SATISFIED IN THIS CASE. We find no valid grounds to reverse accused-appellants conviction. Accused-appellants first assignment of error challenges the trial courts judgment on a jurisdictional ground. She argues that her arrest without warrant was illegal and, therefore, following the settled rule that the trial court does not acquire jurisdiction over the person of one who is illegally arrested, the case should have been dismissed. [14] This contention is untenable. Jurisdiction over the person of the accused is acquired either by arrest or voluntary appearance in court. The record amply demonstrates that accused-appellant voluntarily appeared in court at her arraignments, entered a plea of "not guilty" to all the charges against her, and later actively participated in the trial. Hence, granting arguendo that accused-appellants arrest was defective, such is deemed cured upon her voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court.[15] It should be stressed that the question of legality of an arrest affects only the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the accused. Consequently, if objections based on this ground are waived, the fact that the arrest was illegal is not sufficient cause for setting aside an otherwise valid judgment. The technicality cannot render the subsequent proceedings void and deprive the State of its right to convict the guilty when all the facts on record point to the culpability of the accused.[16] The second and third assigned errors regarding accused-appellants culpability for the crimes of estafa and illegal recruitment in large scale are closely interrelated, hence, shall be discussed jointly. These alleged errors boil down to the issue of credibility. All the complainants are one in saying that accused-appellant made representations that she knew someone who could help them secure employment in Hongkong. Relying on these representations, they applied for placement for employment abroad and paid various sums of money therefor. Unfortunately, accused-appellant failed to comply with her promise of employment or restitute the amounts she received from them. For her part, accused-appellant claims that she merely helped complainants find an agency that could secure for them employment overseas. She acted as a "good samaritan" by facilitating their quest for a better economic status. She denies receiving the fees paid by complainants and asserts that it was Julie Micua who recruited complainants and collected the placement fees for overseas employment. An examination of the records, however, reveals that accused-appellant is as culpable as Julie Micua. As to which of the contending claims should be believed is fundamentally an issue of credibility. Well settled is the rule that the issue of credibility is the domain of the trial court that had observed the deportment and manner of the witnesses as they testified. The findings of facts of a trial court, arrived at only after a hearing and evaluation of what can usually be expected to be conflicting testimonies of witnesses certainly deserve respect by an appellate court.[17] We find no cogent reason to depart from this time-honored doctrine. Accused-appellant failed to show that complainants, who were mostly her townmates and some even her relatives, were ill-motivated in filing the cases against her; hence, their testimonies merit full faith and credit.

The Court finds unacceptable accused-appellants claim that the complainants are "barking at the wrong tree" and that they only turned their ire on her because the alleged real culprit, Julie Micua, was nowhere to be found.[18] Complainants would not run after her if she, too, were really a victim. The lame defense consisting of accusedappellants bare denial cannot overcome the prosecutions positive evidence proving her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Moreover, compared to accused-appellants evidence, which is mainly one of denial, the prosecution presented evidence showing her positive acts of complicity with Julie Micua in recruiting complainants. The accordance of greater probative value to evidence that is positive in nature than that which is negative in character is a time-honored principle. Hence, the negative assertions of accusedappellant cannot prevail over the positive testimony of the complainants.[19] The prosecution undoubtedly proved that accused-appellant, without license or authority, engaged in recruitment and placement activities. This was done in collaboration with Julie Micua, when they promised complainants employment in Hongkong. Art. 13, par. (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; 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."

PP VS. AGUSTIN On January 12, 1988, an information for illegal recruitment committed by a syndicate and in large scale, punishable under Articles 38 and 39 of the Labor Code (Presidential Decree No. 442) as amended by Section 1(b) of Presidential Decree No. 2018, was filed against spouses Dan and Loma Goce and herein accused-appellant Nelly Agustin in the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 5, alleging That in or about and during the period comprised between May 1986 and June 25, 1987, both dates inclusive, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring and confederating together and helping one another, representing themselves to have the capacity to contract, enlist and transport Filipino workers for employment abroad, did then and there willfully and unlawfully, for a fee, recruit and promise employment/job placement abroad, to (1) Rolando Dalida y Piernas, (2) Ernesto Alvarez y Lubangco, (3) Rogelio Salado y Savillo, (4) Ramona Salado y Alvarez, (5) Dionisio Masaya y de Guzman, (6) Dave Rivera y de Leon, (7) Lorenzo Alvarez y Velayo, and (8) Nelson Trinidad y Santos, without first having secured the required license or authority from the Department of Labor. 1 On January 21, 1987, a warrant of arrest was issued against the three accused but not one of them was arrested.2 Hence, on February 2, 1989, the trial court ordered the case archived but it issued a standing warrant of arrest against the accused. 3 Thereafter, on learning of the whereabouts of the accused, one of the offended parties, Rogelio Salado, requested on March 17, 1989 for a copy of the warrant of arrest. 4 Eventually, at around midday of February 26, 1993, Nelly Agustin was apprehended by the Paraaque police. 5 On March 8, 1993, her counsel filed a motion to revive the case and requested that it be set for hearing "for purposes of due process and for the accused to immediately have her day in court" 6 Thus, on April 15, 1993, the trial court reinstated the case and set the arraignment for May 3, 1993, 7 on which date of Agustin pleaded not guilty 8 and the case subsequently went to trial. Four of the complainants testified for the prosecution. Rogelio Salado was the first to take the witness stand and he declared that sometime in March or April, 1987, he was introduced by Lorenzo Alvarez, his brother-in-law and a co-applicant, to Nelly Agustin in the latter's residence at Factor, Dongalo, Paraaque, Metro Manila. Representing herself as the manager of the Clover Placement Agency, Agustin showed him a job order as proof that he could readily be deployed for overseas employment. Salado learned that he had to pay P5,000.00 as processing fee, which amount he gave sometime in April or May of the same year. He was issued the corresponding receipt. 9 Also in April or May, 1987, Salado, accompanied by five other applicants who were his relatives, went to the office of the placement agency at Nakpil Street, Ermita, Manila where he saw Agustin and met the spouses Dan and Loma Goce, owners of the agency. He submitted his bio-data and learned from Loma Goce that he had to give P12,000.00, instead of the original amount of P5,000.00 for the placement fee. Although surprised at the new and higher sum, they subsequently agreed as long as there was an assurance that they could leave for abroad. 10 Thereafter, a receipt was issued in the name of the Clover Placement Agency showing that Salado and his aforesaid co-applicants each paid P2,000.00, instead of the P5,000.00 which each of them actually paid. Several months passed but Salado failed to leave for the promised overseas employment. Hence, in October, 1987, along with the other recruits, he decided to go to the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) to verify the real status of Clover Placement Agency. They discovered that said agency was not duly licensed to recruit job applicants. Later, upon learning that Agustin had been arrested, Salado decided to see her and to demand the return of the money he had paid, but Agustin could only give him P500.00. 11 Ramona Salado, the wife of Rogelio Salado, came to know through her brother, Lorenzo Alvarez, about Nelly Agustin. Accompanied by her husband, Rogelio, Ramona went to see Agustin at the latter's residence. Agustin persuaded her to apply as a cutter/sewer in

Oman so that she could join her husband. Encouraged by Agustin's promise that she and her husband could live together while working in Oman, she instructed her husband to give Agustin P2,000.00 for each of them as placement fee, or the total sum of P4,000.00. 12

that Dan and Loma Goce and Nelly Agustin are neither licensed nor authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment. 23 Appellant does not dispute this. As a matter of fact her counsel agreed to stipulate that she was neither licensed nor authorized to recruit applicants for overseas employment. Appellant, however, denies that she was in any way guilty of illegal Much later, the Salado couple received a telegram from the placement agency requiring recruitment. 24 them to report to its office because the "NOC" (visa) had allegedly arrived. Again, around February, or March, 1987, Rogelio gave P2,000.00 as payment for his and his It is appellant's defensive theory that all she did was to introduce complainants to the wife's passports. Despite follow-up of their papers twice a week from February to June, Goce spouses. Being a neighbor of said couple, and owing to the fact that her son's 1987, he and his wife failed to leave for abroad. 13 overseas job application was processed and facilitated by them, the complainants asked her to introduce them to said spouses. Allegedly out of the goodness of her heart, she Complainant Dionisio Masaya, accompanied by his brother-in-law, Aquiles Ortega, complied with their request. Such an act, appellant argues, does not fall within the applied for a job in Oman with the Clover Placement Agency at Paraaque, the agency's meaning of "referral" under the Labor Code to make her liable for illegal recruitment. former office address. There, Masaya met Nelly Agustin, who introduced herself as the manager of the agency, and the Goce spouses, Dan and Loma, as well as the latter's Under said Code, recruitment and placement refers to any act of canvassing, enlisting, daughter. He submitted several pertinent documents, such as his bio-data and school contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, and includes referrals, credentials. 14 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 In May, 1986, Masaya gave Dan Goce P1,900.00 as an initial downpayment for the promises for a fee employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in placement fee, and in September of that same year, he gave an additional P10,000.00. recruitment and placement. 25 On the other hand, referral is the act of passing along or He was issued receipts for said amounts and was advised to go to the placement office forwarding of an applicant for employment after an initial interview of a selected once in a while to follow up his application, which he faithfully did. Much to his dismay applicant for employment to a selected employer, placement officer or bureau. 26 and chagrin, he failed to leave for abroad as promised. Accordingly, he was forced to demand that his money be refunded but Loma Goce could give him back only P4,000.00 Hence, the inevitable query is whether or not appellant Agustin merely introduced in installments. 15 complainants to the Goce couple or her actions went beyond that. The testimonial evidence hereon show that she indeed further committed acts constitutive of illegal As the prosecution's fourth and last witness, Ernesto Alvarez took the witness stand on recruitment. All four prosecution witnesses testified that it was Agustin whom they June 7, 1993. He testified that in February, 1987, he met appellant Agustin through his initially approached regarding their plans of working overseas. It was from her that they cousin, Larry Alvarez, at her residence in Paraaque. She informed him that " madalas learned about the fees they had to pay, as well as the papers that they had to submit. It siyang nagpapalakad sa Oman" and offered him a job as an ambulance driver at the was after they had talked to her that they met the accused spouses who owned the Royal Hospital in Oman with a monthly salary of about $600.00 to $700.00. 16 placement agency. On March 10, 1987, Alvarez gave an initial amount of P3,000.00 as processing fee to As correctly held by the trial court, being an employee of the Goces, it was therefore Agustin at the latter's residence. In the same month, he gave another P3,000.00, this time logical for appellant to introduce the applicants to said spouses, they being the owners of in the office of the placement agency. Agustin assured him that he could leave for the agency. As such, appellant was actually making referrals to the agency of which she abroad before the end of 1987. He returned several times to the placement agency's was a part. She was therefore engaging in recruitment activity. 27 office to follow up his application but to no avail. Frustrated, he demanded the return of the money he had paid, but Agustin could only give back P500.00. Thereafter, he looked Despite Agustin's pretensions that she was but a neighbor of the Goce couple, the for Agustin about eight times, but he could no longer find her. 17 testimonies of the prosecution witnesses paint a different picture. Rogelio Salado and Dionisio Masaya testified that appellant represented herself as the manager of the Only herein appellant Agustin testified for the defense. She asserted that Dan and Loma Clover Placement Agency. Ramona Salado was offered a job as a cutter/sewer by Goce were her neighbors at Tambo, Paraaque and that they were licensed recruiters and Agustin the first time they met, while Ernesto Alvarez remembered that when he first owners of the Clover Placement Agency. Previously, the Goce couple was able to send met Agustin, the latter represented herself as " nagpapaalis papunta sa her son, Reynaldo Agustin, to Saudi Arabia. Agustin met the aforementioned Oman." 28 Indeed, Agustin played a pivotal role in the operations of the recruitment complainants through Lorenzo Alvarez who requested her to introduce them to the Goce agency, working together with the Goce couple. couple, to which request she acceded. 18 There is illegal recruitment when one gives the impression of having the ability to send Denying any participation in the illegal recruitment and maintaining that the recruitment a worker abroad." 29 It is undisputed that appellant gave complainants the distinct was perpetrated only by the Goce couple, Agustin denied any knowledge of the receipts impression that she had the power or ability to send people abroad for work such that presented by the prosecution. She insisted that the complainants included her in the the latter were convinced to give her the money she demanded in order to be so complaint thinking that this would compel her to reveal the whereabouts of the Goce employed. 30 spouses. She failed to do so because in truth, so she claims, she does not know the present address of the couple. All she knew was that they had left their residence in It cannot be denied that Agustin received from complainants various sums for purpose 1987. 19 of their applications. Her act of collecting from each of the complainants payment for their respective passports, training fees, placement fees, medical tests and other sundry Although she admitted having given P500.00 each to Rogelio Salado and Alvarez, she expenses unquestionably constitutes an act of recruitment within the meaning of the law. explained that it was entirely for different reasons. Salado had supposedly asked for a In fact, appellant demanded and received from complainants amounts beyond the loan, while Alvarez needed money because he was sick at that time. 20 allowable limit of P5,000.00 under government regulations. It is true that the mere act of On November 19, 1993, the trial court rendered judgment finding herein appellant guilty a cashier in receiving money far exceeding the amount allowed by law was not as a principal in the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale, and sentencing her to considered per se as "recruitment and placement" in contemplation of law, but that was because the recipient had no other participation in the transactions and did not conspire serve the penalty of life imprisonment, as well as to pay a fine of P100,000.00. 21 with her co-accused in defrauding the victims. 31 That is not the case here. In her present appeal, appellant Agustin raises the following arguments: (1) her act of introducing complainants to the Goce couple does not fall within the meaning of illegal Appellant further argues that "there is no evidence of receipts of collections/payments recruitment and placement under Article 13(b) in relation to Article 34 of the Labor from complainants to appellant." On the contrary, xerox copies of said receipts/vouchers Code; (2) there is no proof of conspiracy to commit illegal recruitment among appellant were presented by the prosecution. For instance, a cash voucher marked as Exhibit and the Goce spouses; and (3) there is no proof that appellant offered or promised D, 32 showing the receipt of P10,000.00 for placement fee and duly signed by appellant, overseas employment to the complainants. 22 These three arguments being interrelated, was presented by the prosecution. Another receipt, identified as Exhibit E, 33 was issued and signed by appellant on February 5, 1987 to acknowledge receipt of P4,000.00 from they will be discussed together. Rogelio and Ramona Salado for "processing of documents for Oman." Still another Herein appellant is accused of violating Articles 38 and 39 of the Labor Code. Article 38 receipt dated March 10, 1987 and presented in evidence as Exhibit F, shows that of the Labor Code, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 2018, provides that any appellant received from Ernesto Alvarez P2,000.00 for "processing of documents for recruitment activity, including the prohibited practices enumerated in Article 34 of said Oman."34 Code, undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of authority shall be deemed illegal and punishable under Article 39 thereof. The same article further provides that illegal Apparently, the original copies of said receipts/vouchers were lost, hence only xerox recruitment shall be considered an offense involving economic sabotage if any of these copies thereof were presented and which, under the circumstances, were admissible in qualifying circumstances exist, namely, (a) when illegal recruitment is committed by a evidence. When the original writing has been lost or destroyed or cannot be produced in syndicate, i.e., if it is carried out by a group of three or more persons conspiring and/or court, upon proof of its execution and loss or destruction, or unavailability, its contents confederating with one another; or (b) when illegal recruitment is committed in large may be proved by a copy or a recital of its contents in some authentic document, or by the recollection of witnesses. 35 scale, i.e., if it is committed against three or more persons individually or as a group. At the outset, it should be made clear that all the accused in this case were not Even assuming arguendo that the xerox copies presented by the prosecution as authorized to engage in any recruitment activity, as evidenced by a certification issued secondary evidence are not allowable in court, still the absence thereof does not warrant by Cecilia E. Curso, Chief of the Licensing and Regulation Office of the Philippine the acquittal of appellant. Overseas Employment Administration, on November 10, 1987. Said certification states

SALAZAR VS. ACHACOSO This concerns the validity of the power of the Secretary of Labor to issue warrants of arrest and seizure under Article 38 of the Labor Code, prohibiting illegal recruitment. The facts are as follows:

We trust that you will give due attention to these important matters. 7. On February 2, 1988, before POEA could answer the letter, petitioner filed the instant petition; on even date, POEA filed a criminal complaint against her with the Pasig Provincial Fiscal, docketed as IS-88-836. 1

1. On October 21, 1987, Rosalie Tesoro of 177 Tupaz Street, Leveriza, Pasay City, in a On February 2, 1988, the petitioner filed this suit for prohibition. Although the acts sworn statement filed with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA sought to be barred are alreadyfait accompli, thereby making prohibition too late, we for brevity) charged petitioner Hortencia Salazar, viz: consider the petition as one for certiorari in view of the grave public interest involved. 2. On November 3, 1987, public respondent Atty. Ferdinand Marquez to whom said The Court finds that a lone issue confronts it: May the Philippine Overseas Employment complaint was assigned, sent to the petitioner the following telegram: Administration (or the Secretary of Labor) validly issue warrants of search and seizure (or arrest) under Article 38 of the Labor Code? It is also an issue squarely raised by the YOU ARE HEREBY DIRECTED TO APPEAR BEFORE FERDIE MARQUEZ petitioner for the Court's resolution. POEA ANTI ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT UNIT 6TH FLR. POEA BLDG. EDSA COR. ORTIGAS AVE. MANDALUYONG MM ON NOVEMBER 6, 1987 AT 10 Under the new Constitution, which states: AM RE CASE FILED AGAINST YOU. FAIL NOT UNDER PENALTY OF LAW. . . . no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to 4. On the same day, having ascertained that the petitioner had no license to operate a be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation recruitment agency, public respondent Administrator Tomas D. Achacoso issued his of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing challenged CLOSURE AND SEIZURE ORDER NO. 1205 which reads: the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. 2 HORTY SALAZAR No. 615 R.O. Santos St. Mandaluyong, Metro Manila Pursuant to the powers vested in me under Presidential Decree No. 1920 and Executive Order No. 1022, I hereby order the CLOSURE of your recruitment agency being operated at No. 615 R.O. Santos St., Mandaluyong, Metro Manila and the seizure of the documents and paraphernalia being used or intended to be used as the means of committing illegal recruitment, it having verified that you have (1) No valid license or authority from the Department of Labor and Employment to recruit and deploy workers for overseas employment; (2) Committed/are committing acts prohibited under Article 34 of the New Labor Code in relation to Article 38 of the same code. This ORDER is without prejudice to your criminal prosecution under existing laws. Done in the City of Manila, this 3th day of November, 1987. it is only a judge who may issue warrants of search and arrest. 3 In one case, it was declared that mayors may not exercise this power: But it must be emphasized here and now that what has just been described is the state of the law as it was in September, 1985. The law has since been altered. No longer does the mayor have at this time the power to conduct preliminary investigations, much less issue orders of arrest. Section 143 of the Local Government Code, conferring this power on the mayor has been abrogated, rendered functus officio by the 1987 Constitution which took effect on February 2, 1987, the date of its ratification by the Filipino people. Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution pertinently provides that "no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the person or things to be seized." The constitutional proscription has thereby been manifested that thenceforth, the function of determining probable cause and issuing, on the basis thereof, warrants of arrest or search warrants, may be validly exercised only by judges, this being evidenced by the elimination in the present Constitution of the phrase, "such other responsible officer as may be authorized by law" found in the counterpart provision of said 1973 Constitution, who, aside from judges, might conduct preliminary investigations and issue warrants of arrest or search warrants. 4

5. On January 26, 1988 POEA Director on Licensing and Regulation Atty. Estelita B. Espiritu issued an office order designating respondents Atty. Marquez, Atty. Jovencio Abara and Atty. Ernesto Vistro as members of a team tasked to implement Closure and Seizure Order No. 1205. Doing so, the group assisted by Mandaluyong policemen and Neither may it be done by a mere prosecuting body: mediamen Lito Castillo of the People's Journal and Ernie Baluyot of News Today proceeded to the residence of the petitioner at 615 R.O. Santos St., Mandaluyong, Metro We agree that the Presidential Anti-Dollar Salting Task Force exercises, or was meant to Manila. There it was found that petitioner was operating Hannalie Dance Studio. Before exercise, prosecutorial powers, and on that ground, it cannot be said to be a neutral and entering the place, the team served said Closure and Seizure order on a certain Mrs. detached "judge" to determine the existence of probable cause for purposes of arrest or Flora Salazar who voluntarily allowed them entry into the premises. Mrs. Flora Salazar search. Unlike a magistrate, a prosecutor is naturally interested in the success of his informed the team that Hannalie Dance Studio was accredited with Moreman case. Although his office "is to see that justice is done and not necessarily to secure the Development (Phil.). However, when required to show credentials, she was unable to conviction of the person accused," he stands, invariably, as the accused's adversary and produce any. Inside the studio, the team chanced upon twelve talent performers his accuser. To permit him to issue search warrants and indeed, warrants of arrest, is to practicing a dance number and saw about twenty more waiting outside, The team make him both judge and jury in his own right, when he is neither. That makes, to our confiscated assorted costumes which were duly receipted for by Mrs. Asuncion mind and to that extent, Presidential Decree No. 1936 as amended by Presidential Decree No. 2002, unconstitutional. 5 Maguelan and witnessed by Mrs. Flora Salazar. 6. On January 28, 1988, petitioner filed with POEA the following letter:

Section 38, paragraph (c), of the Labor Code, as now written, was entered as an amendment by Presidential Decrees Nos. 1920 and 2018 of the late President Ferdinand Gentlemen: Marcos, to Presidential Decree No. 1693, in the exercise of his legislative powers under Amendment No. 6 of the 1973 Constitution. Under the latter, the then Minister of Labor On behalf of Ms. Horty Salazar of 615 R.O. Santos, Mandaluyong, Metro Manila, merely exercised recommendatory powers: we respectfully request that the personal properties seized at her residence last January 26, 1988 be immediately returned on the ground that said seizure was (c) The Minister of Labor or his duly authorized representative shall have the power contrary to law and against the will of the owner thereof. Among our reasons are the to recommend the arrest and detention of any person engaged in illegal recruitment. 6 following: On May 1, 1984, Mr. Marcos promulgated Presidential Decree No. 1920, with the 1. Our client has not been given any prior notice or hearing, hence the Closure avowed purpose of giving more teeth to the campaign against illegal recruitment. The and Seizure Order No. 1205 dated November 3, 1987 violates "due process of Decree gave the Minister of Labor arrest and closure powers: law" guaranteed under Sec. 1, Art. III, of the Philippine Constitution. (b) The Minister of Labor and Employment shall have the power to cause the arrest 2. Your acts also violate Sec. 2, Art. III of the Philippine Constitution which and detention of such non-licensee or non-holder of authority if after proper guarantees right of the people "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and investigation it is determined that his activities constitute a danger to national security effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for and public order or will lead to further exploitation of job-seekers. The Minister shall any purpose." order the closure of companies, establishment and entities found to be engaged in the recruitment of workers for overseas employment, without having been licensed or 3. The premises invaded by your Mr. Ferdi Marquez and five (5) others authorized to do so. 7 (including 2 policemen) are the private residence of the Salazar family , and the entry, search as well as the seizure of the personal properties belonging to our On January 26, 1986, he, Mr. Marcos, promulgated Presidential Decree No. 2018, client were without her consent and were done with unreasonable force and giving the Labor Minister search and seizure powers as well: intimidation, together with grave abuse of the color of authority, and constitute (c) The Minister of Labor and Employment or his duly authorized representatives robbery and violation of domicile under Arts. 293 and 128 of the Revised Penal shall have the power to cause the arrest and detention of such non-licensee or nonCode. holder of authority if after investigation it is determined that his activities constitute a Unless said personal properties worth around TEN THOUSAND PESOS (P10,000.00) danger to national security and public order or will lead to further exploitation of jobin all (and which were already due for shipment to Japan) are returned within twentyseekers. The Minister shall order the search of the office or premises and seizure of four (24) hours from your receipt hereof, we shall feel free to take all legal action, civil documents, paraphernalia, properties and other implements used in illegal and criminal, to protect our client's interests. recruitment activities and the closure of companies, establishment and entities found

to be engaged in the recruitment of workers for overseas employment, without having been licensed or authorized to do so. 8 The above has now been etched as Article 38, paragraph (c) of the Labor Code. The decrees in question, it is well to note, stand as the dying vestiges of authoritarian rule in its twilight moments. We reiterate that the Secretary of Labor, not being a judge, may no longer issue search or arrest warrants. Hence, the authorities must go through the judicial process. To that extent, we declare Article 38, paragraph (c), of the Labor Code, unconstitutional and of no force and effect. The Solicitor General's reliance on the case of Morano v. Vivo 9 is not welltaken. Vivo involved a deportation case, governed by Section 69 of the defunct Revised Administrative Code and by Section 37 of the Immigration Law. We have ruled that in deportation cases, an arrest (of an undesirable alien) ordered by the President or his duly authorized representatives, in order to carry out a final decision of deportation is valid. 10 It is valid, however, because of the recognized supremacy of the Executive in matters involving foreign affairs. We have held: 11 The State has the inherent power to deport undesirable aliens (Chuoco Tiaco vs. Forbes, 228 U.S. 549, 57 L. Ed. 960, 40 Phil. 1122, 1125). That power may be exercised by the Chief Executive "when he deems such action necessary for the peace and domestic tranquility of the nation." Justice Johnson's opinion is that when the Chief Executive finds that there are aliens whose continued presence in the country is injurious to the public interest, "he may, even in the absence of express law, deport them". (Forbes vs. Chuoco Tiaco and Crossfield, 16 Phil. 534, 568, 569; In re McCulloch Dick, 38 Phil. 41).

3. US $540.00 covering complainant's (private respondent's) withheld reserve travel fund. (p. 5, Comment; p. 96, Rollo) On October 4, 1985, the petitioner hired the private respondent as a steel fixer for the third time in its project at Iraq. After about seven months, when the steel fixing works were near completion, the petitioner transferred the private respondent to the waterproofing division. After three days of performing water-proofing works, private respondent was ordered to leave his work without explanation by his German supervisor. The following day, private respondent was informed by the petitioner's project site manager, Mr. Rodito Sunga, that he was being terminated allegedly for insubordination. Upon learning that his German supervisor was dissatisfied with his water-proofing works, private respondent pleaded that he be reassigned to steel fixing jobs, but was denied. Despite requests for reconsideration of the matter, private respondent was sent back to the Philippines. Allotments from his salaries were withheld by the petitioner and his travel expenses to and from Iraq were charged to him. Thus, on June 26, 1986, private respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against the petitioner with the POEA. Traversing, the petitioner claimed that private respondent resented his transfer from steel fixing to water-proofing works and that he was terminated due to insubordination. The petitioner submitted an affidavit of Mr. Rodito Sunga, alleging that on several occasions, private respondent had refused to carry hollow blocks despite orders of his superior. (Annex B) On July 9, 1987, the POEA rendered a decision finding private respondent's dismissal illegal or without justifiable cause. Said decision was affirmed by the NLRC on appeal.

The right of a country to expel or deport aliens because their continued presence is Hence, the instant petition for certiorari. We find the petition to be devoid of merit. detrimental to public welfare is absolute and unqualified (Tiu Chun Hai and Go Tam vs. The allegation that private respondent was terminated due to insubordination is a Commissioner of Immigration and the Director of NBI, 104 Phil. 949, 956). 12 sweeping statement. Aside from the self serving affidavit of its project site manager, the The power of the President to order the arrest of aliens for deportation is, obviously, petitioner failed to present evidence to support the said statement. exceptional. It (the power to order arrests) can not be made to extend to other cases, like On the other hand, the finding of illegal dismissal by the POEA Administrator was the one at bar. Under the Constitution, it is the sole domain of the courts. grounded on the following: Moreover, the search and seizure order in question, assuming, ex gratia argumenti, that It is, therefore, safe to surmise that complainant was told to leave his work because his it was validly issued, is clearly in the nature of a general warrant: German supervisor had observed that he did not know water-proofing works. There is Pursuant to the powers vested in me under Presidential Decree No. 1920 and Executive no showing that he was given instructions or training which he wilfully disobeyed such Order No. 1022, I hereby order the CLOSURE of your recruitment agency being as to make him liable for insubordination. His non-familiarity with water-proofing can operated at No. 615 R.O. Santos St., Mandaluyong, Metro Manila and the seizure of the not be gainsaid considering that he was in the job only 3 days and it must have been documents and paraphernalia being used or intended to be used as the means of this lack of experience that impelled Mr. Boswau to order him to leave his work on committing illegal recruitment, it having verified that you have June 20, 1986. The self serving statements of Messrs. Rodito Sunga and Lamberto Perez are pure hearsay and do not deserve any consideration. (pp. 100-101, Rollo) (1) No valid license or authority from the Department of Labor and Employment to recruit and deploy workers for overseas employment; In affirming this finding, the NLRC further explained: (2) Committed/are committing acts prohibited under Article 34 of the New Labor Code in relation to Article 38 of the same code. This ORDER is without prejudice to your criminal prosecution under existing laws. 13 We have held that a warrant must identify clearly the things to be seized, otherwise, it is null and void, thus: Another factor which makes the search warrants under consideration constitutionally objectionable is that they are in the nature of general warrants. The search warrants describe the articles sought to be seized in this wise: For the guidance of the bench and the bar, we reaffirm the following principles: 1. Under Article III, Section 2, of the l987 Constitution, it is only judges, and no other, who may issue warrants of arrest and search: 2. The exception is in cases of deportation of illegal and undesirable aliens, whom the President or the Commissioner of Immigration may order arrested, following a final order of deportation, for the purpose of deportation. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. Article 38, paragraph (c) of the Labor Code is declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL and null and void. The respondents are ORDERED to return all materials seized as a result of the implementation of Search and Seizure Order No. 1205.No costs We are more inclined to give more credence to the version of complainant- appellee that he worked for three (3) days, was made to leave his work on the third day, and dismissed on the following day. We cannot give weight to the affidavit of Mr. Sunga who is respondent's representative on the site. Moreover, the core of this case is the transfer of complainant from steel fixing to water-proofing work. Although the contract of employment allows this transfer, it does not mean that a worker can be transferred outright to a new job, from a technical position which he had been thoroughly familiarized for about three (3) years, without undergoing an actual training commensurate to the latter. As correctly observed by the POEA Administrator, 'His nonfamiliarization with water-proofing cannot be gainsaid considering that he was in the job only three (3) days and it must have been the lack of experience that impelled Mr. Boswau to order him to well-settled is the rule that the factual findings of administrative bodies are entitled to great weight and these findings are accorded not only respect but even finality when supported by substantial evidence as in this case. In Ambraque International Placement and Services vs. NLRC et al . (157 SCRA 431), this Court ruled in favor of a Filipino contract worker who was repatriated to the Philippines barely five days after arrival at his jobsite due to alleged misconduct. In said decision, this Court noted the observations of the Solicitor General, to wit: It is very unlikely that private respondent would have been guilty of the negative conduct imputed to him by petitioner. ... one who goes to the Middle East for employment does so at a great sacrifice. In addition to leaving his family, the worker also has to suffer the cultural shock of living in a society with entirely different customary practices, religion and traditions. But the worker is willing to bear all these just so he could earn money to send back to his family. With this primary aim the worker knows better than doing anything that would jeopardize his contract of work .

AMBRAQUE VS. NLRC Petition for certiorari seeking to annul the decision of the National Labor Relations In view of the foregoing, We have no doubt that the dismissal of the private respondent Commission (NLRC, for brevity) which affirmed the decision of the Philippine is illegal. WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. Overseas Employment Administration (POEA, for brevity) finding private respondent's dismissal illegal and directing the petitioner to pay the private respondent the following amounts: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LORNA B. GUEVARRA, JOSIE BEA and PEDRO BEA, JR., accused-appellants. 1. US $2,430.00 representing salaries for the unexpired portion of the Contract; 2. US $1,128.00 covering unremitted 70% allotment for March, April, May and June, 1986; and

The case before the Court is an appeal from a decision[1] of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 6, Legaspi City, convicting accused Lorna B. Guevarra, Josie Bea and Pedro Bea, Jr., of illegal recruitment by a syndicate in large scale, and sentencing all three accused to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of one hundred thousand (P100,000.00) each, and to indemnify each of the complainants, namely, Wilfredo Belbes, Ermelita Bocato, Rizalina Belbes, Alan Banico and Arnel Basaysay,[2] jointly and severally, the amount of thirty thousand pesos (P30,000.00) for the placement fees collected, and twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) as moral damages, and costs.

house of Arnel, accompanied by Josie Bea. Guevarra managed to convince the father of Arnel to agree to the offer and to pay the placement fee for his son.[12] 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.[14]

On January 17, 1994, Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Ignacio N. Almodovar, Jr. of On September 24, 1993, Rizalina and Wilfredo Belbes, Ermelita Bocato and Arnel Albay charged Lorna B. Guevarra, Josie Bea and Pedro Bea, Jr. with illegal recruitment Basaysay received their passports and PAL plane tickets. committed by a syndicate in large scale, as follows: "That sometime in August and September, 1993, at Barangay San Andres, Sto. Domingo, Albay and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the 3 (three) above-named accused conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another for a common purpose did then and there, without any license or authority to do so, recruit WILFREDO BELBES Y BALLARES, ERMELITA BALBIN BOCATO, RIZALINA BELBES Y BALLARES, ALAN BANICO Y BELBES and ARNEL A. BAGAYSAY, all of Brgy. San Andres, Sto. Domingo, Albay for a job placement in Malaysia and received from the five victims P30,000.00 each as processing fee; that on September 25, 1993, the five recruits flew to Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, expecting as per instruction of the accused, that somebody will fetch them at the airport and will bring them to their employer; that nobody fetched them as they did not have any employer in Malaysia which forced them to go back to the Philippines, to their damage and prejudice. On September 25, 1993, the three accused were at the airport to brief the complainants about the trip. Accused Josie Bea assured the complainants that their prospective employer will meet them at the Kuala Lumpur airport.[15] At this time, Josie Bea handed over the passport and plane ticket of Alan Banico.[16] 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 waiting until nighttime without anybody fetching them at the airport, the complainants remembered the address of Resurrecion Bea and Dionisio Bea, brothersin-law of Josie Bea. Complainants took a taxi and proceeded to such address.[17] They Upon arraignment on February 14, 1994,[4] all three accused entered a plea of not found Resurrecion Bea, who did not know anything about employment for the guilty. After due trial, on February 15, 1995, the court a quo rendered a decision, the complainants. The complainants agreed to contribute one hundred dollars ($100) each dispositive portion of which reads as follows: for their lodging expenses while waiting for the promised employment.[18] WHEREFORE, premises considered, decision is hereby rendered finding the accused Lorna Guevarra, Pedro Bea, Jr. and Josie Bea GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT qualified into large scale recruitment and by a syndicate and hereby sentences each of the said accused to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a FINE of One Hundred Thousand (P100,000.00) Pesos each, and to indemnify each of the complainants, jointly and severally P30,000.00 for the placement fees they have collected, and the further sum of P20,000.00 for each of the complainants as moral damages and to pay the costs. "SO ORDERED.[5] Hence, this appeal. The facts, as established by evidence of the prosecution, are as follows: On August 23, 1993, accused Lorna Guevarra visited Rizalina Belbes in her house in Sto. Domingo, Albay, and offered her an opportunity to work in Malaysia for a salary of nine thousand pesos (P9,000.00) for the first three months and an increase of at least three thousand pesos (P3,000.00) thereafter. Guevarra also approached Wilfredo Belbes, the brother of Rizalina, to convince him to work abroad. Guevarra assured them that she had the capability of sending workers abroad and that her connection was on a direct hiring basis.[6] Guevarra made several visits until Rizalina and Wilfredo agreed to meet accused spouses Josie and Pedro Bea, Jr. in Bonga, Bacaycay, Albay. The spouses Bea continued to persuade Rizalina and Wilfredo to accept the job offers.[7] 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.[20] 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.[22] Accused Lorna Guevarra, on the other hand, insisted that she was merely a housewife with three children, not a recruiter. She testified that sometime before August 23, 1993, Ermelita Bocato and Rizalina Belbes went to her house in order to ask how her brothers, Resurreccion and Dionisio Bea, and niece Maricel Bermillo, who were working in Malaysia, 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.

Likewise, on August 23, 1993, accused Guevarra went to the house of Ermelita On August 23, 1993, Guevarra escorted Rizalina to the house of Josie Balbin Bocato, promising overseas employment, high salary, and free board and lodging. Guevarra also introduced Ermelita to accused spouses Bea. All three accused Bea. Guevarra later learned that Rizalina and Ermelita returned to the house of Josie kept persuading Ermelita to pay thirty thousand pesos (P30,000.00) as placement fee for Bea several times.[23] the opportunity to work abroad. After much coaxing, Ermelita finally agreed and gave five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) as initial payment, in the presence of Rizalina Belbes, Guevarra denied recruiting the complainants or collecting any amount from them. who also gave her initial payment of four thousand pesos (P4,000.00).[8]8 [24] She claimed that she did not know Ermelita Bocato, Arnel Basaysay or Alan Banico before August 1993, although she admitted knowing Rizalina Belbes, a businesswoman in her barangay, and Gloria Banico, a worker at the barangay health center.[25] On September 16, 1993, Ermelita paid her balance of twenty-five thousand pesos (P25,000.00) at a canteen near the Physicians Tower at United Nations Avenue, Manila. She also saw Rizalina Belbes pay her balance of twenty-six thousand pesos Accused Josie Bea likewise denied having recruited any of the complainants to (P26,000.00) and the further sum of thirty thousand pesos (P30,000.00) for Wilfredo work abroad, saying that she was engaged in the manufacture of abaca slippers while Belbes. The accused spouses Bea received these payments.[9] her husband, Pedro Bea, Jr., was a jeepney driver.[26] Accused Guevarra also enticed Gloria Banico to let her son Alan Banico work in Malaysia, where an employer offered free board and lodging with a starting salary of nine thousand pesos (P9,000.00) to be increased to twelve thousand pesos (P12,000.00) after three months.[10] She also introduced Gloria to the accused spouses Bea, who continued convincing her to send her son to Malaysia to work. After some time, Gloria finally agreed and paid the placement fee of thirty thousand pesos (P30,000.00) to Josie and Pedro Bea, Jr.[11] Josie testified that on August 23, 1993, accused Lorna Guevarra, accompanied by Ermelita Bocato and Rizalina Belbes, visited her. Josie did not know why Ermelita and Rizalina were with Guevarra.[27] Four days later, Rizalina and Ermelita returned and asked her how her brother-in-law Resureccion Bea 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.[28]

Accused Guevarra also offered overseas employment to Arnel Basaysay, as a On September 15, 1993, Rizalina Belbes and Ermelita Bocato returned and insisted worker in a glove factory in Malaysia with a starting salary of nine thousand pesos that Josie Bea accompany them. Due to their persistence, Josie finally agreed. They (P9,000.00), to be increased after three months. Accused Guevarra kept going to the left for Manila that afternoon and arrived in the morning of the next day. Josie 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 tickets. All these acts of the appellants established a common criminal design mutually day.[29] deliberated upon and accomplished through coordinated moves. Josie testified further that on October 9, 1993, Rizalina Belbes came back to the As against the evidence built by the prosecution, the accused-appellants merely Philippines from Malaysia and visited her. Rizalina mentioned that she found a buyer of raised the defense of denial. However, denials, if unsubstantiated by clear and abaca products in Malaysia and showed Josie some pictures and calling cards.[30] convincing evidence, are deemed negative and self-serving evidence unworthy of credence. They have no evidentiary value when ranged against the testimonies of credible witnesses on affirmative matters.[44] Pedro Bea, Jr. denied involvement in any recruitment activity and alleged that he was driving on the Legaspi-Tabaco route from July 1993 to October 1993.[31] 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 Pedro testified that on September 15, 1993, he did not find his wife Josie at home errors were committed or that determinative facts were overlooked which, if and learned that she went to Manila. When Josie came back on September 17, 1993, she appreciated, would call for a different conclusion.[45] The trial court has the advantage, told Pedro that she took care of some papers because she wanted to go back to her not available to appellate courts, of observing the deportment of witnesses and their former job as seamstress in a tailor shop.[32] manner of testifying during the trial. Thus, appellate courts accord high respect to the findings and conclusions of lower courts.[46] In this appeal, the three accused-appellants alleged that they neither recruited nor received any payment from any of the complainants. They denied even knowing the Moreover, there is no showing that any of the complainants had ill-motives to complainants before the filing of the case. They also maintained that the lower court testify falsely against accused-appellants and to impute such serious charges. Accusederred in finding the existence of conspiracy, and qualifying the illegal recruitment to one appellants have not disputed the fact that they have had no previous quarrel with any of committed by a syndicate or in large scale. the complainants. The rule is established that it is against human nature and experience The appeal lacks merit. Under the Labor Code, recruitment and placement refer 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, [t]hat 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.[33] 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. Illegal recruitment committed by a syndicate or in large scale amounts to an offense involving economic sabotage, punishable by life imprisonment and a fine of one hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00). In this case, Lorna Guevarra and Josie Bea were neither licensed 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. for strangers to conspire and accuse another stranger of a most serious crime just to mollify their hurt feelings.[47] Aside from exacting hard-earned money from the complainants, the accusedappellants even permitted the complainants to go to another country without a place to stay or any means of subsistence. No explanation was given to the complainants as to why the alleged employer failed to appear at the airport. In fact, instead of sympathizing with the complainants because of their misfortune, the accused-appellants even challenged complainants to file a case in court. The accused-appellants have conspired to recruit complainants without the necessary permit or license and victimized more than three persons in the case at bar. Thus, they are guilty of illegal recruitment by a syndicate in large scale and must suffer the consequences thereof. PP VS. CATAN Eduardo de Pereira was recruited by M.S. Catan Placement Agency on September 4, 1979 to work as an electrical maintenance operator for Al Gihaz Establishment Power Plant in Saudi Arabia. 1 His employment contract (and the supplement thereto) provided inter alia that: 1. his term of employment was for two (2) years or twenty-four (24) months; 2. he was entitled to a thirty-day paid vacation leave upon completion of twelve (12) months of continuous service, but the precise time of enjoyment of the leave would be determined by Al Gihaz in "accordance with work convenience." 2

Complainants in this case comprise five persons, or more than the minimum He claims that after completing a year's continuous service at the Al Gihaz Power Plant, number of persons required by law to constitute illegal recruitment in large scale. he requested for his thirty-day paid vacation leave pursuant to his contract, 3 but the response of his employer, a Mr. Abusame, was utterly unexpected and grossly oppressive, for what Abusame did was, in Pereira's own words, to go to "the site of The question now is whether or not appellants engaged in recruitment activities. operation (accompanied by police officers) to discuss the matter with the people manning the power plant, (and then to require) ... Pereira together with his As can be seen from the testimonies of the witnesses, the accused-appellants companions ... who were on duty ... to board the police van" after which they were jailed committed acts of recruitment such as promises of profitable employment to without any reason whatever; "... (that) Mr. Abusame told the police that ... Pereira and complainants and acceptance of placement fees. Such acts fall squarely within the his two companions sabotaged the operations of the power plant (and) ... at this definition of recruitment and placement under the Labor Code. With the certification juncture ... Mr. Abusame told them to sign another two (2) year contract written in from the Department of Labor and Employment stating that appellants were not Arabic" and that "(they) refused and/or objected because they could not understand the authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment, it is clear that the offense contents" but "had no choice but to sign the ... contract as a condition of their release committed against the five complainants is illegal recruitment in large scale. from jail." Forthwith, Pereira sought the assistance of the Philippine Embassy for his repatriation but was only able to return to the Philippines after paying the sum of US$950.00 for his plane fare and other processing fees to M.S. Catan, who was then in The accused-appellants asserted that the offense should not have been qualified Saudi Arabia. 4 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 Once back in Manila, Pereira lost no time in lodging a complaint with the Bureau of purpose. Guevarra would visit each of the complainants in their houses for several Employment Services of the Ministry of Labor and Employment against M.S. Catan times, convincing them to Placement Agency and/or Manuela S. Catan, for recovery of damages arising from work abroad, and giving them the impression that she had the capability of breach of contract. 5 After due proceedings, the POEA-Worker's Assistance and sending them abroad. She would accompany them to the house of the spouses Adjudication Office rendered a decision in Pereira's favor, ordering Manuela S. Catan to Bea, who, in turn, would collect the placement fees and process the passports and plane pay him the following: a) his salary for the unserved and/or unexpired portion of his employment contract: twelve (12) months; b) his allowance for said twelve (12) months; c) his unpaid wages for one and a half (1 1/2) months; d) reimbursement of the actual cost of one-way plane fare, exit visa and passporting and processing fees; and e) attorney's fees.

Catan filed a motion for reconsideration and when this was denied, appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission. The NLRC however affirmed the decision appealed from, and subsequently denied Catan's motion for reconsideration of that affirmance.

Friendship and General Services, at Mabini St., Ermita, Manila, but was unable to talk to her because at that time there were many applicants inside the office. Complainant and his sister finally demanded the return of their money, but the Turdas failed to give their money back. Consequently, Florante Rosales went to the Office of the City Fiscal of Quezon City to file the corresponding Catan is now before this Court on a petition for certiorari 7 alleging that the NLRC complaint.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library acted in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in ruling that: Sometime before September 1987, another complainant, Celina Andan, learned that her 1. the denial of Pereira's request for vacation leave with pay constituted breach of application for an immigrant visa with the Canadian Embassy was denied. While her the employment contract; application was pending, Celina's mother, Milagros Andan, was persuaded by Milagros 2. she (Catan) is liable to Pereira for salaries and allowances accruing during the Turda to entrust to her the processing of Celina's papers since she (Milagros Turda) had already been abroad and had gone through the application process previously. The unexpired portion of the employment contract; Andans and the Turdas had known each other for more than ten (10) years as their stores 3. Pereira's income earned during the unexpired portion of his contract should not which sold rice and LPG, respectively, were near each other. 3 chanrobles virtual law be deducted from the awards adjudicated; library After the denial of Celina Andan's application, Gener and Mila undertook the processing 5. Pereira is entitled to receive from Catan reimbursement of the actual cost of one- of Celina's travel papers for which they were given a downpayment of P25,000.00 with way plane fare as well as exit visa fee and passporting and processing fees although the promise to refund the amount if she would not be able to leave for Canada within 45 days. However, should they succeed, Celina would have to pay them an additional he had himself admitted having paid these to his foreign employer. amount of P35,000.00 upon delivery to her of her An analysis of Pereira's sworn declarations generates perplexing questions. If Pereira visa.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library could not understand the document that he was being forced to sign because it was written in Arabic, how could he assert that it was in truth another two-year employment On 14 September 1987, the mother of Celina gave a check in her store for P14,500.00 contract? No answer can be given on the face of the record. Again, if Pereira and his and cash of P500.00 to Mila Turda for which the latter gave a receipt in the presence of companions had indeed sabotaged the operations of the power plant as was the belief, appellant Gener. On 22 September 1987, Celina's mother again gave a check to the according to Pereira, entertained by his employer, Abusame why would Abusame be so Turdas in the amount of P10,000.00 for which a receipt was likewise issued by Milagros eager and so insistent to sign them up for another two-year employment contract? This Turda.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library simply makes no sense, specially if it be considered that their original contract still had After forty-five (45) days, Celina Andan was still unable to leave for abroad. She went one year to run, as is the uncontroverted fact. with her mother to the house of the Turdas where they only met appellant. They were told that Mila went somewhere. Celina wanted to get her passport and money back because nothing happened to her visa application, but appellant told her that he would just relay the message to his wife. Celina returned the following day only to be told by the spouses that her passport had been sent to her mother's store and that their downpayment of P25,000.00 could be withdrawn from the person to whom they (Turdas) gave it. Celina went back to the house of appellant but she never succeeded in talking to the spouses. They were always out. Hence, she decided to charge the Turda The patently illogical and unnatural features of Pereira's evidence make it undeserving spouses with estafa and illegal recruitment. On 22 February 1989, Gener Turda, his wife of credence; and that they were apparently ignored and not taken into account in the Milagros Turda and Carmen Manera were jointly charged with illegal recruitment and general assessment of the proofs presented by the parties indicates capriciousness and two (2) counts of estafa in three (3) separate whimsicality constituting grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Labor Arbiter and Informations.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library the NLRC. These unprepossessing features infest and taint the very facts which form the foundation of Pereira's cause of action; hence, the conclusions of the POEA based on Accused-appellant Gener Turda, on his part, denies having ever engaged in illegal those facts must be set aside. Unfortunately, this leaves Pereira with no other evidence to recruitment activities. He claims that he was himself a victim of the illegal recruitment adequately make out a cause of action against petitioner Catan. Having arrived at this activities of his co-accused Carmen Manera. Bienvenido Villanueva, brother-in-law of conclusion, i.e., that Pereira's evidence does not satisfactorily establish any cause of appellant's wife, and Darlene Turda, appellant's daughter, corroborated appellant's action against petitioner Catan, it becomes unnecessary to address the other errors testimony that sometime in January 1986 his wife brought Carmen Manera and the latter's secretary to their house where she told him that Manera was engaged in imputed by her to the POEA and the National Labor Relations Commission. recruitment for overseas jobs and was running a recruitment agency in Ermita, Manila. WHEREFORE, the petition is granted, the writ of certiorari prayed for is hereby issued His wife further told him that she would be given a commission for every person sent nullifying the decisions of the POEA and the National Labor Relations Commission abroad. Appellant then informed Manera that he also wanted to apply for a job in the complained of, and the complaint of the private respondent is hereby dismissed. No United States.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library. pronouncement as to costs. One week later, Manera returned and told him to pay P100,000.00 so he could go straight to the United States without passing through another country. He then paid the PP VS. TURDA agency an initial amount of P30,000.00. At that time, Bienvenido Villanueva, Armando GENER TURDA alias "Boy" (a.k.a. Guadalupe Turda, Jr.) together with his wife Revilla, Shirley Cabalu and Florante Rosales were also there to pay their fees. After a Milagros Turda and Carmen Manera, was charged with illegal recruitment in Crim. Case week, he gave Manera a diamond ring worth more than No. 57218 and two (2) counts of estafa in Crim. Cases Nos. 57219 and 57220. However, P30,000.00.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library Milagros Turda and Carmen Manera were never apprehended so that only Gener Turda could be arraigned and tried. As the three (3) cases involve the same factual milieu, they Appellant further contended that when he could not leave for abroad, he and his wife started to have fights which in fact resulted in their eventual separation. He also denied were jointly tried.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library any knowledge of the payments made by complainant Celina Andan or that they were In the first week of August 1986, appellant Gener Turda, his wife Milagros Turda made in his presence. He admitted however having made several trips to the airport but nicknamed "Mila," and Carmen Manera went to the house of complainant Florante explaining that he was also supposed to leave for abroad himself, and on several Rosales at 28 Ilocos Sur St., Bago Bantay, Quezon City, to convince his family that the occasions, drove for his wife in her recruitment former could secure an overseas job for Florante in Italy and another for his sister activities.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library Shirley Cabalu in France for a fee. Florante and Shirley accepted the offer and their father, Roberto Rosales, paid P70,000.00 for both. However, he did not ask for a receipt The court a quo sustained the prosecution. It found the following circumstances because of his trust in appellant and his wife who were Shirley's "compadre" and supportive of the guilt of accused-appellant in the three (3) cases: (a) Appellant was aware of the recruitment activities of his wife and of Carmen Manera; (b) The meetings 1 "comadre" for the past seventeen (17) years. chanrobles virtual law library between the three (3) accused and the complainants were held at the Bago Bantay On 13 August 1986, the spouses Gener and Mila, together with Carmen Manera, residence of appellant where he was always around to provide the "moral support" by brought Florante and Shirley to the airport for their supposed departure for abroad at "seconding" whatever Mila or Carmen would say about their capability of sending five o'clock that afternoon. The Turdas used their Volkswagen in bringing their two (2) applicants for overseas employment; (c) The amounts of P25,000.00 and P70,000.00 "recruits" to the airport for the customary "send-off." After a long wait, appellant and his paid by Celina and Florante, respectively, were received by his wife in their residence in co-accused told Florante and Shirley that their passports had not been released and that the presence of appellant; (d) Appellant took active part in making it appear that their departure had to be rescheduled, with the assurance however that they could leave complainant Rosales and his sister Shirley were to take their departure flight by driving them to the airport in his Volkswagen car and waiting along with them at the terminal as soon as their papers were released. 2 chanrobles virtual law library and, on the pretext that their passports were not yet released, brought them back to their Despite several promises, Florante and Shirley were still unable to leave. They visited house in Quezon City to await their scheduled flight, which never the Turdas several times at their house but the former were given more promises instead. materialized.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library Evidence to be believed must not only proceed from a credible witness but must be logical in itself such as the common experience of mankind can approve as probable under the circumstances. We have no test of the truth of human testimony, except its conformity to our knowledge, observation and experience. Whatever is repugnant to these belongs to the miraculous, and is outside of juridical cognizance. 8 Florante even went to the agency of accused Carmen Manera, the International 4. Catan is liable to Pereira for unpaid wages despite abandonment of work;

In its joint decision dated 30 August 1990, the trial court thus found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt in Crim. Case No. 57218 of illegal recruitment under Art. 39, par. (a), in relation to Art. 38 of P.D. No. 442, as amended, and sentenced him to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P100,000.00. In Crim. Case No. 57219, the court a quo convicted appellant of estafa under Art. 315, 1st par., in relation to 4th par., subpar. 2(a), of the same article, and imposed upon him an indeterminate prison term of two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day as minimum, to six (6) years, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days as maximum. The trial court further ordered appellant to refund the amount of P25,000.00 to complainant Celina Andan. In Crim. Case No. 57220, the trial court found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of estafa under the same penal provision and imposed upon him an indeterminate prison term of eight (8) years and one (1) day as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day as maximum. The court also directed appellant to refund the amount of P70,000.00 4 to complainant Florante Rosales. chanrobles virtual law library Appellant now assails the trial court for not acquitting him since not all the requisites of criminal conspiracy were present, and for imposing a penalty under a statute enacted in 1990 for an act done in 1986. He argues that nothing in the record shows that he and his two (2) co-accused had come to an agreement concerning the commission of illegal recruitment and/or estafa and that they decided to commit the crime thereafter; that he even disapproved of his wife's recruitment activities that led to frequent altercations between them; that his presence during the transactions between his wife and complainants was only natural as these took place in his house; that his supposed active part in the aborted departure of complainant Florante Rosales and Shirley Cabalu was sufficiently explained by him during the cross-examination, i.e., that he was even among those slated to leave for employment abroad so he rode with them to the airport; that as stated in the Information, the unlawful acts of illegal recruitment were committed sometime between August 1986 and September 1987 at which time the law on illegal recruitment only imposed a penalty of imprisonment for not less than four (4) years nor more than eight (8) years; and, thus the trial court erred in imposing upon him a life sentence based on the new law on illegal recruitment which was not yet in force at the time the alleged acts were committed.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to the highest degree of respect and will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of any showing that said court overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance which do not obtain in the present case. There is no doubt that the acts of appellant and his wife conclusively established a common criminal design mutually deliberated upon and accomplished through coordinated moves. Such acts constitute enlisting, contracting or procuring workers or promising them overseas 5 employment under Art. 13, par. (b), of the Labor Code. Since appellant did not have 6 the license or authority to recruit and yet recruited at least three (3) persons, he is guilty of large-scale illegal recruitment under Art. 38, penalized under Art. 39, of the Labor Code.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library We are not persuaded by appellant's argument that the trial court erred in imposing upon him the penalty of life imprisonment because this was imposed by a new law not in force when the offense was allegedly committed. P.D. No. 2018 7has increased the penalty to life imprisonment if the illegal recruitment constitutes economic sabotage. As defined in Art. 38, as amended, illegal recruitment constitutes economic sabotage if undertaken 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 Art. 38.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library As correctly pointed out by the Solicitor General, Sec. 2 of P.D. No. 2018, promulgated on 26 January 1986, has provided for its immediate effectivity. It was published on 10 February 1986 in Vol. 82, No. 6, Page 922, of the Official Gazette. Hence, when appellant committed the acts of illegal recruitment from August 1986 to September 1987, the amendments to the law, which took effect on 28 July 1986, 8were already in force and effect.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library The rule is settled that the recruitment of persons for overseas employment without the necessary recruiting permit or authority from the POEA constitutes illegal recruitment; however, where some other crimes or felonies are committed in the process, conviction under the Labor Code does not preclude punishment under other statutes.

The pertinent portions of Art. 38 of the Labor Code, as amended by P.D. No. 2018, read While we also affirm the conviction of the accused for estafa in Crim. Cases Nos. 57219 and 57220, we modify however the penalties imposed by particularly denominating them in accordance with the Revised Penal Code as well as amend accordingly the Art. 38. Illegal recruitment. - (a) Any recruitment activities, including the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of this Code, to be undertaken by penalty imposed in Crim. Case No. 57220.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library non-licensees or non-holders of authority shall be deemed illegal and punishable under Article 39 of this code. The Ministry of Labor and Employment or any law Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code provides the penalty for estafa enforcement officer may initiate complaints under this Article.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library 1st. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period, if the amount of the (b) Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall be fraud is over 12,000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000 pesos, and considered an offense involving economic sabotage and shall be penalized in if such amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in accordance with Article 39 hereof.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding law library one year for each additional 10,000 pesos; but the total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of cases, and in connection with the accessory penalties which may three (3) or more persons conspiring and/or confederating with one another in be imposed and for the purpose of the other provisions of this carrying out any unlawful or illegal transaction, enterprise or scheme defined under Code, the penalty shall be termed prision mayor or reclusion the first paragraph hereof. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if temporal, as the case may be. committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group. Article 13, par. (b), of the same Code defines recruitment 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." chanrobles virtual law library WHEREFORE, the conviction of the accused GENER TURDA for ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT ON LARGE SCALE in Crim. Case No. 57218 (G.R. No. 97044), for ESTAFA in Crim. Case No. 57219 (G.R. No. 97045) and Crim. Case No. 57220 (G.R. No. 97046) is AFFIRMED except that in Crim. Case No. 57219 (G.R. No. 97045) the penalty should read: "two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional medium as minimum, to six (6) years, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days of prision mayor minimum as maximum," while the penalty in Crim. Case No. 57220 (G.R. No. 97046) is modified to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional medium as minimum, to twelve (12) years of prision mayor maximum as maximum.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

A review of the testimonies of complainants leads us to no other conclusion than that appellant, his wife, and Manera were conspirators in the illegal recruitment business by contributing acts in pursuance of the financial success of their joint venture for their mutual benefit. All the complainants have testified that in every recruitment transaction, appellant was always present with the other accused. With respect to the recruitment of Rosales and Shirley Cabalu, both testified that the three (3) accused went to their house Appellant Gener Turda is further directed to refund to Celina Andan and Florante to induce them to apply for overseas work for a fee, and that appellant was likewise Rosales the amounts of P25,000.00 and P70,000.00 respectively, which appellant around when the amount of P70,000.00 was quoted by the other accused as the unlawfully collected from THEM. recruitment service fee. For her part, complainant Celina Andan categorically testified that appellant and his wife were together when the latter was paid the downpayment in check for her trip to Canada. Celina further asserted that the Turdas were always together in their recruitment transactions; in fact, all the complainants confirmed that appellant even drove them to the airport for the supposed trip abroad not only once but thrice.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library Appellant's explanation that his reason for driving the complainants to the airport was because he himself was also scheduled to leave for abroad, is weak and uncorroborated. It is a self-serving negative evidence which cannot prevail over his positive identification by the complaining witnesses as one of those who actively participated in recruiting them. Besides, how could he be driving his Volkswagen to the airport if he himself was leaving for abroad, unless he was ready to abandon his car after taking off? chanrobles virtual law library