Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Melissa Chua
G.R. No. 187052
13 September 2012
Facts:
Melissa Chua represented herself to have the capacity to contract, enlist, and transport
Filipino workers to Taiwan. She promised employment to 4 people in exchange for
fees and without the required license. The fees charged were higher than the allowable
amount. She ultimately failed to deploy the 4 complainants and reimburse them the
expenses incurred for the processing of their documents.
Issue:
W/N Melissa Chua committed the crime of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale and
Estafa.
Held:
Yes.
In order to hold a person liable for illegal recruitment, the following elements must
concur:
(1) the offender undertakes any of the activities within the meaning of recruitment
and placement under Article 13(b)20 of the Labor Code, or any of the prohibited
practices enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code (now Section 6 of
Republic Act No. 8042)
(2) the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable him to
lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers. In the case of illegal
recruitment in large scale, a third element is added: that the offender commits any
of the acts of recruitment and placement against three or more persons,
individually or as a group. All three elements are present in the case at bar.
Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of
three (3) or more persons conspiring or confederating with one another. It is deemed
committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons individually
or as a group.
Her defense that she is merely a cashier is untenable. Appellant cannot escape liability
complainants as one who can make arrangements for job placements in Taiwan, and
by reason of his misrepresentations, false assurances and deceit, complainants were
induced to part with their money, thus causing them damage and prejudice.
Delia Romero vs. People
G.R. No. 171644
November 23, 2011
Facts:
On separate occasions, the complainants asked the accused how they can secure jobs
in Israel. They were informed that upon payment of $3,600.00, their papers would be
immediately processed. They were deployed to Israel and were able to work for a
couple of months before being deported for not possessing the required working visa.
Upon going to the accused, the accused did not return their money and promised that
she will send them back to Israel which she ultimately failed to do.
Issue:
W/N accused is liable for illegal recruitment
Held:
Yes. Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code defines, recruitment and placement as: any act
of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring
workers, and includes referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for
employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not: 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.
The crime of illegal recruitment is committed when two elements concur, namely: (1)
the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable one to
lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers; and (2) he undertakes
either any activity within the meaning of "recruitment and placement" defined under
Article 13 (b), or any prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor
Code.
It is apparent that petitioner was able to convince the private respondents to apply for
work in Israel after parting with their money in exchange for the services she would
render. The said act of the petitioner, without a doubt, falls within the meaning of
recruitment and placement as defined in Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code.
Since only two complainants were able to show receipts issued by appellant,
petitioner claims that the prosecution failed to prove illegal recruitment in large
scale. The court disagrees. The finding of illegal recruitment in large scale is
justified wherever the elements previously mentioned concur with this additional
element: the offender commits the crime against three (3) or more persons,
individually or as a group. Accused recruited at least three persons. All the
witnesses for the prosecution categorically testified that it was she who had
promised them that she could arrange for and facilitate their employment in
Taiwan as factory workers.
2. The absence of receipts in a case for illegal recruitment is not fatal, as long as the
prosecution is able to establish through credible testimonial evidence that accusedappellant has engaged in illegal recruitment. Such case is made, not by the
issuance or the signing of receipts for placement fees, but by engagement in
recruitment activities without the necessary license or authority
for illegal recruitment for certain acts as enumerated in paragraphs (a) to (m)
thereof. Among such acts, under Section 6(m) of Republic Act No. 8042, is the
[f]ailure to reimburse expenses incurred by the worker in connection with his
documentation and processing for purposes of deployment, in cases where the
deployment does not actually take place without the workers fault. Ochoa committed
illegal recruitment as described in the said provision by receiving placement and
medical fees from private complainants, evidenced by the receipts issued by her, and
failing to reimburse the private complainants the amounts they had paid when they
were not able to leave for Taiwan and Saudi Arabia, through no fault of their own.
Under the last paragraph of Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042, illegal recruitment
shall be considered an offense involving economic sabotage if committed in a large
scale, that is, committed against three or more persons individually or as a
group. Here, there are eight private complainants who convincingly testified on
Ochoas acts of illegal recruitment.
The elements of estafa are: (a) that the accused defrauded another by abuse of
confidence or by means of deceit, and (b) that damage or prejudice capable of
pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party or third person. Both elements
are present in Criminal Case Nos. 98-77301, 98-77302, and 98-77303.Ochoas deceit
was evident in her false representation to private complainants Gubat, Cesar, and
Agustin that she possessed the authority and capability to send said private
complainants to Taiwan/Saudi Arabia for employment as early as one to two weeks
from completion of the requirements, among which were the payment of placement
fees and submission of a medical examination report. Ochoa promised that there were
already existing job vacancies overseas for private complainants, even quoting the
corresponding salaries. Ochoa carried on the deceit by receiving application
documents from the private complainants, accompanying them to the clinic for
medical examination, and/or making them go to the offices of certain
recruitment/placement agencies to which Ochoa had actually no connection at
all. Clearly deceived by Ochoas words and actions, private complainants Gubat,
Cesar, and Aquino were persuaded to hand over their money to Ochoa to pay for their
placement and medical fees. Sadly, private complainants Gubat, Cesar, and Aquino
were never able to leave for work abroad, nor recover their money.
1.
the offender undertakes either any activity within the meaning of recruitment
and placement defined under Article 13(b), or any of the prohibited practices
enumerated under Art. 34 of the Labor Code;
2.
3.
Aringoy claims and admits that he only referred Lolita to Lalli for job opportunities to
Malaysia. Such act of referring, whether for profit or not, in connivance with someone
without a POEA license, is already considered illegal recruitment, given the broad
definition of recruitment and placement in the Labor Code.
In this case, Lolita would not have been able to go to Malaysia if not for the concerted
efforts of Aringoy, Lalli and Relampagos. First, it was Aringoy who knew Lolita,
since Aringoy was a neighbor of Lolitas grandfather. It was Aringoy who referred
Lolita to Lalli, a fact clearly admitted by Aringoy. Second, Lolita would not have
been able to go to Malaysia if Lalli had not purchased Lolitas boat ticket to Malaysia.
It is clear that through the concerted efforts of Aringoy, Lalli and Relampagos, Lolita
was recruited and deployed to Malaysia to work as a prostitute. Such conspiracy
among Aringoy, Lalli and Relampagos could be deduced from the manner in which
the crime was perpetrated each of the accused played a pivotal role in perpetrating the
crime of illegal recruitment, and evinced a joint common purpose and design,
concerted action and community of interest.