Lim, Vivienne Nicole | 2017400134 | Labor Standards (SPL-1) | FILCRO Illegal Recruitment

People of the Philippines vs. Marlyn P. Bacos (GR No. 178774; 08 December 2010)

Facts: The complainants claimed that Efren Dimayuga, appellant’s common law husband,
represented himself as recruiter who could send them to work in Japan, and that the appellant,
Bacos, likewise assured said complainants that they (she and Dimayuga) could send them
abroad. Believing that all these were true, the complainants parted with their money to be used as
placement and processing fees. Dimayuga issued receipts for the money received. The
complainants, however, were not deployed within the period promised by Dimayuga. The
complainants therefore filed complaints against the Dimayuga and Bacos for illegal recruitment
in large scale. The prosecution presented two certifications from the Philippine Overseas
Employment Administration stating that Dimayuga and Bacos are not authorized to recruit
workers for overseas employment. Dimayuga died during the pendency of the trial, leaving the
appellant to face the charges.

Issue: Is the appellant liable as principal in the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale?

Law: Articles 13(b), 34, 38 and 39 of the Labor Code and RA 8042

Case History: The case was first brought in RTC of Quezon City, which observed that the
appellant did not refute the allegation that Dimayuga was engaged in the recruitment and
placement business. It ruled that sufficient evidence existed establishing that the two accused
conspired in engaging in illegal recruitment activities. The CA upheld the factual findings of the
RTC on appeal, stating (1) that all the elements of illegal recruitment were sufficiently proven by
the prosecution evidence; and (2) that Bacos is liable as principal for the crime charged.

Ruling: The Supreme Court affirmed the appellant’s conviction. Article 13(b) of the Labor Code
defines what constitutes as recruitment and placement, whereas articles 38 and 39 of the same
Code also define and punish illegal recruitment. Despite the lack of license or authority to
engage in recruitment, the appellant admitted that she gave the complainants “assurances” that
she and Dimayugga could deploy them for employment in Japan. The complainants relied not
only in the representations of Dimayuga but also on the assurances of the appellant. In addition,
appellant (1) accepted the placement fee given by the complainants, (2) communicated to the
complainants the date of their departure and (3) the information on how the balance of the
placement fee should be paid. These acts unquestionably show that appellant was engaged in
illegal recruitment activities together with Dimayuga. Likewise, these prove that the appellant’s
liability is considered as principal directly and actively engaged in illegal recruitment activities.

Opinion: I agree with the Court’s decision. The elements of the crime of illegal recruitment-in
large scale are present in the case at bar, namely: (1) the offender has no valid license or
authority required by law to enable him to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of
workers; (2) the offender undertakes any of the activities within the meaning of "recruitment and
placement" under Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code, or any of the prohibited practices enumerated
under Article 34 of the said Code (now Section 6 of R.A. 8042); and (3) the offender committed
the same against three (3) or more persons, individually or as a group.
Lim, Vivienne Nicole | 2017400134 | Labor Standards (SPL-1) | FILCRO Illegal Recruitment

People of the Philippines vs. Lourdes Gamboa (GR No. 135382; 29 September 2000)

Facts: Seven applicants for overseas employment claimed that the accused-appellant, Gamboa,
and her three co-accused represented themselves to be affiliated with Mebil Management
Trading (a recruitment agency) and assured them of overseas employment in Brunei, Taiwan and
Japan. Appellant assisted said complainants in filling out application forms and received their
documents and payments (P20k – P45k). The promised employment did not materialize nor were
their money returned by the accused-appellant. Upon verification from the Philippine Overseas
Employment Administration, all accused were found not affiliated with Bemil Management
Trading nor did they have been authorized by the POEA to recruit workers for employment
abroad. Appellant and her three co-accused were then charged with the crime of illegal
recruitment in large scale.

Issue: Is accused-appellant liable for the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale?

Law: Articles 13(b), 34, 38 and 39 of the Labor Code, and RA 8042

Case History: The complainants lodged separate complaints against the accused before the
POEA. Thereafter, the POEA-CIG Task Force Anti-Illegal Recruitment conducted an
entrapment against all the accused. Only the accused was apprehended and the rest of the
accused’s cohorts eluded arrest and remained at large. The case was brought to the RTC, which
then convicted the accused-appellant of the crime charged. The accused-appellant appealed and
the case was brought to the Supreme Court because the accused-appellant argued that the lower
court erred in finding her guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale.

Ruling: The SC found no reason to reverse the accused-appellant’s conviction hence, it affirmed
the RTC’s decision. The elements of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale were
sufficiently proved by the prosecution. The POEA moreover certified that all accused were
neither licensed nor authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment. Said illegal
recruiters gave the complainants, as well as the police officer disguised as a job applicant during
the entrapment, the impression that they had the power and ability to send their applicants to
work in various foreign destinations, when in fact they had none. Relying on their assurances and
promises of employment abroad, complainants agreed to part with their hard-earned money to
expedite the processing and approval of their applications. The Court also found no cogent
reason to disturb the lower court’s findings on the existence of a conspiracy since each accused
played a part in the recruitment of complainants.

Opinion: I agree with the Supreme Court’s decision to convict the accused-appellant of the
crime illegal recruitment in large scale. The testimonies of several witnesses described the
precise degree of participation of accused appellant in the illegal recruitment scheme. The acts
described in the testimonies demonstrated unquestionably that she was a knowing and willing
participant in the recruitment activities of Miñoza and her group. The positive assertions of
officer Cabal and the complainants must prevail over the accused appellant’s bare denials and
self-serving assertion that she was a mere job applicant herself.