People of the Philippines (petitioner) (petitioner) v Jamilosa (repondent) GR No. 169076 January 23, 2007 Callejo, Sr.,: FACTS: Sometime in the months of January ary to February, 1996, repres represent enting ing to have the capaci capacity, ty, author authority ity or licens license e to contra contract, ct, enlist and deploy or transport workers for overseas employment, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and criminally recruit, contract and promise to deploy, for a fee the herein complainants, namely, Imelda D. Bamb Bamba, a, Gera Gerald ldin ine e M. Lagm Lagman an and and Alma Alma E. Sing Singh, h, for for work work or employment in Los Angeles, California, U.S.A. in Nursing Home and Care Center. Prosecution presented three witnesses, namely Imelda Bamba, Geraldine Lagman and Alma Singh. According to Bamba, she met the appellant on a bus. She was on her way to to SM North Edsa where she was a company nurse. Appellant introduced himself as a recruiter of workers for employment abroad. Appellant told her he could help her get employed as nurse. Appellant gave gave his his page pagerr numb number er and and inst instru ruct cted ed her her to cont contac actt him him is sh she’ e’s s interested. Sometime in January 1996, appellant fetched her at her office, office, went to her house and gave him the necessary documents documents and handed to appellant the amount of US$300.00 and the latter showed her a photocopy of her supposed US visa. However, the appellant did not issue a receipt for the said money. Thereafter, appellant told her to resign from her work because she was booked with Northwest Airlines and and to leave leave for for USA USA on Feb, Feb, 19 1996 96.. On the the sc sche hedu dule led d depa depart rtur ure, e, appellant failed to show up. Instead, called and informed her that he failed to give the passport and US visa because she had to go to province because his wife died. Trying to contact him to the supposed residence and hotel where he temporarily resided, but to no avail. Wine Winess ss Lagm Lagman an test testif ifie ied d that that sh she e is a regi regist ster ered ed nurs nurse. e. In January 1996, she went to SM North Edsa to visit her cousin Bamba. At that time Bamba informed her that she was going to meet to appellant. Bamba invited Lagman to go with her. The appellant convinced them of his ability to send them abroad. On their next meeting, Lagman hand handed ed to the the latt latter er the the nece necess ssary ary docu docume ment nts s and an amou amount nt of US$300.00 and 2 bottles of black label without any receipt issued by the appella appellant. nt. Four Four days days after after their their meetin meeting, g, a teleph telephone one compan company y called her because her number was appearing in appellants cell phone documents. The caller is trying to locate him as he was a swindler. She became suspicious and told Bamba about the matter. One week before her her sc sche hedu dule led d flig flight ht,, appe appell llan antt told told her her he coul could d not not meet meet them them because his mother passed away. Lastly, Lastly, Alma Singh, who is also a registered registered nurse, declared declared that she sh e first first met met the the appe appell llant ant at SM North North Edsa Edsa when when Imel Imelda da Bamb Bamba a introduced the latter to her. Appellant told her that he is an undercover agent of FBI and he could fix her US visa. On their next meeting, she gave all the pertinent documents. Thereafter, she gave P10,000 to the appe appell llan antt cove coveri ring ng half half price price of her her plan plane e ticke ticket. t. They They page paged d the the appellant through his beeper to set up another appointment but the appellant avoided them as he had many things to do. The The accuse accused d Jamilo Jamilosa sa testif testified ied on direct direct exami examinati nation on that that he never told Bamba that he could get her a job in USA, the truth being that that she wanted wanted to leav leave e SM as comp compan any y nurs nurse e beca becaus use e sh she e was was having a problem thereat. Bamba called him several times, seeking advices from him. He started courting Bamba and went out dating until latter became his girlfriend. He met Lagman and Singh thru Bamba. As complainants seeking advice on how to apply for jobs abroad, lest he be charged as a recruiter, he made Bamba, Lagman and Singh sign separate certifications, all to effect that he never recruited them and
no money was involved. Bamba filed an illegal recruitment case against him because they quarreled and separated. RTC rendered judgment finding accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal recruitment in large scale.
ISSUE: W/N the trial court erred in convicting accused appellant of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale HELD: “Recruitment and placement" refers to any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not. Provided, That any person or entity which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement. Illegal recruitment shall mean any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers and includes referring, contract services, promising or advertising for employment abroad, whether for profit or not, when undertaken by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority. Provided, That any such nonlicensee or non-holder who, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment abroad to two or more persons shall be deemed so engaged. To prove illegal recruitment in large scale, the prosecution is burdened to prove three (3) essential elements, to wit: (1) the person charged undertook a recruitment activity under Article 13(b) or any prohibited practice under Article 34 of the Labor Code; (2) accused did not have the license or the authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers; and (3) accused committed the same against three or more persons individually or as a group. As gleaned from the collective testimonies of the complaining witnesses which the trial court and the appellate court found to be credible and deserving of full probative weight, the prosecution mustered the requisite quantum of evidence to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt for the crime charged. Indeed, the findings of the trial court, affirmed on appeal by the CA, are conclusive on this Court absent evidence that the tribunals ignored, misunderstood, or misapplied substantial fact or other circumstance. The failure of the prosecution to adduce in evidence any receipt or document signed by appellant where he acknowledged to have received money and liquor does not free him from criminal liability. Even in the absence of money or other valuables given as consideration for the "services" of appellant, the latter is considered as being engaged in recruitment activities. It can be gleaned from the language of Article 13(b) of the Labor Code that the act of recruitment may be for profit or not. It is sufficient that the accused promises or offers for a fee employment to warrant conviction for illegal recruitment.
