PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.

FLOR GUTIERREZ Y TIMOD

[G.R. No. 124439. February 5, 2004]
TlNGA, J.:
FACTS: With the promises of jobs abroad unfulfilled, complainants decided to verify if the accused
was a licensed recruiter. Upon learning from the POEA that she was not so licensed, they proceeded to
the Philippine Anti-Crime Commission (PACC) to execute their respective affidavits. The investigator
confirmed with the POEA that the accused was not licensed or authorized to recruit overseas contract
workers. The accused was arrested on an entrapment operation.
In her defense, the accused claimed that as an employee of a duly licensed agency who was
tasked to recruit and offer job placements abroad, she could not be held liable for illegal recruitment.
She admitted that she had no authority to recruit in her personal capacity, but that her authority
emanated from a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) and a Certification issued by a licensed agency. At
the time complainants applied for overseas employment, the accused was employed as a Marketing
Directress of Sarifudin Manpower and General Services, a duly licensed agency with License No. OS-91LB-61193-NL issued by the Department of Labor and Employment.[58] A Special Power of Attorney (SPA)
from Sarifudin, dated May 1, 1994, states that she was authorized. Accused Flor Gutierrez filed the
present appeal seeking the reversal of her conviction.
ISSUE: Whether or not, the conviction of the accused should be upheld even though she is licensed
recruiter.
HELD: 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 Art. 13(b), or any of the prohibited practices enumerated under Art. 34
of the Labor Code. Art. 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 becomes Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale when the two elements concur, with the
addition of a third element: the recruiter committed the same against three or more persons,
individually or as a group. As found by the trial court, the evidence on record, notably appellants own
version, indicates that she was running her own labor recruitment business.
Appellant cannot escape liability by claiming that she was not aware that before working for
her employer in the recruitment agency, she should first be registered with the POEA. Illegal
recruitment in large scale is malum prohibitum, not malum in se. Good faith is not a defense. As
appellant committed illegal recruitment against three or more persons, she is liable for Illegal
Recruitment in Large Scale.
ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT IN LARGE SCALE; ELEMENTS
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ROSE DUJUA
[G.R. Nos. 149014-16. February 5, 2004]
TINGA, J.:
FACTS: Complainant Beldon Caluten, went to the accuseds office, the World Pack Travel and Tours.
Upon Beldons inquiry, Ramon Dujua said that he sends applicants abroad and gave Beldon an
application form. Beldon filled up the form and submitted it to Ramon, who told him that he must pay
a processing fee and make an advance payment. Beldon was promised work as a factory worker in
Japan. He advanced money for his processing fees and other expenses. Despite such payments, the

promise to send Beldon to work in Japan remained unfulfilled, Beldon asked Ramon to give him back
his money. Beldon never recovered his payments, however, prompting him and his fellow applicants to
file a complaint at the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). Private complainants Jaime Cabus,
Roberto Perlas and Romulo Partos suffered the same fate as Beldon. He also filed a compliaint against
the accused.
The prosecution presented a Certification issued by Hermogenes C. Mateo, Director II,
Licensing Branch of the POEA, stating that Ramon Dujua is not licensed or authorized by the POEA to
recruit workers abroad. Another Certification, of even date shows that neither is the World Pack Travel
and Tours authorized to recruit workers abroad. The accused Ramon Dujua denied that he was a
recruiter. He claimed that he was a mere janitor, messenger and errand boy of the World Pack Travel
and Tours. The company is owned by his aunt, Editha Singh, and managed by his mother Rose Dujua. He
admitted he did not have a license to recruit,but acknowledged receiving the money given by
complainants but denied knowing what it was for. He said, however, that his mother only asked him to
count the money.
RTC convicted Dujua of illegal recruitment in large scale, committed against Jaime Cabus,
Beldon Caluten and Roberto Perlas, and of two counts of estafa, committed against Cabus and Perlas.
ISSUE: Whether or not, the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused in illegal recruitment in large
scale by means of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
HELD: Yes. The essential elements of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale are: (1) the
accused engages in acts of recruitment and placement of workers defined under Article 13(b) or in any
prohibited activities under Art. 34 of the Labor Code; (2) the accused has not complied with the
guidelines issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment, particularly with respect to the securing
of a license or an authority to recruit and deploy workers, either locally or overseas; and (3) the
accused commits the unlawful acts against three or more persons, individually or as a group. All three
elements have been established beyond reasonable doubt.
First, the testimonies of the complaining witnesses satisfactorily prove that appellant promised
them employment and assured them placement overseas. Complainants were firm and categorical. All
of them positively identified appellant as the person who recruited them for employment abroad.
Their testimonies dovetail each other on material points. There is no adequate showing that any of
them was impelled by any ill motive to testify against appellant.
Second, appellant did not have any license or authority to recruit persons for overseas work, as
shown by the Certification issued by the POEA. Neither did his employer, the World Pack Travel and
Tours, possess such license or authority.
ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT IN LARGE SCALE; ELEMENTS
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. MARLENE OLERMO
[G.R. No. 127848. July 17, 2003.]
AZCUNA, J.:
FACTS: In separate informations filed before the RTC of Valenzuela, Marlene Olermo a.k.a. Marlene
Tolentino was accused of illegal recruitment in large scale as defined and penalized under Article 38 in
relation to Article 39 (a) of the Labor Code, as amended by P.D. 2018, and five counts of estafa.
Appellant Olermo denied all the charges against her. She alleged that she was engaged only in
visa assistance. She denied ever having represented herself as possessing authority to deploy workers
for overseas employment. She thus explained that she only offered complainants Villanueva, AquinoVillanueva, Aparicio and Majarucon assistance in processing their tourist visas. With respect to the

accusation of complainant Berador, appellant alleged that she was only helping him process his
trainee's visa. However, the trial court rendered a decision convicting appellant of the crimes charged.
Hence, this appeal.
It is the contention of the appellant that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable
doubt all the essential elements of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale. Furthermore, she
contends that her alleged act of illegally recruiting at least three persons was not sufficiently
established by the testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution.
ISSUES:
a) Whether or not appellant was engaged in recruitment and placement.
b) Whether or not appellant Olermo is guilty of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale.
HELD: a) YES. Appellant's acts of promising, offering and assuring employment overseas to
complainants fall squarely within the ambit of recruitment and placement as defined in Article 13,
paragraph (b) of the Labor Code, as amended. The fact that she did not sign nor issue some of the
receipts for amounts received from complainants has no bearing on her culpability. The complainants
have shown through their respective testimonies and evidence that she was indeed involved in the
prohibited recruitment. In fact, it was even proven that appellant advertised her services in a
newspaper.
b) YES. Article 38 of the Labor Code renders illegal those recruitment activities without the
necessary license or authority from the POEA. The elements of illegal recruitment in large scale are:
(1) the person undertakes any recruitment activity defined under Article 13, paragraph (b), or any
prohibited practice enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code; (2) said person does not have a
license or authority to engage in the recruitment and placement of workers; and (3) the act is
committed against three or more persons, individually or as a group.
All these three elements were proven by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. First, the
complaining witnesses have satisfactorily established that appellant promised them employment and
assured them of placement overseas. Appellant even had her services advertised in a newspaper,
undoubtedly to reach more people seeking jobs abroad. Second, appellant did not have any license to
recruit persons for overseas work. The Licensing Division of the POEA issued a certification to this
effect. Third, appellant undertook the recruitment of not less than three workers. The complainants
herein were recruited individually on different occasions. The law applies whether the workers were
recruited individually or as a group.
SOLIDARY LIABILITY OF EMPLOYERS
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ELIZABETH CORPUZ
G.R. No. 148198. October 1, 2003
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
FACTS: Private complainants Belinda Cabantog, Concepcion San Diego, Erlinda Pascual and Restian
Surio went to Alga-Moher International Placement Services Corporation to apply for employment in
Taiwan. They were introduced by an Aling Josie to the agency's President and General Manager Mrs.
Evelyn Gloria H. Reyes. Mrs. Reyes asked them to accomplish the application forms. Thereafter, they
were told to return to the office with P10,000.00 each as processing fee. Private complainants returned
to the agency to pay the processing fees. Mrs. Reyes was not at the agency that time, but she called
her secretary of three months, herein appellant Elizabeth Corpuz, on the telephone and told the latter
to receive private complainants' processing fees. In compliance with the order of her employer and
since the cashier was absent, appellant received the processing fees of private complainants.
Thereafter, appellant advised the private complainants to wait for the contracts to arrive from the
Taiwan employers.

Two months later, nothing happened to their applications. Thus, private complainants decided
to ask for the refund of their money from appellant who told them that the processing fees they had
paid were already remitted to Mrs. Reyes. When they talked to Mrs. Reyes, she told them that the
money she received from appellant was in payment of the latter's debt. Thus, private complainants
filed their complaint for illegal recruitment in large scale against appellant.
For her part, appellant resolutely denied having a hand in the illegal recruitment and claimed
that she merely received complainants' processing fees in compliance with the order of her employer.
Moreover, she had no knowledge that the agency's license was suspended by the POEA on July 29, 1998,
the day before the fact. The trial court found appellant guilty.
ISSUE: Whether or not the appellant guilty of the crime charged.
HELD: No. An employee of a company or corporation engaged in illegal recruitment may be held liable
as principal, together with his employer, if it is shown that he actively and consciously participated in
illegal recruitment. Settled is the rule that the existence of the corporate entity does not shield from
prosecution the corporate agent who knowingly and intentionally causes the corporation to commit a
crime. The culpability of the employee therefore hinges on his knowledge of the offense and his active
participation in its commission. Where it is shown that the employee was merely acting under the
direction of his superiors and was unaware that his acts constituted a crime, he may not be held
criminally liable for an act done for and in behalf of his employer.
The prosecution failed to adduce sufficient evidence to prove appellant's active participation in
the illegal recruitment activities of the agency. As already established, appellant received the
processing fees of the private complainants for and in behalf of Mrs. Reyes who ordered her to receive
the same. She neither gave an impression that she had the ability to deploy them abroad nor convinced
them to part with their money. More importantly, she had no knowledge that the license was suspended
the day before she received the money. Their failure to depart for Taiwan was due to the suspension of
the license, an event which appellant did not have control of. Her failure to refund their money
immediately upon their demand was because the money had been remitted to Mrs. Reyes on the same
day she received it from them.
While we strongly condemn the pervasive proliferation of illegal job recruiters and syndicates
preying on innocent people anxious to obtain employment abroad, nevertheless, we find the pieces of
evidence insufficient to prove the guilt of appellant beyond reasonable doubt.