People

vs. Goce
G.R. No. 113161. August 29, 1995.*
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LOMA GOCE y OLALIA, DAN GOCE
and NELLY D. AGUSTIN, accused. NELLY D. AGUSTIN, accused-appellant.
Labor Law; Criminal Law; Illegal Recruitment; Circumstances that qualify illegal
recruitment as an offense involving economic sabotage.Herein appellant is accused of
violating Articles 38 and 39 of the Labor Code. Article 38 of the Labor Code, as amended
by Presidential Decree No. 2018, provides that any recruitment activity, including the
prohibited practices enumerated in Article 34 of said 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 recruitment shall be considered an
offense involving economic sabotage if any of these qualifying circumstances exist,
namely, (a) when illegal recruitment is committed by a syndicate, i.e., if it is carried out
by a group of three or more persons conspiring and/or confederating with one another;
or (b) when illegal recruitment is committed in large scale, i.e., if it is committed against
three or more persons individually or as a group.
Same; Same; Same; Words and Phrases; Recruitment and Placement and Referral,
Defined.Under said 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, 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. On the other hand, referral is the act of passing
along or forwarding of an applicant for employment after an initial interview of a
selected applicant for employment to a selected employer, placement officer or bureau.
Same; Same; Same; An employee who actually makes referrals to the agency of which
she is a part is engaged in recruitment activity.Hence, the inevitable query is whether
or not appellant Agustin merely introduced complainants to the Goce couple or her
actions went beyond that. The testimonial evidence hereon show that
_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.
781

VOL. 247, AUGUST 29, 1995
781
People vs. Goce
she indeed further committed acts constitutive of illegal recruitment. All four
prosecution witnesses testified that it was Agustin whom they initially approached
regarding their plans of working overseas. It was from her that they learned about the
fees they had to pay, as well as the papers that they had to submit. It was after they had
talked to her that they met the accused spouses who owned the placement agency. As
correctly held by the trial court, being an employee of the Goces, it was therefore logical
for appellant to introduce the applicants to said spouses, they being the owners of the
agency. As such, appellant was actually making referrals to the agency of which she was
a part. She was therefore engaging in recruitment activity.
Same; Same; Same; There is illegal recruitment when one gives the impression of having
the ability to send a worker abroad.There is illegal recruitment when one gives the
impression of having the ability to send a worker abroad. It is undisputed that appellant
gave complainants the distinct impression that she had the power or ability to send
people abroad for work such that the latter were convinced to give her the money she
demanded in order to be so employed.
Same; Same; Same; The act of collecting from each of the complainants payment for
their respective passports, training fees, placement fees, medical tests and other sundry
expenses unquestionably constitutes an act of recruitment within the meaning of the
law.It cannot be denied that Agustin received from complainants various sums for
purpose 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 expenses unquestionably constitutes an act of recruitment within the
meaning of the law. In fact, appellant demanded and received from complainants
amounts beyond the allowable limit of P5,000.00 under government regulations. It is
true that the mere act of a cashier in receiving money far exceeding the amount allowed
by law was not 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 with her co-accused in defrauding the victims. That is not the case
here.
Same; Same; Same; Evidence; Documentary Evidence; Xerox Copies; Where original
copies of the receipts/vouchers were lost, xerox copies thereof may be presented and
admitted.Apparently, the original copies of said receipts/vouchers were lost, hence
only xerox copies thereof were presented and which, under the circumstances, were
admissible in evidence. When the original writing has been lost or
782

782
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Goce
destroyed or cannot be produced in court, upon proof of its execution and loss or
destruction, or unavailability, its contents may be proved by a copy or a recital of its
contents in some authentic document, or by the recollection of witnesses.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Witnesses; Even in the absence of receipts, the
testimonies of complainants that the accused was involved in recruitment may suffice to
establish the factum probandum.Even assuming arguendo that the xerox copies
presented by the prosecution as secondary evidence are not allowable in court, still the
absence thereof does not warrant the acquittal of appellant. In People vs. Comia, where
this particular issue was involved, the Court held that the complainants failure to ask
for receipts for the fees they paid to the accused therein, as well as their consequent
failure to present receipts before the trial court as proof of the said payments, is not
fatal to their case. The complainants duly proved by their respective testimonies that
said accused was involved in the entire recruitment process. Their testimonies in this
regard, being clear and positive, were declared sufficient to establish that factum
probandum.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Denials; The positive and affirmative
statements of the prosecution witnesses is more worthy of credit than the mere
uncorroborated and self-serving denials of the accused.Indeed, the trial court was
justified and correct in accepting the version of the prosecution witnesses, their
statements being positive and affirmative in nature. This is more worthy of credit than
the mere uncorroborated and self-serving denials of appellant. The lame defense
consisting of such bare denials by appellant cannot overcome the evidence presented
by the prosecution proving her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Where the issue essentially involves the
credibility of witnesses, this is best left to the judgment of the trial court.The presence
of documentary evidence notwithstanding, this case essentially involves the credibility
of witnesses which is best left to the judgment of the trial court, in the absence of abuse
of discretion therein. The findings of fact 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. Generally, the findings of fact
of the trial court on the matter of credibility of witnesses will not be disturbed on
appeal.
Constitutional Law; Equal Protection; Criminal Law; Criminal Procedure; The non-
prosecution of another suspect provides no ground for the accused to fault the decision
of the trial court convicting him.In
783

VOL. 247, AUGUST 29, 1995
783
People vs. Goce
People vs. Sendon, we held that the non-prosecution of another suspect therein
provided no ground for the appellant concerned to fault the decision of the trial court
convicting her. The prosecution of other persons, equally or more culpable than herein
appellant, may come later after their true identities and addresses shall have been
ascertained and said malefactors duly taken into custody. We see no reason why the
same doctrinal rule and course of procedure should not apply in this case.
APPEAL from a decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Br. 5.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Pablo Baltazar for accused-appellant.
REGALADO, J.:

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
_____________

1 Original Record, 1.
784

784
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Goce
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 Agustin
pleaded not guilty8 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 latters 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
____________

2 Ibid., 8-9.
3 Ibid., 17.
4 Ibid., 24.
5 Ibid., 27.
6 Ibid., 30.
7 Ibid., 33.
8 Ibid., 44.
9 TSN, May 12, 1993, 2-3, 8, 12.
785

VOL. 247, AUGUST 29, 1995
785
People vs. Goce
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 coapplicants 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 latters residence. Agustin persuaded her to apply as a cutter/sewer
in Oman so that she could join her husband. Encouraged by Agustins 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
Much later, the Salado couple received a telegram from the placement agency requiring
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
wifes passports. Despite follow-up of their papers twice a week from February to June,
1987, he and his wife failed to leave for abroad.13
Complainant Dionisio Masaya, accompanied by his brother-in-law, Aquiles Ortega,
applied for a job in Oman with the Clover
______________

10 Ibid., id., 3-5, 10, 13.
11 Ibid., id., 7-8, 12-16.
12 Ibid., May 25, 1993, 15-17.
13 Ibid., id., 18-20.
786

786
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Goce
Placement Agency at Paraaque, the agencys 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 latters daughter. He submitted several pertinent
documents, such as his bio-data and school credentials.14
In May, 1986, Masaya gave Dan Goce P1,900.00 as an initial down payment for the
placement fee, and in September of that same year, he gave an additional P10,000.00.
He was issued receipts for said amounts and was advised to go to the placement office
once in a while to follow up his application, which he faithfully did. Much to his dismay
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
in installments.15
As the prosecutions fourth and last witness, Ernesto Alvarez took the witness stand on
June 7, 1993. He testified that in February, 1987, he met appellant Agustin through his
cousin, Larry Alvarez, at her residence in Paraaque. She informed him that madalas
siyang nagpapalakad sa Oman and offered him a job as an ambulance driver at the
Royal Hospital in Oman with a monthly salary of about $600.00 to $700.00.16
On March 10, 1987, Alvarez gave an initial amount of P3,000.00 as processing fee to
Agustin at the latters residence. In the same month, he gave another P3,000.00, this
time in the office of the placement agency. Agustin assured him that he could leave for
abroad before the end of 1987. He returned several times to the placement agencys
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
for Agustin about eight times, but he could no longer find her.17
Only herein appellant Agustin testified for the defense. She asserted that Dan and Loma
Goce were her neighbors at Tambo,
_______________

14 Ibid., id., 3-5, 11-12.
15 Ibid., id., 5-9.
16 Ibid., June 7, 1993, 2-5.
17 Ibid., id., 4-10.
787

VOL. 247, AUGUST 29, 1995
787
People vs. Goce
Paraaque and that they were licensed recruiters and owners of the Clover Placement
Agency. Previously, the Goce couple was able to send her son, Reynaldo Agustin, to
Saudi Arabia. Agustin met the aforementioned complainants through Lorenzo Alvarez
who requested her to introduce them to the Goce couple, to which request she
acceded.18
Denying any participation in the illegal recruitment and maintaining that the
recruitment was perpetrated only by the Goce couple, Agustin denied any knowledge of
the receipts presented by the prosecution. She insisted that the complainants included
her in the complaint thinking that this would compel her to reveal the whereabouts of
the Goce 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
1987.19
Although she admitted having given P500.00 each to Rogelio Salado and Alvarez, she
explained that it was entirely for different reasons. Salado had supposedly asked for a
loan, while Alvarez needed money because he was sick at that time.20
On November 19, 1993, the trial court rendered judgment finding herein appellant
guilty as a principal in the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale, and sentencing her
to serve the penalty of life imprisonment, as well as to pay a fine of P100,000.00.21
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
recruitment and placement under Article 13(b) in relation to Article 34 of the Labor
Code; 2) there is no proof of conspiracy to commit illegal recruitment among appellant
and the Goce spouses; and (3) there is no proof that appellant offered or promised
overseas employment to the complainants.22 These three arguments being
interrelated, they will be discussed together.
______________

18 Ibid., June 30, 2-3.
19 Ibid., id., 5.
20 Ibid., id., 6-7.
21 Penned by Presiding Judge Cesar J. Mindaro.
22 Appellants Brief, 10; Rollo, 194.
788

788
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Goce
Herein appellant is accused of violating Articles 38 and 39 of the Labor Code. Article 38
of the Labor Code, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 2018, provides that any
recruitment activity, including the prohibited practices enumerated in Article 34 of said
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
recruitment shall be considered an offense involving economic sabotage if any of these
qualifying circumstances exist, namely, (a) when illegal recruitment is committed by a
syndicate, i.e., if it is carried out by a group of three or more persons conspiring and/or
confederating with one another; or (b) when illegal recruitment is committed in large
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
authorized to engage in any recruitment activity, as evidenced by a certification issued
by Cecilia E. Curso, Chief of the Licensing and Regulation Office of the Philippine
Overseas Employment Administration, on November 10, 1987. Said certification states
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 recruitment.24
It is appellants defensive theory that all she did was to introduce complainants to the
Goce spouses. Being a neighbor of said couple, and owing to the fact that her sons
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
complied with their request. Such an act, appellant argues, does not fall within the
meaning of referral under the Labor Code to make her liable for illegal recruitment.
Under said Code, recruitment and placement refer to any act of canvassing, enlisting,
contracting, transporting, utilizing, hir-
______________

23 Original Record, 153.
24 TSN, June 11, 1993, 8.
789

VOL. 247, AUGUST 29, 1995
789
People vs. Goce
ing 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.25 On the
other hand, referral is the act of passing along or forwarding of an applicant for
employment after an initial interview of a selected applicant for employment to a
selected employer, placement officer or bureau.26
Hence, the inevitable query is whether or not appellant Agustin merely introduced
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
recruitment. All four prosecution witnesses testified that it was Agustin whom they
initially approached regarding their plans of working overseas. It was from her that they
learned about the fees they had to pay, as well as the papers that they had to submit. It
was after they had talked to her that they met the accused spouses who owned the
placement agency.
As correctly held by the trial court, being an employee of the Goces, it was therefore
logical for appellant to introduce the applicants to said spouses, they being the owners
of the agency. As such, appellant was actually making referrals to the agency of which
she was a part. She was therefore engaging in recruitment activity.27
Despite Agustins pretensions that she was but a neighbor of the Goce couple, the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses paint a different picture. Rogelio Salado and
Dionisio Masaya testified that appellant represented herself as the manager of the
Clover Placement Agency. Ramona Salado was offered a job as a cutter/sewer by
Agustin the first time they met, while Ernesto Alvarez remembered that when he first
met Agustin, the latter represented herself as nagpapaalis papunta sa Oman.28 In-
____________

25 Article 13(b), Labor Code.
26 Websters Third New International Dictionary, 1986 Ed., 1908.
27 Decision, 7; Original Record, 172.
28 TSN., June 7, 1993, 3.
790

790
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Goce
deed, Agustin played a pivotal role in the operations of the recruitment agency, working
together with the Goce couple.
There is illegal recruitment when one gives the impression of having the ability to send a
worker abroad.29 It is undisputed that appellant gave complainants the distinct
impression that she had the power or ability to send people abroad for work such that
the latter were convinced to give her the money she demanded in order to be so
employed.30
It cannot be denied that Agustin received from complainants various sums for purpose
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
expenses unquestionably constitutes an act of recruitment within the meaning of the
law. In fact, appellant demanded and received from complainants amounts beyond the
allowable limit of P5,000.00 under government regulations. It is true that the mere act
of a cashier in receiving money far exceeding the amount allowed by law was not
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 with her co-accused in defrauding the victims.31 That is not the case here.
Appellant further argues that there is no evidence of receipts of collections/payments
from complainants to appellant. On the contrary, xerox copies of said
receipts/vouchers were presented by the prosecution. For instance, a cash voucher
marked as Exhibit D,32 showing the receipt of P10,000.00 for placement fee and duly
signed by appellant, 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 Rogelio and Ramona Salado for processing of
______________

27 People vs. Manungas, Jr., G.R. Nos. 91552-55, March 10, 1994, 231 SCRA 1.
30 People vs. Villafuerte, G.R. Nos. 93723-27, May 6, 1994, 232 SCRA 225.
31 People vs. Gaoat, G.R. No. 97028, May 21, 1993, 222 SCRA 385.
32 Original Record, 155.
33 Ibid., 156.
791

VOL. 247, AUGUST 29, 1995
791
People vs. Goce
documents for Oman. Still another receipt dated March 10, 1987 and presented in
evidence as Exhibit F, shows that appellant received from Ernesto Alvarez P2,000.00 for
processing of documents for Oman.34
Apparently, the original copies of said receipts/vouchers were lost, hence only xerox
copies thereof were presented and which, under the circumstances, were admissible in
evidence. When the original writing has been lost or destroyed or cannot be produced
in court, upon proof of its execution and loss or destruction, or unavailability, its
contents may be proved by a copy or a recital of its contents in some authentic
document, or by the recollection of witnesses.35
Even assuming arguendo that the xerox copies presented by the prosecution as
secondary evidence are not allowable in court, still the absence thereof does not
warrant the acquittal of appellant. In People vs. Comia,36 where this particular issue
was involved, the Court held that the complainants failure to ask for receipts for the
fees they paid to the accused therein, as well as their consequent failure to present
receipts before the trial court as proof of the said payments, is not fatal to their case.
The complainants duly proved by their respective testimonies that said accused was
involved in the entire recruitment process. Their testimonies in this regard, being clear
and positive, were declared sufficient to establish that factum probandum.
Indeed, the trial court was justified and correct in accepting the version of the
prosecution witnesses, their statements being positive and affirmative in nature. This is
more worthy of credit than the mere uncorroborated and self-serving denials of
appellant. The lame defense consisting of such bare denials by appellant cannot
overcome the evidence presented by the prosecution proving her guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.37
The presence of documentary evidence notwithstanding, this case essentially involves
the credibility of witnesses which is best left to the judgment of the trial court, in the
absence of abuse of
_______________

34 Ibid., 157.
35 Section 4, Rule 130, Rules of Court.
36 G.R. No. 109761, September 1, 1994, 236 SCRA 185.
37 People vs. Resuma, G.R. Nos. 106640-42, June 15, 1994.
792

792
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Goce
discretion therein. The findings of fact 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.38 Generally, the findings of fact of the
trial court on the matter of credibility of witnesses will not be disturbed on appeal.39
In a last-ditch effort to exculpate herself from conviction, appellant argues that there is
no proof of conspiracy between her and the Goce couple as to make her liable for illegal
recruitment. We do not agree. The evidence presented by the prosecution clearly
establish that appellant confabulated with the Goces in their plan to deceive the
complainants. Although said accused couple have not been tried and convicted,
nonetheless there is sufficient basis for appellants conviction as discussed above.
In People vs. Sendon,40 we held that the non-prosecution of another suspect therein
provided no ground for the appellant concerned to fault the decision of the trial court
convicting her. The prosecution of other persons, equally or more culpable than herein
appellant, may come later after their true identities and addresses shall have been
ascertained and said malefactors duly taken into custody. We see no reason why the
same doctrinal rule and course of procedure should not apply in this case.
WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment of the court a quo is hereby AFFIRMED in toto,
with costs against accused-appellant Nelly D. Agustin.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa (C.J., Chairman), Puno, Mendoza and Francisco, JJ., concur.
Judgment affirmed in toto.
Notes.A person who, for a consideration, promises job placement abroad to another
when he is neither duly licensed nor
______________

38 People vs. Jumao-as, G.R. No. 101334, February 14, 1994, 230 SCRA 70.
39 People vs. Yap, G.R. No. 103517, February 9, 1994, 229 SCRA 787.
40 G.R. Nos. 101579-89, December 15, 1993, 228 SCRA 489.
793

VOL. 247, AUGUST 31, 1995
793
People vs. Ronquillo
authorized to engage in recruitment agency is criminally liable for illegal recruitment.
(People vs. Alforte, 219 SCRA 458 [1993])
Not all acts which constitute estafa necessarily establish illegal recruitment, for estafa is
wider in scope and covers deceits whether or not related to recruitment activities.
(People vs. Turda, 233 SCRA 702 [1994])
People vs. Goce, 247 SCRA 780, G.R. No. 113161 August 29, 1995