FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 120353. February 12, 1998.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FLOR N.

LAUREL, accused-appellant.

The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.

Public Attorney's Office for accused-appellant.

SYNOPSIS

Accused-appellant Laurel promised employment abroad for a fee to four

(4) complaining witnesses. However, after receiving money from them, Laurel
reneged on her promises and went into hiding. Verification with the POEA
revealed that Laurel was neither licensed nor authorized to recruit workers for
overseas employment. Consequently, she was haled to court and charged with
large scale illegal recruitment. When called to the witness stand, Laurel
presented an affidavit of desistance and receipts signed by private
complainants acknowledging payment by her of the amounts taken from them
i n "full settlement" of her obligation. And on the basis of these documents,
Laurel moved to dismiss the case. But the court a quo denied her motion on the RTC
ground that the elements of large scale illegal recruitment were established ruling
beyond reasonable doubt; that the affidavit of desistance and the receipts for
payments made were prepared and signed after the prosecution had rested its
case. Consequently, the trial judge convicted Laurel. Hence, this appeal.

Illegal recruitment is committed in large scale if done against three or

more persons individually or as a group. The number of offenders is not a factor
in the determination of its commission. The affidavit of desistance may be
given due course even if executed only on appeal but only when special
circumstances exist engendering doubt on the criminal liability of the accused.
Here, the complainants merely allege that they made a mistake and
"misunderstood the circumstances," without further elaboration. It appears that
the affidavits of retraction were executed only because accused-appellant
returned the money taken from them. Thus, the solemn testimonies given by
private complainants shall not be disregarded for it is a matter of public
interest that every crime must be prosecuted and the author thereof penalized.

SYLLABUS

1. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT IN LARGE

SCALE; MAY BE COMMITTED BY INDIVIDUAL. — Illegal recruitment is committed
in large scale if done against three or more persons individually or as a group.
The number of offenders, whether an individual or a syndicate, is not
considered a factor in the determination of its commission. The rule is well-
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 settled that when the language of the statute is clear, plain and free from
ambiguity, there is no room for attempted interpretation or extended court
rationalization of the law. The duty of the court is to apply it, not to interpret it.
We have affirmed time and again the conviction of an individual for large scale
illegal recruitment.
2. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; AFFIDAVIT OF DESISTANCE; PROPER
ONLY WHEN IT ENGENDERS DOUBT ON THE CRIMINAL LIABILITY OF ACCUSED;
CASE AT BAR. — Although an affidavit of desistance may be given due course
even if executed only on appeal, it may be given such credit only when special
circumstances exist engendering doubt on the criminal liability of the accused.
Otherwise, without such special circumstances, courts look with disfavor on
affidavits of retraction considering them as exceedingly unreliable. There is
absolutely nothing in the affidavits of retraction executed by private
complainants which creates doubt on the guilt of accused-appellant. The
complainants merely allege that they made a mistake and "misunderstood the
circumstances." No detail is given as to how their mistake or misapprehension
of circumstances can indicate absence of or at least cast doubt on the guilt of
accused-appellant. On the contrary, we have every reason to conclude that the
affidavits of retraction were executed by private complainants only because
accused-appellant returned the money taken from them as evidenced by the
receipts. As one complainant testified in court: "I will withdraw, if the payments
is (sic) complete, sir." Thus, given the reason for their desistance, the solemn
testimonies given by private complainants shall not be disregarded for it is a
matter of public interest that every crime must be prosecuted and the author
thereof penalized. SEDIaH

DECISION

BELLOSILLO, J : p

This is an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila
finding accused-appellant Flor N. Laurel guilty of illegal recruitment in large
scale penalized under Art. 38, par. (b), in relation to Art. 39, par. (a), of the
Labor Code. Cdpr

7 months
From 19 October 1991 to 25 May 1992 accused-appellant Flor N. Laurel
promised employment abroad for a fee to complaining witnesses Ricardo San
Felipe, Rosauro San Felipe, Juanito Cudal and Cenen Tambongco, Jr. However,
after receiving P12,000.00 from Tambongco, Jr., P11,000.00 from each of the
San Felipe brothers and P6,000.00 from Cudal, Laurel reneged on her promises
and went into hiding. Verification with the Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration (POEA) revealed that Laurel was neither licensed nor authorized
to recruit workers for overseas employment. 1 Consequently, she was haled to
court and charged with large scale illegal recruitment.
Accused Laurel did not deny the charge against her. Instead, when called
to the witness stand, she presented an affidavit of desistance by Juanito Cudal
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 as well as several receipts, Exhs. "2," "3," "4," "5" and "6," signed by the other
private complainants acknowledging payment by her of the amounts taken
from them in " full settlement" of her obligation. 2 Thus, on the basis of these
documents, she moved to dismiss the case. But the court a quo denied her
motion on the ground that the elements of large scale illegal recruitment were
established beyond reasonable doubt through the combined testimonies of the
four (4) offended parties. The court a quo noted that the affidavit of desistance
as well as the receipts for payments made were prepared and signed after the
prosecution had already rested its case. Consequently, the trial judge rendered
a decision convicting the accused Flor N. Laurel and sentenced her to life
imprisonment and to pay a fine of P100,000.00 conformably with Art. 39, par.
(a), of the Labor Code. In addition, the accused was ordered to return the
balance of what she had received from each complainant. 3 Hence, this appeal.
As in the court below, accused-appellant does not deny the charge
against her. She contends however that she should have been convicted only of
simple illegal recruitment and not of large scale illegal recruitment. accused
contention
She argues through counsel that since illegal recruitment in large scale is
defined in Art. 38, par. (b), of the Labor Code immediately following the
definition of illegal recruitment committed by a syndicate, it follows that for
illegal recruitment to be considered committed in large scale it should have
been committed by a syndicate. Hence, an individual who commits an act of
illegal recruitment even if it be against three (3) or more persons cannot be
charged with illegal recruitment in large scale. cdphil

The interpretation is completely erroneous. Article 38, par. (b), of the

Labor Code reads:
Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large
scale shall be considered an offense involving economic sabotage. . . .
Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried
o u t by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring and/or
confederating with one another in carrying out any unlawful or illegal
transaction, enterprise or scheme defined under the first paragraph
hereof.
Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if
committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group
(emphasis supplied).

The language of the law is very clear that illegal recruitment is committed
in large scale if done against three or more persons individually or as a group.
The number of offenders, whether an individual or a syndicate, is clearly not
considered a factor in the determination of its commission. The rule is well-
settled that when the language of the statute is clear, plain and free from
ambiguity, there is no room for attempted interpretation or extended court
rationalization of the law. 4 The duty of the court is to apply it, not to interpret
i t . 5 Counsel for accused-appellant was misled by the fact that illegal
recruitment in large scale is defined immediately after illegal recruitment by a
syndicate. However, the only reason therefor is that they are both considered
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 offenses involving economic sabotage as the law itself so provides. Besides, we
have affirmed time and again the conviction of an individual for large scale
illegal recruitment. 6

As regards the alleged desistance by private complaints, we rule that

although an affidavit of desistance may be given due course even if executed
only on appeal, it may be given such credit only when special circumstances
exist engendering doubt on the criminal liability of the accused. 7 Otherwise,
without such special circumstances, courts look with disfavor on affidavits of
retraction 8 considering them as exceedingly unreliable. 9
There is absolutely nothing in the affidavits of retraction executed by
private complainants which creates doubt on the guilt of accused-appellant.
The complainants merely allege that they made a mistake and "misunderstood
the circumstances." 10 However, aside from such sweeping statement as
"misunderstood the circumstances," no detail is given as to how their mistake
or misapprehension of circumstances can indicate absence of or at least cast
doubt on the guilt of accused-appellant. On the contrary, we have every reason
to conclude that the affidavits of retraction were executed by private
complainants only because accused-appellant returned the money taken from
them as evidenced by the receipts marked as Exhs. "2," "3," "4," "5" and "6." 11
As complainant Ricardo San Felipe testified in court: "I will withdraw, if the
payments is (sic) complete, sir." 12 Thus, given the reason for their desistance,
the solemn testimonies given by private complainants shall not be disregarded
for it is a matter of public interest that every crime must be prosecuted and the
author thereof penalized. 13
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila convicting
accused-appellant Flor N. Laurel of illegal recruitment in large scale penalized
under Art. 38, par. (b), in relation to Art. 39, par. (a), of the Labor Code and
sentencing her to life imprisonment is AFFIRMED. However, the portion of the
appealed decision directing accused-appellant to pay the balance of what she
had received from each of private complainants is DELETED in view of the full
settlement of her civil liability as acknowledged by private complainants
themselves. cdtai

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., Vitug, Panganiban and Quisumbing, JJ ., concur.

Footnotes

1. Certification dated 30 July 1992 by the POEA (Exh. "A"), Original Records, p.
82.

2. Envelope of Exhibits.
3. Decision dated 7 March 1995 penned by Judge Romulo A. Lopez, RTC-Manila,
Br. 34; Rollo , pp. 15-23.

4. Basbacio v. Office of the Secretary, Department of Justice, G.R. No. 109445,

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 7 November 1994, 238 SCRA 5, 10; Libanan v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
112386, 14 June 1994, 233 SCRA 163, 167; Victoria v. COMELEC , G.R. No.
109005, 10 January 1994, 229 SCRA 269, 273.

5. Casela v. Court of Appeals, No. L-26754, 16 October 1970, 35 SCRA 279;

Quijano v. Development Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. L-26419, 16
October 1970, 35 SCRA 270; Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Limpan
Investment Corporation, G.R. No. L-28571, 31 July 1970, 34 SCRA 148;
Hidalgo v. Hidalgo , G.R. No. L-25326, 29 May 1970, 33 SCRA 105.
6. People v. Melgar , G.R. No. 118815, 18 August 1997; People v. Villas, G.R. No.
112180, 15 August 1997; People v. Pantaleon , G.R. No. 108107, 19 June
1997; People v. Ferrer , G.R. No. 121907, 27 May 1997; People v. Tan Tiong
Meng, G.R. Nos. 120835-40, 10 April 1997; People v. Mañozca , G.R. No.
109779, 13 March 1997; People v. de Leon , G.R. No. 110391, 7 February
1997; People v. Gabres , G.R. Nos. 118950-54, 6 February 1997; People v.
Bautista, G.R. No. 113547, 9 February 1995, 241 SCRA 216.
7. See People v. Pimentel, G.R. No. L-38423, 25 November 1982, 118 SCRA
695; Gomez v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 63202, 9 April 1985,
135 SCRA 620; Alonzo v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 68624, 30
June 1987, 151 SCRA 552; Barqueros v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 77571, 27
November 1987, 155 SCRA 719.
8. People v. Joya , G.R. No. 790790, 1 October 1993, 227 SCRA 9, 26-27.
9. People v. De Leon , G.R. No. 110558, 3 July 1995, 245 SCRA 538, 546; People
v. Liwag, G.R. No. 89112, 3 August 1993, 225 SCRA 46, 54; Castillo v.
Calanog, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-90-447, 12 July 1991, 199 SCRA 75, 81-82; Reano v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 80992, 21 September 1988, 165 SCRA 525, 530;
People v. Galicia , G.R. No. L-39235, 25 July 1983, 123 SCRA 550, 556; People
v. Pasilan, G.R. No. L-18770, 30 July 1965, 14 SCRA 694, 701.
10. See "Affidavit of Desistance" by Juanito Cudal, Original Records, p. 109, and
the "Pinagsamang Sinumpaang Salaysay" by Ricardo San Felipe, Rosauro
San Felipe and Cenen Tambongco, Jr., Rollo , p. 93.

11. See Note 2.

12. TSN, 12 December 1994, pp. 2-3.

13. Re: Report on the Judicial Audit and Physical Inventory of the Record of
Cases in RTC-Br. 43, Roxas, Mindoro Occidental, A.M. No. 93-91249-RTC, 22
September 1994, 236 SCRA 631, 639-640, citing U.S. v. Leaño, 6 Phil. 368
(1906) and Ching v. Gerona , A.M. No. RTJ-88-252, 24 November 1988, En
Banc Minute Resolution.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com