People vs. Yabut, 316 SCRA 237, G.R. Nos.

115719-26 October 5, 1999

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

APPEAL from a decision of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Br. 159 convicting appellant
Fernando Cortez y Vega of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale, imposing upon him the penalty
of life imprisonment, and ordering him to pay a fine of P100,000.00 and to indemnify private
complainants.

FACTS

Irene was charged for the crime of estafa and illegal recruitment.

It was alleged that Madrid, a former policeman, together with his live in partner and co-accused Irene met
the Ilar, private complainant, in his apartelle. On the said meeting, Ilar handed over to Madrid and Irene
the initial down payment of Php 100,000.00 for the processing of papers of papers and visa for Japan
where he was to work as a roomboy in a hotel. Appellant assured Ilar not to worry since he would be able
to leave for Japan otherwise his money would be refunded. Additional payments for a total of Php
15,000.00 was separately made to be used allegedly fpr the expenses to be incurred for Ilar’s training.
Finally, Ilar was made to sign a one (1) year contract but he was not furnished a copy of the same. Ilar
was scheduled to leave for Japan on October 8, 1993 but this date was postponed allegedly due to
problems.

Same case happened to Reynaldo Claudio. He paid a total of Php 70,000.00 in favor of Madrid and Irene
to cover for the processing of the visa, plane ticket expenses, medical tests and seminar costs for him and
his two brothers, in exchange for the employment as roomboy in a hotel in Japan. He was made to sign a
contract also but was not furnished the copy of the same. He was scheduled to depart five (5) times but
not one of those materialized.

Same scenario happened to Diana, Antonio Bernardo, Fely Casannova.

For Irene’s defense, she insisted that Yabut was not engaged in the recruitment of works for overseas
employment but only in the processing of visas. Moreover, he claimed that he was not present at any
given time when large sums of money were received by Yabut and that he never gave any assurances to
complainants regarding their departure to Japan. If at all, appellant argues, the sole person guilty of illegal
recruitment in large scale should be Yabut since she was the only one who signed the receipts for the
amounts received from the complainants. He contends that the mere fact that he is “romantically linked”
with Yabut does not mean he acted in conspiracy with her.

The RTC acquitted Irene for the crime of estafa but convicted him for the crime of illegal recruitment.

Hence, this petition.

ISSUE

1. Whether or not Irene Yabut could be convicted of illegal recruitment in large scale despite his
acquittal of the crime of estafa?
 2. If so, did the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of illegal recruitment in
large scale insofar as appellant is concerned?

RULING

1. Yes

In this jurisdiction, it is settled that a person who commits illegal recruitment may be charged and
convicted separately of illegal recruitment under the Labor Code and estafa under par. 2 (a) of
Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code.10 The offense of illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum
where the crimi nal intent of the accused is not necessary for conviction, while estafa is malum in
se where the criminal intent of the accused is crucial for conviction.11 Conviction for offenses
under the Labor Code does not bar conviction for offenses punishable by other laws.12
Conversely, conviction for estafa under par. 2 (a) of Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code does not
bar a conviction for illegal recruitment under the Labor Code. It follows that one’s acquittal of the
crime of estafa will not necessarily result in his acquittal of the crime of illegal recruitment in
large scale, and vice versa.

2. Yes,

Article 13, par. (b) of the Labor Code enumerates the acts which constitute recruitment
and placement as follows—

“(b) ‘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.”

The acts of appellant consisting of his promises, offers and assurances of employment to
complainants fall squarely within the ambit of recruitment and placement as defined above. The
fact that he did not issue the receipts for amounts received from complainants has no bearing on
his culpability for the complainants have shown through their respective testimonies and
affidavits that appellant was involved in the prohibited recruitment.13 It is immaterial that
appellant ingeniously stated to one of the complainants that he (appellant) was a member of the
PNP and a government employee, hence could not sign the receipts.

Article 38 of the Labor Code renders illegal all recruitment activities without the
necessary license or authority from the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration.
Art. 38 of the Labor Code provides—
 “Article 38. Illegal Recruitment.—(a) Any recruitment activities, including the prohibited
practices enumerated under Article 34 of this Code, to be undertaken by non-licensees or
non-holders of authority shall be deemed illegal and punishable under Article 39 of this
Code. The Ministry of Labor and Employment (now Department of Labor and
Employment) or any law enforcement officer may initiate complaints under this Article.

(b) Illegal Recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall be

Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three

Thus, if the illegal recruitment is committed by a syndicate or in large scale, the Labor Code
considers it an offense involving economic sabotage and imposes a stiffer penalty therefor in
accordance with Article 39 of the Labor Code.

The elements of illegal recruitment in large scale are: “(1) the accused undertakes any recruitment
activity defined under Art. 13, par. (b), or any prohibited practice enumerated under Art. 34 of the
Labor Code; (2) he does not have a license or authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and
placement of workers; and, (3) he commits the same against three (3) or more persons,
individually or as a group.

Indisputably, all three (3) elements exist in the case at bar. First, the complaining witnesses have
satisfactorily established that appellant had actively promised them employment, gave assurance
of their placement overseas, and with his co-accused received certain sums as fees therefor.
Second, the Licensing Division of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration issued a
Certification dated March 1, 1993 that JAWOH GENERAL MERCHANDISING16 represented
by Irene Yabut and Fernando Cortez are neither licensed nor authorized by the POEA to recruit
workers for overseas employment.17 In fact, the defense even entered into a stipulation during
trial that appellant is not authorized by the POEA to recruit overseas workers.18 Third, appellant
and coaccused undertook recruitment of not less than eight (8) workers—complainants herein,
who were recruited individually on different occasions. For purposes of illegal recruitment,
however, the law makes no distinction whether the workers were recruited as a group or
individually.

There is no showing that any of the complainants had illmotive to testify falsely against appellant.
And it is generally observed that it is against human nature and experience for strangers to
conspire and accuse another stranger of a most serious crime just to mollify their hurt feelings.19
 Moreover, we have no reason to discount the trial court’s appreciation of the complainants’
truthfulness, honesty and candor.

FINAL DISPOSITION BY THE COURT

Appealed decision affirmed.