Marajas vs. People

A non-licensee or non-holder of authority commits illegal recruitment whenever, through any act of referring, promising, or providing facilitative services, she gives a prospective overseas worker the distinct impression that she has the power or ability to send the worker abroad for employment purposes, regardless of whether an express promise of employment was made. The same set of acts may also sustain a conviction for trafficking in persons under Section 5(e) of R.A. No. 9208 where the accused facilitates the victim's departure using fraudulent travel documents.

Petitioner Aquilina M. Marajas and her co-accused Myrna Melgarejo were charged before the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 111, with illegal recruitment under Section 6 of R.A. No. 8042 (the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995), as amended by R.A. No. 10022. Separately, petitioner, Melgarejo, and co-accused Raymond Marquez Pilac were charged with violation of Section 5(e) of R.A. No. 9208 (the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003). The charges arose from acts allegedly committed on May 31, 2012, involving private complainant Nieves Tag-at, who sought overseas employment as a domestic helper in Beijing, China. Melgarejo owned Myron Travel Consultancy, the agency where petitioner and the private complainant first met.

Sometime in May 2012, private complainant Nieves Tag-at went to Myron Travel Agency, owned by Myrna Melgarejo, to seek employment abroad as a domestic helper. Melgarejo told Tag-at to wait for petitioner Aquilina M. Marajas. When petitioner arrived, Tag-at introduced herself and expressed her desire to seek employment abroad. Petitioner replied that the agency would arrange for a sponsor in Beijing, China who would help Tag-at travel there, where she would be engaged as a domestic helper.

On May 31, 2012, Tag-at returned to Myron Travel Agency and met petitioner again. Petitioner handed her a Letter of Invitation and Support dated May 15, 2012, purportedly signed by a certain Johnelyn Daquigan, together with copies of Daquigan's passport and certificate of live birth. That same afternoon, petitioner accompanied Tag-at to NAIA Terminal 3 after telling her she would be departing for Beijing later that day. Petitioner paid Tag-at's travel tax, then instructed her to wait for a text message and to fall in line at the immigration counter being manned by a fat and bald person, later identified as co-accused Raymond Marquez Pilac.

At the airport, Agents Follosco, Sarno, and Geli of the Inter-Agency Council Against Trafficking (IACAT) were roaming the departure area and noticed petitioner and Tag-at. They overheard petitioner's instructions to Tag-at and observed the two women proceed directly to the immigration departure area after check-in, where petitioner pointed to the counter manned by Pilac. When Tag-at reached the counter, Pilac asked where she was going; she answered "Beijing, sir." When asked if she had money, she showed ₱1,000. Pilac then stamped her passport, clearing her for departure.

The IACAT agents intervened and ordered Tag-at to proceed to the Bureau of Immigration Travel Control and Enforcement Unit for secondary inspection. Immigration Officer Rhona Ruth Lagman checked Tag-at's passport, return ticket, boarding pass, Letter of Invitation and Support, and Daquigan's birth certificate. After interviewing Tag-at, IO Lagman offloaded her because she could not establish her relationship with Daquigan, her alleged sponsor. An Affidavit of Offloading was executed. Petitioner left as soon as Tag-at was subjected to secondary inspection.

Tag-at was brought to the IACAT Office, where Supervising NBI Agent Gennady A. Chiong interviewed her. Tag-at admitted that her real purpose for traveling to Beijing was employment and disclosed that petitioner had told her she could go to Beijing initially as a tourist and later be given a job there. She also admitted that the Letter of Invitation and Support and Daquigan's birth certificate were both fake. Agent Geli eventually located petitioner and invited her to the IACAT Office for questioning, after which she was arrested. A POEA Certification dated January 15, 2014 confirmed that petitioner was not licensed or authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment.

For the defense, petitioner denied the charges and claimed that she was herself an applicant at Myron Travel Agency. She testified that on May 31, 2012, Tag-at asked her to accompany her to the airport, which she agreed to in order to ascertain the legitimacy of the travel agency. Petitioner stated she merely sat on a bench while Tag-at lined up at the travel tax and check-in counters, denied knowledge of the offloading, and claimed she was approached by an NBI agent while seated and brought to the IACAT Office where she was questioned, arrested, and detained.

• Absence of Recruitment Activity: Petitioner argued that the prosecution failed to prove the first element of illegal recruitment because she did not engage or undertake any activity constituting recruitment or placement, nor did she commit any of the prohibited practices under Article 34 of the Labor Code. She asserted that she never impressed upon Tag-at that she had the power or authority to send workers abroad for employment.
• Impeachment of Private Complainant's Affidavit: Petitioner contended that Tag-at testified she was forced to make the narration in her May 31, 2012 Affidavit and denied the truthfulness of her own statements therein, specifically that she was defrauded and promised employment in Beijing by petitioner. Petitioner claimed that the statement about someone hiring Tag-at in Beijing could merely be a general statement of work surplusage.
• Lack of Evidence for Trafficking: Petitioner maintained that her conviction for trafficking in persons under Section 5(e) of R.A. No. 9208 was erroneous because the allegations against her were bare and uncorroborated. She insisted she never assisted Tag-at in going out of the country and never provided fraudulent travel documents to her.

• Illegal Recruitment: Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in finding petitioner guilty of Illegal Recruitment under Section 6 of R.A. No. 8042, as amended by R.A. No. 10022.
• Trafficking in Persons: Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in finding petitioner guilty of Trafficking in Persons under Section 5(e) of R.A. No. 9208.

• Illegal Recruitment: No. The Court found no reversible error in the CA's affirmance of petitioner's conviction, the prosecution having established both elements of illegal recruitment: petitioner undertook recruitment activities by giving Tag-at the distinct impression that she had the power to send her abroad for employment, and petitioner lacked the requisite POEA license or authority.
• Trafficking in Persons: No. The Court sustained the CA's ruling that petitioner was guilty under Section 5(e) of R.A. No. 9208, the prosecution having proven that petitioner facilitated and assisted Tag-at's attempted departure through NAIA Terminal 3 after providing her with fraudulent travel documents for the purpose of employment in Beijing, China.

• Illegal Recruitment: The essential elements of illegal recruitment are: (1) the offender undertakes any of the activities within the meaning of "recruitment and placement" under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code or any of the prohibited practices under Article 34 (now Section 6 of R.A. No. 8042); and (2) the offender has no valid license or authority to engage in recruitment and placement. The second element was undisputed, as the POEA Certification confirmed petitioner was not licensed. As to the first element, while Tag-at testified that petitioner did not expressly promise her employment in Beijing, petitioner told her there would be work for her upon arrival, gave her a fraudulent Letter of Invitation and Support and a copy of Daquigan's birth certificate (neither of which reflected any genuine relationship between Tag-at and Daquigan), and personally accompanied Tag-at to the airport on her supposed departure day. These acts demonstrated that petitioner gave Tag-at the distinct impression that she had the power or ability to send her abroad for employment purposes. Petitioner's denial was an inherently weak defense that could not prevail over the positive and credible identification by Tag-at, especially given the absence of any ill motive attributed to the prosecution witnesses. The lone testimony of petitioner was self-serving and unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence.

• Trafficking in Persons: Section 5(e) of R.A. No. 9208 prohibits facilitating, assisting, or helping in the exit and entry of persons at international and local airports and seaports who are in possession of unissued, tampered, or fraudulent travel documents for the purpose of promoting trafficking in persons. The courts a quo correctly found, through the consistent, direct, and unequivocal testimony of Tag-at and corroborating witnesses, that petitioner facilitated and assisted Tag-at's foiled attempt to depart through NAIA Terminal 3 after providing her with fraudulent travel documents for the purpose of employment in Beijing. Agent Follosco and his co-agents corroborated Tag-at's account by testifying that they overheard petitioner giving instructions before Tag-at approached the immigration counter. IO Lagman confirmed that the documents Tag-at carried were spurious, fake, and tampered because they did not show any relationship between Tag-at and Daquigan, her supposed sponsor. No ill motive was shown on the part of the prosecution witnesses to cast doubt on the veracity of their testimonies. The Court accorded due deference to the trial court's factual findings, as the trial court was in the best position to assess witness credibility, and found no indication that the lower courts overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied the facts.

• Elements of Illegal Recruitment — To hold a person liable for illegal recruitment under Section 6 of R.A. No. 8042, as amended, two elements must concur: (1) the offender undertakes any of the activities within the meaning of "recruitment and placement" under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code, or any of the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code (now Section 6 of R.A. No. 8042); and (2) the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers. For illegal recruitment in large scale, a third element is added: that the offender commits any of the acts of recruitment and placement against three or more persons, individually or as a group. The Court applied this test and found both elements present.

• Impression of Authority to Deploy Workers — Illegal recruitment is committed whenever a person who, without authority from the government, gives the impression that he or she has the power to send workers overseas for employment purposes. The Court relied on Gaspar vs. People to hold that petitioner's acts — telling Tag-at there would be work in Beijing, providing fraudulent sponsorship documents, and accompanying her to the airport — were sufficient to create the impression that petitioner had the power to send Tag-at abroad for employment, even without an express promise of employment.

• Denial as a Weak Defense — Denial is an inherently weak defense which cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimony of a prosecution witness that the accused committed the crime. A categorical testimony with the ring of truth generally prevails over a mere denial and alibi. The Court applied this principle to reject petitioner's self-serving and unsubstantiated denial.

• Deference to Trial Court's Credibility Assessment — The trial court is in the best position to assess and determine the credibility of witnesses, and due deference should be accorded to its factual findings, absent any indication that it overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied the facts and circumstances of the case. The Court applied this doctrine to sustain the lower courts' factual findings.

• "Illegal recruitment is committed whenever a person who, without authority from the government, gives the impression that he or she has the power to send workers overseas for employment purposes." — This passage articulates the controlling standard for the first element of illegal recruitment, emphasizing that the offense turns on the impression created in the prospective worker's mind rather than on an express promise of employment.

• "It must be noted that while private complainant mentioned in her testimony that petitioner did not promise her employment in Beijing, petitioner, nevertheless, told her that there would be work for her upon arrival in Beijing. This shows that petitioner gave private complainant the distinct impression that she had the power or ability to send her abroad for employment." — This passage applies the impression-of-authority standard to the specific facts, demonstrating that the absence of an express promise does not negate illegal recruitment where other acts create the requisite impression.

• "The Court has oft pronounced that denial is an inherently weak defense which cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimony of the prosecution witness that the accused committed the crime." — This passage states the canonical formulation of the doctrine on the weakness of denial as a defense, frequently cited in Philippine criminal jurisprudence.

• Gaspar vs. People, G.R. No. 234839, March 13, 2019 (Resolution) — Followed as controlling authority for the proposition that a non-licensee or non-holder of authority commits illegal recruitment by undertaking any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers, including referring, contract services, promising, or advertising for employment abroad, and that the offense is committed whenever a person without government authority gives the impression of having the power to send workers overseas.

• People vs. Hapa, G.R. No. 233694, January 29, 2020 (Resolution) — Followed for the doctrine that denial is an inherently weak defense that cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimony of prosecution witnesses.

• People vs. De Guzman, G.R. No. 212527, September 20, 2017 (Resolution) — Cited for the enumeration of the elements of illegal recruitment under Section 6 of R.A. No. 8042.

• Peralta vs. People, 817 Phil. 554 (2017), citing People vs. Matibag, 757 Phil. 286 (2015) — Cited for the principle that the trial court is in the best position to assess witness credibility and that due deference should be accorded to its factual findings absent any indication of overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied facts.

• Section 6, R.A. No. 8042 (Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995), as amended by R.A. No. 10022 — Defines illegal recruitment as any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers, including 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. Applied to hold petitioner liable for illegal recruitment, as she undertook recruitment activities without a POEA license.

• Section 7, R.A. No. 8042, as amended by R.A. No. 10022 — Prescribes the penalty for illegal recruitment: imprisonment of not less than twelve years and one day but not more than twenty years, and a fine of not less than ₱1,000,000 nor more than ₱2,000,000. Applied to impose on petitioner the indeterminate penalty of twelve years and one day to twenty years and a fine of ₱1,000,000.

• Section 3(a), R.A. No. 9208 (Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003) — Defines "Trafficking in Persons" as the recruitment, transportation, transfer, or harboring of persons by means of threat, force, coercion, fraud, deception, abuse of power, or taking advantage of vulnerability for the purpose of exploitation. Cited to provide the definitional framework for trafficking, though petitioner was charged under Section 5(e).

• Section 5(e), R.A. No. 9208 — Prohibits facilitating, assisting, or helping in the exit and entry of persons at international and local airports, territorial boundaries, and seaports who are in possession of unissued, tampered, or fraudulent travel documents for the purpose of promoting trafficking in persons. Applied to hold petitioner liable for facilitating Tag-at's attempted departure using fraudulent travel documents.

• Section 10(b), R.A. No. 9208 — Prescribes the penalty for acts enumerated in Section 5: imprisonment of fifteen years and a fine of not less than ₱500,000 but not more than ₱1,000,000. Applied to impose on petitioner fifteen years imprisonment and a fine of ₱500,000.

• Article 13(b) and Article 34, Labor Code (P.D. No. 442), as amended — Define "recruitment and placement" and enumerate prohibited practices, respectively. Referenced in the elements test for illegal recruitment under Section 6 of R.A. No. 8042.

Hernando (Acting Chairperson), Inting, and J. Lopez, JJ., concurred. Leonen, J., was on official leave.