People of the Philippines vs. Abella

Illegal recruitment in large scale is established when (a) the offender has no valid license or authority to recruit workers for overseas employment, (b) the offender undertakes recruitment activities as defined under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code or any prohibited practice under Article 34 or Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042, and (c) the offense is committed against three or more persons, individually or as a group. Testimonial evidence alone is sufficient to prove recruitment activities and receipt of placement fees, and the non-presentation of the original of a handwritten agreement is not fatal when the complainant's testimony independently establishes the recruitment.

Fe Abella y Buhain operated under the business name Rofema Business Consultancy (RBC), a travel agency registered with the Department of Trade and Industry, located at 1807 Nakpil St., Barangay 697, Malate, Manila. Neither Abella nor RBC was licensed by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) to recruit workers for overseas employment. The case involves the recruitment of multiple individuals for promised employment as laundrywomen, laundrymen, and waiters in Istanbul, Turkey and Dubai, with placement fees collected but no deployment effected. Republic Act No. 8042, the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, broadened the concept of illegal recruitment under the Labor Code and provided stiffer penalties, particularly where the offense constitutes economic sabotage.

The Information charged Fe Abella y Buhain with illegal recruitment in large scale, alleging that between October 8, 2003 and March 18, 2004, in Manila, Abella, conspiring with an unidentified person and representing herself to have the capacity to contract, enlist, and transport Filipino workers for employment abroad, recruited and promised employment to thirteen named individuals as laundrywomen, laundrymen, and waiter in Istanbul, Turkey and Dubai, without first securing the required license or authority from the Department of Labor and Employment, and charged or accepted amounts in excess of those prescribed by Memorandum Order No. 5, Series of 1985, and failed to deploy the complainants or reimburse their expenses despite demands. Upon arraignment, Abella pleaded not guilty.

The prosecution presented five witnesses. Imelda Miguel testified that she learned of Abella through Zeny Agpalza and Lina Mateo, who informed her that Abella could help her get work abroad. Miguel met Abella at the latter's office bearing the name Rofema Business Consultancy (RBC) at 1807 Nakpil St., Malate, Manila. During their meeting, Abella offered Miguel work as a laundrywoman in Istanbul, Turkey, with a salary of $600.00 to $700.00, on condition that Miguel undergo training in laundry service and pay a placement fee of P100,000.00. Miguel was able to pay only P30,000.00 on November 17, 2003, for which Abella issued a cash voucher signed in Miguel's presence. Miguel underwent five days of training at the Executive Technical Consultants Trade Test and Training Center, valued at P5,000.00 and sponsored by Abella, after which she received a certification. Abella discussed the details of the job abroad and provided Miguel with a photocopy of a handwritten agreement bearing Abella's signature, together with a certificate evidencing Abella's registration of the business name RBC. Miguel was never deployed and never recovered her P30,000.00.

Grace Marcelino came to know Abella through Rosette Danao, who first recruited Marcelino to work as a domestic helper in Saipan but later turned over her application to Agpalza, who handled applications for Turkey. Danao and Agpalza both referred to Abella as their Manager. Marcelino paid a total of P50,000.00 in four installments—P10,000.00 on November 24, 2003; P15,000.00 on December 3, 2003; P10,000.00 on December 23, 2003; and P15,000.00 on January 15, 2004—all personally received by Abella either at the RBC office or at McDonald's, Ermita, and evidenced by vouchers signed by Abella. Nothing came of Marcelino's application, and the amounts she paid were not returned.

Fernando Callang was recruited by Danao, Abella's agent, who brought him to the RBC office. There, Abella told Callang of a job order for laundryman in Istanbul, Turkey, with a monthly salary of $600.00 and a placement fee of P65,000.00. Callang paid Abella P10,000.00 on November 17, 2003; P10,000.00 on December 23, 2003; and P20,000.00 on January 9, 2004, for a total of P40,000.00, evidenced by vouchers signed by Abella in Callang's presence. The first two payments were made at the RBC office and the last at McDonald's, Ermita. Callang was not deployed and could not recover the amounts he paid.

Mildred Versoza, an employee at the Licensing Division of the POEA, testified that upon instruction of OIC Yolanda Paragua, she verified from the POEA database and records whether Abella or RBC had a license to recruit workers for employment abroad and found that they did not. Versoza prepared a Certification to that effect, which OIC Paragua signed in her presence. Versoza personally appeared before the RTC to authenticate the Certification pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum. SPO1 Jaime Bunag, the assigned investigator, affirmed that he took down the private complainants' sworn statements and prepared Abella's Booking Sheet, Arrest Report, and letter of referral for inquest dated March 19, 2004.

Before Abella took the witness stand, her counsel moved that eight of the original thirteen private complainants be provisionally dropped for repeated failure to appear and testify. Without objection from the prosecution, the RTC granted the motion, leaving Miguel, Marcelino, and Callang as the remaining private complainants. Abella testified for the defense, anchoring her case on denial. She claimed to have been working as a cashier at RBC since November 11, 2004, whose main duty was to receive payments from clients and issue cash vouchers. Abella asserted that she did not personally meet the clients or directly receive money from them, as payments were coursed through Agpalza, an RBC agent, who would then turn over the payments to Abella for voucher issuance, after which Abella would hand the payments to RBC owner Elizabeth Reyes. Abella denied promising the private complainants employment abroad and disputed the circumstances of her arrest, maintaining that she voluntarily went with Agpalza to the police headquarters. The RTC found Abella guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal recruitment in large scale; the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification increasing the fine from P100,000.00 to P500,000.00.

• First Element Wanting: Abella contended that the prosecution failed to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt because the first element of illegal recruitment in large scale—namely, that the accused undertook a recruitment activity under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code or any prohibited practice under Article 34—was not established.
• Not the Recruiter: Abella argued that it was not she who enticed the private complainants to apply for work overseas, as the complainants themselves testified that they learned about the job opportunities not from Abella but from Agpalza, Mateo, and Danao, who were so persuasive that the complainants travelled from their provinces to Manila just to meet Abella.
• Flight as Inconsistent with Guilt: Abella maintained that if it were true that she received money from the private complainants, she would have already fled after getting their money so as to evade arrest.
• Best Evidence Rule: Abella challenged the probative value of the handwritten agreement presented by the prosecution on the ground that it was a mere photocopy, arguing that since the contents of the agreement were in issue, the best evidence rule applied and the original should have been presented.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: Whether the prosecution proved Abella's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for illegal recruitment in large scale, specifically whether the first element—that the accused undertook a recruitment activity under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code or any prohibited practice under Article 34—was established.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: Yes. All three elements of illegal recruitment in large scale were proven: Abella lacked a valid POEA license, she engaged in recruitment activities by promising overseas employment for placement fees, and she committed the offense against three or more persons. The appeal was denied and the CA Decision affirmed in toto.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: The three elements of illegal recruitment in large scale must concur: (a) the offender has no valid license or authority to engage in recruitment and placement of workers; (b) the offender undertakes any activity within the meaning of "recruitment and placement" under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code or any prohibited practice under Article 34 (now Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042); and (c) the offense is committed against three or more persons, individually or as a group. First, it was undisputed that neither Abella nor RBC was licensed as a recruitment agency, as established by the POEA Certification dated May 17, 2005 signed by OIC Paragua and authenticated by Versoza. The Certification is a public document issued by a public officer in the performance of official duty, hence prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein under Section 23, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, and entitled to a presumption of regularity. Abella did not negate the Certification's contents. Second, both the RTC and the Court of Appeals found that Abella engaged in recruitment activities, crediting the consistent testimonies of Miguel, Marcelino, and Callang that at separate instances, Agpalza, Mateo, and/or Danao brought them to the RBC office, introduced them to Abella, and it was Abella herself who offered and promised them jobs in Istanbul, Turkey in consideration of placement fees. Miguel's testimony was further supported by a handwritten agreement signed by Abella detailing the terms of overseas employment. Abella's challenge to the photocopy of the agreement under the best evidence rule was rejected, as the non-presentation of the original was not fatal—Miguel personally testified to the circumstances of her recruitment, and Abella made verbal, not only written, promises. Testimonial evidence alone suffices to prove receipt of placement fees, as held in People vs. Pabalan. Abella's claim that she was merely a cashier was unsupported by any corroborative evidence such as appointment papers, identification cards, or payslips, and the vouchers for placement fees were issued and signed by Abella herself without any indication she signed on behalf of the purported owner Reyes. Abella herself provided Miguel with a certificate proving her registration of the RBC business name, negating her claim that RBC was owned by another. Third, at least three victims—Miguel, Marcelino, and Callang—testified before the RTC. The trial court's factual findings, having been affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding and conclusive. Abella's bare denial cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimonies of the private complainants. Accordingly, Abella is guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale, constituting economic sabotage under the last paragraph of Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042, and the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00 under Section 7(b) of the same Act was properly imposed.

• Elements of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale — Three elements must concur: (a) the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to engage in recruitment and placement of workers; (b) 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 (now Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042); and (c) the offender committed the same against three or more persons, individually or as a group. All three elements were found present: the POEA Certification established the absence of a license; the testimonies of three complainants and the handwritten agreement established recruitment activities; and three victims testified.

• Sufficiency of Testimonial Evidence in Illegal Recruitment Cases — Neither the Statute of Frauds nor the rules of evidence require the presentation of receipts or documentary evidence to prove the existence of a recruitment agreement and the procurement of fees in illegal recruitment cases. Such proof may come from the testimonies of witnesses. The non-presentation of the original of a handwritten agreement is not fatal to the prosecution's case when the complainant has personally testified to the circumstances of recruitment and the accused made verbal promises of employment abroad.

• Presumption of Regularity of Public Documents — A POEA certification is a public document issued by a public officer in the performance of an official duty and is prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated pursuant to Section 23, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. Public documents are entitled to a presumption of regularity, and the burden of proof rests upon the person who alleges the contrary.

• Binding Nature of Factual Findings of Trial Court Affirmed by the Court of Appeals — The trial court, having the opportunity to observe the witnesses and their demeanor, can best assess credibility. Factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are deemed binding and conclusive unless the trial court overlooked or misconstrued substantial facts. A bare denial cannot prevail over positive and categorical testimonies of complainants.

• "To constitute illegal recruitment in large scale, three elements must concur: (a) the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable him to lawfully engage in recruitment placement of workers: (b) 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 same Code (now Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042, otherwise known as the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995); and (c) the offender committed the same against three or more persons, individually or as a group." — This passage states the controlling three-element test for illegal recruitment in large scale, the framework against which the facts of the case were measured.

• "[T]he absence of receipts for some of the amounts delivered to the accused did not mean that the appellant did not accept or receive such payments. Neither in the Statute of Frauds nor in the rules of evidence is the presentation of receipts required in order to prove the existence of a recruitment agreement and the procurement of fees in illegal recruitment cases. Such proof may come from the testimonies of witnesses." — Quoted from People vs. Pabalan, this passage establishes that testimonial evidence alone suffices to prove recruitment activities and receipt of placement fees, and was applied to reject Abella's best evidence rule challenge to the photocopied handwritten agreement.

• "Well-settled is the rule that the trial court, having the opportunity to observe the witnesses and their demeanor during the trial, can best assess the credibility of the witnesses and their testimonies. Abella's mere denial cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimonies of the private complainants." — This passage articulates the standard of appellate deference to trial court factual findings and the evidentiary hierarchy between denial and positive testimony, the principle upon which Abella's defense was rejected.

• People vs. Gamboa, 395 Phil. 675 (2000) — Cited as the source of the three-element test for illegal recruitment in large scale, which the Court applied as the controlling framework.
• People vs. Pabalan, 331 Phil. 64 (1996) — Cited for the proposition that testimonial evidence is sufficient to prove receipt of placement fees even absent documentary evidence such as receipts, applied to reject Abella's best evidence rule argument regarding the photocopied handwritten agreement.
• People vs. Alvarez, 436 Phil. 255 (2002) — Cited in support of the Pabalan doctrine on the sufficiency of testimonial evidence in illegal recruitment cases.
• People vs. Tolentino, G.R. No. 208686, July 1, 2015 — Cited for the doctrine that factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding and conclusive, and that a bare denial cannot prevail over positive testimonies.

• Article 13(b), 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. Provides 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. Applied to determine whether Abella's acts constituted recruitment activities.
• Article 38, Labor Code — Defines illegal recruitment as any recruitment activity undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of authority, and provides that illegal recruitment committed by a syndicate or in large scale constitutes economic sabotage. Applied to classify Abella's offense as economic sabotage.
• Article 34, Labor Code — Enumerates prohibited practices in recruitment. Referenced as the alternative basis for the second element of illegal recruitment, now subsumed under Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042.
• Section 6, Republic Act No. 8042 (Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995) — Defines illegal recruitment as any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers when undertaken by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority, and enumerates prohibited acts (a) through (m). Provides that illegal recruitment committed in large scale is an offense involving economic sabotage. Applied as the operative statutory definition of illegal recruitment.
• Section 7(b), Republic Act No. 8042 — Provides that the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of not less than P500,000.00 nor more than P1,000,000.00 shall be imposed if illegal recruitment constitutes economic sabotage. Applied to sustain the penalty of life imprisonment and P500,000.00 fine imposed by the Court of Appeals.
• Section 23, Rule 132, Rules of Court — Provides that public documents consisting of entries in public records made in the performance of duty by a public officer are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. Applied to accord the POEA Certification presumptive weight as evidence of Abella's lack of license.

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno, Associate Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, and Associate Justice Francis H. Jardeleza concurred.

None.