People of the Philippines vs. Elizabeth Espiritu Mendoza

Illegal recruitment is committed by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority who gives the impression of having the power to send workers abroad for employment; large scale illegal recruitment requires the same acts against three or more persons, and the maximum penalty is imposed when the offender is a non-licensee or non-holder of authority.

Mendoza was associated with recruitment operations conducted through M.J. Garcia Manpower Agency, Baymaxx, and related entities, while the complainants were applicants for overseas employment in Japan. The regulatory framework is Republic Act No. 8042, as amended by Republic Act No. 10022, which requires a license or authority from the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) to engage in recruitment and placement of workers and penalizes illegal recruitment, including large scale illegal recruitment when committed against three or more persons.

Elizabeth Espiritu Mendoza was charged with Gemma Jamito Garcia, Jocelyn Madera, Emelda Baito, Nicanor Avila, and Marilyn Bucong Canda in two Informations filed in Valenzuela City. The first Information, docketed as Criminal Case No. 2168-V-18, alleged that sometime between August 2015 and January 2016, the accused conspired to recruit twenty named complainants for employment abroad by representing themselves as having the capacity to contract, enlist, and recruit workers, without first securing a license or authority from the POEA, and failed to deploy the complainants and reimburse their expenses. The second Information, docketed as Criminal Case No. 2169-V-18, alleged that between February 19, 2016 and November 9, 2016, Mendoza and Garcia recruited Loida Espiritu Granil, Arlene Bernardo, and Raymond Roque under the same circumstances. Mendoza, Madera, and Baito were arrested, while Garcia, Avila, and Canda remained at large; Mendoza, Madera, and Baito pleaded not guilty at arraignment.

At trial, the prosecution presented thirteen witnesses, including several complainants. Raymond Victoria testified that he met Mendoza through an acquaintance and visited her office in Malinta, Valenzuela City, near the BIR office; Mendoza, who appeared to be the head, offered him a housekeeping job at Lion Mansion Hotel in Tokyo with a monthly salary of PHP 60,000.00 and urged him to apply because slots were limited. He paid PHP 20,000.00 in two installments on February 19 and 22, 2016, which Mendoza personally received and for which acknowledgment receipts signed by Garcia were issued. Rewelyn Torres testified that she learned of Garcia’s manpower agency through an acquaintance, met Mendoza and Garcia, and paid PHP 30,000.00 in installments to Mendoza for a farm job in Japan; she signed a contract with Garcia’s pre-signed agreement, witnessed by Mendoza and Jennifer Bitangcol. Jimmy Arenas testified that he was introduced to Baymaxx Agency, where Mendoza and Avila claimed to be managing owners; he paid PHP 45,000.00 in installments, with Mendoza receiving the payments and issuing receipts dated August 9, August 16, October 8, and November 20, 2015. Marilen Bartolome testified that she met Garcia through her aunt, visited M.J. Garcia Manpower at Chateau Condominium in Lingunan, Valenzuela, paid PHP 40,000.00 in two installments, and later dealt with Mendoza after Garcia went into hiding; Mendoza took over the agency and updated her application. Pamela Marie Elizondo testified that Garcia and Mendoza offered her a farm job in Goshen, Japan, with a monthly salary of PHP 80,000.00; she paid PHP 40,000.00 in total, with Mendoza receiving some payments and issuing receipts, and later waited six months for deployment. Edwin Urayani testified that he learned of M.J. Garcia Manpower Agency through Facebook, visited the office near the BIR, and was told by Mendoza and Baito that farmers were needed in Japan with a monthly salary of PHP 70,000.00; he paid PHP 40,000.00 and took Nihongo lessons from Baito. Venus Barber Lorenzo testified that she met Garcia through a common friend, was offered housekeeping or farm work in Japan, paid PHP 30,000.00 to Garcia’s account and PHP 10,000.00 to Mendoza, and was never deployed. Mary Rose P. Edloy testified that Mendoza and Garcia offered her a housekeeping job in Tokyo with a salary of PHP 70,000.00 to PHP 80,000.00; she paid PHP 40,000.00, waited for updates, and later learned of Mendoza’s arrest. Edwin P. Rioveros testified that he contacted Mendoza through a flyer for International Global Manpower Agency/Services, was offered a housekeeping job at Lion Mansion Hotel in Tokyo with a monthly salary of PHP 70,000.00 to PHP 80,000.00, paid PHP 38,000.00 to Mendoza, and waited three years. Imelda Gonzales testified that she learned of the agency from her nephew Cejoco, visited Avila’s house in Balangkas, Valenzuela City, spoke with Mendoza, and paid PHP 45,000.00 in two installments for a farm job in Japan. Eric Concepcion testified that he became aware of Baymaxx Agency through Cejoco, transacted with Mendoza and Avila, paid PHP 45,000.00 in three installments, and later learned from the POEA that the agency lacked a license. Christian Cejoco testified that Avila posted a job opportunity in Japan on a fraternity group chat, that he invited family members to apply, and that Mendoza signed acknowledgment receipts on behalf of Avila. Teresita Talagtag’s testimony was dispensed with after the prosecution and defense stipulated that she was authorized to appear for the POEA and that Mendoza, Madera, Baito, Garcia, Avila, and Canda, as well as Goshen Capital Resources, Baymaxx, M.J. Garcia Manpower Agency, and Ohno Group of Companies, were neither licensed nor authorized by the POEA to recruit workers for overseas employment.

Mendoza testified that she met Garcia through a Facebook post about M.J. Garcia Manpower Agency’s job postings in Japan, applied for a job, paid PHP 25,000.00 as processing fee, and later accepted a staff position to monitor her application. She denied encouraging applicants to apply, explained the job application process as Garcia ordered her to do, and admitted receiving money from applicants but claimed she immediately handed it to Garcia. She stated she never received a salary or commission from processing fees, only meal and transportation allowances. Madera and Baito denied involvement in the business and claimed to be applicants themselves; Baito said she only taught Nihongo lessons in exchange for payment of her placement fee. Cherrylyn Nable testified that she was also a victim of Garcia and that Baito had no involvement in Garcia’s activities.

The trial court found the prosecution witnesses credible and Mendoza’s denial unsubstantiated, and the Court of Appeals upheld these factual findings. Both lower courts found that Mendoza offered and promised jobs abroad, collected placement fees, and presented herself as the managing owner of the supposed recruitment agency, and that the POEA certifications established the absence of the required license or authority.

• Failure of Proof: Petitioner Mendoza insisted that the prosecution failed to establish her guilt by proof beyond reasonable doubt.
• Absence of Documentary Evidence: Mendoza pointed out that there was no documentary evidence showing that she promised Victoria, et al. that they would be employed abroad.
• Acknowledgment Receipts: Mendoza argued that the acknowledgment receipts presented by the prosecution did not indicate her name, nor did they bear her signature; only the name or signature of either Garcia or Avila appeared in those receipts.
• Representation as Owner: Mendoza maintained that the prosecution failed to establish that she represented herself as the owner of the recruitment agency, and that the testimonies indicated she was merely an employee of the agency.
• Defense of Denial: Mendoza contended that she was merely an applicant herself and acted only upon the instructions of Garcia and Avila.

• Large Scale Illegal Recruitment: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Mendoza’s conviction for large scale illegal recruitment in violation of Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042, as amended by Republic Act No. 10022.
• Simple Illegal Recruitment: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Mendoza’s conviction for simple illegal recruitment in violation of Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042, as amended by Republic Act No. 10022.
• Penalty: Whether the penalties imposed for the convictions are proper.

• Large Scale Illegal Recruitment: No. The conviction was affirmed; all three elements were established, and the fine was increased to PHP 5,000,000.00 because the maximum penalty applies to a non-licensee or non-holder of authority.
• Simple Illegal Recruitment: No. The conviction was affirmed; the elements of illegal recruitment were established, and the penalty of twelve years and one day to twenty years and a fine of PHP 1,000,000.00 was correctly imposed.
• Penalty: Modified. The fine for large scale illegal recruitment was increased from PHP 2,000,000.00 to PHP 5,000,000.00, while the Court of Appeals’ penalty for simple illegal recruitment was affirmed.

• Large Scale Illegal Recruitment: Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042, as amended by Republic Act 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. To sustain a conviction for illegal recruitment, the prosecution must prove that the offender has no valid license or authority and that the offender undertakes any recruitment and placement activity or prohibited practice. For large scale illegal recruitment, the additional element is that the offense was committed against three or more persons, individually or as a group. The POEA certifications established that Mendoza, her co-accused, and the entities involved—Goshen Capital Resources, Baymaxx, M.J. Garcia Manpower Agency, and Ohno Group of Companies—were not licensed or authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment. Despite the absence of authority, Mendoza gave complainants the impression that she could send them abroad for work, offered and promised jobs, explained the application process, induced them with attractive salaries and benefits, and collected placement fees. The prosecution established that Mendoza committed illegal recruitment against twelve persons: Victoria, Torres, Arenas, Bartolome, Elizondo, Urayani, Lorenzo, Edloy, Rioveros, Gonzales, Concepcion, and Cejoco. Mendoza’s contention that she was merely an applicant herself and acted only upon instructions of Garcia and Avila did not persuade; the categorical statements of the private complainants prevailed over her bare denial. The trial court’s evaluation of witness credibility was entitled to the highest respect absent any showing that it overlooked facts of substance or that its assessment was arbitrary. As to penalty, Section 7(b) of Republic Act No. 10022 provides the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of not less than PHP 2,000,000.00 nor more than PHP 5,000,000.00 if illegal recruitment constitutes economic sabotage, and the maximum penalty shall be imposed if committed by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority. Because Mendoza was proven to be a non-licensee or non-holder of authority, the Court increased the fine to PHP 5,000,000.00.
• Simple Illegal Recruitment: The Court affirmed the conviction for simple illegal recruitment in Criminal Case No. 2169-V-18. The elements of illegal recruitment were present: Mendoza had no valid license or authority, and she undertook recruitment and placement activities by offering and promising employment abroad and collecting placement fees. Section 7(a) of Republic Act No. 10022 imposes the penalty of imprisonment of not less than twelve years and one day but not more than twenty years and a fine of not less than PHP 1,000,000.00 nor more than PHP 2,000,000.00. The maximum penalty for simple illegal recruitment was correctly meted on Mendoza because she was shown to be a non-licensee or non-holder of authority to engage in recruitment activities for overseas employment.
• Penalty: An appeal in criminal cases opens the entire case for review, and the reviewing tribunal may correct errors in the appealed judgment, increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law. The Court found it proper to increase the fine imposed in Criminal Case No. 2168-V-18 from PHP 2,000,000.00 to PHP 5,000,000.00 under Section 7(b) of Republic Act No. 10022 because Mendoza was a non-licensee or non-holder of authority. For Criminal Case No. 2169-V-18, the Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ modification of the penalty to twelve years and one day to twenty years and a fine of PHP 1,000,000.00, consistent with Section 7(a) and the maximum-penalty clause for non-licensees or non-holders of authority.

• Illegal Recruitment — Under Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042, as amended by Republic Act No. 10022, illegal recruitment means 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. Any non-licensee or non-holder who, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment abroad to two or more persons is deemed engaged in illegal recruitment. The elements are: (a) the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers; and (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 Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042, as amended. The Court applied this doctrine because Mendoza lacked a POEA license or authority yet offered and promised jobs abroad and collected placement fees.
• Large Scale Illegal Recruitment — Large scale illegal recruitment has three elements: (1) the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers; (2) 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 of the Labor Code (now Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042); and (3) the offender committed the same against three or more persons, individually or as a group. The Court applied this doctrine because Mendoza recruited twelve complainants without a license or authority.
• Penalty for Illegal Recruitment; Non-Licensee or Non-Holder of Authority — Section 7(a) of Republic Act No. 10022 imposes imprisonment of not less than twelve years and one day but not more than twenty years and a fine of not less than PHP 1,000,000.00 nor more than PHP 2,000,000.00 for illegal recruitment. Section 7(b) imposes life imprisonment and a fine of not less than PHP 2,000,000.00 nor more than PHP 5,000,000.00 if illegal recruitment constitutes economic sabotage. The maximum penalty shall be imposed if the person illegally recruited is less than eighteen years of age or if the offense is committed by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority. The Court applied this doctrine by increasing the fine for large scale illegal recruitment to PHP 5,000,000.00 and affirming the maximum penalty for simple illegal recruitment because Mendoza was a non-licensee or non-holder of authority.
• Credibility of Witnesses and Defense of Denial — The trial court’s evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is entitled to the highest respect and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing that it overlooked facts of substance and value that, if considered, might affect the result, or that its assessment was arbitrary. Denial, if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law; it should be considered with suspicion and received with caution because it is inherently weak, unreliable, and easily fabricated. The Court applied this doctrine by rejecting Mendoza’s denial in light of the categorical statements of the private complainants and by deferring to the trial court’s credibility findings.

• "To sustain a conviction for illegal recruitment, the following elements must be present: (a) the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable one to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers; and (b) the offender undertakes any of the activities within the meaning of recruitment and placement defined in Article 13(b) of the Labor Code, or any of the prohibited practices enumerated under Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042, as amended. Verily, it is the absence of the necessary license or authority to recruit and deploy workers abroad that renders the recruitment activity unlawful." — This passage states the elements of illegal recruitment and the controlling rule that the absence of a license or authority is what makes the recruitment activity unlawful.
• "Large scale illegal recruitment, on the other hand, has three elements that must be present to sustain a conviction: (1) the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable lawful engagement in recruitment and placement of workers; (2) 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 said Code (now Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042); and (3) the offender committed the same against three or more persons, individually or as a group." — This passage provides the canonical formulation of the three elements of large scale illegal recruitment.
• "In simple terms, illegal recruitment is committed by persons who, without authority from the government, give the impression that they have the power to send workers abroad for employment purposes, as in this case." — This passage defines illegal recruitment in practical terms and explains why Mendoza’s acts, despite her denial, constituted the offense.
• "The categorical statements of the private complainants prevail over the bare denial of an accused." — This passage states the evidentiary rule applied to reject Mendoza’s defense of denial.

• People vs. Ramos, 935 Phil. 1077, 1089 (2023) — Cited to support the statement that Republic Act No. 8042, as amended by Republic Act No. 10022, expanded the coverage of acts classified as illegal recruitment under the Labor Code.
• People vs. Buit Fe, G.R. No. 227190, January 14, 2025 — Cited for the elements of illegal recruitment: absence of a valid license or authority and engagement in recruitment and placement activities or prohibited practices.
• People vs. Rivera, 955 Phil. 716, 721 (2024) — Cited for the elements of large scale illegal recruitment and for the rule that illegal recruitment is committed by persons who, without authority, give the impression that they have the power to send workers abroad.
• People vs. Liwanag, 920 Phil. 438, 450 (2022) — Cited for the rule that the categorical statements of private complainants prevail over the bare denial of an accused and for the deference accorded to the trial court’s credibility findings.
• People vs. Conde, 923 Phil. 775, 784 (2022) — Cited for the rule that alibi and denial, if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, are negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law.
• People vs. Samson, 951 Phil. 1082, 1094 (2024) — Cited for the rule that the defense of denial and alibi should be considered with suspicion and received with caution.
• Talisay vs. People, 945 Phil. 681, 688 (2023) — Cited for the rule that the trial court’s evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is entitled to the highest respect and will not be disturbed on appeal.
• People vs. Mendoza, 874 Phil. 924, 930–931 (2020) — Cited for the rule that an appeal in criminal cases opens the entire case for review and empowers the appellate court to revise the judgment, increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law.
• People vs. Dela Concepcion, 921 Phil. 418, 448 (2022) — Cited for the rule that the maximum penalty shall be imposed if the illegal recruitment is committed by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority.

• Section 6, Republic Act No. 8042, as amended by Republic Act 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. It also provides that any non-licensee or non-holder who offers or promises for a fee employment abroad to two or more persons is deemed engaged in illegal recruitment. The provision was applied because Mendoza lacked a POEA license or authority yet offered and promised employment abroad and collected fees.
• Article 13(b), Presidential Decree No. 442 (Labor Code of the Philippines) — Defines “recruitment and placement” as any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers, including referrals, contract services, promising and advertising for employment locally or abroad, whether for profit or not, and provides that any person or entity which offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons is deemed engaged in recruitment and placement. The provision was applied because Mendoza’s acts of offering and promising jobs and collecting placement fees constituted recruitment and placement.
• Section 7(a), Republic Act No. 10022 — Imposes the penalty of imprisonment of not less than twelve years and one day but not more than twenty years and a fine of not less than PHP 1,000,000.00 nor more than PHP 2,000,000.00 for illegal recruitment. The provision was applied to Mendoza’s conviction for simple illegal recruitment in Criminal Case No. 2169-V-18.
• Section 7(b), Republic Act No. 10022 — Imposes the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of not less than PHP 2,000,000.00 nor more than PHP 5,000,000.00 if illegal recruitment constitutes economic sabotage, and provides that the maximum penalty shall be imposed if the offense is committed by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority. The provision was applied to increase the fine for large scale illegal recruitment to PHP 5,000,000.00 because Mendoza was a non-licensee or non-holder of authority.

Justice Leonen (Chairperson), Justice Lazaro-Javier, Justice J. Lopez, and Justice Kho, Jr., concurred.