People of the Philippines vs. Marie Alvarez y Lumajen and Mercy Galledo y Gamba

Large scale illegal recruitment under Section 6(l) and (m) of Republic Act No. 8042, as amended, requires proof of three elements: (1) the offender has no valid license or authority to engage in recruitment and placement; (2) the offender undertakes any activity within the meaning of recruitment and placement, including giving complainants the distinct impression that the accused had the power or ability to deploy them abroad; and (3) the offense is committed against three or more persons individually or as a group. When these elements concur, the offense constitutes economic sabotage, warranting 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.

The accused-appellants, Marie Alvarez y Lumajen and Mercy Galledo y Gamba, were charged in four separate Informations with large scale illegal recruitment under Section 6(l) and (m) of Republic Act No. 8042, as amended by Republic Act No. 10022, for allegedly recruiting and promising employment to various individuals as factory workers in Japan without the required license or authority from the Department of Labor and Employment and/or the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). The cases were consolidated and tried jointly by the Regional Trial Court. Several complainants' cases were provisionally dismissed for failure to appear, leaving only Criminal Case Nos. R-MNL-18-03869-CR and R-MNL-18-03871-CR to proceed, with Donna France Ditchoson, Jenelyn S. Machica, and Edison C. Pelegrina as the private complainants.

Marie Alvarez y Lumajen and Mercy Galledo y Gamba (also referred to as "Mercie") were charged with large scale illegal recruitment in four separate Informations for recruiting and promising employment to various individuals as factory workers in Japan without the required license or authority from the Department of Labor and Employment and/or the POEA. The prosecution presented labor employment officer Mercidita Maat from the POEA and private complainants Donna France Ditchoson, Jenelyn S. Machica, and Edison C. Pelegrina, along with documentary evidence including POEA Certifications confirming that neither accused was licensed or authorized to recruit and deploy workers overseas.

According to Ditchoson, she was introduced to Alvarez by a friend for overseas employment and was told she would be deployed as a farmer in Japan. Alvarez advised her of pre-employment requirements, including submission of documents, TESDA and Japanese language trainings, and medical examination, and asked her to pay processing fees totaling PHP 25,000.00. Ditchoson paid PHP 2,500.00 for medical examination, PHP 6,000.00 for Japanese language training, and on April 5, 2016, met Alvarez and Galledo in Ermita, Manila, where she paid Galledo PHP 6,000.00 for processing and an additional PHP 1,500.00 for TESDA training, although no such training took place. Alvarez repeatedly assured Ditchoson that her contract would be ready, but by March 2017, Ditchoson learned that Alvarez and Galledo had been arrested by the NBI.

Machica testified that she met Alvarez in April 2016 in Ermita, Manila, and was informed of the pre-requirement procedures. She paid PHP 5,000.00 for Japanese language training, another PHP 2,500.00 for extended lessons, and PHP 4,050.00 for TESDA training, all to Alvarez. She was later introduced to Galledo at Harrison Plaza, Pasay, where she paid PHP 25,000.00 for processing, and Galledo assured her she would be deployed to Japan in two months. When the period lapsed, Alvarez promised the contract would be ready by March 22, 2017, but both accused were already in NBI custody by that time.

Pelegrina testified that he was introduced to Alvarez in Ermita, Manila, where she promised he would be included in the line-up of workers to be deployed to Japan. Alvarez brought him to an office behind the DFA and introduced him to Galledo, to whom Pelegrina gave an initial payment of PHP 25,000.00. He was later informed that a job order was secured and paid additional fees totaling approximately PHP 85,000.00, although receipts remained with Alvarez. Pelegrina was made to sign a purported employment contract he could not read properly, and his Japanese visa and overseas employment never materialized.

The defense presented Alvarez and Galledo, who both denied knowing the complainants or receiving money from them. Alvarez claimed she was engaged in selling rose gold and fashion jewelry and working as a manicurist during the relevant period, while Galledo testified she was a vendor of cooked food and cold cuts, denied the signatures on the receipts, and claimed she met Alvarez for the first time at the NBI Office. Galledo admitted, however, that she initiated settlement of the civil aspect by paying PHP 50,000.00, divided among the private complainants. The RTC found both guilty, ruling that the direct, positive, and categorical testimonies of the private complainants prevailed over mere denial, and that conspiracy was evident from their actions before, during, and after the commission of the offense.

• Number of Complainants: Accused-appellants argued that only two private complainants took the witness stand, negating the charge that recruitment was done large scale, which required at least three.
• Actual Recruitment: They asserted that the prosecution failed to prove actual recruitment, given that all the private complainants were introduced through their friends and relatives.
• Employment Contracts: They alleged that the employment contracts would have been signed had they not been arrested.
• Civil Liability: They assailed the award of civil liability, asserting that the private complainants were not able to present official receipts of the payments they made.

• Elements of the Offense: The prosecution maintained that all elements of large scale illegal recruitment were present, as the POEA Certifications confirmed neither accused was licensed or authorized to recruit, the accused gave complainants the distinct impression they could deploy them abroad, and the offense was committed against three or more persons.
• Conspiracy: The prosecution argued that conspiracy was evident from the assignment of roles between Alvarez, who met applicants and explained requirements, and Galledo, who received payments for processing fees.

• Large Scale Illegal Recruitment: Whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the conviction of Marie Alvarez y Lumajen and Mercy Galledo y Gamba for large scale illegal recruitment under Republic Act No. 8042, as amended.

• Large Scale Illegal Recruitment: Yes. The prosecution proved all three elements of large scale illegal recruitment: (1) neither accused had a valid license or authority to recruit and deploy workers overseas, as confirmed by POEA Certifications; (2) both gave private complainants the distinct impression that they had the power or ability to deploy them to Japan for a fee; and (3) the offense was committed against at least three persons, constituting economic sabotage under Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042, as amended.

• Large Scale Illegal Recruitment: The Court applied the elements of illegal recruitment under Republic Act No. 8042: (1) the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to engage 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 Labor Code (now Section 6 of RA 8042); and (3) for large scale illegal recruitment, the offender commits any of the acts of recruitment and placement against three or more persons, individually or as a group. The Court found that the POEA Certifications were prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein under Rule 132, Section 23 of the Rules of Court, and the accused never disputed their contents. The Court held that the crux of determining whether an activity was for recruitment is the promise or offer of employment for a fee, and the testimonies of Ditchoson, Machica, and Pelegrina clearly showed that the accused perpetrated a scheme of making applicants believe they had the capacity to recruit and deploy them to Japan, manifested in their acts of giving details about application requirements, assisting during pre-employment medical examinations, and receiving payment for processing of visas and application papers. The Court also held that the failure to produce receipts is not fatal to the prosecution, provided payment can be proved by clear and convincing testimonies of credible witnesses, citing People vs. Rios. The Court found no reason to disturb the RTC and CA findings on conspiracy, as the testimonies showed an assignment of roles where Alvarez would meet applicants and explain requirements, then introduce them to Galledo who would receive payments, making the act of one the act of all. The Court sustained the penalty of life imprisonment and fine of PHP 2,000,000.00 each under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 8042, as amended, since illegal recruitment constituting economic sabotage carries that penalty. The Court affirmed the reimbursable amounts as factual findings of the trial court affirmed by the CA, which are binding upon the Court absent palpable error, and upheld the solidary liability of co-conspirators and the 6% per annum legal interest on the monetary awards under Article 2211 of the Civil Code.

• Elements of Illegal Recruitment under RA 8042 — Under Republic Act No. 8042, a non-licensee or non-holder of authority is liable for illegal recruitment when the following elements concur: (1) the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable him to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers; and (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 Labor Code (now Section 6 of RA 8042). 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 these elements to find the accused guilty.

• Distinct Impression of Power to Deploy — To prove illegal recruitment, it must be shown that the accused gave the complainants the distinct impression that the accused had the power or ability to deploy the complainants abroad in such a manner that they were convinced to part with their money for that end. The crux of the determination of whether an activity was for recruitment is the promise or offer of employment for a fee. The Court found this element satisfied by the accused's acts of giving details about application requirements, assisting during medical examinations, and receiving payment for processing.

• Failure to Produce Receipts Not Fatal — In illegal recruitment, mere failure of the complainant to present written receipts for money paid for acts constituting recruitment activities is not fatal to the prosecution, provided the payment can be proved by clear and convincing testimonies of credible witnesses. The Court applied this doctrine to reject the accused's defense that complainants failed to produce receipts.

• Conspiracy in Illegal Recruitment — Conspiracy to defraud aspiring overseas contract workers is evident from the acts of the malefactors whose conduct before, during, and after the commission of the crime clearly indicated that they were one in purpose and united in its execution. In conspiracies, the act of one is the act of all. The Court found conspiracy established by the assignment of roles between Alvarez and Galledo.

• Public Documents as Prima Facie Evidence — Under Rule 132, Section 23 of the Rules of Court, documents consisting of entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. The Court applied this to POEA Certifications confirming the accused lacked licenses or authority, placing the burden on the accused to prove their inauthenticity, which they failed to do.

• "Under RA 8042, a non-licensee or non-holder of authority is liable for Illegal Recruitment when the following elements concur: (1) the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable him to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers; and (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 Labor Code (now Section 6 of RA 8042). In the case of 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." — This passage states the canonical formulation of the elements of illegal recruitment and large scale illegal recruitment, which the Court applied to affirm the conviction.

• "To prove [I]llegal [R]ecruitment, it must be shown that the accused gave the complainants the distinct impression that [he or she] had the power or ability to deploy the complainants abroad in [such] a manner that they were convinced to part with their money for that end." — This excerpt articulates the standard for proving the recruitment element, which the Court found satisfied by the accused's scheme of making applicants believe they could deploy them to Japan.

• "In illegal recruitment, mere failure of the complainant to present written receipts for money paid for acts constituting recruitment activities is not fatal to the prosecution, provided the payment can be proved by clear and convincing testimonies of credible witnesses." — This passage rejects the accused's defense regarding missing receipts and establishes that credible testimony can substitute for documentary proof of payment.

• "Conspiracy to defraud aspiring overseas contract workers was evident from the acts of the malefactors whose conduct before, during, and after the commission of the crime clearly indicated that they were one in purpose and united in its execution." — This excerpt supports the finding of conspiracy, which made both accused equally guilty of the crime since the act of one is the act of all.

• People vs. Imperio, 887 Phil. 97, 111 (2020) — Cited for the elements of illegal recruitment under RA 8042 and the standard that the accused must give complainants the distinct impression of power or ability to deploy them abroad.
• People vs. Domingo, 602 Phil. 1037, 1046 (2009) — Cited for the proposition that the crux of determining whether an activity was for recruitment is the promise or offer of employment for a fee.
• People vs. Rios, 871 Phil. 774, 806 (2020) — Cited for the doctrine that failure to present written receipts is not fatal to the prosecution in illegal recruitment cases if payment is proved by credible testimony.
• People vs. Gamboa, 395 Phil. 675, 685 (2000) — Cited for the finding of conspiracy from the conduct of the malefactors before, during, and after the commission of the crime.
• JR Hauling Services vs. Solamo, 886 Phil. 842, 857–858 (2020) — Cited for the rule that the Supreme Court does not review factual questions and is not a trier of facts.
• Philippine Savings Bank vs. Sakata, 874 Phil. 545, 566 (2020) — Cited for the rule that factual findings of the trial court, particularly when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding upon the Supreme Court.
• People vs. Velasco, 737 Phil. 116, 130 (2014) — Cited for the proposition that liability for co-conspirators in illegal recruitment is solidary in nature.

• Section 6(l) and (m), Republic Act No. 8042, as amended by Republic Act No. 10022 — Defines illegal recruitment to include failure to actually deploy a contracted worker without valid reason and failure to reimburse expenses incurred by the worker in connection with documentation and processing for purposes of deployment. The Court applied these provisions to the accused's acts of failing to deploy the complainants and failing to reimburse their expenses.
• Section 6, Republic Act No. 8042, as amended — Provides that illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three or more persons individually or as a group, and that illegal recruitment committed by a syndicate or in large scale constitutes economic sabotage. The Court applied this to find the offense constituted economic sabotage.
• Section 5, Republic Act No. 8042, as amended — 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. The Court sustained the penalty imposed by the CA.
• Rule 132, Section 23, Rules of Court — Provides that public documents are prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. The Court applied this to the POEA Certifications confirming the accused lacked licenses or authority.
• Article 2199, Civil Code — Provides for actual or compensatory damages as adequate compensation for duly proved pecuniary losses. The Court applied this to affirm the reimbursable amounts determined by the trial court.
• Article 2211, Civil Code — Provides that interest as part of the damages may be adjudicated at the discretion of the court. The Court applied this to affirm the 6% per annum legal interest on the monetary awards.

Leonen, SAJ. (Chairperson), Lazaro-Javier, M. Lopez, and Kho, Jr., JJ., concurred in the Decision.