People of the Philippines vs. Natalie Caluducan

A person may be convicted of illegal recruitment based on the credible testimony of the complainants, and it is not necessary that the offender personally received money from the private complainants — it is sufficient that the offender gave the impression that they had the power to send workers abroad for employment purposes. When illegal recruitment is committed in large scale by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority, the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of not less than PHP 2 million nor more than PHP 5 million shall be imposed, and the maximum penalty is proper when the offender is a non-licensee or non-holder of authority.

The case involves the prosecution of Natalie Caluducan and Tessie Tugaoen for Large-Scale Illegal Recruitment under Republic Act No. 8042, as amended by Republic Act No. 10022, which broadened the concept of illegal recruitment under the Labor Code. The offense was committed in 2012, during the effectivity of Republic Act No. 10022, which took effect on March 8, 2010. The complainants were private individuals who were allegedly recruited for overseas employment as worm pickers in Canada.

Sometime in 2012, Tessie Tugaoen, representing herself as a legitimate recruiter who could deploy workers abroad, offered Janel Viloria, Erner Samortin, and Charles Adrian Vincent Salum jobs as worm pickers in Canada, promising them earnings equivalent to PHP 88,000.00 per month. Enticed by the offer, the complainants submitted all requirements for their supposed deployment and paid Tugaoen placement fees in the following amounts: PHP 215,166.14 from Viloria; PHP 212,593.675 from Samortin; and PHP 125,037.35 from Salum.

Upon Tugaoen's instruction, Viloria et al. met with Caluducan in July 2013 in Peñablanca, Cagayan, to fill up and sign their purported employment contracts. During their meeting, Caluducan represented that she was Tugaoen's business partner. After months of waiting, the complainants asked about the status of their employment abroad, but Caluducan only told them that their applications were still being processed. Viloria et al. were never deployed abroad. They subsequently went to the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) to verify whether Tugaoen and Caluducan were legitimate recruiters, and the POEA issued a certification stating that both were not licensed or authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment.

Caluducan later sent the complainants new employment contracts to fill out and sign, the previous ones having allegedly expired, and gave them further instructions through text messages and e-mail regarding their applications, including directing them to send documents to her at AP Manpower International Agency. Caluducan denied the charge, claiming she had nothing to do with the complainants and was just doing her job as a social worker when CIDG personnel arrested her. She argued that only Tugaoen committed illegal recruitment since she was the one who promised overseas jobs and received the placement fees.

The RTC found Caluducan guilty, holding that conspiracy existed between Tugaoen and Caluducan, making it unnecessary for the prosecution to prove that Caluducan also represented herself as a legitimate recruiter and received placement fees. The CA affirmed with modification, finding that the complainants' testimonies, coupled with documentary evidence, clearly established that Caluducan dealt with them and gave them the impression that she was capable of sending them abroad for work.

• Denial of Participation: Caluducan denied the charge against her, claiming that she had nothing to do with Viloria et al., and that she was just doing her job as a social worker and was surprised when CIDG personnel came to arrest her.
• Sole Liability of Co-Accused: Caluducan argued that it was only Tugaoen who committed illegal recruitment since she was the one who promised Viloria et al. overseas jobs and received the placement fees.
• Lack of Recruitment Activity: Caluducan claimed that she did not undertake any recruitment activity because she did not receive any money from Viloria et al.

• Credibility of Complainants: The prosecution presented the testimonies of the private complainants, which were found to be categorical and credible, establishing Caluducan's participation in the recruitment process.
• Documentary Evidence: The prosecution presented documentary evidence, including text messages and e-mails sent by Caluducan to the complainants, showing her instructions regarding their applications for work abroad.
• POEA Certification: The prosecution presented a POEA certification stating that Tugaoen and Caluducan are not licensed or authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment.

• Guilt for Large-Scale Illegal Recruitment: Whether Caluducan is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Large-Scale Illegal Recruitment under Republic Act No. 8042, as amended by Republic Act No. 10022.

• Guilt for Large-Scale Illegal Recruitment: Yes. Caluducan was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Large-Scale Illegal Recruitment. The prosecution established all elements of the offense: (1) Caluducan had no valid license or authority to engage in recruitment; (2) she undertook recruitment activities by having the complainants sign employment contracts and giving them instructions; and (3) she committed the acts against three persons. Conspiracy with Tugaoen was likewise established.

• Guilt for Large-Scale Illegal Recruitment: The Court applied the definition of illegal recruitment under Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042, as amended, which includes any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers, and includes referring, contract services, promising, or advertising for employment abroad, when undertaken by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority. The Court cited Toston vs. People of the Philippines for the three modes of committing illegal recruitment: (1) illegal recruitment per se; (2) illegal recruitment practices; and (3) prohibited practices amounting to illegal recruitment. The elements of Large-Scale Illegal Recruitment when committed by a non-licensee are: (1) the offender has no valid license or authority; (2) the offender undertakes any recruitment and placement activity, illegal recruitment practice, or prohibited practice; and (3) the offender commits the acts against three or more persons.

The Court found that the POEA certification was a public document that is prima facie evidence of its contents pursuant to Rule 130, Section 23 of the Rules of Court, and Caluducan presented no evidence to negate it. The Court held that in proving illegal recruitment, it must be shown that the accused gave the complainants the distinct impression that she had the power or ability to deploy them abroad. Caluducan's act of having the complainants sign purported employment contracts and giving them further instructions through text messages and e-mail gave them a distinct impression that she had the power and authority to deploy them for employment abroad. The Court noted that Caluducan never refuted the text and e-mail messages she sent, nor did she deny her part in filling up and processing the application forms.

The Court further held that it is not necessary that the offender receives money from the private complainant for illegal recruitment to be committed; it is sufficient that the offender gave the impression that they have the power to send workers abroad. The Court also found conspiracy between Tugaoen and Caluducan based on the following circumstances: (1) Tugaoen offered and promised jobs and collected placement fees; (2) upon Tugaoen's instruction, the complainants met Caluducan; (3) Caluducan represented herself as Tugaoen's business partner and directed the complainants to fill out and sign employment contracts; (4) Caluducan sent new contracts to sign; (5) Caluducan instructed the complainants to send documents to her at AP Manpower International Agency; and (6) Tugaoen instructed the complainants to wait for further instructions and flight schedules. These circumstances showed a common purpose and concert of action.

The Court rejected Caluducan's defense of denial, holding that denial is an intrinsically weak defense that must be supported by strong evidence of non-culpability. Since the offense was committed in 2012 during the effectivity of Republic Act No. 10022, Section 7(b) provides for life imprisonment and a fine of not less than PHP 2 million nor more than PHP 5 million when illegal recruitment constitutes economic sabotage. The maximum penalty was proper because Caluducan was a non-licensee and non-holder of authority. As to civil liability, the Court applied Article 2199 of the Civil Code for actual damages, and held that co-conspirators in illegal recruitment are solidarily liable, so Caluducan may be required to reimburse the entire amounts paid even though they were paid to Tugaoen.

• Large-Scale Illegal Recruitment — Defined under Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042, as amended, as illegal recruitment committed against three or more persons, individually or as a group. The elements when committed by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority are: (1) the offender has no valid license or authority required by law; (2) the offender undertakes any of the recruitment and placement activities, illegal recruitment practices, or prohibited practices listed in Section 6; and (3) the offender commits any of the acts against three or more persons. The Court applied this doctrine in finding Caluducan guilty, as the prosecution established all three elements.

• Three Modes of Illegal Recruitment — Under Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042, as amended, illegal recruitment may be committed in three modes: (1) illegal recruitment per se, as defined in the first paragraph; (2) illegal recruitment practices, as listed in items (a) to (n); and (3) prohibited practices amounting to illegal recruitment, as numerically listed in items (1) to (7). Illegal recruitment per se can only be committed by non-licensees or non-holders of authority, while the other modes may be committed by any person regardless of licensing status. The Court cited Toston vs. People of the Philippines in applying this doctrine.

• Implied Conspiracy — Conspiracy may be proved through the mode and manner of the commission of the offense, or from the acts of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime indubitably pointing to a joint purpose, a concert of action, and a community of interest. The Court applied this doctrine in finding that the circumstances surrounding the recruitment activities of Tugaoen and Caluducan showed a common purpose to recruit the complainants for employment abroad.

• Denial as an Intrinsically Weak Defense — Denial is an intrinsically weak defense that must be supported by strong evidence of non-culpability. If unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, it is negative and self-serving, deserving no greater value than the testimony of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. The Court applied this doctrine in rejecting Caluducan's bare denial, which failed to cast reasonable doubt on the complainants' positive and categorical testimony.

• "In proving illegal recruitment, it must be shown that the accused gave the complainants the distinct impression that she had the power or ability to deploy the complainants abroad." — This passage articulates the controlling standard for establishing recruitment activity, which was central to the Court's finding that Caluducan engaged in illegal recruitment despite not having personally received placement fees.

• "For illegal recruitment to be committed, it is not necessary that the offender receives money from the private complainant as a result of the recruitment activity conducted by the offender. It is sufficient that the offender has given the impression that they have the power to send workers abroad for employment purposes." — This passage defines the scope of liability for illegal recruitment, rejecting Caluducan's argument that her non-receipt of money negated her participation in the offense.

• "The foregoing circumstances clearly show a common purpose, i.e., to supposedly recruit Viloria et al. for employment abroad, wherein Tugaoen and Caluducan each performed a part to achieve their criminal objective." — This passage summarizes the Court's finding of implied conspiracy, which rendered Caluducan liable for the acts of her co-conspirator Tugaoen.

• Toston vs. People of the Philippines, 897 Phil. 820 (2021) — Cited as controlling authority for the three modes of committing illegal recruitment under Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042, as amended.

• People of the Philippines vs. Liwanag, 920 Phil. 438 (2022) — Cited for the principle that a person may be convicted of illegal recruitment based on the credible and convincing testimonies of the complainants.

• People of the Philippines vs. Begino, 921 Phil. 254 (2022) — Cited for the rule that the CA and RTC's assessment of the veracity of testimonies is given the highest degree of respect absent any overlooked fact or circumstance of weight or substance.

• People vs. Sison, 816 Phil. 8 (2017) — Cited for the requirement that the accused must give the complainants the distinct impression that she had the power or ability to deploy them abroad.

• People of the Philippines vs. Castillo, 920 Phil. 996 (2022) — Cited for the definition of implied conspiracy, proved through the mode and manner of the commission of the offense or from the acts of the accused pointing to a joint purpose, concert of action, and community of interest.

• People vs. Pulgo, 813 Phil. 205 (2017) — Cited for the doctrine that denial is an intrinsically weak defense that must be supported by strong evidence of non-culpability.

• People vs. Inovero, 737 Phil. 116 (2014) — Cited for the rule that the liability of co-conspirators in illegal recruitment is solidary in nature, and each may be compelled to pay the entire obligation.

• Section 6, Republic Act No. 8042, as amended by Republic Act No. 10022 — Defines illegal recruitment and enumerates the acts constituting it, including the provision that illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three or more persons. The Court applied this provision in determining the elements of the offense and finding that Caluducan's acts constituted recruitment activities.

• Section 7(b), Republic Act No. 8042, as amended by Republic Act No. 10022 — Provides the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of not less than PHP 2 million nor more than PHP 5 million when illegal recruitment constitutes economic sabotage, with the maximum penalty imposed when committed by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority. The Court applied this provision in imposing the maximum penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of PHP 5 million.

• Section 6(m), Republic Act No. 8042 — Provides that illegal recruitment is considered an offense involving economic sabotage when committed by a syndicate or in large scale. The Court applied this provision in determining that the offense constituted economic sabotage.

• Article 2199, Civil Code — Provides for actual or compensatory damages as adequate compensation for duly proved pecuniary losses. The Court applied this provision in ordering Caluducan to reimburse the placement fees paid by the complainants.

• Rule 130, Section 23, Rules of Court — Provides that public documents are prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. The Court applied this provision in giving evidentiary weight to the POEA certification stating that Caluducan and Tugaoen were not licensed or authorized to recruit workers.

Caguioa (Chairperson), Inting, Gaerlan, and Dimaampao, JJ., concurred.