People vs. Agustin

A person who, without the required license or authority from the Department of Labor, represents herself as manager of a placement agency, offers or promises overseas employment to two or more persons, and collects fees for that purpose is engaged in illegal recruitment under Articles 38 and 39 of the Labor Code, and conviction is proper even if co-accused conspirators remain at large, provided the prosecution establishes the accused's own acts of recruitment beyond reasonable doubt.

Nelly D. Agustin was charged together with spouses Dan and Loma Goce — owners of Clover Placement Agency — with the crime of illegal recruitment committed by a syndicate and in large scale under Articles 38 and 39 of the Labor Code (Presidential Decree No. 442), as amended by Section 1(b) of Presidential Decree No. 2018. The accused were alleged to have recruited eight persons for overseas employment between May 1986 and June 25, 1987, without securing the required license or authority from the Department of Labor. A certification from the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) confirmed that none of the three accused was licensed or authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment, a fact stipulated by Agustin's own counsel.

Sometime in March or April 1987, Rogelio Salado was introduced by his brother-in-law Lorenzo Alvarez to Nelly Agustin at her residence in Parañaque. Agustin represented herself as the manager of Clover Placement Agency and showed Salado a job order as proof that he could readily be deployed for overseas employment. She informed him that he needed to pay ₱5,000.00 as a processing fee, which he gave sometime in April or May of that year, for which a receipt was issued. Later, in April or May 1987, Salado accompanied five other applicants who were his relatives to the agency's office at Nakpil Street, Ermita, Manila, where he met the spouses Dan and Loma Goce, the owners of the agency. Loma Goce informed him that the placement fee was ₱12,000.00 instead of the original ₱5,000.00. A receipt from Clover Placement Agency was issued showing that Salado and his co-applicants each paid ₱2,000.00, though each actually paid ₱5,000.00. Several months passed without Salado leaving for abroad, prompting him and the other recruits to go to the POEA in October 1987, where they discovered that Clover Placement Agency was not licensed to recruit. Upon learning of Agustin's arrest, Salado demanded the return of his money, but Agustin could only give him ₱500.00.

Salado's wife, Ramona Salado, learned about Agustin through her brother Lorenzo Alvarez. Agustin persuaded Ramona to apply as a cutter/sewer in Oman so she could join her husband. Encouraged by the promise that the couple could live together while working in Oman, Ramona instructed her husband to give Agustin ₱2,000.00 each for both of them as placement fee, totaling ₱4,000.00. The couple later received a telegram from the agency requiring them to report because the "NOC" (visa) had allegedly arrived. Around February or March 1987, Rogelio gave another ₱2,000.00 for their passports. Despite follow-ups twice a week from February to June 1987, neither left for abroad.

Complainant Dionisio Masaya, accompanied by his brother-in-law, applied for a job in Oman at the agency's former office in Parañaque. There he met Agustin, who introduced herself as the agency's manager, and the Goce spouses. In May 1986, Masaya gave Dan Goce ₱1,900.00 as an initial downpayment, and in September of the same year he gave an additional ₱10,000.00, both evidenced by receipts. He followed up his application faithfully but failed to leave for abroad. When he demanded a refund, Loma Goce could only return ₱4,000.00 in installments. The fourth prosecution witness, Ernesto Alvarez, met Agustin in February 1987 through his cousin Larry Alvarez. Agustin informed him that she frequently sent workers to Oman and offered him a job as an ambulance driver at the Royal Hospital in Oman with a monthly salary of about $600.00 to $700.00. On March 10, 1987, Alvarez gave Agustin ₱3,000.00 as a processing fee at her residence, and later that month another ₱3,000.00 at the agency's office. He followed up his application several times without success and demanded a refund, but Agustin could only return ₱500.00.

Agustin testified as the sole defense witness. She claimed that the Goce spouses were her neighbors at Tambo, Parañaque and were licensed recruiters who had previously sent her son to Saudi Arabia. She stated that she met the complainants through Lorenzo Alvarez, who asked her to introduce them to the Goce couple, which she did out of the goodness of her heart. She denied any participation in illegal recruitment, denied knowledge of the receipts presented by the prosecution, and asserted that the complainants included her in the complaint to compel her to reveal the Goce spouses' whereabouts, which she could not do because they had left their residence in 1987. She admitted giving ₱500.00 each to Salado and Alvarez but claimed these were for a loan and for medical expenses, respectively. The trial court found Agustin guilty as a principal in illegal recruitment in large scale and sentenced her to life imprisonment and a fine of ₱100,000.00.

• Definition of Recruitment Activity: Whether Agustin's act of introducing complainants to the Goce spouses falls within the meaning of illegal recruitment and placement under Article 13(b) in relation to Article 34 of the Labor Code.
• Existence of Conspiracy: Whether there is sufficient proof of conspiracy between Agustin and the Goce spouses to make Agustin liable for illegal recruitment.
• Proof of Offering or Promising Employment: Whether there is proof that Agustin offered or promised overseas employment to the complainants.

• Definition of Recruitment Activity: Yes. Agustin's acts went beyond mere introduction; she represented herself as manager of the agency, quoted and collected fees, and issued receipts, constituting recruitment activity under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code.
• Existence of Conspiracy: Yes. The prosecution evidence established that Agustin confabulated with the Goce spouses in their plan to deceive the complainants, providing sufficient basis for her conviction even though the Goce spouses remained at large.
• Proof of Offering or Promising Employment: Yes. All four prosecution witnesses testified that it was Agustin whom they initially approached, from whom they learned about the fees and required documents, and who gave them the distinct impression that she had the ability to send workers abroad.

• Definition of Recruitment Activity: Under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code, recruitment and placement refers to 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. The provision further states 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. Agustin contended that she merely introduced the complainants to the Goce spouses and that this did not constitute "referral" under the Labor Code. The Court rejected this contention, finding that the testimonial evidence showed Agustin committed acts beyond mere introduction. All four prosecution witnesses testified that they initially approached Agustin regarding their plans to work overseas, learned from her about the fees to pay and documents to submit, and only met the Goce spouses afterward. Agustin represented herself as manager of Clover Placement Agency, offered specific jobs abroad, collected placement fees, processing fees, and payments for passports, and issued receipts signed by her. These acts unquestionably constituted recruitment activity. The Court distinguished this from People vs. Gaoat, where a cashier's mere receipt of money was not considered recruitment because the cashier had no other participation and did not conspire with co-accused — a situation not applicable here given Agustin's pivotal role.

• Existence of Conspiracy: Agustin argued that there was no proof of conspiracy between her and the Goce spouses. The Court found the evidence sufficient to establish that Agustin confabulated with the Goces in their plan to deceive the complainants. Although the Goce spouses had not been tried and convicted, the Court held that this did not preclude Agustin's conviction. Relying on People vs. Sendon, the Court ruled that the non-prosecution of another suspect provides no ground to fault the conviction of an accused whose own guilt has been established. The prosecution of other persons equally or more culpable may proceed later once their identities and addresses are ascertained and they are taken into custody.

• Proof of Offering or Promising Employment: Agustin maintained that there was no proof she offered or promised overseas employment to the complainants. The Court found otherwise, citing the testimonies of all four prosecution witnesses. Rogelio Salado and Dionisio Masaya testified that Agustin represented herself as manager of the agency. Ramona Salado was offered a job as a cutter/sewer in Oman by Agustin at their first meeting. Ernesto Alvarez recalled that Agustin represented herself as one who frequently sends workers to Oman and offered him a job as an ambulance driver at the Royal Hospital with a specific salary range. The Court held that there is illegal recruitment when one gives the impression of having the ability to send a worker abroad, citing People vs. Manungas, Jr. and People vs. Villafuerte. Agustin gave complainants the distinct impression that she had the power or ability to send people abroad, such that they were convinced to give her money for that purpose. Documentary evidence, including xerox copies of receipts and vouchers signed by Agustin (Exhibits D, E, and F), corroborated the testimonial evidence. Even assuming the xerox copies were inadmissible as secondary evidence, the Court held — relying on People vs. Comia — that the absence of receipts is not fatal, as the complainants' clear and positive testimonies sufficiently established the payments. The trial court's findings on witness credibility were accorded respect, the positive and affirmative statements of prosecution witnesses being more credible than Agustin's uncorroborated and self-serving denials.

• Definition of Recruitment and Placement (Article 13(b), Labor Code) — Recruitment and placement refers to 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. The provision contains a catch-all clause: 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. The Court applied this definition to hold that Agustin's acts of representing herself as agency manager, offering jobs, quoting fees, collecting payments, and issuing receipts constituted recruitment activity, not mere introduction.

• Impression of Ability to Send Workers Abroad — There is illegal recruitment when one gives the impression of having the ability to send a worker abroad. The Court relied on this principle, drawn from People vs. Manungas, Jr. and People vs. Villafuerte, to conclude that Agustin's representations to the complainants gave them the distinct impression that she had the power to deploy them overseas, thereby inducing them to pay the demanded fees.

• Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale (Article 38, Labor Code, as amended by P.D. No. 2018) — Illegal recruitment is considered an offense involving economic sabotage (and thus qualified as committed in large scale) when committed against three or more persons individually or as a group. The qualifying circumstance of recruitment by a syndicate requires a group of three or more persons conspiring and/or confederating with one another. The Court found the large-scale qualification satisfied, as Agustin recruited at least four complainants.

• Non-Prosecution of Co-Accused Does Not Bar Conviction — The non-prosecution of another suspect provides no ground for an accused to fault a conviction, provided the accused's own guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution of other persons equally or more culpable may proceed later once they are apprehended. This doctrine, drawn from People vs. Sendon, was applied to uphold Agustin's conviction notwithstanding the Goce spouses' continued liberty.

• Trial Court's Findings on Credibility Generally Not Disturbed on Appeal — Findings of fact of the trial court on the matter of credibility of witnesses, arrived at after hearing and evaluation of conflicting testimonies, generally will not be disturbed on appeal, absent abuse of discretion. The Court applied this principle to sustain the trial court's acceptance of the prosecution witnesses' positive testimonies over Agustin's bare denials.

• "There is illegal recruitment when one gives the impression of having the ability to send a worker abroad." — This formulation, drawn from People vs. Manungas, Jr., encapsulates the governing standard for determining whether a person's representations constitute recruitment activity, and was central to the Court's conclusion that Agustin's conduct fell within the prohibition.

• "It is undisputed that appellant gave complainants the distinct impression that she had the power or ability to send people abroad for work such that the latter were convinced to give her the money she demanded in order to be so employed." — The Court applied the impression-of-ability standard to the facts, linking Agustin's representations directly to the complainants' payment of fees and establishing the causal element of illegal recruitment.

• "The non-prosecution of another suspect therein provided no ground for the appellant concerned to fault the decision of the trial court convicting her." — This passage, drawn from People vs. Sendon, articulates the doctrine that a co-accused's continued liberty does not preclude conviction of another accused whose guilt is independently established.

• People vs. Manungas, Jr., G.R. Nos. 91552-55, March 10, 1994, 231 SCRA 1 — Cited for the proposition that there is illegal recruitment when one gives the impression of having the ability to send a worker abroad. Followed as controlling doctrine.
• People vs. Villafuerte, G.R. Nos. 93723-27, May 6, 1994, 232 SCRA 225 — Cited in support of the impression-of-ability standard for illegal recruitment. Followed.
• People vs. Gaoat, G.R. No. 97028, May 21, 1993, 222 SCRA 385 — Cited and distinguished; the mere act of a cashier in receiving money exceeding the legal limit was not considered recruitment because the cashier had no other participation and did not conspire with co-accused. Distinguished from Agustin's case, where she played a pivotal role.
• People vs. Comia, G.R. No. 109761, September 1, 1994, 236 SCRA 185 — Cited for the ruling that failure to present receipts for fees paid is not fatal to the prosecution's case where complainants' clear and positive testimonies sufficiently establish the payments. Followed.
• People vs. Sendon, G.R. Nos. 101579-89, December 15, 1993, 228 SCRA 489 — Cited for the doctrine that non-prosecution of another suspect provides no ground to fault a conviction. Followed.
• People vs. Resuma, G.R. Nos. 106640-42, June 15, 1994 — Cited for the principle that bare denials cannot overcome positive prosecution evidence proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Followed.
• People vs. Jumao-as, G.R. No. 101334, February 14, 1994, 230 SCRA 70 — Cited for the proposition that the trial court's findings of fact on witness credibility deserve respect by an appellate court. Followed.
• People vs. Yap, G.R. No. 103517, February 9, 1994, 229 SCRA 787 — Cited for the general rule that findings of fact of the trial court on credibility of witnesses will not be disturbed on appeal. Followed.

• Article 13(b), Labor Code (Presidential Decree No. 442) — 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 hold that Agustin's acts constituted recruitment activity.
• Articles 38 and 39, Labor Code, as amended by Section 1(b) of Presidential Decree No. 2018 — Article 38 provides that any recruitment activity undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of authority shall be deemed illegal and punishable under Article 39; illegal recruitment is considered an offense involving economic sabotage when committed by a syndicate (three or more persons conspiring) or in large scale (against three or more persons). Applied to qualify Agustin's offense as illegal recruitment in large scale.
• Article 34, Labor Code — Enumerates prohibited practices in recruitment and placement. Referenced in the information and in the Court's discussion of the scope of illegal recruitment.
• Section 4, Rule 130, Rules of Court — Provides that when the original writing has been lost, destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, its contents may be proved by a copy or recital in an authentic document, or by recollection of witnesses. Applied to justify the admission of xerox copies of receipts as secondary evidence.

Narvasa, C.J., Puno, Mendoza, and Francisco, JJ., concurred.