People vs. Coronacion and Aquino

Illegal recruitment in large scale is committed when a person (a) undertakes any recruitment activity defined under Article 13(b) or any prohibited practice enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code; (b) does not have a license or authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers; and (c) commits the same against three or more persons, individually or as a group. Conspiracy may be inferred from the concerted acts of the accused in carrying out the illegal recruitment enterprise, and the trial court's findings on witness credibility will not be disturbed on appeal absent any overlooked fact of substance.

The case involves the prosecution of Nelia Coronacion, Eduardo Aquino, and June Mendez for illegal recruitment in large scale and by a syndicate under Presidential Decree No. 1412, amending provisions of Presidential Decree No. 442 (the New Labor Code of the Philippines), in relation to Article 13(b) and (c) of the same Code as amended by Presidential Decrees Nos. 1693, 1920, and 2018. The complainants were individuals seeking overseas employment in Saudi Arabia who transacted with the accused at the EAAALCO office located in the Producers Bank Building in Binondo, Manila. The Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) certified that the appellants held no license or authority to recruit workers for overseas employment.

Nelia Coronacion, Eduardo Aquino, and June Mendez operated an overseas employment recruitment scheme at Room 1110, 11th Floor, Producers Bank Building, Dasmarinas corner Nueva Streets, Binondo, Manila, which served as the office of EAAALCO, where Aquino was introduced as the manager and Coronacion as his secretary. Between June 18 and July 5, 1987, the three recruited six individuals — Randie Hilario, Andres Ramos, Aristotle Hilario, Rolando Laed, Zoilo Radan, and Soledad Tadeo — promising them employment in Saudi Arabia in exchange for placement fees ranging from P10,000.00 to P15,000.00.

Randie Hilario testified that on July 2, 1987, he and several companions went to the EAAALCO office upon the instruction of Mendez to submit documents for their work applications. Coronacion and Mendez told them to sign bio-data papers and prepare their passports, NBI and police clearances, after which they were to pay P10,000.00 each as placement fee. On June 18, 1987, Hilario gave Mendez P3,000.00 as documentation fee, for which a receipt was issued, and was told to return after two weeks. When he returned, Mendez showed him documents including a Travel Exit Pass and Medical Referral bearing Aquino's signature. Hilario later paid the P10,000.00 placement fee, which Mendez received and handed to Coronacion, who kept the money in her desk. He was not able to leave on July 5, 1987 as promised.

Rolando Laed met Coronacion at the airport when they saw off Coronacion's niece, and met Aquino at the EAAALCO office. On June 2, 1987, he filed his application as a driver in Riyadh with Coronacion and Mendez, who instructed him to secure his NBI clearance, photographs, and passport. He later paid P15,000.00 to Mendez, witnessed by his cousin Evelyn Dalimot and her mother Leticia Dalimot, but was not issued a receipt. Aquino had no direct participation in his application, but it was Aquino who signed the referral note dated June 2, 1987, addressed to a physician for his medical examination, which Coronacion gave him in Mendez's presence.

Zoilo Radam testified that he was not formally introduced to Coronacion and Aquino but was merely pointed to them by Mendez. On June 2, 1987, he went to the EAAALCO office to obtain a medical referral, having been told by Mendez and Coronacion that they needed workers in Riyadh. He gave his bio-data, NBI clearance, and passport to Mendez, who told him they would leave for abroad on July 5, 1987, and that he must pay P13,000.00. He paid P12,500.00 on June 8, 1987 at the residence of Leticia Dalimot, for which Mendez issued a receipt, and Mendez thereafter handed the money to Coronacion in her room. On July 2, 1987, Mendez collected the balance of P2,500.00.

Aristotle Hilario came to know the three accused on June 2, 1987 at the EAAALCO office, where he consented to work as a janitor in Riyadh with a monthly salary of $260.00. He was told to sign application forms and prepare his bio-data, NBI and police clearances. He paid P10,000.00 in two installments to Mendez — P2,500.00 on June 18, 1987 and P7,500.00 on July 1, 1987 — and saw Mendez hand the money to Coronacion. He was not given receipts. The accused promised the complainants they would leave after two weeks, but the departure was postponed to July 5, 1987, and they were not able to leave because Mendez did not appear. When the complainants asked Coronacion and Aquino why they could not leave, the duo answered that Mendez did not appear anymore and they could not tell them where he was.

Soledad Tadeo, a jeepney driver, learned of Coronacion through her cousin Fe Juliano, who had been sent abroad through the accused's efforts. She met Coronacion through Mendez, who told her that Coronacion was the secretary of Eduardo Aquino, manager of EAAALCO. On June 2, 1987, she went to the EAAALCO office to fill up her bio-data, and Aquino told her that if she could recruit more applicants, she would be given a discount. She was told she would work as a driver in Dubai and must pay P10,000.00, which she gave in two installments — P2,500.00 on June 18, 1987 to Coronacion, who told her they ran out of receipts, and P7,500.00 on July 1, 1987, which Coronacion placed in her drawer.

The prosecution also presented the unrebutted testimony of Orlino Regualos, Assistant Chief of the Licensing Division of the POEA, who testified that Coronacion and Aquino had no license or authority from POEA to recruit workers for overseas employment. The complainants discovered the appellants' lack of authority only upon inquiry at POEA after they failed to leave as promised. When the complainants failed to depart on the promised date, they filed complaints with the Western Police District, and the police later invited Coronacion to the headquarters for interrogation.

The defense rested on denial and alibi. Aquino maintained he had no knowledge of the transactions between the complainants and his co-accused, claiming he was always out of town during the weeks when the alleged transactions took place. Coronacion claimed she knew nothing about the transactions, asserting that she herself was a victim of Mendez's nefarious activities.

• Victim of Deceit: Appellant Coronacion argued that she was also a victim of the deceitful scheme of Jun Mendez, and that the trial court erred in finding that she represented herself as a recruiter of workers and promised jobs to the complainants for a fee.
• Absence of Conspiracy: Coronacion maintained that the trial court erred in finding that she acted in conspiracy with Aquino and Mendez, asserting that she was fraudulently used by Mendez in his illegal recruitment scheme.
• Inconsistencies in Testimonies: Coronacion argued that the trial court erred in finding inconsistencies in the testimonies of the accused, contending that it was the testimonies of the complainants that were full of substantial and material inconsistencies.
• Reliance on Prosecution Evidence: Appellant Aquino argued that the trial court erred in relying heavily on the evidence of the prosecution and in totally disregarding the evidence for the defense.
• Lack of Conspiracy: Aquino contended that the trial court erred in holding that conspiracy attended the commission of the crime charged against him.
• Reasonable Doubt: Aquino argued that the trial court erred in finding him guilty despite the failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

• Elements Established: The prosecution established that the appellants undertook recruitment activities defined under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code, that they had no license or authority from POEA, and that they committed the offense against more than three persons.
• Conspiracy Shown: The prosecution presented testimonies of the complainants clearly pointing to the appellants as two of the three persons who promised them employment abroad and who collected and received varying amounts from them, demonstrating concerted action in the illegal recruitment enterprise.

• Sufficiency of the Information: Whether the information's citation of Article 33(a) of Presidential Decree 1412 instead of Articles 38 and 39 of the Labor Code, as amended, rendered the information defective.
• Elements of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale: Whether the prosecution established all elements of illegal recruitment in large scale against the appellants.
• Conspiracy: Whether conspiracy attended the commission of the crime charged against the appellants.
• Credibility of Witnesses: Whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimonies of the private complainants despite alleged inconsistencies.

• Sufficiency of the Information: No. The inadvertent citation of the wrong decree was insignificant because the body of the complaint enumerated the requisites or elements of the crime of large scale illegal recruitment, though the Court advised all concerned to exercise extreme care in preparing informations.
• Elements of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale: Yes. The prosecution established all elements: the appellants undertook recruitment activities defined under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code, they had no license or authority from POEA, and they committed the offense against more than three persons.
• Conspiracy: Yes. Conspiracy was established by the appellants' concerted acts in the illegal recruitment business conducted in Aquino's office, with each performing acts contributive to the success of the enterprise.
• Credibility of Witnesses: No. The trial court's findings on credibility were not disturbed, the alleged inconsistencies being slight and insignificant, and no improper motives could be attributed to the complainants.

• Sufficiency of the Information: The Court observed that the information should more accurately have been for violation of Article 38 in relation to Article 39 of the Labor Code, as amended, rather than Article 33(a) of Presidential Decree 1412. However, the Court noted that the decrees merely amended Articles 38 and 39 of the Labor Code by making large scale illegal recruitment a crime of economic sabotage punishable by life imprisonment. The inadvertence was deemed insignificant because the body of the complaint enumerated the requisites or elements of the crime of large scale illegal recruitment.

• Elements of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale: The Court articulated the elements of illegal recruitment in large scale: (a) the accused undertakes any recruitment activity defined under Article 13(b) or any prohibited practice enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code; (b) the accused does not have a license or authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers; and (c) the offense is committed against three or more persons, individually or as a group. The presence of the second and third elements was not disputed, as the appellants were neither licensees nor holders of authority from POEA, as evidenced by a certification dated September 8, 1987, and the number of private complainants was certainly more than three. The first element was satisfied by the testimonies of the complainants clearly pointing to the appellants as two of the three persons who promised them employment abroad and who collected and received varying amounts from them.

• Conspiracy: The Court found that the appellants and their co-accused June Mendez acted in concert in the illegal recruitment business conducted in Aquino's office, with each performing acts contributive to the success of an enterprise designed for mutual benefit and advantage. With respect to Aquino, the following facts were incontrovertible: (a) the illegal transactions took place in his office; (b) the medical referral slips given to private complainants bore his signature; (c) he was present when complainant Randie Hilario gave his payment of P10,000.00 to Mendez; (d) he personally handed to complainant Aristotle Hilario his medical referral slip; and (e) he told complainant Soledad Tadeo to prepare her bio-data and that if she could recruit more applicants, she would be given a discount. Though he may not have directly recruited private complainants, he made no disclaimer to them of Coronacion and Mendez's authority to recruit workers in his office. As to Coronacion, the Court found her feigned ignorance highly incredible, as the complainants testified that she, together with Mendez, told them to fill up application forms, prepare their passports and bio-data, secure NBI, police and other clearances, and pay documentation and processing fees. The witnesses also testified that Coronacion gave them medical referral slips pre-signed by Aquino and that they saw Mendez hand the money to Coronacion, who kept it in her drawer. The presence of a special power of attorney authorizing Evelyn Dalimot to recruit workers for abroad in her possession further doused any doubt in her favor.

• Credibility of Witnesses: The Court applied the long-standing rule that appellate courts will generally not disturb the trial court's findings on credibility of witnesses, as the trial court is in a better position to decide the controversy, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying. The Court found no reason to depart from this general rule, as the alleged inconsistencies were slight and insignificant, and given the natural frailties of the human mind, slight inconsistencies and variances in the complainants' testimonies hardly weakened their probative value. The Court also found no improper motives attributable to the complainants, who did not know the appellants before the illegal recruitment and had no reason to harbor spite against them, noting that it is against human nature and experience for strangers to conspire and accuse another stranger of a most serious crime just to mollify their hurt feelings.

• Elements of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale — The crime of illegal recruitment in large scale is committed when a person (a) undertakes any recruitment activity defined under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code or any prohibited practice enumerated under Article 34; (b) does not have a license or authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers; and (c) commits the same against three or more persons, individually or as a group. The Court applied this three-element test to affirm the conviction of the appellants.

• Conspiracy Inferred from Concerted Acts — Conspiracy need not be proven by direct evidence but may be inferred from the concerted acts of the accused in carrying out the illegal enterprise. The Court found that the appellants acted in concert in the illegal recruitment business conducted in Aquino's office, with each performing acts contributive to the success of the enterprise designed for mutual benefit and advantage.

• Credibility of Witnesses — When the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will generally not disturb the findings of the trial court, considering that the latter is in a better position to decide the controversy, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial, unless it has overlooked certain facts of substance and value that, if considered, will alter the outcome of the case.

• "Evidently, the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale is committed when a person (a) undertakes any recruitment activity defined under Article 13(b) or any prohibited practice enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code; (b) does not have a license or authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers; and (c) commits the same against three or more persons, individually or as a group." — This passage articulates the canonical three-element test for illegal recruitment in large scale, which the Court applied to affirm the conviction.

• "A careful examination and evaluation of the testimonies of the complaining witnesses lead to no other conclusion than that the appellants and their co-accused June Mendez who is still at large, acted in concert in the illegal recruitment business conducted in the office of appellant Eduardo Aquino with each of them performing acts contributive to the success of an enterprise designed for mutual benefit and advantage." — This passage states the Court's finding of conspiracy based on the concerted acts of the accused in the illegal recruitment enterprise.

• "It is against human nature and experience for strangers to conspire and accuse another stranger of a most serious crime just to mollify their hurt feelings." — This passage supports the Court's rejection of the defense's imputation of improper motives to the complainants, reinforcing the credibility of their testimonies.

• People vs. de Leon, 225 SCRA 651 (1993) — Cited for the proposition that the decrees amending the Labor Code made large scale illegal recruitment a crime of economic sabotage punishable by life imprisonment, supporting the Court's observation on the proper citation in the information.
• People vs. Comia, G.R. No. 109761, September 1, 1994 — Cited as controlling precedent for the elements of illegal recruitment in large scale and for the rule on credibility of witnesses.
• People vs. Bodozo, 215 SCRA 33 (1992) — Cited in support of the rule that appellate courts will not disturb the trial court's findings on credibility of witnesses.
• People vs. Elizabeth Coral, G.R. No. 97849-54, March 1994 — Cited for the rule on credibility of witnesses and for the principle that it is against human nature for strangers to accuse another of a serious crime without improper motive.
• People vs. Simon, 209 SCRA 148 (1992) — Cited in support of the rule on credibility of witnesses.
• People vs. Pascual, 208 SCRA 393 (1992) — Cited in support of the rule on credibility of witnesses.
• People vs. Martinada, 194 SCRA 36 (1991) — Cited in support of the rule on credibility of witnesses.

• Article 13(b), Labor Code, as amended — Defines "recruitment and placement" as any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, including referrals, contract services, promising or 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 shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement. The Court applied this definition to determine whether the appellants' acts constituted recruitment activities.
• Article 38, Labor Code, as amended by P.D. No. 2018 — Declares illegal any recruitment activities 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. The Court applied this provision to establish the elements of the offense.
• Article 39(a), Labor Code, as amended — Imposes the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) if illegal recruitment constitutes economic sabotage. The Court applied this provision to affirm the penalty imposed, with the modification that the proper penalty is life imprisonment and not reclusion perpetua.
• Presidential Decree No. 1412 — Cited in the information as the basis for the charge; the Court noted that this decree merely amended Articles 38 and 39 of the Labor Code by making large scale illegal recruitment a crime of economic sabotage.

Cruz, Davide, Jr., Bellosillo, and Quiason, JJ., concurred.