People vs. Diaz

Illegal recruitment in large scale is committed when (1) the offender is a non-licensee or non-holder of authority to engage in recruitment and placement, (2) the offender undertakes recruitment and placement activity as defined under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code or any prohibited practice under Article 34, and (3) the illegal recruitment is committed against three or more persons individually or as a group. A person who gives the impression that he has the power to send workers abroad, and who promises employment for a fee, is guilty of illegal recruitment even if he claims to be merely facilitating the procurement of passports and medical certificates.

Rodolfo "Erwin" Diaz, an engineer, was detained at the CIS Detention Center in Davao City when the recruitment activities occurred. The three complainants — Mary Anne Navarro, Maria Theresa Fabricante, and Maria Elena Ramirez — were all enrolled at the Henichi Techno Exchange Cultural Foundation in Davao City studying Niponggo in June 1992. Their teacher, Mrs. Remedios Aplicador, referred them to Mr. Paulo Lim, who in turn introduced them to Diaz. At the time, the Labor Code, as amended by Presidential Decree Nos. 1920 and 2018, governed the crime of illegal recruitment, prescribing life imprisonment and a fine of P100,000 for illegal recruitment in large scale. Republic Act No. 8042 (the Migrant Workers Act) was approved on June 7, 1995, after the commission of the offense, and was held inapplicable.

In June 1992, Mary Anne Navarro, Maria Theresa Fabricante, and Maria Elena Ramirez were enrolled at the Henichi Techno Exchange Cultural Foundation in Davao City studying Niponggo. Their teacher, Mrs. Remedios Aplicador, informed them that if they wished to work abroad — particularly in Brunei, where they could earn $700 for four hours of daily work — she could refer them to Mr. Paulo Lim, who knew one Engineer Erwin Diaz, then recruiting applicants for Brunei. Accompanied by Mrs. Aplicador, the three complainants met Mr. Paulo Lim, who explained that he was not the recruiter but that Engineer Diaz was. Lim told them his own children had already applied with Diaz and that the requirements included bio-data, passport, medical checkup, I.D., income tax return, and P2,500 for processing. He offered to accompany them to meet Diaz at the CIS office on July 18, 1992.

On July 18, 1992, Mr. Paulo Lim and Mrs. Remedios Aplicador brought the three complainants to the CIS Detention Center in Davao City, where Diaz was then detained, and introduced them to him. When the complainants asked why he was inside the cell, Diaz explained that four applicants had filed a case against him because they could not accept that they were sick of hepatitis, and that the CIS elements were just making money out of it. When asked whether he was recruiting applicants for Brunei, he answered in the affirmative. He enumerated the requirements: four passport-size pictures, bio-data, income tax return, medical certificate, NBI clearance, passport, P2,500 for processing, and P65,000 as placement fee — of which only P20,000 for plane fare was to be paid upfront, the balance of P45,000 to be paid through salary deductions. He told them the processing fee was to be paid at his residence at 14 Aries Street, GSIS Heights, Davao City.

Mary Anne Navarro paid P2,300 to Diaz at his residence on July 22, 1992. Maria Theresa Fabricante paid P2,000 on the same date, a reduced amount because she already had a passport. Maria Elena Ramirez paid P2,500 but lost her receipt, which was later returned to her by Diaz on August 17, 1992. After submitting all required papers and undergoing medical examination, the complainants asked when they could leave. Diaz told them to wait three to four weeks as his papers were still being processed by the CIS. During this period, after Diaz had been released from detention, the complainants repeatedly inquired when they would leave for Brunei, visiting his house several times and seeing many other applicants. Diaz kept telling them his papers were still with the CIS.

While still detained, Diaz told the complainants that the name of his agency was confidential but that its owner was Erlinda Romualdez, who used to be his mistress. He assured them it was a government project, that he would escort them to the Philippine Plaza Hotel for briefing before leaving for abroad, and that after the briefing they would proceed to the POEA to sign a contract — at which point they would pay the P20,000 — and then go to the residence of Erlinda Romualdez where they would stay for three days. He told them they would work as salesgirls in one of the department stores in Brunei, earning $700 a month for working only four hours a day. Navarro mortgaged her family's piano for P30,000 to raise the P20,000 plane fare and buy travel clothes. Fabricante returned to Cotabato, where her father sold a horse for P5,000 toward the required P20,000, with plans to mortgage five hectares of land for the balance.

Before the land mortgage money could be released, Fabricante went to the POEA office in Davao on August 3, 1992, and verified whether Diaz was a licensed recruiter. She learned from Atty. Evangelio that Diaz was not on the master list. She informed her two companions, and they agreed to confront Diaz to recover their money and documents. When they met Diaz, he greeted them by asking if they were ready to leave. They told him they were withdrawing their applications because they had found from the POEA that he was a fake recruiter. Diaz became angry and said they could withdraw and get back their documents the next day, but they would have to pay him charges for labor because he had already secured plane tickets for them — which he claimed were in Cagayan. The complainants withdrew their applications without paying his charges. The processing fees they had paid were all returned to them by Diaz, as evidenced by a receipt (Exhibit "G") signed by the three complainants and by Diaz and his wife. The POEA issued a Certification dated August 14, 1992, signed by Unit Coordinator Gaudencio de la Peña, confirming that Diaz, Paulo Lim, and Remedios Aplicador were never granted authority to conduct recruitment for overseas employment, and that the agencies known as Phil Jap Construction and Tanaka and Diaz Association were never licensed agencies for overseas recruitment.

• Promise of Employment Abroad: Petitioner argued that the lower court erred in finding that he did not merely confine himself to facilitating the passport and medical examination of the complainants but also promised them employment abroad.
• Mere Facilitator: Petitioner maintained that he was merely a facilitator of travel documents and not an illegal recruiter, asserting that he never made any promise of employment abroad but only assisted the complainants in procuring passports and medical certificates.
• Improper Conviction: Petitioner contended that the lower court erred in convicting him of the crime charged, the foregoing assigned errors being intertwined.

• Believable Facilitator Claim: Respondent, through the Solicitor General, countered that it was hard to believe the services promised by appellant to the three complainants consisted only of assistance in procuring passports and medical certificates, since the complainants themselves could have easily secured these documents at a lesser cost.
• Inconsistent Collection: Respondent argued that the fact that appellant still collected P2,000 from Theresa Fabricante, who already had a passport, belied his claim that his services were limited to procuring a passport and medical certificate.
• Impression of Power to Send Workers Abroad: Respondent maintained that a person is guilty of illegal recruitment when he gives the impression that he has the power to send workers abroad, which Diaz manifestly did by misrepresenting himself as a recruiter and promising work for a fee.

• Recruitment Activity: Whether the accused undertook recruitment and placement activity as defined under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code, or was merely a facilitator of travel documents.
• Elements of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale: Whether all the elements of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale were present, warranting conviction.
• Applicability of RA 8042: Whether Republic Act No. 8042, approved on June 7, 1995, should be applied to the case.

• Recruitment Activity: Yes. The accused undertook recruitment and placement activity by promising employment abroad for a fee, collecting processing and placement fees, and representing that he had the power to send workers to Brunei — acts falling squarely within the statutory definition of recruitment and placement under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code.
• Elements of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale: Yes. All three elements were present: the accused was a non-licensee or non-holder of authority, as certified by the POEA; he undertook recruitment and placement activities including promising and advertising for employment abroad; and the illegal recruitment was committed against three persons individually.
• Applicability of RA 8042: No. Republic Act No. 8042 was not applied because it was approved on June 7, 1995, after the offense was committed in July 1992, and crimes are punishable by the laws in force at the time of their commission.

• Recruitment Activity: The statutory definition of "recruitment and placement" under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code encompasses 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 testimonies of all three complainants consistently established that Diaz told them he was recruiting applicants for Brunei, enumerated requirements, collected processing fees, specified placement fees and salary deductions, described the work they would do abroad, and named the supposed agency owner. These acts unquestionably constitute recruitment and placement. His defense of bare denial that he was merely a facilitator was rejected, as greater weight must be given to the positive testimonies of prosecution witnesses than to the denial of the defendant. The fact that he still collected P2,000 from Fabricante, who already had a passport, belied his claim that his services were limited to procuring passports and medical certificates. It is settled that a person is guilty of illegal recruitment when he gives the impression that he has the power to send workers abroad, which Diaz manifestly did.

• Elements of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale: The crime of illegal recruitment in large scale requires three elements: (1) the offender is a non-licensee or non-holder of authority; (2) the offender undertakes recruitment and placement activity defined under Article 13(b) or any prohibited practice under Article 34; and (3) the illegal recruitment is committed against three or more persons individually or as a group. The POEA Certification dated August 14, 1992, confirmed that Diaz was never granted authority to conduct recruitment for overseas employment, satisfying the first element. The testimonies of the three complainants established that Diaz promised them employment abroad, collected fees, and described their prospective work — acts constituting recruitment and placement under Article 13(b), satisfying the second element. Three persons — Navarro, Fabricante, and Ramirez — were victims, satisfying the third element. The trial court's findings on the credibility of witnesses were accorded great weight and respect, the appellate court finding no overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied facts that would affect the result.

• Applicability of RA 8042: Republic Act No. 8042, otherwise known as the Migrant Workers Act, was approved on June 7, 1995, and amends pertinent provisions of the Labor Code by providing a new definition of illegal recruitment and higher penalties. The offense was committed in July 1992. Because crimes are punishable by the laws in force at the time of their commission, the restrictive provisions of RA 8042 were not applied, and the case was decided under the Labor Code as amended by Presidential Decree Nos. 1920 and 2018.

• Elements of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale — The crime of illegal recruitment in large scale is committed when three elements concur: (1) the offender is a non-licensee or non-holder of authority to engage in recruitment and placement; (2) the offender undertakes recruitment and placement activity as defined under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code, or any prohibited practice enumerated under Article 34; and (3) the illegal recruitment is committed against three or more persons individually or as a group. All three elements were found present in this case, the POEA Certification establishing the first, the complainants' testimonies establishing the second, and the three victims establishing the third.

• Definition of Recruitment and Placement — 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. 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 Diaz's acts of promising employment abroad, collecting fees, and describing prospective work constituted recruitment and placement.

• Impression of Power to Send Workers Abroad — A person is guilty of illegal recruitment when he gives the impression that he has the power to send workers abroad. Diaz manifestly gave that impression to the three complainants by misrepresenting himself as a recruiter of workers for Brunei, promising them work for a fee, and convincing them to give their money for the purpose of getting employment overseas.

• Credibility of Trial Court Findings — When the issue is the credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will in general not disturb the findings of the trial court unless certain facts or circumstances of weight have been overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied which, if considered, might affect the result of the case. This is because the trial court heard the testimony of the witnesses and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during trial. The Court found no reason to disturb the trial court's observations.

• Positive Testimonies vs. Bare Denials — Greater weight must generally be given to the positive testimonies of prosecution witnesses than to the denial of the defendant in weighing contradictory declarations and statements. A lame defense consisting of bare denials cannot overcome the evidence presented by the prosecution proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

• Prospectivity of Penal Laws — Crimes are punishable by the laws in force at the time of their commission. Republic Act No. 8042, approved on June 7, 1995, was not applied to an offense committed in July 1992.

• "The acts of the appellant, which were clearly described in the lucid testimonies of the three victims, such as collecting from each of the complainants payment for passport, medical tests, placement fee, plane tickets and other sundry expenses, promising them employment abroad, contracting and advertising for employment, unquestionably constitute acts of large scale illegal recruitment." — This passage states the ratio decidendi, applying the statutory definition of recruitment and placement to the specific acts committed by the accused.

• "a person is guilty of illegal recruitment when he gives the impression that he has the power to send workers abroad." — This formulation of the doctrine is frequently cited in subsequent illegal recruitment jurisprudence, encapsulating the principle that the impression of authority to send workers abroad is sufficient to constitute the offense.

• "The lame defense consisting of such bare denials by appellant cannot overcome the evidence presented by the prosecution proving her guilt beyond reasonable doubt." — This passage articulates the settled rule on the evidentiary weight of positive testimonies over bare denials, a principle consistently applied in Philippine criminal jurisprudence.

• "We are not in anyway applying the otherwise restrictive provisions of this new law as it is not applicable in the case at bar, considering the rule that crimes are punishable by the laws in force at the time of their commission." — This passage establishes the temporal limitation on the applicability of RA 8042, grounding the refusal to apply the newer law in the fundamental principle of prospectivity of penal legislation.

• People vs. Cabacang, G.R. No. 113917, July 17, 1995 — Cited as controlling authority for the two elements of the crime of illegal recruitment: (1) lack of valid license or authority, and (2) undertaking recruitment and placement activity or prohibited practices under Article 34.
• People vs. Panis, G.R. No. L-58674-77, July 11, 1986 — Followed for the pronouncement that any of the acts mentioned in Article 13(b) will constitute recruitment and placement even if only one prospective worker is involved, the number of persons dealt with not being an essential ingredient.
• People vs. Goce, G.R. No. 113161, August 29, 1995 — Followed for the doctrine that illegal recruitment committed against three or more persons constitutes large-scale illegal recruitment, an offense involving economic sabotage, and for the rule that bare denials cannot overcome prosecution evidence.
• People vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 105204, March 9, 1995 — Followed for the rule that appellate courts will generally not disturb trial court findings on the credibility of witnesses unless facts or circumstances of weight have been overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied.
• People vs. Manungas, G.R. No. 91552-55, March 10, 1994; Flores vs. People, G.R. Nos. 93411-12, July 20, 1992 — Cited for the settled rule that a person is guilty of illegal recruitment when he gives the impression that he has the power to send workers abroad.
• People vs. Bautista, G.R. No. 113547, Feb. 9, 1995; People vs. Coronacion, G.R. No. 97845, Sept. 29, 1994 — Cited for the enumeration of the three elements of illegal recruitment in large scale.

• Article 13(b), 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 or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not. Applied to characterize Diaz's acts of promising employment abroad, collecting fees, and describing prospective work as recruitment and placement.
• Articles 38(a) and 38(b), Labor Code, as amended by PD 1920 and PD 2018 — Define illegal recruitment as any recruitment activity undertaken by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority, and provide that illegal recruitment constitutes an offense involving economic sabotage when committed by a syndicate or in large scale (against three or more persons). Applied to classify Diaz's offense as illegal recruitment in large scale.
• Article 39, Labor Code, as amended — Prescribes the penalty for illegal recruitment. Applied to impose life imprisonment and a fine of P100,000.
• Article 34, Labor Code — Enumerates prohibited practices in recruitment and placement. Referenced as an alternative basis for finding recruitment activity.
• Republic Act No. 8042 (Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995) — Approved June 7, 1995, amends the Labor Code's provisions on illegal recruitment and provides a new definition and higher penalties. Held inapplicable because the offense was committed in July 1992, before the law's enactment.

Regalado, Romero, Puno, and Mendoza, JJ., concurred.