People vs. Duque

Illegal recruitment requires both recruitment activities and lack of POEA license or authority; where the lack of license is unknown to the complainants at the time, the three-year prescriptive period under Article 290 of the Labor Code runs from discovery of the unlawful nature of the acts, not from payment of placement fees. Illegal recruitment committed against three or more persons individually or as a group is large scale and punishable by life imprisonment under Section 39.

Napoleon Duque and the private complainants were the parties in a criminal case for illegal recruitment under Article 38 in relation to Article 39 of P.D. No. 442, as amended. The private complainants were job applicants for overseas employment who dealt with Duque in Calamba, Laguna, and the governing statutes penalize recruitment by non-licensees or non-holders of authority and set a three-year prescriptive period under Article 290, with Act No. 3326 supplying the computation rule for special-law offenses.

Napoleon Duque was charged with illegal recruitment in an information that named Glicerio Teodoro, Agustin Ulat, Ernesto Maunahan, Norma Francisco, Elmo Alcaraz, and Marcelino Desepida as the persons he allegedly recruited in January 1986 in Calamba, Laguna. The prosecution’s evidence in chief came principally from Ulat, Alcaraz, Desepida, and Francisco.

Agustin Ulat testified that sometime in January 1986, Duque invited him to his house in Calamba, Laguna, told him he was recruiting workers for Saudi Arabia, and presented himself as a licensed recruiter. Duque told Ulat to secure his birth certificate, NBI clearance, and medical certificate; Ulat obtained an NBI clearance and showed it to Duque. Duque then said he would secure the rest of Ulat’s papers—passport, visa, and medical certificate—and asked for P20,000.00. Ulat mortgaged his lot for P20,000.00 to Duque’s cousin Socorro Arlata and immediately gave the amount to Duque, who assured him he would leave within two months. Duque did not issue a receipt despite Ulat’s request; Ulat did not insist because he trusted Duque, who came from an affluent family and was a member of the Cursillo. Duque failed to employ Ulat in Saudi Arabia within two months despite repeated promises, and when Ulat demanded the return of his money, Duque failed to return it.

Elmo Alcaraz, Marcelino Desepida, and Norma Francisco each testified that sometime in January 1986 they went to Duque’s house for work abroad after Duque told them he was recruiting workers for Saudi Arabia. Duque asked them for money to process their papers. Alcaraz gave Duque P5,000.00 on 22 February 1986; Desepida gave P7,000.00 on 18 February 1986 as placement fee; and Francisco gave P9,000.00 on 21 February 1986 in the presence of the other applicants. Duque did not issue receipts: he promised Desepida one the next day but refused when reminded, telling Desepida to trust him; he also failed to issue receipts to Alcaraz and Francisco despite demand, telling them to trust him. Duque failed to return their money notwithstanding demands.

Because Duque failed to return their money, the complainants decided to file a complaint with the POEA against him and executed a joint affidavit, Exhibit “A.” They went to the POEA with the complaint for recovery of the placement fees and expenses sometime in December 1989; there the POEA discovered and informed them that Duque had operated as a recruiter without the essential government license or authority. The affidavit-sworn complaint was filed before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor on 16 April 1990, and the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Laguna filed the information in court on 22 May 1990.

At trial, Duque denied the charges. He controverted the allegation that he had recruited complainants for overseas employment and denied receiving any monies in consideration of promised employment. He acknowledged, however, that his house had served as a meeting place for a certain Delfin and one Engr. Acopado, who allegedly were the persons who had promised complainants work abroad. The prosecution submitted a certification from the licensing branch of the POEA stating that no records existed of any grant to Duque of a license or authority to recruit for overseas employment. On the basis of the complainants’ positive identification of Duque as the person they talked to for placement abroad, the person who collected fees from them, and the person who received information from them needed for arranging their departure, the trial court concluded that Duque was primarily responsible for promising placement and inducing the complainants to part with their money.

• Prescription: Duque argued that the prescriptive period commenced from the time the complainants parted with their money in consideration of promises for overseas employment, sometime in January 1986; because the information was filed on 22 May 1990, more than four years later, the offense had prescribed by May 1990.
• Literal Reading of Section 2, Act No. 3326: Duque assailed Section 2 as illogical or absurd, arguing that a literal reading requires both discovery of the violation and institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment to coincide, so the prescriptive period would never begin to run.

• Applicable Prescription Law: The Solicitor General maintained that Act No. 3326, as amended, supplied the applicable norm for computing the three-year prescriptive period under Article 290 of the Labor Code.

• Prescription: Whether the offense of illegal recruitment under Article 38 in relation to Article 39 of the Labor Code had prescribed when the information was filed on 22 May 1990.
• Penalty for Large-Scale Illegal Recruitment: Whether Duque’s recruitment activities constituted illegal recruitment in large scale, making life imprisonment the proper penalty under Section 39 of the Labor Code.

• Prescription: No. The offense had not prescribed; under Article 290 of the Labor Code and Section 2 of Act No. 3326, the three-year period began from discovery of the unlawful nature of the acts in December 1989, and the information was filed in May 1990.
• Penalty for Large-Scale Illegal Recruitment: Yes. Duque’s recruitment was against more than three persons and was organized and large-scale, so the proper penalty under Section 39 of the Labor Code is life imprisonment, not reclusion perpetua.

• Prescription: Article 290 of the Labor Code fixes a three-year prescriptive period for offenses under the Code, but the Labor Code does not provide the mode of computation. The SC applied Section 2 of Act No. 3326, which provides that prescription runs from the day of commission if the violation is known, and if not known, from discovery and institution of judicial proceedings. Illegal recruitment has two elements: recruitment activities as listed in Articles 38 and 34, and lack of the necessary license or authority from the POEA. The lack of license was known to Duque in January 1986 but not to the complainants, who discovered it only when they went to the POEA in December 1989 to file a claim for return of their money. Good faith is presumed; the complainants could assume Duque acted in good faith when he presented himself as a recruiter. Even if ordinary prudence required checking his authority, their failure did not start prescription. Special-law violations are often not immoral or obviously criminal, so prescription runs from discovery of the unlawful nature of the constitutive acts. Duque’s literal reading of Section 2 would make the period never run because discovery and institution of proceedings would coincide; but that reading did not benefit him because the period had not been exhausted. Statutes must be construed to give effect to legislative intent and avoid absurd results; the phrase “institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment” may be disregarded as surplusage or deemed preceded by “until.” The SC held that the period began when the complainants and the POEA ascertained in December 1989 that Duque had no license; the complaint was filed with the Provincial Prosecutor in April 1990 and the information in May 1990. The same result follows from supplemental application of Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code: prescription runs from discovery by the offended party, authorities, or their agents and is interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information; it began in December 1989 and was interrupted on 16 April 1990 and certainly in May 1990.
• Penalty for Large-Scale Illegal Recruitment: Section 39 of the Labor Code imposes life imprisonment where illegal recruitment is committed in large scale, i.e., against three or more persons individually or as a group. The complainants were more than three. Duque represented to the public, including the complainants, that he was a licensed recruiter; his house served as his business office; complainants were briefed there on overseas employment requirements and required to secure NBI clearances; considerable sums were collected from each supposedly to facilitate passports, medical certificates, and other working papers; and complainants were shown documents purporting to be job placement orders. This organized modus operandi was repeated for each complainant and presumably for other victims. The SC therefore held that the recruitment activities were organized and large scale, and imposed life imprisonment instead of reclusion perpetua.

• Prescription of Special-Law Offenses — Under Article 290 of the Labor Code, offenses under the Code prescribe in three years; because the Labor Code does not provide the mode of computation, Section 2 of Act No. 3326 applies. If the violation is not known at the time, prescription runs from discovery of the unlawful nature of the constitutive acts. Applied: the period began in December 1989 when the complainants and POEA discovered Duque had no license, not in January 1986 when the fees were paid.
• Elements of Illegal Recruitment — Illegal recruitment has two basic elements: (a) recruitment activities as listed in Articles 38 and 34 of the Labor Code; and (b) lack of the necessary license or authority from the POEA. Applied: Duque recruited complainants for overseas employment and had no POEA license or authority.
• Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale — Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three or more persons individually or as a group; it is punishable by life imprisonment under Section 39. Applied: Duque recruited more than three complainants through an organized modus operandi, so life imprisonment was proper.
• Statutory Construction Avoiding Absurdity — Statutes must be construed to give effect to legislative intent and to give a sensible meaning to the language, avoiding nonsensical or absurd results, even if this requires departing from the literal language. Applied: Section 2 of Act No. 3326 was not read to require the coincidence of discovery and institution of proceedings, which would make the prescriptive period never begin; the phrase may be disregarded as surplusage or read with “until.”
• Supplemental Application of the Revised Penal Code — Under Article 10 of the Revised Penal Code, the Code is supplementary to special laws unless the latter provides contrary. Applied: Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code was applied supplementally to Article 290 of the Labor Code, producing the same result that prescription began from discovery and was interrupted by the complaint and information.

• “It will be seen that illegal recruitment has two (2) basic elements, to wit: (a) recruitment activities as listed in Articles 38 and 34 of the Labor Code; and (b) the lack of the necessary license or authority from the POEA to engage in such activities.” — The SC used this passage to state the elements of illegal recruitment, which framed the analysis of when the lack of license was discovered.
• “In our view, the phrase "institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment" may be either disregarded as surplusage or should be deemed preceded by the word "until."" — The SC construed Section 2 of Act No. 3326 to avoid the absurd result that the prescriptive period would never begin.
• “We believe and so hold that the applicable prescriptive period in the case at bar began to run from the time the recruitment activities of appellant Duque were ascertained by the complainants and by the POEA to have been carried out without any license or authority from the government.” — This is the core holding on prescription: the period began in December 1989, not when the fees were paid.
• “Under Section 39 of the Labor Code as amended, the penalty of life imprisonment is properly imposable where the illegal recruitment is committed "in large scale," i.e., where it is "committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group."" — The SC used this rule to modify the penalty from reclusion perpetua to life imprisonment.

• People vs. Bugaon, 183 SCRA 62 (1990) — Cited in support of the rule that illegal recruitment committed in large scale is punishable by life imprisonment; also cited for the large-scale characterization.
• Catuira vs. Court of Appeals, 172 SCRA 136 (1989) — Cited in support of applying Act No. 3326 as the applicable norm for prescription of special-law offenses.
• People vs. Reyes, 175 SCRA 597 (1989) — Cited in support of the principle that a statute on prescription is an act of liberality in favor of the offender.
• Tañada vs. Cuenco, 103 Phil. 1051 (1957) — Cited in support of the rule that statutes must be construed to give effect to legislative intent.
• Lamb vs. Phipps, 22 Phil. 456 (1912) — Cited in support of construing statutes to avoid nonsensical or absurd results.
• Francisco vs. Court of Appeals, 122 SCRA 538 (1983) — Cited in support of the application of Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code on computation of prescription.

• Article 38, P.D. No. 442 (Labor Code), as amended — Defines illegal recruitment as recruitment activities by non-licensees or non-holders of authority; illegal recruitment is large scale if committed against three or more persons individually or as a group. Applied: Duque recruited complainants without POEA license; more than three victims made it large scale.
• Article 39, P.D. No. 442 — Provides the penalty for illegal recruitment; life imprisonment is imposable for large-scale illegal recruitment. Applied: the SC imposed life imprisonment.
• Article 290, P.D. No. 442 — Provides a three-year prescriptive period for offenses under the Labor Code. Applied: the SC used it as the prescriptive period but held it had not lapsed.
• Section 2, Act No. 3326, as amended — Provides computation of prescription for violations penalized by special acts: from the day of commission if known; if not known, from discovery and institution of judicial proceedings. Applied: the period began from discovery in December 1989.
• Article 10, Revised Penal Code — Makes the Revised Penal Code supplementary to special laws unless the latter provides contrary. Applied: the SC applied Article 91 supplementally to Article 290 of the Labor Code.
• Article 91, Revised Penal Code — Provides that prescription runs from discovery by the offended party, authorities, or their agents and is interrupted by filing of complaint or information. Applied: the period began in December 1989 and was interrupted by the April 1990 complaint and May 1990 information.