People vs. Gutierrez

A representative or agent of a licensed recruitment agency who engages in recruitment activities without the prior approval of the POEA of their appointment is liable for illegal recruitment, and good faith or ignorance of the registration requirement is not a defense because illegal recruitment in large scale is malum prohibitum, not malum in se.

Flor Gutierrez was purportedly employed as the Overseas Marketing Directress of Sarifudin Manpower and General Services, a duly licensed recruitment agency bearing License No. OS-91-LB-61193-NL issued by the Department of Labor and Employment. Under the Rules and Regulations Governing Overseas Employment, the appointment of representatives or agents of a licensed agency is subject to prior approval or authority of the POEA, which requires submission of the proposed appointment or Special Power of Attorney, NBI clearances of the proposed representative, and a sworn statement by the designating company assuming full responsibility for all acts of the agent in connection with recruitment and placement. The POEA maintains records of all authorized representatives and agents of licensed agencies and must be notified of any revocation or amendment of an appointment.

From April to August 1994, Flor Gutierrez engaged in recruitment activities for overseas job placement as domestic helpers in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, operating through a network of recruiter-agents including Celia Bautista, Esther Gamilde, Marilyn Garcia, and Linda Rabaino. Four complainants—Rosemarie Tugade, Evelyn Ramos, Rosalyn Sumayo, and Generosa Asuncion—were each promised employment abroad and required to pay placement fees, processing fees, terminal fees, and other charges ranging from several thousand to fifteen thousand pesos, along with submission of passports, birth certificates, medical certificates, and photographs.

Rosemarie Tugade was introduced to the opportunity through Celia Bautista, a recruiter-agent based in Vigan, Ilocos Sur, who told her she could work in Dubai as a domestic helper for $150 per month with salary deductions for the first three months. Rosemarie paid P4,000 as placement fee, P1,200 for passport, and P850 for medical examination, and traveled to Manila with Celia and fellow applicant Evelyn Ramos to the house of Esther Gamilde, where they filled out bio-data forms and underwent medical examinations. On August 27, 1994, Rosemarie and Evelyn were brought to the accused's office at Sarifudin Manpower and General Services on EDSA Extension, Pasay City, where the accused acknowledged receipt of Rosemarie's documents and money paid to Celia and demanded an additional P2,000, which Rosemarie paid. A terminal fee of P500 was also paid on August 31, 1994, as evidenced by a receipt. Despite repeated promises of departure—first in a week, then September 15, then before Christmas—Rosemarie was never deployed.

Evelyn Ramos followed a similar path, paying P4,000 to Celia Bautista and an additional P8,000 on June 10, 1994, which was turned over to Esther Gamilde. On August 27, 1994, Esther brought Evelyn to the accused's office, where the accused asked for P2,000 as POEA processing fee plus a P500 terminal fee, both of which Evelyn paid. Like Rosemarie, Evelyn was never able to leave the country. Rosalyn Sumayo's experience was more harrowing: she was assisted by Marilyn Garcia, to whom she paid P7,500 as processing fee, P2,620 as full tax, P500 as terminal fee, and P3,000 as service charge, along with her documents. All were remitted to the accused at her office on June 28, 1994. The accused brought Rosalyn to the airport on three separate occasions, at one point instructing her to hide in the airport restroom, and on another directing her to hide inside Kayumanggi Restaurant. On November 14, 1994, the accused warned Rosalyn that if the Immigration Officer insisted on seeing her papers, it would be better for her to leave—which she did when asked to produce her documents. When Rosalyn demanded a refund, the accused shouted at her and demanded a cancellation fee of $300. Generosa Asuncion applied through Linda Rabaino in August 1994, paying P15,000 in two installments on September 9 and 12, 1994, which were not receipted. Linda referred Generosa to the accused, who received the documents and money but never deployed her; when Generosa demanded a refund, the accused demanded a cancellation fee of $600.

Upon learning from the POEA that the accused was not a licensed recruiter, the complainants executed affidavits before the Philippine Anti-Crime Commission. SPO4 Johnny Marqueta confirmed with the POEA that the accused was not licensed or authorized to recruit overseas contract workers. On January 26, 1995, the accused was arrested at Jollibee, Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon City, after counting and wrapping marked money in Jollibee napkins. In her defense, the accused claimed she was employed as Marketing Directress of Sarifudin Manpower and General Services, a duly licensed agency, and presented a Special Power of Attorney dated May 1, 1994, a Certification dated February 3, 1995, receipts for a cash bond of P30,000, royalty and rental fees, and monthly reports. She received no salary from Sarifudin but earned commissions from the agency's foreign principals at $100 per person. POEA Labor Employment Officer Edwin Cristobal confirmed that Sarifudin was duly licensed but testified that the POEA never received a letter from Sarifudin registering or authorizing Flor Gutierrez; rather, it received only a revocation of her appointment dated December 15, 1995. The accused's name does not appear in the POEA records as being employed by the agency from the assumption of its license on June 11, 1993, up to its termination on June 11, 1995. Two complainants, Rosemarie Tugade and Evelyn Ramos, executed Affidavits of Desistance dated May 12, 1995, stating that the accused had returned their money and that the complaint was a result of a misunderstanding.

• Status as Representative of Licensed Agency: Appellant argued that as a representative of a duly licensed recruitment agency, she could not be held guilty of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale.
• Authority Derived from Agency: Appellant admitted she had no authority to recruit in her personal capacity but maintained that her authority emanated from a Special Power of Attorney and a Certification issued by Sarifudin Manpower and General Services.
• Good Faith / Ignorance of Registration Requirement: Appellant claimed she was not aware that before working for her employer in the recruitment agency, she should first be registered with the POEA.
• Affidavits of Desistance: Appellant relied on Affidavits of Desistance executed by complainants Rosemarie Tugade and Evelyn Ramos, stating that the accused had returned their money and that the complaint was a result of a misunderstanding.

• Liability for Illegal Recruitment: Whether the appellant, claiming to act as a representative of a duly licensed recruitment agency, can be held guilty of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale.
• Weight of Affidavits of Desistance: Whether the Affidavits of Desistance executed by two of the four complainants should negate the conviction.

• Liability for Illegal Recruitment: Yes. The appointment of representatives or agents of a licensed agency requires prior POEA approval under Section 11, Rule II, Book II of the Rules and Regulations Governing Overseas Employment, and absent such approval, the representative's recruitment activities constitute illegal recruitment under Section 1, Rule X of the same Book.
• Weight of Affidavits of Desistance: No. Affidavits of desistance deserve little weight, especially when executed as an afterthought, and cannot override testimonies solemnly taken before the courts of justice.

• Liability for Illegal Recruitment: Illegal recruitment is committed when two elements concur: (1) the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to engage in recruitment and placement of workers, and (2) the offender undertakes any activity within the meaning of "recruitment and placement" under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code or any prohibited practice under Article 34. The crime becomes illegal recruitment in large scale when a third element is present: the recruiter committed the same against three or more persons. Under Section 11, Rule II, Book II of the Rules and Regulations Governing Overseas Employment, every appointment of representatives or agents of a licensed agency is subject to prior approval or authority of the POEA, requiring submission of the proposed appointment or SPA, NBI clearances, and a sworn statement by the designating company assuming full responsibility for the agent's acts. Section 1, Rule X of the same Book provides that recruitment activities of agents whose appointments were not authorized by the POEA constitute illegal recruitment. The POEA Certification that it "has not received nor acknowledged the representation of Ms. Gutierrez" established that the appointment was never submitted to or approved by the POEA. Although Sarifudin sent a revocation of the appointment, this was of no consequence because Sarifudin never submitted the appointment in the first place. The evidence further showed that the accused was running her own labor recruitment business. Because illegal recruitment in large scale is malum prohibitum, not malum in se, good faith is not a defense, and the accused cannot escape liability by claiming ignorance of the registration requirement. The accused's recruitment activities were clearly established: she promised the complainants employment abroad, received their money and documents, brought one complainant to the airport on three occasions, and even demanded cancellation fees when refunds were requested. As the offense was committed against three or more persons, the accused is liable for illegal recruitment in large scale.
• Weight of Affidavits of Desistance: The Affidavits of Desistance executed by complainants Rosemarie Tugade and Evelyn Ramos deserve little weight, especially when executed as an afterthought. As held in People vs. Ubina, it would be a dangerous rule for courts to reject testimonies solemnly taken before the courts of justice simply because the witnesses later changed their minds, as such a rule would make solemn trials a mockery and place the investigation of truth at the mercy of unscrupulous witnesses. The affidavits thus cannot override the testimonies given in open court.

• Elements of Illegal Recruitment — Illegal recruitment is committed when two elements concur: (1) the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable one to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers; and (2) the offender undertakes either any activity within the meaning of "recruitment and placement" defined under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code, or any of the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code. The Court applied this test and found both elements present, as the accused lacked POEA-approved authority and engaged in canvassing, enlisting, contracting, and promising employment for a fee.

• Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale — The crime of illegal recruitment elevates to large scale when the two basic elements concur plus a third: the recruiter committed the same against three or more persons, individually or as a group. The Court found this element satisfied because the accused recruited four complainants—Rosemarie Tugade, Evelyn Ramos, Rosalyn Sumayo, and Generosa Asuncion.

• Prior POEA Approval of Appointment of Representatives — Under Section 11, Rule II, Book II of the Rules and Regulations Governing Overseas Employment, every appointment of representatives or agents of a licensed agency is subject to prior approval or authority of the POEA. The requirements are: (a) proposed appointment or Special Power of Attorney; (b) NBI clearances of the proposed representative or agent; and (c) a sworn or verified statement by the designating company assuming full responsibility for all acts of the agent. Any revocation or amendment must be communicated to the POEA; otherwise, the designation is deemed not revoked or amended. The Court found that Sarifudin never submitted the accused's appointment to the POEA, so there was nothing to approve, rendering her recruitment activities unauthorized.

• Unauthorized Agents and Illegal Recruitment — Under Section 1, Rule X of the Rules and Regulations Governing Overseas Employment, recruitment and placement activities of agents or representatives appointed by a licensee whose appointments were not authorized by the POEA constitute illegal recruitment. The Court applied this provision to hold the accused liable despite her claim of acting under a licensed agency.

• Malum Prohibitum — Good Faith Not a Defense — Illegal recruitment in large scale is malum prohibitum, not malum in se; therefore, good faith is not a defense. The Court rejected the accused's claim that she was unaware of the POEA registration requirement, holding that ignorance of the regulatory requirement does not exempt the offender from liability.

• Affidavits of Desistance — Affidavits of desistance deserve little weight in the evaluation of evidence, especially when executed as an afterthought. Courts should not reject testimonies solemnly taken before them simply because witnesses later changed their minds, as this would make trials a mockery and place the investigation of truth at the mercy of unscrupulous witnesses. The Court applied this principle to disregard the desistance affidavits of two complainants.

• "Illegal recruitment in large scale is malum prohibitum, not malum in se. Good faith is not a defense." — This passage states the ratio decidendi for rejecting the accused's good-faith defense, establishing that ignorance of the POEA registration requirement cannot exempt one from criminal liability for unauthorized recruitment.

• "The Certification from the POEA that it 'has not received nor acknowledged the representation of Ms. Gutierrez' establishes that the appointment of appellant by Serafudin as a representative or agent was not authorized by the POEA." — This passage explains why the accused's claim of authority from a licensed agency fails: the POEA never received or approved her appointment, so the statutory prerequisite for lawful recruitment through an agency was never satisfied.

• "it would be a dangerous rule for courts to reject testimonies solemnly taken before the courts of justice simply because the witnesses who had given them later on changed their mind for one reason or another; for such rule would make solemn trials a mockery and place the investigation of truth at the mercy of unscrupulous witnesses." — Quoted from People vs. Ubina, this passage articulates the canonical formulation of the doctrine on affidavits of desistance, explaining why recantations cannot override testimonies given in open court.

• People vs. Ordono, G.R. Nos. 129593 & 143533-35, July 10, 2000, 335 SCRA 331 — Cited as the source of the two-element test for illegal recruitment and the definition of "recruitment and placement" under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code. Followed.
• People vs. Banzales, G.R. No. 132289, July 18, 2000, 336 SCRA 64 — Cited for the three-element test for illegal recruitment in large scale, which in turn cited People vs. Castillon. Followed.
• People vs. Fajardo, G.R. No. 128583, November 22, 2000, 345 SCRA 395 — Cited for the proposition that illegal recruitment in large scale is malum prohibitum and that good faith is not a defense. Followed.
• People vs. Ubina, 97 Phil. 515 (1955) — Cited for the doctrine that affidavits of desistance deserve little weight and that testimonies solemnly taken in court should not be rejected merely because witnesses later recant. Followed.

• Article 13(b), Labor Code — 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; 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 characterize the accused's activities as recruitment and placement.
• Article 34, Labor Code — Enumerates prohibited practices in recruitment and placement. Cited as an alternative basis for the second element of illegal recruitment.
• Section 11, Rule II, Book II, Rules and Regulations Governing Overseas Employment — Requires prior POEA approval of the appointment of representatives or agents of licensed agencies, with specific submission requirements. Applied to hold that the accused's appointment was never authorized because it was never submitted to the POEA.
• Section 1, Rule X, Book II, Rules and Regulations Governing Overseas Employment — Provides that recruitment and placement activities of agents or representatives whose appointments were not authorized by the POEA constitute illegal recruitment. Applied to establish the accused's liability despite her connection to a licensed agency.

Puno (Chairman), Quisumbing, Austria-Martinez, and Callejo, Sr., JJ.