People vs. Jamilosa

The absence of receipts acknowledging payment of recruitment fees does not preclude a conviction for illegal recruitment provided complainants positively testify to the accused's recruitment activities and receipt of fees.

Joseph Jamilosa met Imelda Bamba on a bus and introduced himself as an FBI agent who could help her secure a nursing job in Los Angeles, California, for a fee. Bamba introduced him to Geraldine Lagman and Alma Singh, whom he also recruited under the same representations, collecting US$300.00 and other items from each. None were deployed, and Jamilosa failed to return their money or documents. A POEA certification confirmed Jamilosa was not licensed to recruit workers for overseas employment.

• The Recruitment: Jamilosa met Bamba on a bus, introduced himself as an FBI agent, and promised deployment as a nurse in Los Angeles for a $2,000 monthly salary within two weeks, requiring US$300.00 for the US consul. Bamba introduced him to Lagman and Singh, from whom he collected US$300.00 plus processing fees and gifts under the same representations. Jamilosa showed the complainants photocopies of their supposed US visas and Northwest Airlines computer printouts confirming their bookings.
• The Evasion: Jamilosa failed to appear for the complainants' scheduled departure on February 25, 1996, citing the deaths of his wife and mother. Complainants verified with the US embassy that he had no connection there and discovered his unpaid hotel bills, prompting them to file a complaint with the NBI.
• The Defense: Jamilosa claimed he merely gave advice, was courting Bamba, and had the complainants sign certifications stating he did not recruit them and no money was involved. He did not present these certifications during the DOJ preliminary investigation. On cross-examination, Jamilosa admitted he had the certifications in his possession but failed to mention or attach them to his counter-affidavit. He further testified that he requested the complainants to sign the certifications to prove he was settling the case, even after they threatened to sue him.

• Necessity of Receipts: Appellant argued that the Information charged him with recruiting "for a fee," making receipts indispensable; the absence of receipts contradicts the presumption that persons take ordinary care of their concern.
• Credibility of Certifications: Appellant maintained that the certifications signed by complainants proved no recruitment or money changed hands, and his failure to present them during the preliminary investigation was not barred by the Rules of Court, especially since his counter-affidavit was prepared in jail without counsel.

• Sufficiency of Testimony without Receipts: The OSG countered that the absence of receipts does not defeat a prosecution for illegal recruitment when credible positive testimonies establish the recruitment and payment.
• Lack of Motive and Improbability of Defense: The OSG argued complainants had no ill motive to falsely charge a stranger with a serious crime, and the certifications were barren of probative weight due to appellant's suppression during the preliminary investigation.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: Whether the prosecution proved Jamilosa's guilt for large scale illegal recruitment beyond reasonable doubt despite the absence of receipts proving payment of fees.
• Weight of Defense Evidence: Whether the certifications presented by the accused for the first time during trial should be given probative weight over the positive testimonies of the complainants.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: Conviction was affirmed despite the absence of receipts. Positive testimonies of complainants that the accused promised employment for a fee and received money are sufficient to prove illegal recruitment. The act of recruitment may be for profit or not; it is sufficient that the accused promises or offers for a fee employment abroad.
• Weight of Defense Evidence: The certifications were rightly disregarded. An adverse inference and legal presumption of non-genuineness arise when a party withholds evidence within their possession that is susceptible of production, especially when such evidence was not presented during the preliminary investigation despite being in the accused's possession.

• Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale (Elements) — To prove illegal recruitment in large scale, the prosecution must establish: (1) the person charged undertook a recruitment activity under Article 13(b) or any prohibited practice under Article 34 of the Labor Code; (2) the accused did not have the license or authority to engage in recruitment; and (3) the accused committed the same against three or more persons individually or as a group.
• Adverse Inference from Withheld Evidence — When a party has it in their power to produce the best evidence and withholds it, the fair presumption is that the evidence is withheld for a sinister motive and its production would thwart a fraudulent purpose.

• "The failure of the prosecution to adduce in evidence any receipt or document signed by appellant where he acknowledged to have received money and liquor does not free him from criminal liability. Even in the absence of money or other valuables given as consideration for the 'services' of appellant, the latter is considered as being engaged in recruitment activities."
• "When a party has it in his possession or power to produce the best evidence of which the case in its nature is susceptible and withholds it, the fair presumption is that the evidence is withheld for some sinister motive and that its production would thwart his evil or fraudulent purpose."

• People v. Sagaydo, 395 Phil. 538 (2000) — Followed: The absence of receipts cannot defeat a criminal prosecution for illegal recruitment as long as witnesses positively show the accused is involved in prohibited recruitment.
• People v. Dionisio, 425 Phil. 651 (2002) — Followed: Laid down the three essential elements of illegal recruitment in large scale.
• People v. Dela Piedra, 403 Phil. 31 (2001) — Followed: The act of recruitment may be for profit or not; it is sufficient that the accused promises or offers for a fee employment to warrant conviction.
• People v. Pabalan, 262 SCRA 574 — Followed: Want of receipts is not fatal to the prosecution's case for illegal recruitment.
• People v. Coral, 230 SCRA 499 (1994) — Followed: It is against human nature and experience for private complainants to conspire and accuse a stranger of a serious crime just to mollify hurt feelings.

• 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. Any person offering or promising for a fee employment to two or more persons is deemed engaged in recruitment.
• Section 6, R.A. No. 8042 — Defines illegal recruitment as any act of recruitment undertaken by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority.
• Article 38(a) and (b), Labor Code — Declares any recruitment activities by non-licensees illegal and punishable, and defines large scale as committed against three or more persons.

Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez, Minita V. Chico-Nazario