People vs. Molina

The elements of illegal recruitment in large scale under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code and Section 6 of R.A. No. 8042 are: (1) the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers; (2) the offender undertakes any of the activities within the meaning of "recruitment and placement" under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code, or any of the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of the said Code (now Section 6 of R.A. 8042); and (3) the offender committed the same against three or more persons, individually or as a group. A holder of a license or authority may still be liable for illegal recruitment under Section 6 of R.A. No. 8042, which defines illegal recruitment as including acts committed by "any persons, whether a non-licensee, non-holder, licensee or holder of authority."

Delia Molina was the President of Southern Cotabato Landbase Management Corporation (SCLMC), a recruitment agency registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). The SCLMC's license to conduct business was temporarily suspended by the POEA during April and May 2006, the period alleged in the Informations, and the suspension was lifted on July 31, 2006. The SCLMC had no job order for Korea, as only seven agencies were allowed to deploy workers to Korea at that time.

Delia Molina was the President of Southern Cotabato Landbase Management Corporation (SCLMC), a recruitment agency registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). The SCLMC employed only three staff members: Amelita Plabay (secretary), and Pedrito and Leonora (liaison officers). Vincent Zulueta was not connected with the SCLMC but was at the office trying to convince Molina to be a distributor of Presense Green Tea.

Sometime in April 2006, Elisa Escobar went to the SCLMC office in Makati City to meet Zulueta, an agent of the SCLMC. Zulueta introduced Escobar to Molina, who told Escobar she would be employed as a factory worker in Korea within three months from payment of the ₱75,000.00 placement fee. Escobar tendered the amount to Zulueta at the SCLMC office, evidenced by a cash voucher dated April 28, 2006 signed by SCLAMCOR, which acknowledged receipt of the ₱75,000.00 for payment of the processing fee for Korea. A month after paying, SCLMC informed Escobar she had to undergo Korean Language Training, which she complied with. When Escobar did not hear from Molina for another month, she decided to withdraw her placement fee, but Molina failed to return her money.

Geraldine Cariño came to know Molina in April 2006 when Zulueta brought her to the SCLMC office. Zulueta and Molina told Cariño she would be employed as a factory worker in Korea within three months from payment of the ₱75,000.00 placement fee. Cariño tendered the amount to Zulueta, evidenced by a cash voucher dated April 28, 2006 signed by SCLAMCOR. Molina was beside Zulueta when the latter gave the cash voucher to Cariño. Cariño was asked to submit a medical examination and undergo Korean Language Training. Three months after complying, Cariño was still not deployed and filed the case.

Sometime in 2006, Diony Aragon was convinced by his friends to apply at the SCLMC. Zulueta brought him to the office and introduced him to Molina, who told Aragon he would be employed as a factory worker in Korea within three months from payment of the ₱75,000.00 placement fee. Aragon tendered the amount to Zulueta, evidenced by a cash voucher. Three months after paying, Aragon was not deployed. When Aragon asked Molina to return his money, she told him she would give him ₱50,000.00 while Zulueta would give him ₱25,000.00. Aragon filed the case because Molina failed to return the ₱75,000.00.

Cecille Bartolome met Molina at the SCLMC office on April 27, 2006. Molina and Zulueta told Bartolome and her companions (Carol Collamar, Sosen Fernandez, and Michelle Fernandez) they would be deployed to Korea as factory workers within three months from payment of the ₱75,000.00 placement fee each. Bartolome tendered the amount to Zulueta, evidenced by a cash voucher. In July 2006, Bartolome and her companions returned to inquire about their applications, and Molina told Bartolome to wait. By November 2006, Bartolome was still not employed, so she decided to withdraw her money. Molina did not return the ₱75,000.00, so Bartolome reported the matter to the NBI, which arrested Molina on January 5, 2007. Molina issued PNB check number 7381 in favor of Bartolome, which bounced for being drawn against a closed account.

Leo John Alday went to the SCLMC in April 2006 to look for employment abroad and met with Rolando Salilin, an agent of the SCLMC, who promised him employment as a factory worker in Korea with a monthly salary of ₱80,000.00. Alday paid the placement fee of ₱75,000.00. A month after paying, Alday was still not deployed and filed the case. Rosemarie Respueto went to the SCLMC in May 2006 and met with Loreta Gasi, an agent, who promised her employment as a factory worker in Korea with a monthly salary of ₱80,000.00. Respueto paid the placement fee of ₱90,000.00. Two months after paying, Respueto was still not deployed. In August 2006, Respueto decided to withdraw her money and filed the case when Molina failed to return it.

Molina denied all the allegations. She claimed the SCLMC could not have conducted recruitment activities in April and May 2006 because its license was temporarily suspended by the POEA during that period, with the suspension lifted on July 31, 2006. She surmised that the private complainants filed cases against her upon the prodding of Alan Basa, who asked her for ₱300,000.00 in exchange for dropping the complaints when she was arrested by the NBI. When she refused, Basa made sure the complainants filed the cases.

• Failure to Prove Elements: Accused-appellant insisted that the prosecution failed to prove the elements of the crime charged and that her guilt had not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
• License Holder Defense: Accused-appellant contended that she was a holder of a license to operate as a recruiter during the alleged period when the crimes were committed, which should negate liability for illegal recruitment.

• Elements Established: The prosecution maintained that all elements of illegal recruitment in large scale were present: (1) the offender has no valid license or authority required by law; (2) the offender undertakes recruitment and placement activities under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code or prohibited practices under Article 34 (now Section 6 of R.A. 8042); and (3) the offender committed the same against three or more persons.
• Positive Identification: The prosecution argued that greater weight should be given to the positive identification of the accused by prosecution witnesses than to the accused's denial and explanation concerning the commission of the crime.

• Elements of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale: Whether the prosecution proved all the elements of illegal recruitment in large scale beyond reasonable doubt.
• Elements of Simple Illegal Recruitment: Whether the prosecution proved the elements of simple illegal recruitment against Bartolome beyond reasonable doubt.
• Propriety of Penalty Modification: Whether the CA correctly modified the penalty imposed by the RTC in Criminal Case No. 07-3108 to conform with Section 7(a) of R.A. No. 8042.

• Elements of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale: Yes. All elements of illegal recruitment in large scale were established beyond reasonable doubt: lack of valid license or authority, engagement in recruitment activities, and commission against three or more persons.
• Elements of Simple Illegal Recruitment: Yes. The prosecution proved the concurrence of the two essential elements of illegal recruitment: lack of valid license or authority and engagement in recruitment and placement of private complainant Bartolome.
• Propriety of Penalty Modification: Yes. The CA correctly modified the penalty because under Section 7(a) of R.A. No. 8042, a person found guilty of illegal recruitment shall suffer imprisonment of not less than six (6) years and one (1) day but not more than twelve (12) years, and a fine of not less than ₱200,000.00 nor more than ₱500,000.00.

• Elements of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale: The Court applied the three-element test for illegal recruitment in large scale. First, the element of lack of valid license or authority was established by accused-appellant's own testimony that SCLMC did not have authority to operate its business in April and May 2006 because its license was temporarily suspended by the POEA, and that the suspension was lifted only on July 31, 2006. She further admitted that SCLMC had no job order for Korea and was not allowed to recruit workers from Korea, as only seven agencies were permitted to do so. Second, the element of engagement in recruitment activities was proven by the testimonies of private complainants Escobar, Cariño, and Aragon, who testified that Molina told them they would be sent to Korea as factory workers within three months from payment of placement fees, and that the fees were paid at the SCLMC office in Molina's presence or on her instruction. Under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code, "recruitment and placement" includes promising and advertising for employment, and 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. Third, the element of commission against three or more persons was satisfied, as the complainants included Anthony Galiste, Romulo Nones, Elisa Escobar, Geraldine Cariño, Diony Aragon, Maribel Rosimo, Gilbert Rosimo, and Eric Valdez.
• Elements of Simple Illegal Recruitment: The Court found that the prosecution proved the two essential elements of simple illegal recruitment against Bartolome. First, accused-appellant had no valid license or authority to engage in recruitment and placement, per her testimony that SCLMC's license was temporarily suspended and that it had no job order for Korea. Second, accused-appellant engaged in recruitment and placement of Bartolome when she told the latter she would be sent to Korea as a factory worker after payment of the placement fee, which Bartolome paid at the SCLMC office in Molina's presence. The Court emphasized that under Section 6 of R.A. No. 8042, illegal recruitment includes acts committed by "any persons, whether a non-licensee, non-holder, licensee or holder of authority." Thus, Molina's contention that she was a license holder did not matter, because she was still performing an act considered illegal recruitment by failing to reimburse the expenses incurred by the private complainants. Under Section 6(m) of R.A. No. 8042, failure to reimburse expenses incurred by workers in connection with documentation and processing for purposes of deployment, where deployment does not actually take place without the worker's fault, is considered performing illegal recruitment.
• Propriety of Penalty Modification: The Court held that the RTC mistakenly imposed the indeterminate penalty of six (6) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to seven (7) years, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days of prision mayor as maximum. Under Section 7(a) of R.A. No. 8042, a person found guilty of illegal recruitment shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of not less than six (6) years and one (1) day but not more than twelve (12) years, and a fine of not less than ₱200,000.00 nor more than ₱500,000.00. The CA's modification imposing imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1) day as minimum to twelve (12) years as maximum, and a fine of ₱200,000.00, was more in accordance with the law.

• Elements of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale — The crime of illegal recruitment in large scale requires: (1) the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable him to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers; (2) the offender undertakes any of the activities within the meaning of "recruitment and placement" under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code, or any of the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of the said Code (now Section 6 of R.A. 8042); and (3) the offender committed the same against three or more persons, individually or as a group. The Court applied this test and found all elements established beyond reasonable doubt.
• 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 and 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 find that Molina's promises of employment to the complainants constituted recruitment and placement.
• Liability of License Holders Under R.A. No. 8042 — Under Section 6 of R.A. No. 8042, illegal recruitment includes acts committed by "any persons, whether a non-licensee, non-holder, licensee or holder of authority." Thus, a holder of a license or authority may still be liable for illegal recruitment. The Court applied this principle to reject Molina's defense that she was a license holder during the alleged period.
• Failure to Reimburse as Illegal Recruitment — Under Section 6(m) of R.A. No. 8042, failure to reimburse expenses incurred by workers in connection with their documentation and processing for purposes of deployment, in cases where deployment does not actually take place without the worker's fault, is considered performing illegal recruitment. The Court applied this provision to find that Molina's failure to reimburse the complainants constituted illegal recruitment.
• Positive Identification vs. Denial — Greater weight is given to the positive identification of the accused by prosecution witnesses than to the accused's denial and explanation concerning the commission of the crime. The Court applied this principle in rejecting Molina's defense of denial, citing People vs. Gharbia, 369 Phil. 942-953 (1999).

• "All the elements of the crime of illegal recruitment-in large scale are present, namely: (1) the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable him to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers; (2) the offender undertakes any of the activities within the meaning of 'recruitment and placement' under Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code, or any of the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of the said Code (now Section 6 of R.A. 8042); and (3) the offender committed the same against three (3) or more persons, individually or as a group." — This passage states the canonical formulation of the elements of illegal recruitment in large scale, which is the ratio decidendi of the Court's ruling on Criminal Case No. 07-1399.
• "It was accused-appellant herself who testified that SCLMC did not have authority to operate its business on April and May, 2006, covering the dates that are alleged in the Informations filed against her, proving that the first element of the crime is present." — This passage demonstrates how the Court relied on the accused's own admission to establish the first element of illegal recruitment, showing that the prosecution need not rely solely on its own evidence.
• "Furthermore, it is worthy to emphasize that under Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042, illegal recruitment is defined as including any person, whether a non-licensee, non-holder, licensee or holder of authority. Thus, the contention of accused-appellant that she was a holder of a license to operate as a recruiter during the alleged period when the crimes were committed does not matter because she was still performing an act considered to be an illegal recruitment by failing to reimburse the expenses incurred by the private complainants." — This passage establishes that license holders can still be liable for illegal recruitment under R.A. No. 8042, rejecting the defense that holding a license negates liability.
• "It must also be noted that accused-appellant's defense of denial cannot overcome the positive testimonies of the witnesses presented by the prosecution. As is well-settled in this jurisdiction, greater weight is given to the positive identification of the accused by the prosecution witnesses than the accused's denial and explanation concerning the commission of the crime." — This passage articulates the rule on the evidentiary weight of positive identification versus denial, which is frequently cited in criminal jurisprudence.

• People vs. Gharbia, 369 Phil. 942-953 (1999) — Cited as controlling authority for the rule that greater weight is given to the positive identification of the accused by prosecution witnesses than to the accused's denial and explanation concerning the commission of the crime.

• Article 13(b), Labor Code (Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended) — Defines "recruitment and placement" as any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers, including referrals, contract services, promising and advertising for employment locally or abroad, whether for profit or not. The Court applied this definition to find that Molina's promises of employment constituted recruitment and placement.
• Section 6, Republic Act No. 8042 — Defines illegal recruitment as including any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, procuring workers, and includes referring, contract services, promising or advertising for employment abroad, whether for profit or not, when undertaken by a non-license or non-holder of authority. The provision also enumerates prohibited acts, including failure to reimburse expenses incurred by workers (Section 6(m)), and defines illegal recruitment in large scale as committed against three or more persons. The Court applied this provision to establish Molina's liability despite her being a license holder.
• Section 7(a), Republic Act No. 8042 — Prescribes the penalty for illegal recruitment: imprisonment of not less than six (6) years and one (1) day but not more than twelve (12) years, and a fine of not less than ₱200,000.00 nor more than ₱500,000.00. The Court applied this provision to affirm the CA's modification of the penalty in Criminal Case No. 07-3108.

Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Perez, Mendoza, and Reyes, JJ., concurred.