People vs. Valenciano

An employee of a company engaged in illegal recruitment may be held liable as a principal if shown to have actively and consciously participated in the recruitment activities, and good faith is not a defense because illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum.

Lourdes Valenciano claimed to be an employee of Middle East International Manpower Resources, Inc., an agency whose license expired on October 13, 1996. Her co-accused, Rodante, Teresita, and Rommel Imperial (aliases of the Marquezes), were purportedly the owners and managers of the agency. The case involves the prosecution of unauthorized overseas recruitment activities governed by the Labor Code of the Philippines.

In May 1996, Lourdes Valenciano, representing herself as an employee of Middle East International Manpower Resources, Inc., began recruiting individuals for employment as factory workers in Taiwan. She visited the houses of Agapito De Luna, Allan De Villa, Euziel Dela Cuesta, and Eusebio Candelaria, promising them overseas employment in exchange for placement fees ranging from P62,000 to P70,000. Valenciano assured the complainants that they would be able to leave for Taiwan within one month from filing their applications.

Between May and August 1996, the complainants paid the placement fees in installments to Valenciano, who then turned the amounts over to her co-accused, Rodante and Teresita Imperial, who issued the corresponding receipts. Valenciano subsequently brought the complainants to the agency's office in Pasay City to fill out application forms, introducing them to the Imperial siblings as the owners of the agency. None of the complainants were deployed to Taiwan.

Valenciano, along with Rodante, Teresita, and Rommel, was charged with illegal recruitment in large scale under the Labor Code. While Valenciano pleaded not guilty, her co-accused remained at large. The RTC found Valenciano guilty beyond reasonable doubt, a finding later affirmed by the CA. The trial court found that payments were directly made to Valenciano, notwithstanding the receipts issued by her co-accused, and that she undertook recruitment activities without the necessary POEA license.

• Mere Employee: Accused-appellant argued that she was a mere employee of Middle East International Manpower Resources, Inc., and her co-accused were the owners and managers, claiming her actions were performed in the course of her duties as a clerk.
• Good Faith and Lack of Intent: She maintained that she had no knowledge of the criminal intent of her co-accused and acted in good faith, asserting she might even be considered a victim.
• Non-receipt of Payment: She denied receiving payment from the complainants, claiming the payments were handed directly to her co-accused.

• Reasonable Doubt: Whether the lower court erred in not acquitting the accused-appellant on the ground of reasonable doubt.
• Conspiracy: Whether the lower court erred in holding that a conspiracy exists between the accused-appellant and her co-accused.

• Reasonable Doubt: No. The conviction was proper, the three essential elements of illegal recruitment in large scale having been established beyond reasonable doubt.
• Conspiracy: No. The lower court did not err in finding conspiracy, as the accused-appellant actively and consciously participated in the illegal recruitment activities with her co-accused.

• Reasonable Doubt: The prosecution successfully established the three essential elements of illegal recruitment in large scale: (1) the accused undertook recruitment activities under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code by canvassing, promising, and procuring workers for a fee; (2) the accused lacked the license or authority to recruit, as certified by the POEA; and (3) the acts were committed against three or more persons, specifically four complainants. The accused's claim of being a mere employee does not absolve her, because an employee who actively and consciously participates in illegal recruitment is liable as a principal. Furthermore, illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum, rendering good faith and lack of criminal intent irrelevant as defenses. The factual findings of the trial court, affirmed by the CA, that she received payments and made representations, are final and conclusive.
• Conspiracy: The lower court's finding of conspiracy was upheld because the accused-appellant acted in concert with her co-accused. She personally visited the complainants' houses to recruit them, received payments which she turned over to her co-accused, and introduced the complainants to the co-accused as agency owners. Her active and conscious participation in the recruitment scheme demonstrated a common design with her co-accused to unlawfully enlist workers for overseas employment without the required license.

• Malum Prohibitum in Illegal Recruitment — Illegal recruitment in large scale is malum prohibitum, not malum in se; thus, good faith and lack of criminal intent are not valid defenses. The Court applied this to reject the accused-appellant's claim that she was unaware of the criminal intent of her co-accused and acted in good faith as a mere employee.
• Liability of Employees in Illegal Recruitment — An employee of a company engaged in illegal recruitment may be held liable as a principal if shown to have actively and consciously participated in the recruitment activities. The Court found that Valenciano went to the complainants' houses, gave assurances of employment, and received payments, constituting active participation.
• Factual Findings of Trial Court Affirmed by CA — Where the findings of fact of the trial court are affirmed by the CA, these are final and conclusive upon the Supreme Court. This doctrine was applied to uphold the finding that payments were directly made to the accused-appellant despite receipts being issued by her co-accused.

• "An employee of a company or corporation engaged in illegal recruitment may be held liable as principal, together with his employer, if it is shown that the employee actively and consciously participated in illegal recruitment." — This passage establishes the rule that mere employment status does not exempt one from liability for illegal recruitment if active participation is proven.
• "Illegal recruitment in large scale is malum prohibitum, not malum in se. Good faith is not a defense." — This defines the nature of the offense and explicitly excludes good faith as a defense, a critical principle in prosecuting illegal recruitment cases.

• People vs. Mateo, G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004 — Cited as the basis for transferring the case from the Supreme Court to the Court of Appeals.
• People vs. Cabais, G.R. 129070, March 16, 2001 — Followed for the doctrine that an employee actively participating in illegal recruitment is liable as a principal.
• People vs. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 124439, February 5, 2004 — Followed for the ruling that illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum and good faith is not a defense.
• People vs. Jamilosa, G.R. No. 169076, January 23, 2007 — Followed for the principle that money changing hands is not material to illegal recruitment, and for enumerating the three essential elements of illegal recruitment in large scale.
• Springsun Management Systems Corporation vs. Camerino, G.R. No. 161029, January 19, 2005 — Cited for the rule that factual findings of the trial court affirmed by the CA are final and conclusive on the Supreme Court.

• Article 13(b), Labor Code (PD 442) — Defines "recruitment and placement" to include 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. Applied to classify Valenciano's acts of promising employment for a fee as recruitment activities.
• Article 38(a) and (b), Labor Code — Declares recruitment activities by non-licensees or non-holders of authority as illegal, and defines illegal recruitment in large scale as an offense involving economic sabotage when committed against three or more persons. Applied to qualify Valenciano's unauthorized recruitment of four persons as illegal recruitment in large scale.
• Article 39(a), Labor Code — Imposes the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of PhP 100,000 for illegal recruitment constituting economic sabotage. Applied to affirm the penalty imposed by the trial court.

Leonardo A. Quisumbing (Chairperson), Conchita Carpio Morales, Dante O. Tinga, Arturo D. Brion.