Suniga, Jr. vs. Molina

An unexplained failure to comply with the mandatory periods under Section 11 of RA 8042, resulting in prolonged delay in the preliminary investigation and in the filing of the Information, violates the accused's constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases under Section 16, Article III of the 1987 Constitution and warrants dismissal, absent waiver or justification by the prosecution. The death of an accused before final conviction totally extinguishes criminal liability, including civil liability ex delicto based solely on the crime, under Article 89(1) of the Revised Penal Code.

Petitioners Manuel G. Suniga, Jr. and Anastacia D. Suniga were charged with large scale illegal recruitment under Republic Act No. 8042, the statute governing overseas employment and establishing protections for migrant workers. Respondents Rolando Molina, Ma. Ritchialyn Leodones, Leonardo De Guzman, and Froilan Alejandria were the complainants. The case implicated the Labor Code's definition of a labor dispute, Department of Justice Circular No. 9, series of 1985, and the 2012 Guidelines on DOLE clearance, as well as the constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases under Section 16, Article III of the 1987 Constitution.

On December 17, 2013, an Information was filed with the Regional Trial Court of Gapan City, Nueva Ecija, Branch 35, docketed as Criminal Case No. 17076-13, charging Manuel G. Suniga, Jr. and Anastacia D. Suniga with Large Scale Illegal Recruitment. The Information alleged that during June 2001 in Peñaranda, Nueva Ecija, the two, conspiring together, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously recruited and promised employment to Leonardo De Guzman, Ma. Ritchialyn Leodones, Froilan Alejandria, and Rolando Molina, particularly jobs in Saipan and Korea, a non-existing job, and in exchange received PhP390,000.00 without any license or authority from the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration.

The charge stemmed from a meeting on June 29, 2001 among petitioners and respondents at Malimba, Gapan, Nueva Ecija, where petitioners promised respondents employment in Saipan (Northern Mariana Islands) and Korea. In consideration of that promise, petitioners received money from each respondent totaling PHP 390,000.00: PHP 40,000.00 from Molina; PHP 150,000.00 from Leodones; PHP 40,000.00 from De Guzman; and PHP 160,000.00 from Alejandria. Petitioners were unable to fulfill the promise and failed to return the money. On December 5, 2001, respondents executed and filed separate complaint-affidavits with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Cabanatuan City. Petitioners alleged that they had already settled their civil obligations to all four respondents sometime in 2002.

On March 30, 2005, 2nd Assistant Public Prosecutor Mario B. Veloso, approved by Provincial Prosecutor Floro F. Florendo, issued a Joint Resolution finding probable cause to indict petitioners for estafa and large scale illegal recruitment. The resolution recited that respondents had been promised jobs in Saipan and Korea, that the promise never happened, and that they were defrauded into parting with the amounts of PhP160,000.00 from Alejandria, PhP40,000.00 from Molina, PhP40,000.00 from De Guzman, and PhP150,000.00 from Leodones. It noted that respondents moved for time to file counter-affidavit but failed to file any, leaving the complainants' evidence uncontroverted. No action was taken until eight years later, on December 17, 2013, when the Information was filed with the RTC.

The RTC issued a warrant of arrest on February 7, 2014. Petitioners questioned it through a Motion to Quash/Dismiss and Motion to Recall and Quash the Warrant of Arrest, contending that the RTC had no jurisdiction because the case involved money claims within the NLRC's original and exclusive jurisdiction; that they were deprived of due process due to undue delay in the preliminary investigation; that the offense had prescribed because illegal recruitment prescribes in five years; and that their civil obligation had been settled in 2002. The RTC denied the motion on April 13, 2015, and denied reconsideration on May 25, 2015. Both courts a quo found that petitioners were given the chance to file counter-affidavits but failed to do so, and that there was no evidence that the civil aspect had been settled.

In the Supreme Court proceedings, respondents did not file a comment. Molina, Alejandria, and De Guzman submitted Sinumpaang Pahayag dated September 10 and 15, 2019, and a Sama-Samang Pahayag dated September 10, 2019, all stating that the case had been amicably settled and that they were no longer interested in pursuing their claims. Leodones did not submit a desistance, and the OSG did not deny or qualify petitioners' allegation that the civil aspect had been amicably settled. Petitioners later informed the Court in their Reply dated September 1, 2021 that Anastacia had passed away on December 5, 2020, attaching a Certificate of Death dated December 10, 2020.

• Jurisdiction / NLRC: Petitioners contended that the RTC had no jurisdiction over the case because it involved money claims over which the National Labor Relations Commission has original and exclusive jurisdiction.
• Due Process in Preliminary Investigation: Petitioners maintained that they were deprived of due process because they were not able to submit controverting evidence during the preliminary investigation.
• Large Scale Illegal Recruitment / Number of Offenders: Petitioners argued that they could not be liable for illegal recruitment involving economic sabotage because the offense can only be committed by three or more persons conspiring with each other, while there were only two of them.
• Conspiracy Allegation: Petitioners submitted that the fact of conspiracy was not set out in the Information.
• Absence of Receipts: Petitioners averred that it was erroneous for the case to proceed because no receipts were presented to show that they indeed received money from respondents.
• Speedy Disposition: Petitioners contended that the filing of the Information only in 2013 violated their constitutional right to a speedy disposition of their case, citing Section 11 of RA 8042.
• Prescription: Petitioners insisted that the case should be dismissed because prescription had already set in, asserting that under Section 12 of RA 8042 illegal recruitment prescribes in five years.
• DOLE Clearance: Petitioners asserted that the prosecution failed to secure the mandatory and jurisdictional clearance from the Department of Labor and Employment to prosecute the case.
• Settlement of Civil Obligation: Petitioners added that their civil obligation relative to the case had been settled sometime in 2002.

• Procedural Propriety / Rule 45: The People, through the OSG, argued that the Petition should be dismissed because it merely reiterated the factual issues and arguments raised before the RTC and the CA, and some errors were those of the RTC or prosecutors, not the CA.
• Probable Cause as Question of Fact: The OSG asserted that whether there was probable cause to charge petitioners or to issue a warrant of arrest are questions of fact that cannot be entertained in a Rule 45 petition.
• Certiorari as Improper Remedy: The OSG agreed with the CA that a petition for certiorari is not the proper remedy to assail the denial of petitioners' motions before the RTC, emphasizing that determining the sufficiency of evidence for a warrant of arrest is within the RTC's jurisdiction.
• Large Scale Illegal Recruitment: The OSG pointed out that petitioners are liable for large scale illegal recruitment involving economic sabotage because the offense as defined by law is committed when perpetrated against three or more persons individually or as a group.
• Prescription: The OSG argued that since the offense is illegal recruitment in large scale, the case against petitioners has not yet prescribed.
• Private Respondents' Position: Private respondents did not file a comment; Molina, Alejandria, and De Guzman submitted statements that the case had been amicably settled and that they were no longer interested in pursuing their claims, while Leodones made no such submission.

• Propriety of Certiorari: Whether the CA correctly ruled that a petition for certiorari is not the proper remedy to assail the denial of a motion to quash an Information.
• DOLE Clearance: Whether prosecutors must first secure a clearance from the DOLE before taking cognizance of complaints for illegal recruitment.
• Large Scale Illegal Recruitment / Number of Offenders: Whether petitioners may be held liable for large scale illegal recruitment when only two persons allegedly committed the offense.
• Sufficiency of Information: Whether the Information sufficiently identifies the offense of large scale illegal recruitment and sufficiently alleges conspiracy.
• Prescription: Whether the offense charged has prescribed.
• Due Process in Preliminary Investigation: Whether petitioners were deprived of due process during the preliminary investigation.
• Absence of Receipts: Whether the absence of receipts showing receipt of money bars prosecution for illegal recruitment.
• Speedy Disposition: Whether petitioners' constitutional right to a speedy disposition of their case was violated by the delay in the preliminary investigation and in the filing of the Information.
• Effect of Settlement and Desistance: Whether the amicable settlement and desistance of the complainants, together with the delay, warrant dismissal of the case.
• Death of Anastacia: Whether the supervening death of Anastacia D. Suniga extinguishes her criminal liability and warrants dismissal of the case against her.

• Propriety of Certiorari: No. A petition for certiorari is not the proper remedy to assail the denial of a motion to quash; the proper procedure is to enter a plea, go to trial, and appeal if an adverse decision is rendered. The CA correctly dismissed the certiorari petition on this ground.
• DOLE Clearance: No. DOLE clearance is not mandatory or jurisdictional for complaints for illegal recruitment because illegal recruitment is not a labor dispute under Article 219(1) of the Labor Code.
• Large Scale Illegal Recruitment / Number of Offenders: No, petitioners' argument fails. Large scale illegal recruitment is committed against three or more persons individually or as a group; it is not illegal recruitment committed by a syndicate, which requires three or more persons conspiring or confederating. Four complainants suffice.
• Sufficiency of Information: Yes. The Information sufficiently identifies large scale illegal recruitment and alleges conspiracy, as it recites the elements and states that the accused conspired together.
• Prescription: No. Large scale illegal recruitment is deemed economic sabotage and prescribes in 20 years under Section 12 of RA 8042, not five years.
• Due Process in Preliminary Investigation: No. Petitioners failed to prove deprivation; they were given the chance to file counter-affidavits but did not, and the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty prevails. Any irregularity in preliminary investigation does not void the Information.
• Absence of Receipts: No. Presentation of receipts acknowledging payments is not necessary for a successful prosecution for illegal recruitment; credible testimonial evidence may suffice.
• Speedy Disposition: Yes. The unexplained delay in resolving the complaints and filing the Information violated Section 11 of RA 8042 and Section 16, Article III of the Constitution, warranting dismissal as to Manuel.
• Effect of Settlement and Desistance: Yes, in effect. Three complainants desisted and the OSG did not deny the settlement; without their statements, there was no other evidence that petitioners committed the crime against them. Leodones was reasonably presumed to share the same temperament, and the delay supported dismissal.
• Death of Anastacia: Yes. Her death before final conviction totally extinguished her criminal liability under Article 89(1) of the Revised Penal Code; the civil liability ex delicto was also extinguished, and in any event the civil liabilities had been settled.

• Propriety of Certiorari: A petition for certiorari or prohibition is not the proper remedy to assail an adverse interlocutory order, including denial of a motion to quash, which is not appealable. Citing People vs. Ramoy and Soriano vs. People, the proper procedure is for the accused to enter a plea, go to trial without prejudice to presenting the special defenses invoked in the motion to quash, and if an adverse decision is rendered, to appeal. No special or exceptional circumstances were pleaded to justify immediate resort to certiorari, so the CA acted correctly in dismissing the petition. The Court nevertheless granted the Petition on other grounds.
• DOLE Clearance: DOJ Circular No. 9 and the 2012 Guidelines require DOLE clearance before prosecutors take cognizance of complaints for preliminary investigation and filing of informations in cases arising out of or related to a labor dispute. Article 219(1) of the Labor Code defines a labor dispute as any controversy or matter concerning terms and conditions of employment, or the association or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing, or arranging terms and conditions of employment, regardless of whether the disputants stand in proximate relation of employer and employee. Illegal recruitment under Section 6 of RA 8042 is any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers, including referring, contract services, or promising or advertising for employment abroad, whether for profit or not, when undertaken by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority. The complaints against petitioners did not involve an employer-employee relationship, terms or conditions of employment, or representation; hence they were not a labor dispute and no DOLE clearance was required.
• Large Scale Illegal Recruitment / Number of Offenders: Under Section 6 of RA 8042 and Article 38(b) of the Labor Code, illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three or more persons individually or as a group. The law distinguishes this from illegal recruitment committed by a syndicate, which is carried out by three or more persons conspiring or confederating with one another. Because there were four complainants, it was proper to charge petitioners with large scale illegal recruitment even if only two persons allegedly committed the offense.
• Sufficiency of Information: The Information recited the elements: (a) the offender undertakes a recruitment activity under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code or a prohibited recruitment practice under Articles 34 and 38 of the Labor Code and Section 6 of RA 8042; (b) the offender does not have a license or authority to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement; and (c) the offender commits the same against three or more persons, individually or as a group. It also stated that petitioners conspired together. Thus, it sufficiently identified the offense and the conspiracy.
• Prescription: While simple illegal recruitment prescribes in five years under Section 12 of RA 8042, large scale illegal recruitment is deemed an offense involving economic sabotage and prescribes in 20 years. The same prescriptive period applies to illegal recruitment committed by a syndicate. Since petitioners were charged with large scale illegal recruitment, the offense had not prescribed.
• Due Process in Preliminary Investigation: Both courts a quo found that petitioners were given a chance to file their counter-affidavits but failed to do so. There was no clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, so the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty in favor of the prosecutors prevailed. Moreover, any alleged irregularity in the conduct of the preliminary investigation would not render the Information void or impair its validity, nor affect the jurisdiction of the court that took cognizance of the Information.
• Absence of Receipts: The Court has ruled in many cases that presentation of receipts acknowledging payments is not necessary to a successful prosecution for illegal recruitment. The absence of receipts does not warrant acquittal and is not fatal to the prosecution, as long as it establishes through credible testimonial evidence that the accused is or was engaged in illegal or prohibited recruitment.
• Speedy Disposition: The complaint-affidavits were filed on December 5, 2001. Under Section 11 of RA 8042, preliminary investigation should have been terminated within 30 calendar days, or by January 4, 2002. Instead, the complaints were resolved only on March 30, 2005, over three years later. The Information, which should have been filed within 24 hours from termination of the investigation, was filed only on December 17, 2013, more than eight years after the investigation was terminated and more than 12 years after the complaints were filed. There was no explanation from the prosecutors or the OSG for the delay. Applying Cagang vs. Sandiganbayan, the Court considered the entire context; the delay was not mechanical. The prosecution had the burden to justify the delay and failed. Petitioners did not significantly contribute to the delay; the prosecutors continued without their counter-affidavits. Petitioners did not waive their right. They invoked it as soon as they learned of the filing of the Information. They believed in good faith that the case would no longer proceed after the 2002 settlement, especially since Molina, Alejandria, and De Guzman had desisted. Under Figueroa vs. Sandiganbayan, waiver of a constitutional right must be positively demonstrated and cannot be presumed from silence; the burden is not on petitioners to ensure the wheels of justice turn. The delay violated Section 11 of RA 8042 and Section 16, Article III of the Constitution, so the case against Manuel should be dismissed.
• Effect of Settlement and Desistance: The Joint Resolution's probable cause finding was chiefly based on the complaints of the respondents. Molina, Alejandria, and De Guzman submitted statements that they were no longer interested in pursuing the case. Without their statements, their complaints could no longer proceed because there was no other evidence that petitioners committed a crime against them. Although Leodones did not desist, the OSG never denied or qualified petitioners' allegation that the civil aspect had been amicably settled, making it reasonable and just to presume that Leodones shared the same temperament. This, together with the inordinate delay, supported dismissal. The dispositive portion dismissed against Manuel for lack of evidence and violation of speedy disposition.
• Death of Anastacia: Anastacia passed away on December 5, 2020, before final conviction. Under Article 89(1) of the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability is totally extinguished by the death of the convict as to personal penalties, and as to pecuniary penalties, liability is extinguished when death occurs before final judgment. The rationale is that the criminal action is extinguished because there is no longer a person or defendant to stand as the accused. Citing People vs. Monroyo, death pending appeal—or pending determination of whether the Information was proper and valid—extinguishes criminal liability and the civil liability based solely thereon. The civil action for recovery of civil liability ex delicto is ipso facto extinguished, unless predicated on a source of obligation other than delict. Here, the statements of private respondents showed that Anastacia's civil liabilities had already been settled.

• Right to Speedy Disposition of Cases — Section 16, Article III of the 1987 Constitution guarantees the right to a speedy disposition of cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies. It is distinct from the right to speedy trial, which applies only in criminal prosecutions before courts. Under Cagang vs. Sandiganbayan, the analysis is five-part: (1) the right may be invoked before any tribunal; (2) a case is initiated upon filing of a formal complaint, and statutory periods for preliminary investigation are considered; (3) the burden shifts to the prosecution if the delay exceeds the given periods; (4) the length of delay is never mechanical and must consider the entire context; and (5) the right must be timely raised or is waived. Waiver cannot be presumed and must be positively demonstrated. Applied: the complaints were filed on December 5, 2001, resolved only on March 30, 2005, and the Information was filed only on December 17, 2013; no explanation was offered, petitioners did not contribute to the delay, and they did not waive the right, so dismissal was warranted.
• Large Scale Illegal Recruitment / Economic Sabotage — Under Section 6 of RA 8042 and Article 38(b) of the Labor Code, illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three or more persons individually or as a group. It is deemed an offense involving economic sabotage and prescribes in 20 years under Section 12 of RA 8042. It is distinct from illegal recruitment committed by a syndicate, which requires three or more persons conspiring or confederating. Applied: there were four complainants, so the charge was proper even if only two accused allegedly committed the offense.
• DOLE Clearance in Illegal Recruitment Prosecutions — DOJ Circular No. 9 and the 2012 Guidelines require DOLE clearance before prosecutors take cognizance of complaints for preliminary investigation and filing of informations in cases arising out of or related to a labor dispute. Article 219(1) of the Labor Code defines a labor dispute as a controversy concerning terms and conditions of employment or representation. Illegal recruitment under Section 6 of RA 8042 is not a labor dispute because it does not involve an employer-employee relationship, terms or conditions of employment, or representation. Applied: no DOLE clearance was required.
• Sufficiency of Information for Large Scale Illegal Recruitment — The elements are: (a) the offender undertakes a recruitment activity under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code or a prohibited recruitment practice under Articles 34 and 38 of the Labor Code and Section 6 of RA 8042; (b) the offender has no license or authority to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement; and (c) the offense is committed against three or more persons, individually or as a group. The Information may allege conspiracy. Applied: the Information sufficiently identified the offense and alleged that petitioners conspired together.
• Receipts Not Essential in Illegal Recruitment Prosecution — Presentation of receipts acknowledging payments is not necessary for a successful prosecution for illegal recruitment. The absence of receipts does not warrant acquittal and is not fatal, as long as the prosecution establishes through credible testimonial evidence that the accused is or was engaged in illegal or prohibited recruitment. Applied: petitioners' argument that no receipts were presented did not merit dismissal.
• Death of Accused Before Final Conviction — Under Article 89(1) of the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability is totally extinguished by the death of the convict as to personal penalties; as to pecuniary penalties, liability is extinguished if death occurs before final judgment. The criminal action is extinguished because there is no longer a person or defendant to stand as the accused. Civil liability ex delicto is likewise ipso facto extinguished unless predicated on a source of obligation other than delict. Applied: Anastacia died on December 5, 2020, before final conviction, so the case against her was dismissed; her civil liabilities had also been settled.
• Waiver of Constitutional Rights — A valid waiver requires the confluence of: (1) the existence of the right; (2) knowledge of its existence, actual or constructive; and (3) an actual intention to relinquish it. The waiver must be voluntary, knowing, and intelligent, and cannot be presumed from mere silence. Applied: petitioners did not waive their right to speedy disposition; they raised it upon learning of the Information, and their belief that the case would no longer proceed after the 2002 settlement was reasonable.
• Preliminary Investigation Irregularity Does Not Void Information — Any alleged irregularity in the conduct of a preliminary investigation does not render the Information void or impair its validity, nor does it affect the jurisdiction of the court that took cognizance of the Information. Applied: petitioners' due process claim failed because they were given the chance to file counter-affidavits but did not, and the presumption of regularity prevailed.
• Certiorari Not Proper for Denial of Motion to Quash — A petition for certiorari or prohibition is not the proper remedy to assail an adverse interlocutory order, including the denial of a motion to quash, which is not appealable. The proper procedure is to enter a plea, go to trial without prejudice to the special defenses invoked in the motion to quash, and appeal if an adverse decision is rendered. Applied: the CA correctly dismissed the certiorari petition, although the Supreme Court still granted relief on other grounds.

• "This seeming violation of the mandatory periods under Section 11, coupled with a lack of explanation from the prosecutors as to why there was a delay in the proceedings and a concomitant lack of discussion of this matter by both the courts a quo and the OSG, pushes this Court to hold that indeed, petitioners' right to a speedy disposition of their case has been violated, a right guaranteed under Section 16, Article III of the 1987 Constitution:" — This is the ratio for the dismissal: unexplained non-compliance with RA 8042's mandatory periods and lack of justification violated the constitutional right to speedy disposition.
• "Under Section 6 of RA 8042, as well as Article 38(b) of the Labor Code, illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three or more persons individually or as a group." — This defines the large scale illegal recruitment charge and explains why four complainants sufficed even if only two accused were charged.
• "It is at once clear from the foregoing definitions that the complaints for illegal recruitment filed against petitioners are not within the meaning of a labor dispute." — This supports the holding that no DOLE clearance was required before the prosecutors could act on the complaints.
• "Under prevailing law and jurisprudence, Anastacia's death prior to her final conviction totally extinguishes her criminal liability." — This states the separate ground for dismissing the case against Anastacia under Article 89(1) of the Revised Penal Code.

• Cagang vs. Sandiganbayan, 837 Phil. 815 (2018) — En Banc decision providing the five-part analysis for the right to speedy disposition; applied to find a violation.
• Figueroa vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 235965-66, February 15, 2022 — Held that waiver of a constitutional right must be positively demonstrated and cannot be presumed; the burden is not on the accused to expedite proceedings; followed.
• People vs. Ramoy, G.R. No. 212738, March 9, 2022 — Denial of a motion to quash cannot be the subject of a special civil action for certiorari; cited.
• Soriano vs. People, 609 Phil. 31 (2009) — Proper procedure after denial of a motion to quash: enter a plea, go to trial, and appeal if an adverse decision is rendered; cited.
• Quiñon vs. Sandiganbayan, 338 Phil. 290 (1997) — A petition for certiorari or prohibition is not the proper remedy to assail an adverse interlocutory order; cited.
• People vs. Marzan, G.R. No. 227093, September 21, 2022 — Elements of large scale illegal recruitment; cited.
• People vs. Arnaiz, 769 Phil. 526 (2015) — Definition of illegal recruitment; cited.
• FEATI University vs. Bautista, 125 Phil. 326 (1966) — Categorization and test for a labor dispute under the Labor Code; cited.
• People vs. Monroyo, 811 Phil. 802 (2019) — Death of the accused pending appeal extinguishes criminal liability and civil liability based solely on the crime; cited.
• People vs. Maylon, 878 Phil. 901 (2020) — Death extinguishes the criminal action because there is no longer a person to stand as the accused; cited.
• People vs. Sagaydo, 395 Phil. 538 (2000); People vs. Ong, 379 Phil. 47 (2000); People vs. Saley, 353 Phil. 897 (1998) — Receipts are not necessary for a successful prosecution for illegal recruitment; cited.
• De Lima vs. Reyes, 776 Phil. 623 (2016) — An irregularity in the preliminary investigation does not render the Information void; cited.
• Yap vs. Lagtapon, 803 Phil. 652 (2017) — Presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty; cited.
• People vs. Narca, 341 Phil. 696 (1997) — Preliminary investigation does not affect the jurisdiction of the court; cited.

• Section 16, Article III, 1987 Constitution — Guarantees the right to a speedy disposition of cases before judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies; violated by the unexplained delay.
• Section 11, RA 8042 — Mandatory periods: preliminary investigation terminated within 30 calendar days from filing; Information filed within 24 hours from termination if prima facie case is established by a prosecution officer; 48 hours if by a judge. Applied: complaints filed December 5, 2001, should have been resolved by January 4, 2002; resolved March 30, 2005; Information filed December 17, 2013.
• Section 12, RA 8042 — Illegal recruitment prescribes in five years; illegal recruitment involving economic sabotage prescribes in 20 years. Applied: large scale illegal recruitment is economic sabotage, so the 20-year period applies.
• Section 6, RA 8042 — Defines illegal recruitment; large scale if committed against three or more persons; deemed economic sabotage. Applied to uphold the charge.
• Section 9, RA 8042 — Venue; criminal action filed with the RTC of the province or city where the offense was committed or where the offended party resides; RTC upheld its jurisdiction.
• Article 38(b), Labor Code — Illegal recruitment is deemed large scale if committed against three or more persons individually or as a group; economic sabotage. Applied.
• Article 13(b), Labor Code — Defines recruitment and placement; offering or promising employment for a fee to two or more persons is deemed engaged in recruitment. Applied.
• Article 219(1), Labor Code — Defines a labor dispute; illegal recruitment is not a labor dispute; no DOLE clearance required.
• Article 89(1), Revised Penal Code — Criminal liability is totally extinguished by the death of the convict as to personal penalties; pecuniary penalties are extinguished if death occurs before final judgment. Applied to Anastacia.
• DOJ Circular No. 9, series of 1985 and 2012 Guidelines — Require DOLE clearance for cases arising out of or related to a labor dispute; not applicable to illegal recruitment.
• Rule 45, Rules of Court — Petition for review on certiorari; vehicle for the petition.
• Rule 65, Rules of Court — Certiorari; improper remedy for denial of a motion to quash.

Justice Lazaro-Javier (Acting Chairperson), Justice M. Lopez, and Justice J. Lopez concurred. Senior Associate Justice Leonen (Chairperson) was on official business.