People v. Navarra

Facts:

Job and Rodolfo, along with Rodolfos wife Corazon, operated an agency which purported to have the authority to recruit and place workers for employment in Taiwan. The agency was named Rodolfo Navarras Travel Consultant and General Services (RNTCGS), which in the course of its operation was able to victimize several hapless victims who never left Philippine soil, and in due time, filed complaints with the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency against accused for illegal recruitment.

MERLIE VILLESCA identified Rodolfo as the one with whom she applied to for employment in Taiwan on May 6, 1992, at the RNTCGS office in Novaliches, Quezon City. As placement fee she paid P15,000.00 to Inday Padawan (Rodolfo’s cook and laundrywoman), at Corazon and Rodolfos house, and another P15,000.00 on December 22, 1992. She identified Job as the administrative officer of RNCTGS, who entertained her and the other applicants during the times she visited the agencys office to follow up her application.

GLICERIA MARINAS singled out Job as the one who recruited her for employment in Taiwan as a factory worker. She testified that she was recruited by Job on April 24, 1992 at RNTCGS where she was told that she and her co-applicants would leave for Taiwan two months after they applied on April 24, 1992. She gave Job all the requirements the agency asked for including her passport and birth certificate. She was also required to pay a placement fee of P20,000.00, although the receipt given to her was only for the amount of P15,000.00. She gave her passport to Job and she handed the placement fee to Inday who gave it to Corazon in her presence.

BEINVENIDA AMUTAN testified that while in Rodolfo’s house in Novaliches, Quezon City, on May 11, 1992, Rodolfo promised her that she would be able to leave for Taiwan upon payment of a P20,000.00 placement fee. On April 11, 1992, Beinvenida paid the amount to Inday who gave it to Corazon in Beinvenidas presence. She never had the chance to go to Taiwan. Upon investigation with the POEA, she discovered that RNTCGS was not registered.

ERNESTO AMUTAN testified that in April 1992, he filed an application to work at a factory in Taiwan before Corazon in the RNTCGS office. It was Corazon who interviewed him and asked him to submit some requirements. While at the said office, he saw Rodolfo there, who gave him the assurance that he would be able to leave for Taiwan immediately. He was never deployed to Taiwan, despite paying a placement fee of twenty thousand pesos P20,000.00.

FLORIE ROSE RAMOS testified that she applied with RNTCGS as a factory worker for Taiwan and that she paid a placement fee of P25,000.00 and another payment of P1,000.00 as medical fee. She went to RNTCGS during the last weeks of February, March and April 1992 and was interviewed by Job. She was introduced to Rodolfo by her co-complainant Evelyn Llacas. She was not able to leave for Taiwan, neither was she able to retrieve her payments from RNTCGS for when she went to the office on December 23, 1993, it had already been raided by the CIS and POEA for recruiting for overseas employment without license or authority.

LIWAYWAY CRUZ testified that she visited Rodolfo and Corazons house and came to know that Rodolfo was the President of RNTCGS, an agency which deported itself to her as and agency purporting to have authority to recruit workers for placement in Taiwan. That on April 1993, she went to Rodolfos house to inquire about the processing of her papers for employment in Taiwan. There she was assured by Rodolfo that Corazon was in Taiwan and was already taking care of her application.

LOIDA MACASO testified that she came to know Rodolfo when she visited Inday on December 3, 1991, at Rodolfos house and Rodolfo and Corazon recruited her to work as a factory worker in Taiwan. For this purpose she paid the spouses P10,000.00 placement fee on January 8, 1992. She was never sent to Taiwan.

After receiving P1,000.00 dusted with ultraviolet powder from Merlie Villesca, Iday was arrested.

Rodolfo Navaarra, Sr. and Job Navarra were found guilty of the crime of Illegal Recruitment Committed in a Large Scale Resulting to Economic Sabotage

Issue:

Whether or not the trial court gravely erred in disregarding their defense of denial and in finding them guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged

Held:

No.

Illegal recruitment has two essential elements: First, the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable him to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers. Second, the offender undertakes any activity within the meaning of recruitment and placement defined under Article 13 (b), or any prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code.

A nonlicensee or nonholder of authority means any person, corporation or entity without a valid license or authority to engage in recruitment or placement from the Secretary of Labor, or whose license or authority has been suspended, revoked or cancelled by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration or the Secretary of Labor. Under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code, recruitment and placement refer to:

...any act of 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: Provided, 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.

From the evidence adduced, accused-appellants committed acts of recruitment and placement, such as promises to the complainants of profitable employment abroad and acceptance of placement fees. Accused-appellants gave the impression that they had the power to send the complainants to Taiwan for employment.

With the certification from the Department of Labor and Employment stating that RNTCGS was not authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment, and promises by the accused of employment abroad for complainants on payment of placements fees, the conclusion is inescapable that accused are liable for illegal recruitment.

Article 38 (b) of the Labor Code, as amended by P. D. No. 2018 provides that illegal recruitment shall be considered an offense involving economic sabotage if any of the following qualifying circumstances exists: First, when illegal recruitment is committed by a syndicate. For purposes of the law, a syndicate exists when three or more persons conspire or confederate with one another in carrying out any unlawful or illegal transaction, enterprise or scheme. Second, there is economic sabotage when illegal recruitment is committed in a large scale, as when it is committed against three or more persons individually or as a group.

The acts of accused-appellants showed unity of purpose. All these acts establish a common criminal design mutually deliberated upon and accomplished through coordinated moves.

Even assuming that there was no conspiracy, the record clearly shows illegal recruitment committed in a large scale, since at least 6 complainants were victims, which is more than the minimum number of persons required by law to constitute illegal recruitment in a large scale, resulting in economic sabotage.