People v. Señoron

Facts:

In October 1991, Cesar Virtucio met appellant at accused Aquilino Ilano's house in Malibay, Pasay City, when he and other applicants applied for jobs abroad. During the meeting at Ilano's residence, Virtucio and his companions were given job application forms which they filled up as told. Virtucio paid Ilano, in the presence of appellant, the amount of P20,000.00 as placement fee. After paying the placement fee, Virtucio and his companions were told by appellant to follow-up their applications at her office or at Padre Faura, Manila. Appellant failed to send Virtucio and his companions abroad, hence, he, together with applicants Ronilo Bueno and Greg Corsega, filed a complaint for illegal Recruitment and Estafa against appellant, a certain John Doe and Aquilino Ilano before the NBI.

Greg Corsega, one of the 3 complainants, testified that accused Aquilino Ilano introduced him to appellant as the person who will process his papers for employment. Thereafter, Ilano demanded from Corsega the amount of P20,000.00 as placement fee. The amount of P20,000.00 was given to Ilano in the presence of appellant and it was at this juncture that appellant promised Corsega and his companions (Virtucio and Bueno) that they will be called as a group to sign a contract. However, appellant's promise to deploy Corsega, Virtucio and Bueno for employment abroad never materialized, prompting Corsega, Virtucio and Bueno to file a complaint for Illegal Recruitment and Estafa against appellant, John Doe and Aquilino Ilano before the NBI.

Ronilo Bueno testified that he was initially referred by Aquilino Ilano to his (Ilano's) secretary in order to sign papers for employment abroad. After signing some papers, Bueno was required by Ilano to pay the amount of P19,000.00 for the processing of his passport and visa.

The amount of P19,000.00 was immediately paid to Ilano in the presence of appellant. Whereupon, Ilano told Bueno that the money will be given to appellant who will be responsible in the processing of their papers for employment abroad. The promise to deploy Bueno, Virtucio and Corsega abroad did not materialize, hence, the three went to appellant, who showed them the list of the money paid by them. At the same time, appellant advised the three to wait for notice of their employment abroad. Again, nothing happened to their applications and this prompted Bueno and his companions to file charges of Illegal Recruitment and Estafa against Aquilino Ilano, John Doe and appellant before the National Bureau of Investigation.

Appellant Editha L. Señoron and her co-accused Aquilino Ilano and one John Doe, were charged in four separate informations with one count of illegal recruitment in large scale and three counts of estafa before RTC Pasay City. The court found that the appellant is guilty of illegal recruitment.

Issue:

Whether or not the lower court erred in not finding that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused-appellant Editha Señoron beyond reasonable doubt in the illegal recruitment, (large scale) case

Held:

Illegal recruitment is defined under Article 38 (a) of the Labor Code, as amended, as "(a)ny recruitment activities, including the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of this Code, to be undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of authority." Article 13 (b) of the Code defines "recruitment and placement" as

[A]ny 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.

To prove illegal recruitment, two elements must be shown namely: (1) the person charged with the crime must have undertaken recruitment activities, or any of the activities enumerated in Article 34 of the Labor Code, as amended; and (2) said person does not have a license or authority to do so. Contrary to appellant's mistaken notion, therefore, it is not the issuance or signing of receipts for the placement fees that makes a case for illegal recruitment, but rather the undertaking of recruitment activities without the necessary license or authority.

Appellant made a distinct impression that she had the ability to send applicants for work abroad. She, however, does not possess any license or authority to recruit which fact was confirmed by the duly authenticated certification issued by the Manager of the Licensing Branch of the POEA, and by the testimony of Ms. Socorro Landas representing the Licensing Division of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). It is the lack of necessary license or authority that renders the recruitment activity, as in this case, unlawful or criminal.

Appellant's residual arguments that she was just an accommodation maker in the issuance of the check and that private complainants failed to notify her after the check bounced do not merit serious consideration. It has to be emphasized that appellant is not being prosecuted for violation of the anti-bouncing check law where the foregoing contentions may have an impact, but for illegal recruitment which the prosecution was able to establish beyond reasonable doubt.