G.R. No. 169076 January 23, 2007PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,Appellee,vs.JOSEPH JAMILOSA,Appellant.CALLEJO, SR.,J.:This is an appeal from the Decision1of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City in Criminal Case No. Q-97-72769 convicting appellant Joseph Jamilosa of large scale illegal recruitment under Sections 6 and 7 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8042, and sentencing him to life imprisonment and to pay aP500,000.00 fine.The Information charging appellant with large scale illegal recruitment was filed by the Senior State Prosecutor on August 29, 1997. The inculpatory portion of the Information reads:That sometime in the months of January to February, 1996, or thereabout in the City of Quezon, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, representing to have the capacity, authority or license to contract, enlist and deploy or transport workers for overseas employment, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and criminally recruit, contract and promise to deploy, for a fee the herein complainants, namely, Haide R. Ruallo, Imelda D. Bamba, Geraldine M. Lagman and Alma E. Singh, for work or employment in Los Angeles, California, U.S.A. in Nursing Home and Care Center without first obtaining the required license and/or authority from the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA).Contrary to law.2On arraignment, the appellant, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty to the charge.The case for the prosecution, as synthesized by the Court of Appeals (CA), is as follows:The prosecution presented three (3) witnesses, namely: private complainants Imelda D. Bamba, Geraldine M. Lagman and Alma E. Singh.Witness Imelda D. Bamba testified that on January 17, 1996, she met the appellant in Cubao, Quezon City on board an aircon bus. She was on her way to Shoemart (SM), North EDSA, Quezon City where she was working as a company nurse. The appellant was seated beside her and introduced himself as a recruiter of workers for employment abroad. The appellant told her that his sister is a head nurse in a nursing home in Los Angeles, California, USA and he could help her get employed as a nurse at a monthly salary of Two Thousand US Dollars ($2,000.00) and that she could leave in two (2) weeks time. He further averred that he has connections with the US Embassy, being a US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agent on official mission in the Philippines for one month. According to the appellant, she has to pay the amount of US$300.00 intended for the US consul. The appellant gave his pager number and instructed her to contact him if she is interested to apply for a nursing job abroad.On January 21, 1996, the appellant fetched her at her office. They then went to her house where she gave him the photocopies of her transcript of records, diploma, Professional Regulatory Commission (PRC) license and other credentials. On January 28 or 29, 1996, she handed to the appellant the amount of US$300.00 at the McDonalds outlet in North EDSA, Quezon City, and the latter showed to her a photocopy of her supposed US visa. The appellant likewise got several pieces of jewelry which she was then selling and assured her that he would sell the same at the US embassy. However, the appellant did not issue a receipt for the said money and jewelry. Thereafter, the appellant told her to resign from her work at SM because she was booked with Northwest Airlines and to leave for Los Angeles, California, USA on February 25, 1996.The appellant promised to see her and some of his other recruits before their scheduled departure to hand to them their visas and passports; however, the appellant who was supposed to be with them in the flight failed to show up. Instead, the appellant called and informed her that he failed to give the passport and US visa because he had to go to the province because his wife died. She and her companions were not able to leave for the United States. They went to the supposed residence of the appellant to verify, but nobody knew him or his whereabouts. They tried to contact him at the hotel where he temporarily resided, but to no avail. They also inquired from the US embassy and found out that there was no such person connected with the said office. Thus, she decided to file a complaint with the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI).Prosecution witness Geraldine Lagman, for her part, testified that she is a registered nurse by profession. In the morning of January 22, 1996, she went to SM North EDSA, Quezon City to visit her cousin Imelda Bamba. At that time, Bamba informed her that she was going to meet the appellant who is an FBI agent and was willing to help nurses find a job abroad. Bamba invited Lagman to go with her. On the same date at about 2:00 oclock in the afternoon, she and Bamba met the appellant at the SM Fast-Food Center, Basement, North EDSA, Quezon City. The appellant convinced them of his ability to send them abroad and told them that he has a sister in the United States. Lagman told the appellant that she had no working experience in any hospital but the appellant assured her that it is not necessary to have one. The appellant asked for US$300.00 as payment to secure an American visa and an additional amount of Three Thousand Four Hundred Pesos (P3,400.00) as processing fee for other documents.On January 24, 1996, she and the appellant met again at SM North EDSA, Quezon City wherein she handed to the latter her passport and transcript of records. The appellant promised to file the said documents with the US embassy. After one (1) week, they met again at the same place and the appellant showed to her a photocopy of her US visa. This prompted her to give the amount of US$300.00 and two (2) bottles of Black Label to the appellant. She gave the said money and liquor to the appellant without any receipt out of trust and after the appellant promised her that he would issue the necessary receipt later. The appellant even went to her house, met her mother and uncle and showed to them a computer printout from Northwest Airlines showing that she was booked to leave for Los Angeles, California, USA on February 25, 1996.Four days after their last meeting, Extelcom, a telephone company, called her because her number was appearing in the appellants cellphone documents. The caller asked if she knew him because they were trying to locate him, as he was a swindler who failed to pay his telephone bills in the amount ofP100,000.00. She became suspicious and told Bamba about the matter. One (1) week before her scheduled flight on February 25, 1996, they called up the appellant but he said he could not meet them because his mother passed away. The appellant never showed up, prompting her to file a complaint with the NBI for illegal recruitment.Lastly, witness Alma Singh who is also a registered nurse, declared that she first met the appellant on February 13, 1996 at SM North EDSA, Quezon City when Imelda Bamba introduced the latter to her. The appellant told her that he is an undercover agent of the FBI and he could fix her US visa as he has a contact in the US embassy. The appellant told her that he could help her and her companions Haidee Raullo, Geraldine Lagman and Imelda Bamba find jobs in the US as staff nurses in home care centers.On February 14, 1996 at about 6:30 in the evening, the appellant got her passport and picture. The following day or on February 15, 1996, she gave the appellant the amount of US$300.00 and a bottle of cognac as "grease money" to facilitate the processing of her visa. When she asked for a receipt, the appellant assured her that there is no need for one because she was being directly hired as a nurse in the United States.She again met the appellant on February 19, 1996 at the Farmers Plaza and this time, the appellant required her to submit photocopies of her college diploma, nursing board certificate and PRC license. To show his sincerity, the appellant insisted on meeting her father. They then proceeded to the office of her father in Barrio Ugong, Pasig City and she introduced the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant asked permission from her father to allow her to go with him to the Northwest Airlines office in Ermita, Manila to reserve airline tickets. The appellant was able to get a ticket confirmation and told her that they will meet again the following day for her to giveP10,000.00 covering the half price of her plane ticket. Singh did not meet the appellant as agreed upon. Instead, she went to Bamba to inquire if the latter gave the appellant the same amount and found out that Bamba has not yet given the said amount. They then paged the appellant through his beeper and told him that they wanted to see him. However, the appellant avoided them and reasoned out that he could not meet them as he had many things to do. When the appellant did not show up, they decided to file a complaint for illegal recruitment with the NBI.The prosecution likewise presented the following documentary evidence:Exh. "A" Certification dated February 23, 1998 issued by Hermogenes C. Mateo, Director II, Licensing Branch, POEA.Exh. "B" Affidavit of Alma E. Singh dated February 23, 1996.3On the other hand, the case for the appellant, as culled from his Brief, is as follows:Accused JOSEPH JAMILOSA testified on direct examination that he got acquainted with Imelda Bamba inside an aircon bus bound for Caloocan City when the latter borrowed his cellular phone to call her office at Shoe Mart (SM), North Edsa, Quezon City. He never told Bamba that he could get her a job in Los Angeles, California, USA, the truth being that she wanted to leave SM as company nurse because she was having a problem thereat. Bamba called him up several times, seeking advice from him if Los Angeles, California is a good place to work as a nurse. He started courting Bamba and they went out dating until the latter became his girlfriend. He met Geraldine Lagman and Alma Singh at the Shoe Mart (SM), North Edsa, Quezon City thru Imelda Bamba. As complainants were all seeking advice on how they could apply for jobs abroad, lest he be charged as a recruiter, he made Imelda Bamba, Geraldine Lagman and Alma Singh sign separate certifications on January 17, 1996 (Exh. "2"), January 22, 1996 (Exh. "4"), and February 19, 1996 (Exh. "3"), respectively, all to the effect that he never recruited them and no money was involved. Bamba filed an Illegal Recruitment case against him because they quarreled and separated. He came to know for the first time that charges were filed against him in September 1996 when a preliminary investigation was conducted by Fiscal Daosos of the Department of Justice. (TSN, October 13, 1999, pp. 3-9 and TSN, December 8, 1999, pp. 2-9)4On November 10, 2000, the RTC rendered judgment finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged.5The fallo of the decision reads:WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Recruitment in large scale; accordingly, he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00), plus costs.Accused is ordered to indemnify each of the complainants, Imelda Bamba, Geraldine Lagman and Alma Singh the amount of Three Hundred US Dollars ($300.00).SO ORDERED.6In rejecting the defenses of the appellant, the trial court declared:To counter the version of the prosecution, accused claims that he did not recruit the complainants for work abroad but that it was they who sought his advice relative to their desire to apply for jobs in Los Angeles, California, USA and thinking that he might be charged as a recruiter, he made them sign three certifications, Exh. "2," "3" and "4," which in essence state that accused never recruited them and that there was no money involved.Accuseds contention simply does not hold water. Admittedly, he executed and submitted a counter-affidavit during the preliminary investigation at the Department of Justice, and that he never mentioned the aforesaid certifications, Exhibits 2, 3 and 4 in said counter-affidavit. These certifications were allegedly executed before charges were filed against him. Knowing that he was already being charged for prohibited recruitment, why did he not bring out these certifications which were definitely favorable to him, if the same were authentic. It is so contrary to human nature that one would suppress evidence which would belie the charge against him.Denials of the accused can not stand against the positive and categorical narration of each complainant as to how they were recruited by accused who had received some amounts from them for the processing of their papers. Want of receipts is not fatal to the prosecutions case, for as long as it has been shown, as in this case, that accused had engaged in prohibited recruitment. (People v. Pabalan, 262 SCRA 574).That accused is neither licensed nor authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment, is shown in the Certification issued by POEA, Exh. "A."In fine, the offense committed by the accused is Illegal Recruitment in large scale, it having been committed against three (3) persons, individually.7Appellant appealed the decision to this Court on the following assignment of error:THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME OF ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT IN LARGE SCALE DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE LATTERS GUILT WAS NOT PROVED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT BY THE PROSECUTION.8According to appellant, the criminal Information charging him with illegal recruitment specifically mentioned the phrase "for a fee," and as such, receipts to show proof of payment are indispensable. He pointed out that the three (3) complaining witnesses did not present even one receipt to prove the alleged payment of any fee. In its eagerness to cure this "patent flaw," the prosecution resorted to presenting the oral testimonies of complainants which were "contrary to the ordinary course of nature and ordinary habits of life [under Section 3(y), Rule 131 of the Rules on Evidence] and defied credulity." Appellant also pointed out that complainants testimony that they paid him but no receipts were issued runs counter to the presumption under Section [3](d), Rule 131 of the Rules on Evidence that persons take ordinary care of their concern. The fact that complainants were not able to present receipts lends credence to his allegation that it was they who sought advice regarding their desire to apply for jobs in Los Angeles, California, USA. Thus, thinking that he might be charged as a recruiter, he made them sign three (3) certifications stating that he never recruited them and there was no money involved. On the fact that the trial court disregarded the certifications due to his failure to mention them during the preliminary investigation at the Department of Justice (DOJ), appellant pointed out that there is no provision in the Rules of Court which bars the presentation of evidence during the hearing of the case in court. He also pointed out that the counter-affidavit was prepared while he was in jail "and probably not assisted by a lawyer."9Appellee, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), countered that the absence of receipts signed by appellant acknowledging receipt of the money and liquor from the complaining witnesses cannot defeat the prosecution and conviction for illegal recruitment. The OSG insisted that the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of appellant beyond reasonable doubt via the collective testimonies of the complaining witnesses, which the trial court found credible and deserving of full probative weight. It pointed out that appellant failed to prove any ill-motive on the part of the complaining witnesses to falsely charge him of illegal recruitment.On appellants claim that the complaining witness Imelda Bamba was his girlfriend, the OSG averred:Appellants self-serving declaration that Imelda is his girlfriend and that she filed a complaint for illegal recruitment after they quarreled and separated is simply preposterous. No love letters or other documentary evidence was presented by appellant to substantiate such claim which could be made with facility. Imelda has no reason to incriminate appellant except to seek justice. The evidence shows that Alma and Geraldine have no previous quarrel with appellant. Prior to their being recruited by appellant, Alma and Geraldine have never met appellant. It is against human nature and experience for private complainants to conspire and accuse a stranger of a most serious crime just to mollify their hurt feelings. (People v. Coral, 230 SCRA 499, 510 [1994])10The OSG posited that the appellants reliance on the certifications11purportedly signed by the complaining witnesses is misplaced, considering that the certifications are barren of probative weight.On February 23, 2005, the Court resolved to transfer the case to the CA.12On June 22, 2005, the CA rendered judgment affirming the decision of the RTC.13The OSG filed a Supplemental Brief, while the appellant found no need to file one.The appeal has no merit.Article 13(b) of the Labor Code of the Philippines defines recruitment and placement as follows:(b) "Recruitment and placement" refers 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.Section 6 of R.A. No. 8042 defined when recruitment is illegal:SEC. 6. Definition. For purposes of this Act, illegal recruitment shall mean any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers and includes referring, contract services, promising or advertising for employment abroad, whether for profit or not, when undertaken by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority contemplated under Article 13(f) of Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, otherwise known as the Labor Code of the Philippines: Provided, That any such non-licensee or non-holder who, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment abroad to two or more persons shall be deemed so engaged. x x xAny recruitment activities to be undertaken by non-licensee or non-holder of contracts shall be deemed illegal and punishable under Article 39 of the Labor Code of the Philippines.14Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group.15To prove illegal recruitment in large scale, the prosecution is burdened to prove three (3) essential elements, to wit: (1) the person charged undertook a recruitment activity under Article 13(b) or any prohibited practice under Article 34 of the Labor Code; (2) accused did not have the license or the authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers; and (3) accused committed the same against three or more persons individually or as a group.16As gleaned from the collective testimonies of the complaining witnesses which the trial court and the appellate court found to be credible and deserving of full probative weight, the prosecution mustered the requisite quantum of evidence to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt for the crime charged. Indeed, the findings of the trial court, affirmed on appeal by the CA, are conclusive on this Court absent evidence that the tribunals ignored, misunderstood, or misapplied substantial fact or other circumstance.The failure of the prosecution to adduce in evidence any receipt or document signed by appellant where he acknowledged to have received money and liquor does not free him from criminal liability. Even in the absence of money or other valuables given as consideration for the "services" of appellant, the latter is considered as being engaged in recruitment activities.It can be gleaned from the language of Article 13(b) of the Labor Code that the act of recruitment may be for profit or not. It is sufficient that the accused promises or offers for a fee employment to warrant conviction for illegal recruitment.17As the Court held in People v. Sagaydo:18Such is the case before us. The complainants parted with their money upon the prodding and enticement of accused-appellant on the false pretense that she had the capacity to deploy them for employment abroad. In the end, complainants were neither able to leave for work abroad nor get their money back.The fact that private complainants Rogelio Tibeb and Jessie Bolinao failed to produce receipts as proof of their payment to accused-appellant does not free the latter from liability. The absence of receipts cannot defeat a criminal prosecution for illegal recruitment. As long as the witnesses can positively show through their respective testimonies that the accused is the one involved in prohibited recruitment, he may be convicted of the offense despite the absence of receipts.19Appellants reliance on the certifications purportedly signed by the complaining witnesses Imelda Bamba, Alma Singh and Geraldine Lagman20is misplaced. Indeed, the trial court and the appellate court found the certifications barren of credence and probative weight. We agree with the following pronouncement of the appellate court:Anent the claim of the appellant that the trial court erred in not giving weight to the certifications (Exhs. "2," "3" & "4") allegedly executed by the complainants to the effect that he did not recruit them and that no money was involved, the same deserves scant consideration.The appellant testified that he was in possession of the said certifications at the time the same were executed by the complainants and the same were always in his possession; however, when he filed his counter-affidavit during the preliminary investigation before the Department of Justice, he did not mention the said certifications nor attach them to his counter-affidavit.lavvphil.netWe find it unbelievable that the appellant, a college graduate, would not divulge the said certifications which would prove that, indeed, he is not an illegal recruiter. By failing to present the said certifications prior to the trial, the appellant risks the adverse inference and legal presumption that, indeed, such certifications were not genuine. When a party has it in his possession or power to produce the best evidence of which the case in its nature is susceptible and withholds it, the fair presumption is that the evidence is withheld for some sinister motive and that its production would thwart his evil or fraudulent purpose. As aptly pointed out by the trial court:"x x x These certifications were allegedly executed before charges were filed against him. Knowing that he was already being charged for prohibited recruitment, why did he not bring out these certifications which were definitely favorable to him, if the same were authentic. It is so contrary to human nature that one would suppress evidence which would belie the charge against him." (Emphasis Ours)21At the preliminary investigation, appellant was furnished with copies of the affidavits of the complaining witnesses and was required to submit his counter-affidavit. The complaining witnesses identified him as the culprit who "recruited" them. At no time did appellant present the certifications purportedly signed by the complaining witnesses to belie the complaint against him. He likewise did not indicate in his counter-affidavit that the complaining witnesses had executed certifications stating that they were not recruited by him and that he did not receive any money from any of them. He has not come forward with any valid excuse for his inaction. It was only when he testified in his defense that he revealed the certifications for the first time. Even then, appellant lied when he claimed that he did not submit the certifications because the State Prosecutor did not require him to submit any counter-affidavit, and that he was told that the criminal complaint would be dismissed on account of the failure of the complaining witnesses to appear during the preliminary investigation. The prevarications of appellant were exposed by Public Prosecutor Pedro Catral on cross-examination, thus:Q Mr. Witness, you said that a preliminary investigation [was] conducted by the Department of Justice through State Prosecutor Daosos. Right?A Yes, Sir.Q Were you requested to file your Counter-Affidavit?A Yes, Sir. I was required.Q Did you file your Counter-Affidavit?A Yes, Sir, but he did not accept it.Q Why?A Because he said "never mind" because the witness is not appearing so he dismissed the case.Q Are you sure that he did not accept your Counter-Affidavit, Mr. Witness?A I dont know of that, Sir.Q If I show you that Counter-Affidavit you said you prepared, will you be able to identify the same, Mr. Witness?A Yes, Sir.Q I will show you the Counter-Affidavit dated June 16, 1997 filed by one Joseph J. Jamilosa, will you please go over this and tell if this is the same Counter-Affidavit you said you prepared and you are going to file with the investigating state prosecutor?A Yes, Sir. This the same Counter-Affidavit.Q There is a signature over the typewritten name Joseph J. Jamilosa, will you please go over this and tell this Honorable Court if this is your signature, Mr. Witness?A Yes, Sir. This is my signature.Q During the direct examination you were asked to identify [the] Certification as Exh. "2" dated January 17, 1996, allegedly issued by Bamba, one of the complainants in this case, when did you receive this Certification issued by Imelda Bamba, Mr. Witness?A That is the date, Sir.Q You mean the date appearing in the Certification.A Yes, Sir.Q Where was this handed to you by Imelda Bamba, Mr. Witness?A At SM North Edsa, Sir.Q During the direct examination you were also asked to identify a Certification Exh. "3" for the defense dated February 19, 1996, allegedly issued by Alma Singh, one of the complainants in this case, will you please go over this and tell us when did Alma Singh allegedly issue to you this Certification?A On February 19, 1996, Sir.Q And also during the direct examination, you were asked to identify a Certification which was already marked as Exh. "4" for the defense dated January 22, 1996 allegedly issued by Geraldine M. Lagman, one of the complainants in this case, will you please tell the court when did Geraldine Lagman give you this Certification?A January 22, 1996, Sir.Q During that time, January 22, 1996, January 17, 1996 and February 19, 1996, you were in possession of all these Certification. Correct, Mr. Witness?A Yes, Sir.Q These were always in your possession. Right?A Yes, Sir, with my papers.Q Do you know when did the complainants file cases against you?A I dont know, Sir.Q Alright. I will read to you this Counter-Affidavit of yours, and I quote "I, Joseph Jamilosa, of legal age, married and resident of Manila City Jail, after having duly sworn to in accordance with law hereby depose and states that: 1) the complainants sworn under oath to the National Bureau of Investigation that I recruited them and paid me certain sums of money assuming that there is truth in those allegation of this (sic) complainants. The charge filed by them should be immediately dismissed for certain lack of merit in their Sworn Statement to the NBI Investigator; 2) likewise, the complainants allegation is not true and I never recruited them to work abroad and that they did not give me money, they asked me for some help so I [helped] them in assisting and processing the necessary documents, copies for getting US Visa; 3) the complainant said under oath that they can show a receipt to prove that they can give me sums or amount of money. That is a lie. They sworn (sic), under oath, that they can show a receipt that I gave to them to prove that I got the money from them. I asked the kindness of the state prosecutor to ask the complainants to show and produce the receipts that I gave to them that was stated in the sworn statement of the NBI; 4) the allegation of the complainants that the charges filed by them should be dismissed because I never [received] any amount from them and they can not show any receipt that I gave them," Manila City Jail, Philippines, June 16, 1997. So, Mr. Witness, June 16, 1997 is the date when you prepared this. Correct?A Yes, Sir.Q Now, my question to you, Mr. Witness, you said that you have with you all the time the Certification issued by [the] three (3) complainants in this case, did you allege in your Counter-Affidavit that this Certification you said you claimed they issued to you?A I did not say that, Sir.Q So, it is not here in your Counter-Affidavit?A None, Sir.Q What is your educational attainment, Mr. Witness?A I am a graduate of AB Course Associate Arts in 1963 at the University of the East.Q You said that the State Prosecutor of the Department of Justice did not accept your Counter-Affidavit, are you sure of that, Mr. Witness?A Yes, Sir.Q Did you receive a copy of the dismissal which you said it was dismissed?A No, Sir. I did not receive anything.Q Did you receive a resolution from the Department of Justice?A No, Sir.Q Did you go over the said resolution you said you received here?A I just learned about it now, Sir.Q Did you read the content of the resolution?A Not yet, Sir. Its only now that I am going to read.COURTQ You said it was dismissed. Correct?A Yes, Your Honor.Q Did you receive a resolution of this dismissal?A No, Your Honor.FISCAL CATRALQ What did you receive?A I did not receive any resolution, Sir. Its just now that I learned about the finding.Q You said you learned here in court, did you read the resolution filed against you, Mr. Witness?A I did not read it, Sir.Q Did you read by yourself the resolution made by State Prosecutor Daosos, Mr. Witness?A Not yet, Sir.Q What did you take, if any, when you received the subpoena from this court?A I was in court already when I asked Atty. Usita to investigate this case.Q You said a while ago that your Affidavit was not accepted by State Prosecutor Daosos. Is that correct?A Yes, Sir.Q Will you please read to us paragraph four (4), page two (2) of this resolution of State Prosecutor Daosos.(witness reading par. 4 of the resolution)Alright. What did you understand of this paragraph 4, Mr. Witness?A Probably, guilty to the offense charge.22It turned out that appellant requested the complaining witnesses to sign the certifications merely to prove that he was settling the cases:COURTQ These complainants, why did you make them sign in the certifications?A Because one of the complainants told me to sign and they are planning to sue me.Q You mean they told you that they are filing charges against you and yet you [made] them sign certifications in your favor, what is the reason why you made them sign?A To prove that Im settling this case.Q Despite the fact that they are filing cases against you and yet you were able to make them sign certifications?A Only one person, Your Honor, who told me and he is not around.Q But they all signed these three (3) certifications and yet they filed charges against you and yet you made them sign certifications in your favor, so what is the reason why you made them sign?(witness can not answer)23The Court notes that the trial court ordered appellant to refund US$300.00 to each of the complaining witnesses. The ruling of the appellate court must be modified. Appellant must pay only the peso equivalent of US$300.00 to each of the complaining witnesses.IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the conviction of Joseph Jamilosa for large scale illegal recruitment under Sections 6 and 7 of Republic Act No. 8042 is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION. The appellant is hereby ordered to refund to each of the complaining witnesses the peso equivalent of US$300.00. Costs against appellant.

G.R. No. 146964 August 10, 2006ROSA C. RODOLFO,Petitioner,vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,Respondent.CARPIO MORALES,J.:Petitioner was charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati for illegal recruitment alleged to have been committed as follows:That in or about and during the period from August to September 1984, in Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused representing herself to have the capacity to contract, enlist and transport Filipino workers for employment abroad, did then and there willfully and unlawfully, for a fee, recruit and promise employment/job placement abroad to VILLAMOR ALCANTARA, NARCISO CORPUZ,1NECITAS R. FERRE, GERARDO H. TAPAWAN and JOVITO L. CAMA, without first securing the required license or authority from the Ministry of Labor and Employment.2After trial on the merits, Branch 61 of the Makati RTC rendered its Judgment on the case,3the decretal portion of which reads:WHEREFORE, PREMISES ABOVE CONSIDERED, the Court finds the accused ROSA C. RODOLFO as GUILTY of the offense of ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT and hereby sentences her [to] apenalty of imprisonment of EIGHT YEARSand to pay the costs.4(Underscoring supplied)In so imposing the penalty, the trial court took note of the fact that while the information reflected the commission of illegal recruitment in large scale, only the complaint of the two of the five complainants was proven.On appeal, the Court of Appeals correctly synthesized the evidence presented by the parties as follows:[The evidence for theprosecution] shows that sometime in August and September 1984, accused-appellantapproached private complainantsNecitas Ferre and Narciso Corpus individually andinvited them to apply for overseas employmentin Dubai. The accused-appellant being their neighbor, private complainants agreed and went to the formers office. This office which bore the business name "Bayside Manpower Export Specialist" was in a building situated at Bautista St. Buendia, Makati, Metro Manila. In that office,private complainants gave certain amounts to appellant for processing and other fees. Ferre gaveP1,000.00 as processing fee (Exhibit A) and anotherP4,000.00 (Exhibit B). Likewise, Corpus gave appellantP7,000.00 (Exhibit D). Appellant then told private complainants that they were scheduled to leave for Dubai on September 8, 1984. However, private complainants and all the other applicants were not able to depart on the said date as their employer allegedly did not arrive. Thus, their departure was rescheduled to September 23, but the result was the same. Suspecting that they were being hoodwinked, private complainants demanded of appellant to return their money. Except for the refund ofP1,000.00 to Ferre, appellant was not able to return private complainants money. Tired of excuses, private complainants filed the present case for illegal recruitment against the accused-appellant.To prove thataccused-appellant had no authority to recruit workers for overseas employment, the prosecution presented Jose Valeriano, a Senior Overseas Employment Officer of the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA), who testified that accused-appellant was neither licensed nor authorized by the then Ministry of Labor and Employment to recruit workers for overseas employment.For herdefense, appellant denied ever approaching private complainants to recruit them for employment in Dubai. On the contrary, it was theprivate complainants who asked her help in securing jobs abroad. As a good neighbor and friend, she brought the private complainants to the Bayside Manpower Export Specialist agency because she knew Florante Hinahon,5the owner of the said agency. While accused-appellant admitted that she received money from the private complainants, she was quick to point out thatshe received the same only in trust for delivery to the agency. She denied being part of the agency either as an owner or employee thereof. To corroborate appellants testimony, Milagros Cuadra, who was also an applicant and a companion of private complainants, testified that appellant did not recruit them. On the contrary, they were the ones who asked help from appellant. To further bolster the defense, Eriberto C. Tabing, the accountant and cashier of the agency, testified that appellant is not connected with the agency and that he saw appellant received money from the applicants but she turned them over to the agency through either Florantino Hinahon or Luzviminda Marcos.6(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)In light thereof, the appellate court affirmed the judgment of the trial court but modified the penalty imposed due to the trial courts failure to apply the Indeterminate Sentence Law.The appellate court thus disposed:WHEREFORE, finding no merit in the appeal, this Court DISMISSES it and AFFIRMS the appealed Decision EXCEPT thepenaltyx x xwhich is hereby changed to five (5) years as minimum to seven (7) years as maximum with perpetual disqualification from engaging in the business of recruitment and placement of workers.7(Underscoring supplied)Petitioners Motion for Reconsideration having been denied,8the present petition was filed, faulting the appellate courtIx x xIN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONIES OF THE COMPLAINING WITNESSES, [AND]IIx x xIN FINDING THE PETITIONER-ACCUSED GUILTY WHEN THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO PROVE HER GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.9(Underscoring supplied)Petitioner bewails the failure of the trial court and the Court of Appeals to credit the testimonies of her witnesses, her companion Milagros Cuadra, and Eriberto C. Tabing who is an accountant-cashier of the agency.Further, petitioner assails the trial courts and the appellate courts failure to consider that the provisional receipts she issued indicated that the amounts she collected from the private complainants were turned over to the agency through Minda Marcos and Florante Hinahon. At any rate, she draws attention toPeople v. Seoron10wherein this Court held that the issuance or signing of receipts for placement fees does not make a case for illegal recruitment.11The petition fails.Articles 38 and 39 of the Labor Code, the legal provisions applicable when the offense charged was committed,12provided:ART. 38. Illegal Recruitment. (a) Any recruitment activities, including the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of this Code, to be undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of authority shall be deemed illegal and punishable under Article 39 of this Code. x x xArticle 39. Penalties. x x x x(c)Any person who is neither a licensee nor a holder of authorityunder this Title found violating any provision thereof or its implementing rules and regulations shall, upon conviction thereof, suffer the penalty ofimprisonment of not less than four years nor more than eight years or a fine of not less thanP20,000 nor more thanP100,000 or bothsuch imprisonment and fine, at the discretion of the court;x x x x (Underscoring supplied)The elements of the offense of illegal recruitment, which must concur, are: (1) that the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers; and (2) that the offender undertakes any activity within the meaning of recruitment and placement under Article 13(b), or any prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code.13If another element is present that the accused commits the act against three or more persons, individually or as a group, it becomes an illegal recruitment in a large scale.14Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code defines "recruitment and placement" as "[a]ny act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, andincludes referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad,whether for profit or not." (Underscoring supplied)That the first element is present in the case at bar, there is no doubt. Jose Valeriano, Senior Overseas Employment Officer of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, testified that the records of the POEA do not show that petitioner is authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment.15A Certification to that effect was in fact issued by Hermogenes C. Mateo, Chief of the Licensing Division of POEA.16Petitioners disclaimer of having engaged in recruitment activities from the very start does not persuade in light of the evidence for the prosecution. InPeople v. Alvarez, this Court held:Appellant denies that she engaged in acts of recruitment and placement without first complying with the guidelines issued by the Department of Labor and Employment. She contends that she did not possess any license for recruitment, becauseshe never engaged in such activity.We are not persuaded. In weighing contradictory declarations and statements,greater weight must be given to the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses than to the denial of the defendant. Article 38 (a) clearly shows that illegal recruitment isan offense that is essentially committed by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority. Anon-licenseemeans any person, corporation or entity to which the labor secretary has not issued a valid license or authority to engage in recruitment and placement; or whose license or authority has been suspended, revoked or cancelled by the POEA or the labor secretary. A license authorizes a person or an entity to operate a private employment agency, while authority is given to those engaged in recruitment and placement activities.x x x xThat appellant in this case had beenneither licensed nor authorizedto recruit workers for overseas employment was certified by Veneranda C. Guerrero, officer-in-charge of the Licensing and Regulation Office; and Ma. Salome S. Mendoza, manager of the Licensing Branch both of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration. Yet, as complainants convincingly proved, she recruited them for jobs in Taiwan.17(Italics in the original; underscoring supplied)The second element is doubtless also present. The act of referral, which is included in recruitment,18is "the act ofpassing along or forwarding of an applicantfor employment after an initial interview of a selected applicant for employment to a selected employer, placement officer or bureau."19Petitioners admission that she brought private complainants to the agency whose owner she knows and her acceptance of fees including those for processing betrays her guilt.That petitioner issued provisional receipts indicating that the amounts she received from the private complainants were turned over to Luzviminda Marcos and Florante Hinahon does not free her from liability. For the act of recruitment may be "for profit or not." It is sufficient that the accused "promises or offers for a fee employment" to warrant conviction for illegal recruitment.20As the appellate court stated:x x x Sec. 13(b) of P.D. 442 [The Labor Code] does not require that the recruiter receives and keeps the placement money for himself or herself. For as long as a person who has no license to engage in recruitment of workers for overseas employment offers for a fee an employment to two or more persons, then he or she is guilty of illegal recruitment.21Parenthetically, why petitioner accepted the payment of fees from the private complainants when, in light of her claim that she merely brought them to the agency, she could have advised them to directly pay the same to the agency, she proferred no explanation.On petitioners reliance onSeoron,22true, this Court held that issuance of receipts for placement fees does not make a case for illegal recruitment. But it went on to state that it is "rather theundertaking of recruitment activities without the necessary license or authority" that makes a case for illegal recruitment.23A word on the penalty. Indeed, the trial court failed to apply the Indeterminate Sentence Law which also applies to offenses punished by special laws.Thus, Section 1 of Act No. 4103 (An Act to Provide for an Indeterminate Sentence and Parole for All Persons Convicted of Certain Crimes by the Courts of the Philippine Islands; To Create A Board of Indeterminate Sentence and to Provide Funds Therefor; and for Other Purposes) provides:SECTION 1. Hereafter, in imposing a prison sentence for an offense punished by the Revised Penal Code, or its amendments, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of the said Code, and the minimum which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense; andif the offense is punished by any other law, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same. (As amended by Act No. 4225) (Underscoring supplied)While the penalty of imprisonment imposed by the appellate court is within the prescribed penalty for the offense, its addition of "perpetual disqualification from engaging in the business of recruitment and placement of workers" is not part thereof. Such additional penalty must thus be stricken off.WHEREFORE, the petition isDENIED. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals areAFFIRMEDwith MODIFICATIONin that the accessory penalty imposed by it consisting of "perpetual disqualification from engaging in the business of recruitment and placement of workers" isDELETED.

MAYON HOTEL & RESTAURANT, PACITA O. PO vs. ROLANDO ADANA, et al.G.R. No. 157634May 16, 2005FACTS: Petitioner Mayon Hotel & Restaurant (MHR) hired herein 16 respondents as employees in its business in Legaspi City. Its operation was suspended on March 31, 1997 due to the expiration and non-renewal of the lease contract for the space it rented. While waiting for the completion of the construction of its new site, MHR continued its operation in another site with 9 of the 16 employees. When the new site constructed and MHR resumed its business operation, none of the 16 employees was recalled to work.MHR alleged business losses as the reason for not reinstating the respondents. On various dates, respondents filed complaints for underpayment of wages, money claims and illegal dismissal.ISSUES: 1. Whether or not respondents were illegally dismissed by petitioner;2. Whether or not respondents are entitled to their money claims due to underpayment of wages, and nonpayment of holiday pay, rest day premium, SILP, COLA, overtime pay, and night shift differential pay.HELD: 1. Illegal Dismissal: claim for separation paySince April 1997 until the time the Labor Arbiter rendered its decision in July 2000, or more than three (3) years after the supposed temporary lay-off, the employment of all the respondents with petitioner had ceased, notwithstanding that the new premises had been completed and the same resumed its operation. This is clearly dismissal or the permanent severance or complete separation of the worker from the service on the initiative of the employer regardless of the reasons therefor.Article 286 of the Labor Code is clear there is termination of employment when an otherwise bona fide suspension of work exceeds six (6) months. The cessation of employment for more than six months was patent and the employer has the burden of proving that the termination was for a just or authorized cause. While we recognize the right of the employer to terminate the services of an employee for a just or authorized cause, the dismissal of employees must be made within the parameters of law and pursuant to the tenets of fair play. And in termination disputes, the burden of proof is always on the employer to prove that the dismissal was for a just or authorized cause. Where there is no showing of a clear, valid and legal cause for termination of employment, the law considers the case a matter of illegal dismissal. If doubts exist between the evidence presented by the employer and the employee, the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the latter the employer must affirmatively show rationally adequate evidence that the dismissal was for a justifiable cause. It is a time-honored rule that in controversies between a laborer and his master, doubts reasonably arising from the evidence, or in the interpretation of agreements and writing should be resolved in the former's favor. The policy is to extend the doctrine to a greater number of employees who can avail of the benefits under the law, which is in consonance with the avowed policy of the State to give maximum aid and protection of labor. 2. Money claimsThe Supreme Court reinstated the award of monetary claims granted by the Labor Arbiter.The cost of meals and snacks purportedly provided to respondents cannot be deducted as part of respondents' minimum wage. As stated in the Labor Arbiter's decision.Even granting that meals and snacks were provided and indeed constituted facilities, such facilities could not be deducted without compliance with certain legal requirements. As stated in Mabeza v. NLRC, the employer simply cannot deduct the value from the employee's wages without satisfying the following: (a) proof that such facilities are customarily furnished by the trade; (b) the provision of deductible facilities is voluntarily accepted in writing by the employee; and (c) the facilities are charged at fair and reasonable value. The law is clear that mere availment is not sufficient to allow deductions from employees' wages.As for petitioners repeated invocation of serious business losses, suffice to say that this is not a defense to payment of labor standard benefits. The employer cannot exempt himself from liability to pay minimum wages because of poor financial condition of the company. The payment of minimum wages is not dependent on the employer's ability to pay.

Far East Agricultural Supply, Inc. vs Jimmy LebatiqueSeptember 14, 2010In March 1996, Lebatique was hired as a driver by FAR EAST AGRICULTURAL SUPPLY, INC. with a daily wage of P223.50. His job as a driver includes the delivery of animal feeds to the clients of the company. He must report either in the morning or in the afternoon to make the deliveries.On January 24, 2000, Lebatique was suspended by Manuel Uy (brother of FEASIs General Manager Alexander Uy) for allegedly using the company vehicle illegally.On the same day, Lebatique filed a complaint for nonpayment of overtime pay against Alexander Uy.Uy summoned Lebatique and asked why he was claiming overtime pay. Lebatique said since he started working with the company he has never been paid OT pay. Uy consulted with his brother. On January 29, 2000, Uy told Lebatique to look for another job.Lebatique then filed an Illegal Dismissal case against the company.The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Lebatique. Uy was ordered to reinstate Lebatique and at the same time to pay Lebatique his 13thmonth pay, back wages (time when case was pending), service incentive leave pay and OT pay all amounting to P196,659.72.Uy argued that Lebatique was not dismissed and that he was merely suspended; that he abandoned his job; and that Lebatique was a field personnel not entitled to overtime pay and service incentive leave.ISSUE:Whether or not Lebatique is a field personnel.HELD:No. Lebatique is a regular employee.Uy illegally dismissed Lebatique when he told him to look for another job. Judging at the sequence of event, Lebatique earned the ire of Uy when he filed a complaint for nonpayment of OT pay on the day Lebatique was suspended by Manuel Uy. Such is not a valid reason for dismissing Lebatique.Uy cannot therefore claim that he merely suspended Lebatique.Further, Lebatique did not abandon his job. His filing of this case is proof enough that he had no intention to abandon his job.To constitute abandonment as a just cause for dismissal, there must be:(a) absence without justifiable reason; and(b) a clear intention, as manifested by some overt act, to sever the employer-employee relationship.None of the above was proven by Uy.Also, Lebatique is not a field personnel as defined above for the following reasons:(1) company drivers, including Lebatique, are directed to deliver the goods at a specified time and place;(2) they are not given the discretion to solicit, select and contact prospective clients; and(3) Far East issued a directive that company drivers should stay at the clients premises during truck-ban hours which is from 5:00 to 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 to 9:00 p.m.As a regular employee, Lebatique is entitled to service incentive leave and OT pay.The Supreme Court affirmed the Labor Arbiters decision but remanded the case for properly computing Lebatiques OT pay taking in to consideration the companys time keeping records.Field Personnel DefinedField personnel are those who regularly perform their duties away from the principal place of business of the employer and whose actual hours of work in the field cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.

Mabeza vs. NLRC [G.R. No. 118506 April 18, 1997]

Facts:Petitioner Norma Mabeza and her co-employees at the Hotel Supreme in Baguio City were asked by the hotels management to sign an instrument attesting to the latters compliance with minimum wage and other labor standard provision. The instrument provides that they have no complaints against the management of the Hotel Supreme as they are paid accordingly and that they are treated well. The petitioner signed the affidavit but refused to go to the Citys Prosecutors Office to confirm the veracity and contents of the affidavit as instructed by management. That same day, as she refused to go to the City Prosecutors Office, she was ordered by the hotel management to turn over the keys to her living quarters and to remove her belongings to the hotels premises. She then filed a leave of absence which was denied by her employer. She attempted to return to work but the hotels cashier told her that she should not report to work and instead continue with her unofficial leave of absence. Three days after her attempt to return to work, she filed a complaint against the management for illegal dismissal before the Arbitration Branch of the NLRC in Baguio City. In addition to that, she alleged underpayment of wages, non-payment of holiday pay, service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, night differential and other benefits. Peter Ng, in their Answer, argued that her unauthorized leave of absence from work is the ground for her dismissal. He even maintained that her alleged of underpayment and non-payment of benefits had no legal basis. He raises a new ground of loss of confidence, which was supported by his filing of criminal case for the alleged qualified theft of the petitioner. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the hotel management on the ground of loss of confidence. She appealed to the NLRC which affirmed the Labor Arbiters decision. hence, this petition.

Issue:Whether or not the dismissal by the private respondent of petitioner constitutes an unfair labor practice.

Held:The NLRCs decision is reversed. The pivotal question in any case where unfair labor practice on the part of the employer is alleged is whether or not the employer has exerted pressure, in the form of restraint, interference or coercion, against his employees right to institute concerted action for better terms and conditions of employment. Without doubt, the act of compelling employees to sign an instrument indicating that the employer observed labor standard provisions of the law when he might not have, together with the act of terminating or coercing those who refuse to cooperate with the employees scheme constitutes unfair labor practice. The labor arbiters contention that the reason for the monetary benefits received by the petitioner between 1981 to 1987 were less than the minimum wage was because petitioner did not factor in the meals, lodging, electric consumption and water she received during the period of computations. Granting that meals and lodging were provided and indeed constituted facilities, such facilities could not be deducted without the employer complying first with certain legal requirements. Without satisfying these requirements, the employer simply cannot deduct the value from the employees ages. First, proof must be shown that such facilities are customarily furnished by the trade. Second, the provision of deductible facilities must be voluntary accepted in writing by the employee. Finally, facilities must be charged at fair and reasonable value. These requirements were not met in the instant case. Private respondent failed to present any company policy to show that the meal and lodging are part of the salary. He also failed to provide proof of the employees written authorization and he failed to show how he arrived at the valuations. More significantly, the food and lodging, or electricity and water consumed by the petitioner were not facilities but supplements. A benefit or privilege granted to an employee for the convenience of the employer is not a facility. The criterion in making a distinction between the two not so much lies in the kind but the purpose. Considering, therefore, that hotel workers are required to work on different shifts and are expected to be available at various odd hours, their ready availability is a necessary matter in the operations of a small hotel, such as the private respondents hotel.