People of the Philippines vs Hadja Jarma Lalli, Ronnie Aringoy and Nestor Relampagos(GR No. 195419, 12 October 2011)

Facts: On evening of 3 June 2005, then 23-year-old Lolita Plando met Ronnie Aringoy and his niece Rachel Aringoy Caete in Brgy. Tumaga, Zamboanga City while on the way to her grandfather's house. She was greeted by Ronnie and he asked her if she is interested to work in Malaysia. Lolita gave her mobile number to him after that conversation since she was interested. She then proceeded afterwards to her grandfather's house.

Lolita received a text message from Ronnie at about 7:00 a.m. of 4 June 2005, where he invited her to go to his house. They met 7:30 a.m. on the road near the place where they conversed the previous night and Ronnie brought her to his sister's house in Tumaga. Lolita inquired what job is available in Malaysia and Ronnie said that she will work there as restaurant entertainer. He also said that all that is needed is a passport and that she will be paid RM500 (Malaysian ringgit) which is equivalent to PhP7,000. He said that she leave on 6 June 2005 for Malaysia, where they will go to Hadja Jarma Lalli who will bring her there.

Hadja Jarma Lalli told Lolita about her connections in the Department of Foreign Affairs and that Lolita can use her sister Marife’s passport but with her picture in it. Then Lalli introduced Lolita to Nestor Relampagos. Relampagos approached Lolita and her companions Honey, Michelle and two other women, where he told them that they will have good jobs as entertainers in Malaysia, will serve food to customers and not to be harmed.

Lalli and Relampagos accompanied Lolita and her companions to Sandakan, Malaysia via the ship MV Mary Joy from wharf of Zamboanga City. Upon arrival of MV Mary Joy at 10 a.m. of 7 June 2005, Lalli and Relampagos also rode with Lolita and her companions via van bound for Kota Kinabalu. In a hotel there in Sandakan, Relampagos introducted Lolita and her companions to their employer Chinese Malay named Boss. The Chinese Malaysian brought them to a restaurant near that hotel, and while Lolita was in the said restaurant, she found out from a Filipina working there that she would be working as prostitute. Lolita and her companion expressed their desire not to work in that job. Later on, Lolita and her companions were brought to Pipen Club owned by a Malaysian Boss Awa. It was only there that she found that she owed 2,000 ringgits because Awa already paid Lalli and Relampagos.

Thus, she was forced to work as entertainer at Pipen Club in Malaysia, where she started working at 8:30 p.m. of 15 June 2005. She was given number 60 which pinned on her. She worked in that club from 14 June until 8 July 2005, where a customer used her every night. She had at least one customer a night and five customers at most, and they all had intercourse with her.

Lolita filed a criminal case for illegal recruitment against Relampagos, Aringoy and Lalli about the ordeal that she went through while working in Malaysia as prostitute. After trial, the RTC of Zamboanga rendered in its decision dated 29 November 2005 that Ronnie Aringoy, Nestor Relampagos (at large) and Jarma Lalli were guilty of syndicated illegal recruitment under the Migrant Workers’ Act of 1995 as well as violation of the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003.

Aringoy and Lalli appealed the trial court’s decision to the Court of Appeals, but the said appellate court through its 26 February 2010 totally affirmed the judgment rendered by the trial court. Thus, they appealed the Court of Appeals’ verdict to Supreme Court, stating that it erred in affirming the trial court’s decision.

Legal Provisions:

Section 6 of RA 8042 (Migrant Workers' Act of 1995) defined illegal recruitment as any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, procuring workers and includes referring, contact services, promising or advertising for employment abroad, whether for profit or not, when undertaken by a non-license 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 such non-license 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. It shall likewise include the following acts, whether committed by any persons, whether a non-licensee, non-holder, licensee or holder of authority.

Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring or confederating with one another. It is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group.

The persons criminally liable for the above offenses are the principals, accomplices and accessories. In case of juridical persons, the officers having control, management or direction of their business shall be liable.

Section 7 of RA 8042 stated the penalties for illegal recruitment:(a) Any person found guilty of illegal recruitment shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of not less than six (6) years and one (1) day but not more than twelve (12) years and a fine not less than two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00) nor more than five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00).

(b) The penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of not less than five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) nor more than one million pesos (P1,000,000.00) shall be imposed if illegal recruitment constitutes economic sabotage as defined herein.

Provided, however, that the maximum penalty shall be imposed if the person illegally recruited is less than eighteen (18) years of age or committed by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority.

Article 13 of the Labor Code (PD No. 442) defined authority is defined as “document issued by the Department of Labor authorizing a person or association to engage in recruitment and placement activities as a private recruitment entity.” Meanwhile, 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.”

Issue: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC Zamboanga’s judgment which rendered Ronnie Aringoy and Jarma Lalli guilty of syndicated illegal recruitment under the provisions of RA 8042?

Held by the Supreme Court: The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and denied the petition of Aringoy and Lalli. It reasoned that the acts of Hadja Jarma Lalli, Ronnie Aringoy, Nestor Relampagos (at large) constituted elements of syndicated illegal recruitment: first, Ronnie Aringoy offered Lolita the job to work as entertainer in Malaysia. Second, Hadja Jarma Lalli’s participation can be seen when she told Lolita about her connections in the Department of Foreign

Affairs and when she introduced Lolita to her financier Nestor Relampagos. Relampagos’ participation is when he approached Lolita and her companions and told them that they will have good jobs as entertainers in Malaysia, will serve food to customers and not to be harmed. Moreover, they recruited Lolita without any license or authority from POEA. Thus, their acts falls under the provisions of sec. 6 and 7 of the Migrant Worker’s Act of 1995 (RA 8042) which prohibits illegal recruitment.