Article 13(b) of the Labor Code, defines “recruitment and placement” as referring:
xxx 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.
Article 38 of the Labor Code specifically defines what activities or acts constitute illegal recruitment and illegal recruitment by a syndicate or in large scale, viz:
Article 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. The Department of Labor and Employment or any law enforcement officer may initiate complaints under this Article.
(b) Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall be considered an offense involving economic sabotage and shall be penalized in accordance with Article 39 hereof.
Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring and/or confederating with one another in carrying out any unlawful or illegal transaction, enterprise or scheme defined under the first paragraph hereof. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group.
(c) The Secretary of Labor and Employment or his duly authorized representatives shall have the power to cause the arrest and detention of such non-licensee or non-holder of authority if after investigation it is determined that his activities constitute a danger to national security and public order or will lead to further exploitation of job-seekers. The Secretary shall order the search of the office or premises and seizure of documents, paraphernalia, properties and other implements used in illegal recruitment activities and the closure of companies, establishments and entities found to be engaged in the recruitment of workers for overseas employment, without having been licensed or authorized to do so.
The acts committed by the accused constituted illegal recruitment in large scale, whose essential elements are the following:
(a) The accused engages in acts of recruitment and placement of workers defined under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code or in any prohibited activities under Article 43 of the Labor Code;
(b) The accused has not complied with the guidelines issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment, particularly with respect to the securing of license or an authority to recruit and deploy workers, either locally or overseas; and
(c) The accused commits the unlawful acts against three or more persons individually or as a group.
It is the lack of the necessary license or authority to recruit and deploy workers, either locally or overseas, that renders the recruitment activity unlawful or criminal. To prove illegal recruitment, therefore, the State must show that the accused gave the complainants the distinct impression that she had the power or ability to deploy the complainants abroad in a manner that they were convinced to part with their money for that end.
In addition to her admission that she did not have any license or authority from the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) to recruit and deploy workers, either locally or overseas, the explicit certification issued on January 10, 2001 by Atty. Adonis Peralta, the DOLE District Officer in Dagupan City, attesting that the accused did not possess any permit to recruit workers for overseas employment in Pangasinan, including the cities of Dagupan, San Carlos, Urdaneta and Alaminos, confirmed her lack of the license or authority required by law.
Our review shows that the State competently established that the accused, despite having no license or authority to recruit and deploy workers, either locally or overseas, had represented to the complainants that she could secure their employment in Taiwan either as factory workers or as computer operators at a monthly salary of NT$45,000.00 each; and that the complainants had relied on her representation and given her the amounts she had demanded in the expectation of their placement. We note that in order to make her representation more convincing, she had also told the complainants about her being related to the Philippine Ambassador toTaiwan, as well as to President Ramos and President Estrada.
The accused admitted having received various sums of money from the complainants, who had given the sums either in cash or by depositing in the bank account of her husband, but denied that such sums were in consideration of their recruitment, claiming instead that the sums were reimbursements for the expenses incurred during the trips to Cebu City, Iligan City, Ozamis City and Cagayan de Oro City in the company of the complainants. She insisted that the complainants, resenting her demand for reimbursements, then brought the charge for illegal recruitment against her to get even. The CA disbelieved her denial, however, and pointed out that:
Although private complainants do not deny that they did not spend a single centavo for all the expenses they have incurred during such trips, it appears from their combined testimonies that they were led to believe that the payments they have made were in consideration of their application to work in Taiwanand not for their outings.
We uphold the CA’s appreciation of the situation. The accused’s allegation about this accusation emanating from the complainants’ resentment could only be bereft of substance. For one, the fact that, as the RTC found, two of the complainants (i.e., Ma. Corazon A. Garcia and Jocelyn Flores) did not even join the trips entirely belied the allegation. Besides, although the complainants who had joined her in the trips had admittedly spent not a single centavo for the trips, their testimonies unerringly pointed nonetheless to the singular conclusion that she had led them to believe that what they were paying for was their promised overseas employment, not the trips. Such testimonies, which positively and unequivocally described her illegal activities of recruitment, prevailed over her denial, which was nothing but self-serving negative evidence. Indeed, it was further shown that the accused had communicated to the complainants the dates of their departure forTaiwan after receiving the various sums she had demanded, which was further proof of her promise to deploy them inTaiwan.
The urging of the accused that the Court should review her case due to the conflicting versions of the parties is unwarranted. The determination of which of the different versions was to be believed is fundamentally an issue of credibility whose resolution belonged to the domain of the trial judge who had observed the deportment and manner of the witnesses at the time of their testimony. The Court naturally accords great respect to the trial judge’s evaluation of the credibility of witnesses, because the trial judge was in the best position to assess the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies by reason of his unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grilling examination. With more reason do we hold so herein, for the CA, as the reviewing tribunal, affirmed the RTC, as the trial court. The accused bore the ensuing obligation to demonstrate to our satisfaction that the CA had overlooked, misconstrued, or misinterpreted facts and circumstances of substance that, if considered, would change the outcome. Alas, she did not do so.
Nor should we pay heed to the contention of the accused that the version of the State weakened because only four out of the nine named complainants had actually testified in court against her. That contention ignores that in judicial adjudications, courts do not count but weigh witnesses; thus, quality of witnesses, not their quantity, is considered.
Finally, the failure of the State to present receipts proving that the payments by the complainants was in consideration of their recruitment to Taiwandoes not negate the guilt of the accused. This argument is not novel and unprecedented, for the Court has already ruled that the absence of receipts evidencing payment does not defeat a criminal prosecution for illegal recruitment. According to People v. Pabalan:
xxx the absence of receipts in a criminal case for illegal recruitment does not warrant the acquittal of the accused and is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. As long as the witnesses had positively shown through their respective testimonies that the accused is the one involved in the prohibited recruitment, he may be convicted of the offense despite the want of receipts.
The Statute of Frauds and the rules of evidence do not require the presentation of receipts in order to prove the existence of recruitment agreement and the procurement of fees in illegal recruitment cases. The amounts may consequently be proved by the testimony of witnesses.
Consequently, as long as the State established through credible testimonial evidence that the accused had engaged in illegal recruitment, her conviction was justified. That is what we find herein.
On the penalty for illegal recruitment in large scale, Article 39 of the Labor Code relevantly states:
Article 39. Penalties. – (a) The penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) shall be imposed if illegal recruitment constitutes economic sabotage as defined herein;
Both lower courts correctly found that the accused’s acts fell squarely under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code due to the number of her victims being at least four. Hence, the penalty of life imprisonment and fine of P100,000.00 as prescribed under Article 39 (a) of the Labor Code was proper.