G.R. No.

146964 August 10, 2006

ROSA C. RODOLFO, Petitioner, vs.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

Facts:
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, 1 NECITAS R. FERRE, GERARDO H. TAPAWAN
and JOVITO L. CAMA, without first securing the required license or authority from the Ministry of Labor
and Employment. 2

After trial on the merits, Branch 61 of the Makati RTC rendered its Judgment on the case, 3 the 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] a penalty of
imprisonment of EIGHT YEARS and 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 the prosecution] shows that sometime in August and September 1984, accused-
appellant approached private complainants Necitas Ferre and Narciso Corpus individually and invited
them to apply for overseas employment in Dubai. The accused-appellant being their neighbor, private
complainants agreed and went to the former’s 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 gave P1,000.00 as processing fee (Exhibit A) and another P4,000.00 (Exhibit B). Likewise,
Corpus gave appellant P7,000.00 (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 of P1,000.00 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 that accused-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 her defense, appellant denied ever approaching private complainants to recruit them for
employment in Dubai. On the contrary, it was the private 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, 5 the owner of the said
agency. While accused-appellant admitted that she received money from the private complainants,
she was quick to point out that she 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 appellant’s
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 court’s 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 the penalty x x x which 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

Issue:
Whether or not the respondent is guilty of illegal recruitment.

Ruling:
YES. 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. 13 If 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. 14

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. 15
A Certification to that effect was in fact issued by Hermogenes C. Mateo, Chief of the Licensing
Division of POEA. 16

Petitioner’s disclaimer of having engaged in recruitment activities from the very start does not
persuade in light of the evidence for the prosecution. In People 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, because she 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 is an offense that is essentially committed by a non-
licensee or non-holder of authority. A non-licensee means 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.

That appellant in this case had been neither licensed nor authorized to 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, 18
is "the act of passing along or forwarding of an applicant for employment after an initial interview of a
selected applicant for employment to a selected employer, placement officer or bureau." 19 Petitioner’s
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. 20 As the appellate court
stated:

Parenthetically, 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 petitioner’s reliance on Señoron, 22 true, 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 the undertaking
of recruitment activities without the necessary license or authority" that makes a case for illegal
recruitment. 23

A word on the penalty. Indeed, the trial court failed to apply the Indeterminate Sentence Law which
also applies to offenses punished by special laws.

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 is DENIED. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals
are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the accessory penalty imposed by it consisting of
"perpetual disqualification from engaging in the business of recruitment and placement of workers" is
DELETED.