PEOPLE vs. NOQUE (Labor Law Review)

G.R. No. 97845 September 29, 1994 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.

NELIA CORONACION y NOQUE and EDUARDO AQUINO y AQUINO, accused-appellants.

The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.

Public Attorney's Office for accused-appellant Eduardo Aquino.

Roco, Buñag, Kapunan & Migallos for accused-appellant Nelia Coronacion.

FACTS:

That in (sic) or about and during the period comprised between June 18, 1987 and July 5, 1987, inclusive, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, representing themselves 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 in Saudi Arabia to the following persons, namely: ARISTOTLE HILARIO y COLOCADO, ANDRES RAMOS y PEREZ, SOLEDAD TADEO y HILARIO, ROLANDO LAED y TABISOLA, ZOILO RADAN y RODA and RANDI HILARIO y ALCANTARA, without first having secured the required license or authority from the Ministry of Labor.

However, only Nelia Coronacion and Eduardo Aquino were apprehended. Accused June Mendez is still at large. Hence, on August 11, 1987, the former were arraigned and each entered a plea of not guilty. 3 Trial on the merits proceeded with respect to them.

ISSUE:

Whether they were guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale.

RULING:

YES.

Evidently, the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale is committed when a person (a) undertakes any recruitment activity defined under Article 13(b) or any prohibited practice enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code; (b) does not have a license or authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers; and (c) commits the same against three or more persons, individually or as a group. 

In the case at bench, the presence of the second and third elements is not disputed. The appellants are neither licensees or holders of any authority from POEA to engage in recruitment and placement activities as evidenced by a certification of the said agency dated September 8, 1987. It was likewise established that the private complainants were unaware of the appellants' lack of authority when they transacted business with them. It was only later, upon inquiry at POEA, that they discovered the appellants' lack of authority. Finally, the number of private complainants, certainly more than three, is beyond dispute.

Now, we resolve whether the first element of the offense of illegal recruitment, i.e., that the appellants undertook any of the recruitment activities defined under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code, as amended, or any of the prohibited activities defined under Article 34 of the same Code, was successfully established by the prosecution.

To satisfy the first element, the prosecution presented the testimonies of the complainants clearly pointing to the appellants as two of the three persons who promised them employment abroad and who collected and received varying amounts from them.