G.R. No. 113161 Case Digest

G.R. No. 113161, August 29, 1995

People of the Phil., plaintiff-appellee

vs Loma Goce, et. al., accused-appellant

Ponente: Regalado

Facts:

On January 1988, an information for illegal recruitment committed by a syndicate nd in large scale, punishable under Articles 38 and 39 of the labor code as amended by PD 2018, filed against Dan and Loma Goce and Nelly Agustin in the RTC of Manila, alleging that in or about during the period comprised between May 1986 and June 25, 1987, both dates inclusive in the City of Manila, the accused conspired and represent themsleves to have the capacity to recruit Filipino workers for employment abroad.

January 1987, a warrant of arrest was issued against the 3 accused bot none of them was arrested. Hence, on February 1989, the RTC prdered the case archived but issued a standing warrant os arrest against the accused.

Thereafter, knowing the whereabouts of the accused, Rogelio Salado requested for a copy of the warrant of arrest and eventually Nelly Agustin was apprehended by the Paranaque Police. Agustin's counsel filed a motion to revive the case and requested to set a hearing for purpose of due process and for accused to immediately have her day in court. On the arraignment, Agustin pleaded not guilty and the trial went on with four complainants testified for the prosecution and reciepts of the processing fees they paid.

Agustin for the defense asserted that Goce couple were licensed recruiters but denied her participation in the recruitment and denied knowledge of the receipts as well.

On November 1993, trial court rendered judgment finding that Agustin as a principal in the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale with sentence of life imprisonment and pay P100,000.00.

Issues:

Agustin appealed witht the follwing arguments: (1) her act of introducing the complainants to the couple does not fall within the meaning of illegal recruitment and placement under Article 13 in relation to Article 34 of the labor code; (2) there is no proof of conspiracy and (3) there is no proof that appellant offered/promised overseas employment to the complainants.

Ruling:

The testimonial evidence shows that Agustin indeed further committted acts constitutive of illegal recruitment because, the complainants had a previous interview with Agustin (as employee of the Goce couple) about fees and papers to submit that may constitute as referral. Agustin collected the payments of the complainants as well as their passports, trainning fees, medical tests and other expenses.On the issue of proof, the court held that the receipts exhibited by the claimants are clear enough to prove the payments and transaction made.