The accused here were charged with one (1) count of violation of the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, alongside ten (10) counts of estafa. With regard to the charge relating to the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, they were specifically accused of illegal recruitment in large scale when they conspired to
- represent themselves to have the capacity to contract, enlist and transport workers for employment as factory workers in Korea and Italy;
- recruit and promise employment/job placement abroad to the complainants in the case; and
- accordingly collect and receive money from them without first securing the required license and authority from relevant government authorities.
One of the accused (named Sagisag) countered that he was merely an administrative assistant of the agency, which, in turn, was owned by his co-accused. Sagisag alleged that he met the complainants when they purchased plane tickets for Korea, and he claimed that it was his co-accused who received the payments for the tickets, and that he was merely instructed to issue provisional receipts for the payments. Sagisag further denied conspiring with his co-accused to misrepresent and promise work in South Korea in exchange for money. He said that whenever he accepted money from the complainants, he merely did so in behalf of his co-accused De Guzman, and that in cases when he accepted money on his own behalf, he did so on the understanding that the money was for the payment of the tuition fee for the Korean language classes he conducted.
After trial, the Regional Trial Court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale, in addition to the finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt to three (3) counts of estafa. The trial court ruled that the prosecution sufficiently established that the two elements of illegal recruitment concurred, namely:
- that Sagisag did not have the required license or authority to engage in the recruitment and placement of workers, and
- that Sagisag nevertheless undertook a recruitment and placement activity as defined under Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code of the Philippines, or otherwise any prohibited practice under Article 34 of the same Code.
Specifically, it found that the first element was established by no less than the POEA Certification dated October 7, 2008 that Sagisag and his co-accused were not licensed or otherwise authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment.
This finding was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Sagisag went to the Supreme Court.
The issue that reached the Court was whether the lower courts erred in convicting Sagisag.
The Court began by stating that an illegal recruiter may be held liable for the crimes of illegal recruitment committed in large scale and estafa without risk of being put in double jeopardy, for as long as the accused has been so charged under separate Informations. Here, record showed that Sagisag was separately charged for illegal recruitment in large scale and estafa. For the Court, Sagisag was properly prosecuted simultaneously for both crimes.
With regard to illegal recruitment, the Court stated that it is committed by a person who: undertakes any recruitment activity defined under Article 13 (b) or any prohibited practice enumerated under Articles 34 and 38 of the Labor Code of the Philippines; and does not have a license or authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers. It is committed in large scale when it is committed against three or more persons individually or as a group.
Together with the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, the law governing illegal recruitment is the Labor Code of the Philippines which, under Article 13 (b) thereof defines recruitment and placement as “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 x x x.” The same Code also defines and punishes illegal recruitment, under Articles 38 and 39.
According to the Court, to prove illegal recruitment, two elements must be shown, namely:
- the person charged with the crime must have undertaken recruitment activities, or any of the activities enumerated in Article 34 of the Labor Code of the Philippines, as amended; and
- said person does not have a license or authority to do so.
In this regard, the Court said that it is not the issuance or signing of receipts for the placement fees that makes a case for illegal recruitment, but rather the undertaking of recruitment activities without the necessary license or authority.
The Court then added that to establish that the offense of illegal recruitment was conducted in a large scale, it must be proven that the accused:
- engaged in acts of recruitment and placement of workers defined under Article 13 (b) or in any prohibited activities under Article 34 of the Labor Code of the Philippines;
- has not complied with the guidelines issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment, particularly with respect to the securing of a license or an authority to recruit and deploy workers, either locally or overseas; and
- commits the unlawful acts against three or more persons, individually or as a group.
The Court mentioned that all three elements have been established beyond reasonable doubt.
In the present case, the Court found that the accused engaged in recruitment and placement activities without the requisite authority, and were therefore properly charged with illegal recruitment.
The Court considered the attack of Sagisag on the admissibility of the POEA Certification which stated that he had no authority or license to recruit for overseas employment, since said document was not authenticated in court by the signatory thereto. However, such attack was not found to be meritorious, for record showed that the parties, which included Sagisag, had stipulated on the veracity and probative import of the POEA Certification. The Court stated that accused Sagisag may not now turn back on the stipulations and then question the admissibility of a crucial document, the due issuance of which he stipulated and agreed on.
The Court also found without merit Sagisag’s reliance on the Equipoise Rule, which provides that where the evidence in a criminal case is evenly balanced, the constitutional presumption of innocence tilts the scales in favor of the accused. The Court pointed out that the rule was inapplicable to the case of Sagisag because, contrary to his submission, the evidence submitted and evaluated by both lower courts mounted high against his denial and ineffective and uncorroborated feigning of innocence. The total evidence presented by both parties, said the Court, was asymmetrical, with the prosecution’s submissions indubitably demonstrating Sagisag’s guilt.
The Court accordingly affirmed the conviction of Sagisag.
Further reading:
- People v. Bautista, G.R. No. 218582, September 3, 2020.
