Republic of the Philippines
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF THE PROSECUTOR
City of Baguio
ISABEL VALDEZ, ET AL.,
Complainant,
I.S. No. 12345
-versus- For: ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT
(in Large Scale)
JUAN DELA CRUZ,
Respondent.
---------------------------------------------x
RESOLUTION
The Respondent, JUAN DELA CRUZ was charged with
ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT (in large scale) in a complaint filed by
Isabel Valdez, Lourdes Campos and Pedro Delos Santos.
In support of their complaint, the herein complainant attached
the following documents:
1. Joint Affidavits of Isabel Valdez, Lourdes Campos and Pedro
Delos Santos
2. Certification of the POEA
3. Extract of Police Blotter
Statement of the Facts
Based on the investigation conducted by the Investigating
Prosecutor, Harold Saliyoc the facts of the case are stated hereunder:
That on or about the month of March 2015, in the
City of Baguio, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being a
non-licensee or non-holder of authority from the
Department of Labor and Employment to recruit and/or
place workers under local or overseas employment, did
then and there willfully and feloniously, with false
pretenses, undertake illegal recruitment, placement or
deployment of ISABEL VALDEZ, LOURDES CAMPOS
AND PEDRO DELOS SANTOS. This offense involved
economic sabotage, as it was committed in large scale.
In the joint affidavit of the complainants Isabel Valdez, Lourdes
Campos and Pedro Delos Santos, they stated that on March 17,
2015, they met the respondent, Juan De la Cruz, an agent of
Integrated Manpower Agency with an address at 5F PhilAm Bldg.,
Upper Session Rd., Baguio City to inquire about the newspaper
advertisement regarding overseas employment in Saudi Arabia.
Consequently, Juan De la Cruz offered and promised that they will
work as nurses in a certain Sanad Hospital, Riyadh City, Saudi Arabia
and earn a salary ranging from Php 50,000.00 to Php 100,000.00
monthly and that the respondent will help them obtain their working
visas and passports.
Respondent was able to convinced them and on March 19,
2015, each of the complainant paid the amount of P100,000 through
the respondents agency, Integrated Manpower Services to secure
their travel documents in the DFA and Saudi Arabia Embassy and
they were given receipts as proof of their payment. After payment and
submission of the necessary documents, the respondent informed
them that their flights were already booked. They waited for a month
but there was no development and they no longer received any notice
or information regarding their applications. Juan Dela Cruz was not in
his office anymore and after inquiry to the POEA, complainants found
out that the agency was not a registered recruitment agency and that
respondent Juan Dela Cruz was not licensed nor authorized to
recruit.
As to the respondent, in his counter-affidavit, he vehemently
denied the accusations against him putting up alibi as his
defenses. JUAN DELA CRUZ alleged that he met Isabel Valdez
together with Lourdes Campos and Pedro Delos Santos Party Pop, at
his place of business located at 4th Floor Annex Bldg. Porta Vaga
Mall Session Road, Baguio City. Complainants inquired regarding his
event planning services when he overheard them conversing about
wanting to leave for abroad and their need for an agency to help them
with their papers. Respondent interfered and told them about
Integrated Manpower Agency located across the street at 5F PhilAm
Bldg., Upper Session Road, Baguio City. Respondent also denied
that he received P100,000 from each respondent and alleged that
only one receipt was issued to them as proof of payment for his event
planning services. Two more blank receipts were issued by him upon
the request of Lourdes Campos and Pedro Delos Santos, which were
made to appear to have been issued by the agency.
Respondent likewise alleged that there exist two Integrated
Manpower Agency, one located at T9 3rd floor, Centermall Bldg.,
Baguio City which is unlicensed and one located at 5F PhilAm Bldg.,
Upper Session Road, Baguio City which is a licensed recruitment
agency. He also denied that he is in no way related to both agencies
as an agent nor as a general manager. He then voluntarily executed
his affidavit to answer the allegations against him.
Analyses/ Findings and Recommendations
The term "recruitment and placement" is defined under Article
13(b) of the Labor Code of the Philippines as follows:
(b) "Recruitment and placement" refers 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.
On the other hand, Article 38, paragraph (a) of the Labor Code,
as amended, under which the accused stands charged, provides:
Art. 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 Ministry 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.
Section 7 of the RA No. 8042 penalizes the crime of illegal
recruitment as follows:
(a) Any person found guilty of illegal recruitment shall suffer the
penalty of imprisonment of not less than six (6) years and one (1) day
but not more than twelve (12) years and a fine not less than two
hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00) nor more than five hundred
thousand pesos (P500,000.00).
(b) The penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of not less than five
hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) nor more than one million
pesos (P1,000,000.00) shall be imposed if illegal recruitment
constitutes economic sabotage as defined herein.
From the foregoing provisions, it is clear that any recruitment
activities to be undertaken by non-licensee or non-holder of authority
shall be deemed illegal and punishable under Article 39 of the Labor
Code of the Philippines. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in
large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons individually
or as a group.
To prove illegal recruitment in large scale, the prosecution must
prove three essential elements, to wit: (1) the person charged
undertook a recruitment activity under Article 13(b) or any prohibited
practice under Article 34 of the Labor Code; (2) he/she did not have
the license or the authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and
placement of workers; and (3) he/she committed the prohibited
practice against three or more persons individually or as a group.
The facts of the case before us squarely falls under the crime
of Illegal Recruitment in large scale. All the essential elements of the
crime were present in the commission of the crime. Juan Dela Cruz,
being a non-licensee or non-holder of authority committed the crime
against the three complainants which under Art. 34 of the Labor Code
constitutes an illegal recruitment in large scale. Juan Dela Cruz
promised the complainants an employment as nurses in Saudi
Arabia. He was able to convinced them and required them to pay P
100,000 each for the processing and securing of their passports and
working visas. Respondent was able to obtain a large amount from
the complainants in the amount of P 300,000 and informed them that
their flights were already booked. Consequently, the complainants
never heard about their applications and the respondent can no
longer be found in his office. It prompted the complainants to inquire
about his agency and they received a POEA certification attesting
that Juan dela Cruz does not have a license or authority to lawfully
engage in the recruitment and placement of workers. It is enough that
respondent promised the three complainants an employment and that
he received payment from them in order to constitute the crime of
Illegal Recruitment in large scale.
JUAN DELA CRUZ failed to persuade the Investigating
Prosecutor that he did not commit the crime of Illegal Recruitment in
large scale. He was not able to disprove the fact of receipt of
payment contained in the three receipts. Based on the facts alleged,
he issued the receipt for his services and issued another two upon
the request of the complainants. No one in his right mind would issue
blank receipts to any individual for no valid reason.
On the part of the defense of the respondent it is a settled rule
that denial is the weakest of all defenses because it is too easy and
convenient to fabricate and difficult to disprove, and is generally
rejected. For alibi to prosper, it is not enough to prove that the
defendant was somewhere else when the crime was committed, that
he must likewise demonstrate that it was impossible for
him to have been at the scene of the crime at that time. (People vs.
Malejana, 479 SCRA 610). To be worthy of consideration at all,
denial should be substantiated with clear and convincing evidence.
The defendant cannot solely rely on her negative and self-serving
negation for denial carries no weight in law.
Courts generally view the defenses of denial and alibi with
disfavor on account of the facility with which an accused can concoct
them to suit his defense. (People vs. Mangitngit, 502 SCRA 560).
As regards the alibi of the respondent, he asserts that he could
have not done the crime because he is in no way related to the
recruitment agency. It was respondent who told them about the
agency and he had knowledge that two Integrated Manpower Agency
bearing the same name exist and one of which is not licensed to do
recruitment and placement activity. However, respondent persistently
denied his involvement in the commission of the crime. The
respondent has miserably failed to show any evidence of ill motive on
the part of the complainant as to falsely accuse him of the crime.
Therefore, between the categorical statements of the
complainants, on the one hand, and bare denials of the accused, on
the other hand, the former must prevail.
WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, it is most
respectfully recommended that an information for the crime of Illegal
recruitment in Large Scale, defined and penalized under the
provisions of Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042 or the Migrant
Workers and Overseas Filipino Act of 1995, as amended by Republic
Act No. 10022, be filed against the respondent JUAN DELA CRUZ.
Baguio City, March 10, 2016.
ROSIELLE C. RIVERA
Assistant City Prosecutor
APPROVED BY:
RYDEN PASCUA
Chief City Prosecutor
Copy Furnished:
(1) Juan Dela Cruz- Brgy. Lower Pinget, Baguio City
