G.R. No. 176169. November 14, 2008.

ROSARIO NASI-VILLAR, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, respondent.

Criminal Procedure; Information; The real nature of the crime

charged is determined, not from the caption or preamble of the
information nor from the specification of the law alleged to have
been violated—these being conclusions of law—but by the actual
recital of facts in the complaint or information.—In Gabriel v.
Court of Appeals, 440 SCRA 136 (2004), we held that the real
nature of the crime charged is determined, not from the caption or
preamble of the information nor from the specification of the law
alleged to have been violated—these being conclusions of law—
but by the actual recital of facts in the complaint or information.
What controls is not the designation but the description of the
offense charged. From a legal point of view, and in a very real
sense, it is of no concern to the accused what the technical name
of the crime of which he stands charged is. If the accused
performed the acts alleged in the body of the information, in the
manner stated, then he ought to be punished and punished
adequately, whatever may be the name of the crime which those
acts constitute.
Criminal Law; Labor Law; Illegal Recruitment; Elements to
prove illegal recruitment; “Recruitment and Placement,” Defined.
—To prove illegal recruitment, two elements must be shown,
namely: (1) the person charged with the crime must have
undertaken recruitment activities, or any of the activities
enumerated in Article 34 of the Labor Code, as amended; and (2)
said person does not have a license or authority to do so. Art.
13(b) 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; Provided that any person or entity
which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to
two or more persons, is considered engaged in recruitment and
placement.”

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.
 203

VOL. 571, NOVEMBER 14, 2008 203

Nasi-Villar vs. People

Same; Same; Illegal Dismissals; The basic rule is that a

criminal act is punishable under the law in force at the time of its
commission; Petitioner properly convicted under the Labor Code,
and not under R.A. No. 8042.—The basic rule is that a criminal
act is punishable under the law in force at the time of its
commission. Thus, petitioner can only be charged and found
guilty under the Labor Code which was in force in 1993 when the
acts attributed to her were committed. Petitioner was charged in
1998 under an Information that erroneously designated the
offense as covered by R.A. No. 8042, but alleged in its body acts
which are punishable under the Labor Code. As it was proven
that petitioner had committed the acts she was charged with, she
was properly convicted under the Labor Code, and not under R.A.
No. 8042.
Constitutional Law; Ex Post Facto Law; Penal laws and laws
which, while not penal in nature, nonetheless have provisions
defining offenses and prescribing penalties for their violation
operate prospectively; Penal laws cannot be given retroactive effect,
except when they are favorable to the accused.—There is no
violation of the prohibition against ex post facto law nor a
retroactive application of R.A. No. 8042, as alleged by petitioner.
An ex post facto law is one which, among others, aggravates a
crime or makes it greater than it was when committed or changes
the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law
annexed to the crime when committed. Penal laws and laws
which, while not penal in nature, nonetheless have provisions
defining offenses and prescribing penalties for their violation
operate prospectively. Penal laws cannot be given retroactive
effect, except when they are favorable to the accused.
Same; Same; A law can never be considered ex post facto as
long as it operates prospectively since its strictures would cover
only offenses committed after and not before its enactment.—R.A.
No. 8042 amended pertinent provisions of the Labor Code and
gave a new definition of the crime of illegal recruitment and
provided for its higher penalty. There is no indication in R.A. No.
8042 that said law, including the penalties provided therein,
would take effect retroactively. A law can never be considered ex
post facto as long as it operates prospectively since its strictures
would cover only offenses committed after and not before its
enactment. Neither did the trial court nor the appellate court give
R.A. No. 8042 a retroactive application since both courts passed
upon petitioner’s case only under the aegis of the Labor Code. The
proceedings before the trial court and the
 204

204 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Nasi-Villar vs. People

appellate court did not violate the prohibition against ex post

facto law nor involved a retroactive application of R.A. No. 8042 in
any way.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
   The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
  Beethoven L. Orcullo for petitioner.
  The Solicitor General for respondent.

TINGA, J.:

This is a Petition for Review1 under Rule 45 of the Rules

of Court filed by petitioner Rosario Nasi-Villar assailing
the Decision2 dated 27 June 2005 and Resolution3 dated 28
November 2006 of the Court of Appeals. This case
originated from an Information4 for Illegal Recruitment as
defined under Sections 6 and 7 of Republic Act (R.A.) No.
80425 filed by the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of
Davao del Sur on 5 October 1998 for acts committed by
petitioner and one Dolores Placa in or about January 1993.
The Information reads:

“That on [sic] or about the month of [January 1993], in the

Municipality of Sta. Cruz, Province of Davao del Sur, Philippines
and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the
aforenamed accused, conspiring together, confederating with and
mutually helping one another through fraudulent representation
and deceitful machination, did then and there [willfully],
unlawfully and feloniously recruit Nila Panilag for employment
abroad[,] demand and

_______________

1 Rollo, pp. 21-36.

2 Id., at pp. 87-108.
3 Id., at pp. 117-120.
4 Id., at pp. 37-38.
5  Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, which amended the
overseas employment provisions of the Labor Code, gave a new definition of the
crime of illegal recruitment and increased the penalty therefore.

205

VOL. 571, NOVEMBER 14, 2008 205

Nasi-Villar vs. People
receive the amount of P6,500.00 Philippine Currency [sic] as
placement fee[,] the said accused being a non-licensee or non-
holder of authority to engage in the recruitment of workers
abroad to the damage and prejudice of the herein offended party.
CONTRARY TO LAW.”6

On 3 July 2002, after due trial, the Regional Trial Court

(RTC), Br. 18, Digos City, Davao del Sur found the evidence
presented by the prosecution to be more credible than that
presented by the defense and thus held petitioner liable for
the offense of illegal recruitment under the Labor Code, as
amended.7 The dispositive portion of the decision reads:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court hereby finds

accused ROSARIO NASI-VILLAR GUILTY BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT of Illegal Recruitment and, in accordance
with the penalty set forth under the Labor Code, as amended,
said accused is hereby sentenced to an indeterminate penalty
ranging from FOUR YEARS as minimum to FIVE YEARS as
maximum.
On the civil aspect of the case, there being no substantial proof
presented to justify a grant of civil damages, this Court makes no
pronouncement thereon.
With respect to accused Ma. Dolores Placa, who is still at large,
the records of this case are hereby sent to the archives to be
retrieved in the event that said accused would be apprehended.
Issue an alias warrant of arrest for the apprehension of said
accused.
SO ORDERED.”8

Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals raising as

sole issue the alleged error by the trial court in finding her
guilty of illegal recruitment on the basis of the trial court’s
appreciation of the evidence presented by the prosecution.
 

_______________

6 Rollo, p. 37.
7 Id., at pp. 39-54. Decision penned by Judge Marivic Trabajo Daray.
8 Id., at p. 53.

206

206 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Nasi-Villar vs. People

The Court of Appeals, in its Decision dated 27 June

2005,9 following the principle that an appeal in a criminal
case throws the whole case wide open for review, noted that
the criminal acts alleged to have been committed happened
sometime in 1993. However, R.A. No. 8042, under which
petitioner was charged, was approved only on 7 June 1995
and took effect on 15 July 1995. Thus, the Court of Appeals
declared that petitioner should have been charged under
the Labor Code, in particular Art. 13(b) thereof, and not
under R.A. No. 8042. Accordingly, it made its findings on
the basis of the provisions of the Labor Code and found
petitioner liable under Art. 38, in relation to Art. 13(b), and
Art. 39 of the Labor Code. The appellate court affirmed
with modification the decision of the RTC, decreeing in the
dispositive portion, thus:

“WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the appealed

Decision of the Regional Trial Court, 11th Judicial Region, Br.
18, City of Digos, Province of Davao del Sur, finding Rosario Nasi-
Villar guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal
Recruitment is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that
Rosario Nasi-Villar is ORDERED to pay Nila Panilag the sum of
P10,000.00 as temperate damages.
SO ORDERED.”10

On 28 November 2006, the appellate court denied

petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.11
Hence, petitioner filed the instant petition for review.
Petitioner alleges that the Court of Appeals erred in failing
to consider that R.A. No. 8042 cannot be given retroactive
effect and that the decision of the RTC constitutes a
violation of the constitutional prohibition against ex post
facto law. Since R.A. No. 8042 did not yet exist in January
1993 when the crime was allegedly committed, petitioner
argues that law

_______________

9  Supra note 2.
10 Id., at p. 106.
11 Supra note 3.

207

VOL. 571, NOVEMBER 14, 2008 207

Nasi-Villar vs. People

cannot be used as the basis of filing a criminal action for

illegal recruitment. What was applicable in 1993 is the
Labor Code, where under Art. 38, in relation to Art. 39, the
violation of the Code is penalized with imprisonment of not
less than four (4) years nor more than eight (8) years or a
fine of not less than P20,000.00 and not more than
P100,000.00 or both. On the other hand, Sec. 7(c) of R.A.
No. 8042 penalizes illegal recruitment with a 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 P200,000.00 nor more than P500,000.00. Thus, the
penalty of imprisonment provided in the Labor Code was
raised or increased by R.A. No. 8042. Petitioner concludes
that the charge and conviction of an offense carrying a
penalty higher than that provided by the law at the time of
its commission constitutes a violation of the prohibition
against ex post facto law and the retroactive application of
R.A. No. 8042.
In its Comment12 dated 7 September 2007, the Office of
the Solicitor General (OSG) argues that the Court of
Appeals’ conviction of petitioner under the Labor Code is
correct. While conceding that there was an erroneous
designation of the law violated by petitioner, the OSG
stresses that the designation of the offense in the
Information is not determinative of the nature and
character of the crime charged against her but the acts
alleged in the Information. The allegations in the
Information clearly charge petitioner with illegal
recruitment as defined in Art. 38, in relation to Art. 13(b) of
the Labor Code, and penalized under Art. 39(c) of the same
Code. The evidence on record substantiates the charge to a
moral certainty. Thus, while there was an erroneous
specification of the law violated by petitioner in the
Information, the CA was correct in affirming the RTC’s
imposition of the penalty for simple illegal recruitment
under the Labor Code, the OSG concludes.

_______________

12 Id., at pp. 174-192.

208

208 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Nasi-Villar vs. People

The petition is denied. We find no reversible error in the

decision arrived at by the Court of Appeals.
In Gabriel v. Court of Appeals,13 we held that the real
nature of the crime charged is determined, not from the
caption or preamble of the information nor from the
specification of the law alleged to have been violated—
these being conclusions of law—but by the actual recital of
facts in the complaint or information. What controls is not
the designation but the description of the offense charged.
From a legal point of view, and in a very real sense, it is of
no concern to the accused what the technical name of the
crime of which he stands charged is. If the accused
performed the acts alleged in the body of the information,
in the manner stated, then he ought to be punished and
punished adequately, whatever may be the name of the
crime which those acts constitute.14
In the case at bar, the prosecution established beyond
reasonable doubt that petitioner had performed the acts
constituting the offense defined in Art. 38, in relation to
Art. 13(b) and punished by Art. 39 of the Labor Code, as
alleged in the body of the Information. To prove illegal
recruitment, two elements must be shown, namely: (1) the
person charged with the crime must have undertaken
recruitment activities, or any of the activities enumerated
in Article 34 of the Labor Code, as amended; and (2) said
person does not have a license or authority to do so.15 Art.
13(b) 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;
Provided that any person or entity which, in any manner,
offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more
persons, is considered engaged in recruitment and
placement.”

_______________

13 G.R. No. 128474, 6 October 2004, 440 SCRA 136, 150.

14 United States v. Lim San, 17 Phil. 273, 279 (1910).
15  People v. Señoron, 334 Phil. 932, 937-938; 267 SCRA 278, 284
(1997).

209

VOL. 571, NOVEMBER 14, 2008 209

Nasi-Villar vs. People

The trial court found these two elements had been proven
in the case at bar. Petitioner has not offered any argument
or proof that countervails such findings.
The basic rule is that a criminal act is punishable under
the law in force at the time of its commission. Thus,
petitioner can only be charged and found guilty under the
Labor Code which was in force in 1993 when the acts
attributed to her were committed. Petitioner was charged
in 1998 under an Information that erroneously designated
the offense as covered by R.A. No. 8042, but alleged in its
body acts which are punishable under the Labor Code. As it
was proven that petitioner had committed the acts she was
charged with, she was properly convicted under the Labor
Code, and not under R.A. No. 8042.
There is no violation of the prohibition against ex post
facto law nor a retroactive application of R.A. No. 8042, as
alleged by petitioner. An ex post facto law is one which,
among others, aggravates a crime or makes it greater than
it was when committed or changes the punishment and
inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the
crime when committed.16 Penal laws and laws which, while
not penal in nature, nonetheless have provisions defining
offenses and prescribing penalties for their violation
operate prospectively. Penal laws cannot be given
retroactive effect, except when they are favorable to the
accused.17
R.A. No. 8042 amended pertinent provisions of the
Labor Code and gave a new definition of the crime of illegal
recruitment and provided for its higher penalty. There is
no indication in R.A. No. 8042 that said law, including the
penalties provided therein, would take effect retroactively.
A law can

_______________

16 Benedicto v. Court of Appeals, 416 Phil. 722, 748; 364 SCRA 334, 352
(2001), citing In Re: Kay Villegas Kami Inc., 35 SCRA 429, 431 (1970),
citing Calder v. Bull (1798), 3 Dall. 386, Makin v. Wolfe, 2 Phil. 74 (1903).
17 Benedicto v. Court of Appeals, 416 Phil. 722, 749; 364 SCRA 334, 353
(2001).

210

210 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Nasi-Villar vs. People

never be considered ex post facto as long as it operates

prospectively since its strictures would cover only offenses
committed after and not before its enactment.18 Neither did
the trial court nor the appellate court give R.A. No. 8042 a
retroactive application since both courts passed upon
petitioner’s case only under the aegis of the Labor Code.
The proceedings before the trial court and the appellate
court did not violate the prohibition against ex post facto
law nor involved a retroactive application of R.A. No. 8042
in any way.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed
Decision dated 27 June 2005 and Resolution dated 28
November 2006 of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.

Quisumbing (Chairperson), Carpio-Morales, Velasco,

Jr. and Brion, JJ., concur.

Petition denied, assailed decision and resolution

affirmed.

Note.—Recruitment and placement activities of agents

or representatives appointed by a licensee, whose
 appointments were not authorized by the Administration
shall likewise constitute illegal recruitment. (People vs.
Gutierrez, 422 SCRA 32 [2004])
——o0o——

_______________

18 I.A. Cruz, Constitutional Law (1993 ed.), p. 253.

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.