Case Digest: Romero v. People
G.R. No. 171644: November 23, 2011
DELIA D. ROMERO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, ROMULO PADLAN and ARTURO SIAPNO,Respondents.
PERALTA, J.:
FACTS:
Sometime in September 2000 Romulo went to petitioner's stall to inquire about securing a job in Israel. Convinced by petitioner's words of encouragement and inspired by the potential salary of US$700.00 to US$1,200.00 a month, Romulo asked petitioner the amount of money required in order for him to be able to go to Israel. Petitioner informed him that as soon as he could give her US$3,600.00, his papers would be immediately processed.
Petitioner contacted Jonney Erez Mokra who instructed Romulo to attend a briefing at his (Jonney's) house in Dau,Mabalacat, Pampanga. Romulo was able to leave for Israel on October 26, 2000 and was able to secure a job. Unfortunately, after two and a half months, he was caught by Israel's immigration police, detained, and then deported.
On the other hand, private respondent Arturo Siapno is petitioner's nephew. He suffered the same fate as Romulos.
Arturo, after learning that his story was similar to Romulos checked with the DOLE whether petitioner, Teresita D.Visperas and Jonney Erez Mokra had any license or authority to recruit employees for overseas employment. Finding that petitioner and the others were not authorized to recruit for overseas employment, Arturo and Romulo filed a complaint before the NBI. Consequently, an Information was filed against petitioner and Jonney Erez Mokra for the crime of Illegal Recruitment which reads as follows:
Upon arraignment on, petitioner, with the assistance of her counsel pleaded not guilty, whereas accused Jonney ErezMokra was and is still at-large.
The RTC found petitioner guilty as charged. The dispositive portion of its decision reads as follows:
On appeal, the CA affirmed in toto the decision of the RTC.
Hence, the present petition after petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA. Petitioner enumerates the following assignment of errors:
ISSUE:
HELD: Petition denied
ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT, TWO ELEMENTS
The crime of illegal recruitment is committed when two elements concur, namely: (1) the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable one to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers; and (2) he undertakes either any activity within the meaning of "recruitment and placement" defined under Article 13 (b), or any prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code.
CREATION OF POEA DID NOT DIVEST SECRETARY OF LABOR OF HIS JURISDICTION OVER RECRUITMENT AND PLACEMENT ACTIVITIES
Petitioner claims that the prosecution committed a procedural lapse in not procuring a certification from the agency primarily involved, the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). The said argument, however, is flawed. A non-licensee or non-holder of authority is any person, corporation or entity which has not been issued a valid license or authority to engage in recruitment and placement by the Secretary of Labor, or whose license or authority has been suspended, revoked or cancelled by the POEA or the Secretary. Clearly, the creation of the POEA did not divest the Secretary of Labor of his/her jurisdiction over recruitment and placement of activities.
ACTS OF PETITIONER CONSTITUTE REFERRAL UNDER ART. 13 (B) OF THE LABOR CODE
Petitioner insists that the CA was wrong in affirming the factual findings of the trial court. According to her, the accommodation extended by the petitioner to the private respondents is far from the referral as contemplated in Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code. Nevertheless, the testimonies of the private respondents clearly establish the fact that petitioner's conduct falls within the term recruitment as defined by law. As testified by Romulo Padlan, petitioner convinced him and Arturo Siapno to give her US$3,600.00 for the processing of their papers. Thus, it is apparent that petitioner was able to convince the private respondents to apply for work in Israel after parting with their money in exchange for the services she would render.
ABSENCE OF RECEIPTS, NOT FATAL
The Court has already ruled that the absence of receipts in a case for illegal recruitment is not fatal, as long as the prosecution is able to establish through credible testimonial evidence that accused-appellant has engaged in illegal recruitment. Such case is made, not by the issuance or the signing of receipts for placement fees, but by engagement in recruitment activities without the necessary license or authority.
DELIA D. ROMERO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, ROMULO PADLAN and ARTURO SIAPNO,Respondents.
PERALTA, J.:
FACTS:
Sometime in September 2000 Romulo went to petitioner's stall to inquire about securing a job in Israel. Convinced by petitioner's words of encouragement and inspired by the potential salary of US$700.00 to US$1,200.00 a month, Romulo asked petitioner the amount of money required in order for him to be able to go to Israel. Petitioner informed him that as soon as he could give her US$3,600.00, his papers would be immediately processed.
Petitioner contacted Jonney Erez Mokra who instructed Romulo to attend a briefing at his (Jonney's) house in Dau,Mabalacat, Pampanga. Romulo was able to leave for Israel on October 26, 2000 and was able to secure a job. Unfortunately, after two and a half months, he was caught by Israel's immigration police, detained, and then deported.
On the other hand, private respondent Arturo Siapno is petitioner's nephew. He suffered the same fate as Romulos.
Arturo, after learning that his story was similar to Romulos checked with the DOLE whether petitioner, Teresita D.Visperas and Jonney Erez Mokra had any license or authority to recruit employees for overseas employment. Finding that petitioner and the others were not authorized to recruit for overseas employment, Arturo and Romulo filed a complaint before the NBI. Consequently, an Information was filed against petitioner and Jonney Erez Mokra for the crime of Illegal Recruitment which reads as follows:
Upon arraignment on, petitioner, with the assistance of her counsel pleaded not guilty, whereas accused Jonney ErezMokra was and is still at-large.
The RTC found petitioner guilty as charged. The dispositive portion of its decision reads as follows:
On appeal, the CA affirmed in toto the decision of the RTC.
Hence, the present petition after petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA. Petitioner enumerates the following assignment of errors:
ISSUE:
(1) Whether the CA erred in affirming the conviction of the accused based merely on a certification from the DOLE-Dagupan District Office without said certification being properly identified and testified thereto,
(2) Whether the CA erred in affirming the conviction of the accused in interpreting the gesture of good faith of the petitioner as referral in the guise of illegal recruitment.
HELD: Petition denied
ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT, TWO ELEMENTS
The crime of illegal recruitment is committed when two elements concur, namely: (1) the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable one to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers; and (2) he undertakes either any activity within the meaning of "recruitment and placement" defined under Article 13 (b), or any prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code.
CREATION OF POEA DID NOT DIVEST SECRETARY OF LABOR OF HIS JURISDICTION OVER RECRUITMENT AND PLACEMENT ACTIVITIES
Petitioner claims that the prosecution committed a procedural lapse in not procuring a certification from the agency primarily involved, the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). The said argument, however, is flawed. A non-licensee or non-holder of authority is any person, corporation or entity which has not been issued a valid license or authority to engage in recruitment and placement by the Secretary of Labor, or whose license or authority has been suspended, revoked or cancelled by the POEA or the Secretary. Clearly, the creation of the POEA did not divest the Secretary of Labor of his/her jurisdiction over recruitment and placement of activities.
ACTS OF PETITIONER CONSTITUTE REFERRAL UNDER ART. 13 (B) OF THE LABOR CODE
Petitioner insists that the CA was wrong in affirming the factual findings of the trial court. According to her, the accommodation extended by the petitioner to the private respondents is far from the referral as contemplated in Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code. Nevertheless, the testimonies of the private respondents clearly establish the fact that petitioner's conduct falls within the term recruitment as defined by law. As testified by Romulo Padlan, petitioner convinced him and Arturo Siapno to give her US$3,600.00 for the processing of their papers. Thus, it is apparent that petitioner was able to convince the private respondents to apply for work in Israel after parting with their money in exchange for the services she would render.
ABSENCE OF RECEIPTS, NOT FATAL
The Court has already ruled that the absence of receipts in a case for illegal recruitment is not fatal, as long as the prosecution is able to establish through credible testimonial evidence that accused-appellant has engaged in illegal recruitment. Such case is made, not by the issuance or the signing of receipts for placement fees, but by engagement in recruitment activities without the necessary license or authority.
