G.R. No. 168445 November 11, 2005
People of the Philippines, Appellee, vs. Capt. Florencio O. Gasacao, Appellant.

FACTS

Appellant Florencio O. Gasacao was the Crewing Manager of Great Eastern Shipping Agency Inc., a licensed manning agency. He and his nephew, the agency’s President, were charged with Large Scale Illegal Recruitment under Republic Act No. 8042 . The information in Crim. Case No. Q-00-94240 alleged that from May to December 1999, they conspired to recruit seven individuals, promising them overseas seafarer employment. They collected cash bonds ranging from P10,000 to P20,000 from the applicants, failed to deploy them without valid reason, and did not reimburse their expenses. Only appellant was arrested and tried.
The Regional Trial Court convicted appellant in Crim. Case No. Q-00-94240, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine, while acquitting him in a related case. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the lower courts erred in finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming appellant’s conviction for Large Scale Illegal Recruitment.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The legal logic centered on the elements of illegal recruitment and the specific violations under R.A. 8042. First, the Court found appellant undertook recruitment activities by receiving applications, interviewing applicants, and informing them of the cash bond requirement. His role as Crewing Manager established his involvement in the recruitment process.
Second, the Court ruled he had no license or authority to charge such fees. The law and POEA rules explicitly prohibit the collection of a cash or performance bond from workers. Appellant’s claim of ignorance of this prohibition was rejected, as ignorance of the law excuses no one. His actions directly violated Section 6(a) of R.A. 8042.
Third, the Court held his actions constituted economic sabotage, making the recruitment large-scale. He committed the acts against three or more persons—specifically, five complainants who testified. His failure to deploy them without valid reason and his subsequent failure to return the collected bonds constituted further violations under Section 6(l) and (m) of the law. Consequently, the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine under Section 7(b) was correctly imposed. The findings of fact by the trial court, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, were deemed conclusive and supported by evidence.