G.R. No. 101361 November 8, 1993
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MARY ROSE ONDO @ BABY and SIMEON ORTEGA, accused. MARY ROSE ONDO @ BABY, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Mary Rose Ondo @ Baby and Simeon Ortega were charged with illegal recruitment under Article 38 of the Labor Code. The information alleged that from December 1988 to August 1989, in Pasay City, they conspired to recruit Erlinda Cortez, Fidela Engada, Myra Siguenza, Dulce Garcia, and Emilinda Padua by falsely representing they could deploy workers abroad, charging them fees, and promising non-existent jobs. The prosecution established that appellant, through phone calls and meetings at her residence, promised the complainants jobs in Italy as domestic helpers and demanded payments (e.g., $5,000 or P65,000 each) for processing travel documents, plane tickets, and placement fees. She issued receipts for these payments. The complainants were never deployed abroad, and their money was not returned. Appellant was neither licensed nor authorized by the POEA to recruit workers. She was 16 years old at the time of the offense. The trial court convicted her and sentenced her to life imprisonment and a P100,000 fine.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly convicted appellant of illegal recruitment in large scale.

RULING

Yes, the conviction is affirmed. The essential elements of illegal recruitment are present: (1) appellant engaged in recruitment and placement by promising overseas employment for a fee, and (2) she was neither licensed nor authorized to do so. Her actions constituted illegal recruitment in large scale, defined as committed against three or more persons, warranting the penalty of life imprisonment under Article 39 of the Labor Code. Her defense that the Felixim Travel Agency was responsible was unsupported. Although she was a minor (16 years old) at the time of the offense, the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority under the Revised Penal Code and the benefits of the Child and Youth Welfare Code (which suspends sentence for youthful offenders) are not applicable. The Revised Penal Code’s benign provisions do not apply to special laws like the Labor Code, and the exception under the Child and Youth Welfare Code specifically excludes those convicted of an offense punishable by life imprisonment. The Indeterminate Sentence Law is also inapplicable as the penalty is life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision in toto but, in view of her minority, recommended to the Secretary of Justice that a case study be undertaken to determine her eligibility for executive clemency.