G.R. No. L-101579-82 December 15, 1993
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Lucille B. Sendon, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Lucille Sendon represented herself as a recruiter for overseas employment to four complainants: Emma Concepcion-Hermogeno, Delia Velasco, Lydia Cepres, and Pura Casco. She offered them jobs as domestic helpers or tutors in Oman and Singapore, assuring them of her connections and ability to facilitate their employment. Each complainant gave her substantial sums of money as placement and processing fees, ranging from approximately P16,500 to over P20,500, without receiving any official receipts. Sendon facilitated some steps like medical examinations and NBI clearances and provided them with xerox copies of employment-related documents. However, the promised departure dates of September 15 and 30, 1988, did not materialize. Sendon became difficult to contact and provided excuses, including an expired visa and a non-existent POEA contact named Tessie Dimasalang. The complainants eventually discovered that Sendon and her mother, Natividad Sendon, were not licensed recruiters. They filed complaints, leading to four separate informations for illegal recruitment in large scale. After a consolidated trial, the Regional Trial Court found Lucille Sendon guilty beyond reasonable doubt, sentencing her to life imprisonment and a fine, and ordering her to return the amounts received. Natividad Sendon was acquitted.

ISSUE

Whether accused-appellant Lucille Sendon is guilty of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. The Court held that illegal recruitment in large scale is committed when a person, without a valid license or authority, undertakes recruitment activities for three or more persons. The evidence established that Sendon, without any license from the POEA, recruited and promised overseas employment to four individuals, collected fees from them, and performed acts constituting recruitment and placement. Her defense of denial and claim that she was merely assisting a relative were unsubstantiated and could not prevail over the positive and categorical testimonies of the complainants. The crime, being economic in nature and causing serious public injury, warrants severe penalties. Thus, the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P100,000.00, as well as the civil liabilities, were upheld.