G.R. No. 104995 . August 26, 1993.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BALTAZAR DE LEON and MARIETTA DE LEON @ “BENJIE,” accused. BALTAZAR DE LEON, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Baltazar de Leon and his wife Marietta de Leon (at large) were charged with Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale under P.D. No. 2018. The information alleged that during August and September 1990 in Taguig, Metro Manila, they conspired to recruit and promise employment abroad to seven individuals (Francisco Beo, Lourdes Raya Bernabe, Cesar Cortez, Eugenia Panganiban Cruz, Alfredo Gutierrez, Daniel Perez, and Lourdes Perez) for various fees, without securing the required license or authority from the Department of Labor and Employment. Only Baltazar de Leon was arrested and arraigned. The prosecution evidence established that the accused couple, through representations made at their house, recruited the complainants for jobs in Micronesia and Guam, collected fees for medical examinations, passports, and processing, and provided lists of requirements. The complainants paid amounts totaling thousands of pesos. Elisa Roque of the POEA testified that Baltazar de Leon had no license or authority to recruit workers for overseas employment. The defense consisted of Baltazar de Leon’s denial and alibi, claiming he was employed as a driver and was often out of the house during the day, and that he knew nothing of the transactions between the complainants and his wife. The trial court found Baltazar de Leon guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to life imprisonment, a fine of P100,000.00, and ordered restitution to the complainants.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in holding that the guilt of accused Baltazar de Leon for the crime of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment of conviction. The prosecution proved all the elements of illegal recruitment in large scale: (1) the accused undertook a recruitment activity under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code by promising or offering employment to the complainants for a fee; (2) the accused did not have the required license or authority from the POEA; and (3) the illegal recruitment was committed against three or more persons, individually or as a group. The testimonies of the complainants were credible, consistent, and sufficient to establish the appellant’s active participation in the recruitment scheme alongside his wife. The defense of denial and alibi could not prevail over the positive identification by the witnesses. The court found that the appellant and his wife acted in conspiracy, as their actions demonstrated a unity of purpose and design in executing the unlawful objective. The error in the information citing “P.D. No. 2018” instead of the correct provisions (Articles 38 and 39 of the Labor Code, as amended) was deemed harmless, as the body of the information sufficiently alleged the elements of the crime. The penalty of life imprisonment and the fine were upheld.