GR 105204; (March, 1995) (Digest)
G.R. No. 105204 March 9, 1995
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Thelma Reyes and Nick Reyes, accused, Thelma Reyes accused-appellant.
FACTS
Thelma Reyes and her husband, Nick, were charged with Illegal Recruitment under Article 38 of the Labor Code. The prosecution presented complainants Rosalino Bitang and Fabian Baradas, who testified that in 1985-1986, they and several others applied for overseas employment through the Reyes spouses. They paid substantial sums of money, evidenced by receipts signed by Nick Reyes, but no employment materialized. Investigation revealed the spouses were not licensed recruiters. Nick Reyes remained at large, so trial proceeded solely against Thelma, who pleaded not guilty. She denied involvement, claiming estrangement from her husband and attributing the illegal scheme solely to him.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Thelma Reyes of Illegal Recruitment and sentenced her to Reclusion Perpetua, a fine, and indemnification. The trial court treated the case as large-scale illegal recruitment, considering the multiple victims named in the testimonies and receipts beyond the two formal complainants.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court correctly convicted appellant Thelma Reyes of large-scale illegal recruitment.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court modified the conviction. The legal logic is twofold. First, for a conviction of large-scale illegal recruitment under Article 38(b), the prosecution must prove illegal recruitment was committed against three or more persons individually or as a group in the same case. Here, the information formally charged the offense only with respect to two complainants, Bitang and Baradas. The other individuals mentioned (Lorenzo Blanza, Edgardo Garcia, Ramon Mendoza, and Dionisio de Castro) were not complainants in this specific case. Their alleged recruitment cannot be aggregated from this single proceeding to constitute the qualifying element of “three or more persons.” To rule otherwise would allow the improper cumulation of separate prosecutions.
Second, since the more serious offense of large-scale recruitment was not sufficiently proven and, critically, was not alleged in the information, appellant can only be held liable for the lesser offense of simple illegal recruitment as charged. Under Rule 120, §4 of the Rules of Court, an accused cannot be convicted of an offense more serious than that alleged in the information. Consequently, the penalty must be under Article 39(c) of the Labor Code. The Court found appellant guilty on two counts of simple illegal recruitment and imposed an imprisonment term of six years and one day to eight years per count, with a fine and orders for indemnification to the two complainants.