GR 113161; (August, 1995) (Digest)
G.R. No. 113161 August 29, 1995
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LOMA GOCE y OLALIA, DAN GOCE and NELLY D. AGUSTIN, accused. NELLY D. AGUSTIN, accused-appellant.
FACTS
An Information was filed against spouses Dan and Loma Goce and appellant Nelly Agustin for Illegal Recruitment committed by a syndicate and in large scale. The accused, without the requisite POEA license, allegedly recruited and promised overseas employment to eight individuals for a fee. After the case was archived due to the accused’s evasion of arrest, Agustin was apprehended in 1993. During trial, four complainants—Rogelio Salado, Ramona Salado, Dionisio Masaya, and Ernesto Alvarez—testified for the prosecution. Their collective testimonies established that Agustin, representing herself as the manager of the unlicensed Clover Placement Agency, actively solicited applicants, collected processing and placement fees, and made specific promises of employment in Oman. She conducted these activities at her residence and in coordination with the Goce spouses at the agency’s office.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant Nelly Agustin is guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed Agustin’s conviction. The legal logic rests on the confluence of three established principles. First, illegal recruitment is defined under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code as any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, or promising employment for a fee without proper authority. The consistent testimonies of the four complainants, which the trial court found credible, detailed Agustin’s specific acts of solicitation, fee collection, and job promises, satisfying this definition. Second, the offense becomes large scale illegal recruitment under Article 38(b) when committed against three or more persons individually or as a group. The conviction of four complainants met this quantitative requirement. Third, Agustin’s defense of being a mere employee or agent was correctly rejected. The law explicitly states that illegal recruitment can be committed by any person, whether a non-licensee or a non-holder of authority. Her active, direct participation in the recruitment process made her equally liable. The Court also upheld the finding of conspiracy based on her coordinated actions with the Goce spouses, and deferred to the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility, which is generally binding on appeal.