G.R. No. 119076 March 25, 2002
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Roger Segun and Josephine Clam, accused-appellants.

FACTS

Accused-appellants Roger Segun and Josephine Clam were charged before the Regional Trial Court of Iligan City with illegal recruitment in large scale under Article 38 of the Labor Code. The information alleged that on or about March 3, 1993, in Linamon, Lanao del Norte, they conspired to canvass, enlist, contract, transport, and recruit thirteen named individuals for employment without any license or authority from the Department of Labor and Employment. Upon arraignment, appellants pleaded not guilty.
The prosecution presented eight witnesses. Francita Manequis of DOLE presented certifications stating appellants were neither licensed nor authorized to recruit. The testimonies of the complainants and their relatives generally indicated that appellants promised free transportation to Manila, free meals, and good wages to the individuals seeking work. Specific testimonies included: Conchita Tambacan (mother of Mario Tambacan) learned of her son’s recruitment from others; Josephine Aba (aunt of Pedro and Pablo Ozarraga) was told by appellants about the free fare and good wages; Melecio Ababa (grandfather of Jhonely and Jonard Genemelo) was given similar assurances; Rogelio Collantes (husband and father of three recruits) received promises of free transportation and good wages; Christine Collantes (one of the recruits) testified she and her mother were offered jobs and appellants paid their transportation to Cabanatuan City where she worked; Loreta Caban (a recruit) testified appellants offered her a job with a big salary and paid her fare; and Elena Arañas (mother of Richard Arañas) was present when appellants offered her son work with a good salary.
The defense, predicated on denial, presented five witnesses who testified that the individuals sought out appellants for help in finding work in Manila due to financial difficulties, and that appellants merely assisted them without making promises of employment, with the understanding that transportation advances would be reimbursed.
The RTC convicted appellants of illegal recruitment in large scale and sentenced them to life imprisonment. On appeal, the Supreme Court reviewed the evidence.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of illegal recruitment in large scale, specifically whether appellants undertook recruitment activities against three or more persons individually.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the RTC decision. It found that the prosecution failed to prove the third element of illegal recruitment in large scale—that the accused committed acts of recruitment against three or more persons individually. The Court held that for a conviction of large scale illegal recruitment, there must be proof of at least three specific acts of recruitment. After examining the testimonies, the Court found that the prosecution only sufficiently established two specific counts of illegal recruitment through the direct testimonies of the recruits themselves: (1) Victoria Collantes (through her daughter Christine’s testimony that appellants offered her mother a job) and (2) Loreta Caban (who testified appellants offered her a job). The testimonies regarding the other alleged victims were based on hearsay, lacked specificity as to appellants’ direct acts, or came from witnesses who were not the recruits themselves and could not detail the recruitment transactions.
Consequently, appellants were found guilty only of two counts of simple illegal recruitment under Article 38(a) of the Labor Code in relation to Articles 13(b) and 39. The penalty was modified to imprisonment of four to five years for each count.