G.R. No. 125044 July 13, 1998
Imelda Darvin, petitioner, vs. Hon. Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Imelda Darvin was charged with simple illegal recruitment. The prosecution evidence, based on the testimony of private complainant Macaria Toledo, showed that in March 1992, Toledo met Darvin through common friends. Darvin allegedly convinced Toledo that for P150,000.00, she could immediately leave for the United States without appearing at the U.S. embassy and promised her a job abroad as a nursing aide. On April 13, 1992, Toledo gave Darvin P150,000.00, as evidenced by a receipt stating the amount was “for U.S. Visa and Air fare.” Darvin assured Toledo she could leave within a week. When no word came, Toledo filed a complaint. The Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) certified that Darvin was neither licensed nor authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment. Darvin testified she was assisting individuals in securing passports, visas, and airline tickets, admitting she received P150,000.00 but claiming it was for Toledo’s travel expenses, not for promising employment. The Regional Trial Court convicted Darvin of simple illegal recruitment, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Imelda Darvin engaged in recruitment activities as defined under the Labor Code, thereby committing the crime of illegal recruitment.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED and SET ASIDE the decision of the Court of Appeals and ACQUITTED Imelda Darvin on the ground of reasonable doubt. The Court held that to convict for illegal recruitment, two elements must be proven: (1) the accused undertook recruitment activities, and (2) the accused did not have a license or authority to do so. While it was undisputed that Darvin had no license, the prosecution failed to sufficiently prove the first element. The evidence did not convincingly show that Darvin gave Toledo the distinct impression she had the power or ability to send her abroad for work. The receipt for P150,000.00 specified it was for “Air Fare and Visa to USA,” not for job placement. Procuring a passport, airline tickets, and a visa, without more, does not constitute recruitment activities. Toledo’s claim of a job offer was uncorroborated, as the prosecution did not present other available witnesses. The evidence only created suspicion, not moral certainty. In criminal cases, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; failure to do so entitles the accused to an acquittal.