G.R. No. 129577 -80 February 15, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BULU CHOWDURY, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Bulu Chowdury, a consultant for Craftrade Overseas Developers, was charged with Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale and three counts of Estafa. The estafa charges were later dismissed. The prosecution evidence established that between August and October 1994, Chowdury interviewed complainants Aser Sasis, Estrella Calleja, and Melvin Miranda for factory jobs in South Korea. He required them to submit documents, attend a seminar, and pay substantial processing fees ranging from P16,000 to P25,000, which were paid to his co-accused, Josephine Ong. The complainants were never deployed. POEA certification confirmed Craftrade’s license had expired and that Chowdury was not a licensed recruiter.
For his defense, Chowdury admitted interviewing the complainants but claimed he was a mere employee following the instructions of his superiors. He asserted he never received any money from the applicants and had resigned in November 1994. He presented his resignation letter and a certification from Craftrade’s president to support his claim that he acted only within the scope of his employment.

ISSUE

Whether accused-appellant Bulu Chowdury is criminally liable for Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court acquitted Chowdury. The legal logic hinges on the distinction between corporate criminal liability and the personal criminal liability of an employee. Illegal recruitment is a crime of economic sabotage under Republic Act No. 8042 , which punishes those who undertake recruitment activities without the required license or authority. However, an employee of a corporation engaged in illegal recruitment cannot be held criminally liable unless there is clear evidence that he acted with deliberate malice or in bad faith, or that he personally and knowingly participated in the illegal recruitment scheme. The Court found that Chowdury performed acts of recruitment (interviewing, screening, requiring documents) as part of his official duties as an interviewer for Craftrade. There was no proof he personally solicited or received the payments, which were transacted with Ong. His actions were consistent with the functions of an employee acting under orders. Without evidence that he acted beyond his assigned tasks or with criminal intent to defraud the complainants for his own benefit, his acts, though constitutive of illegal recruitment, are deemed corporate acts. The criminal liability, if any, attaches to the corporation, not to the employee who merely performed his job. Consequently, the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.