G.R. No. 146964 , August 10, 2006
Rosa C. Rodolfo, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Rosa C. Rodolfo was charged with illegal recruitment in Makati for allegedly recruiting, for a fee, five individuals for overseas employment without the required license from the Ministry of Labor during August to September 1984. The prosecution proved that Rodolfo, operating under “Bayside Manpower Export Specialist,” collected processing fees from complainants Necitas Ferre and Narciso Corpus with promises of employment in Dubai, which never materialized. A POEA officer confirmed Rodolfo lacked any license or authority to recruit.
Rodolfo denied the charges, claiming she merely assisted the complainants as a neighbor by introducing them to the licensed agency’s owner. She asserted that the money she collected was held in trust and subsequently turned over to the agency. The defense presented witnesses, including the agency’s accountant-cashier, to corroborate her lack of connection to the agency.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Rodolfo’s conviction for illegal recruitment despite her defense and the alleged failure of the prosecution to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction. The Court held that illegal recruitment under Article 38 of the Labor Code is committed by any non-licensee who undertakes recruitment activities. The elements are: (1) the accused engaged in recruitment and placement, and (2) did so without the required license or authority. Both elements were established. Rodolfo’s acts of personally soliciting applicants, collecting fees, and promising overseas employment constituted recruitment. Her lack of license was conclusively proven by POEA certification.
The Court rejected Rodolfo’s defense that she was merely a facilitator. Her active participation in soliciting and collecting fees from victims, coupled with her failure to secure a refund when the promised jobs failed, belied her claim of being a mere intermediary. The factual findings of the trial court, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, on the credibility of witnesses are generally binding. The case of People v. Señoron cited by petitioner is inapplicable, as it involved a licensed recruiter, unlike Rodolfo who was unlicensed.
However, the Supreme Court modified the penalty by deleting the “perpetual disqualification” imposed by the Court of Appeals, as such accessory penalty was not part of the statutory penalty under the applicable Labor Code provisions at the time of the offense. The indeterminate sentence of five years as minimum to seven years as maximum was sustained.