G.R. No. 176169 , November 14, 2008
ROSARIO NASI-VILLAR, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

FACTS

An Information was filed against petitioner Rosario Nasi-Villar and Dolores Placa for Illegal Recruitment under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8042 for acts committed in or about January 1993. The Information alleged that in January 1993, in Sta. Cruz, Davao del Sur, the accused, conspiring and through fraudulent representation, recruited Nila Panilag for employment abroad, demanded and received P6,500.00 as placement fee, without being licensed or authorized to engage in recruitment. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Recruitment under the Labor Code, as amended, and sentenced her to an indeterminate penalty of four years as minimum to five years as maximum. On appeal, the Court of Appeals noted that R.A. No. 8042 was approved only in 1995 and took effect in July 1995, while the alleged acts occurred in 1993. Thus, the appellate court declared petitioner should have been charged under the Labor Code, specifically Articles 13(b), 38, and 39. It affirmed the RTC’s finding of guilt but modified the decision by ordering petitioner to pay temperate damages. Petitioner filed a petition for review, arguing that her conviction under R.A. No. 8042 , which did not exist in 1993, violates the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws and constitutes a retroactive application of said law.

ISSUE

Whether the conviction of petitioner for illegal recruitment, based on acts committed in 1993 but charged under R.A. No. 8042 (which took effect in 1995), violates the prohibition against ex post facto laws and involves an improper retroactive application of penal law.

RULING

The petition is denied. The Supreme Court affirmed the assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the real nature of the crime charged is determined by the actual recital of facts in the information, not by the designation of the law alleged to have been violated. The allegations in the Information clearly charged acts constituting illegal recruitment as defined and penalized under the Labor Code (Articles 13(b), 38, and 39), which was in force in 1993. The prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner undertook recruitment activities without a license or authority. Therefore, petitioner was properly convicted under the Labor Code, not under R.A. No. 8042 . There was no violation of the prohibition against ex post facto laws nor a retroactive application of R.A. No. 8042 , as both the trial and appellate courts passed upon the case solely under the Labor Code. An ex post facto law, which aggravates a crime or inflicts a greater punishment than that annexed to the crime when committed, was not applied here since R.A. No. 8042 , with its higher penalties, operates prospectively and was not given retroactive effect.