G.R. No. 178774 ; December 8, 2010
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. MARLYN P. BACOS, Appellant.

FACTS

Appellant Marlyn P. Bacos, together with her common-law husband Efren Dimayuga, was charged with Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale based on complaints from ten individuals. Dimayuga died during trial. Three complainants testified that from December 1993 to September 1994, Dimayuga and Bacos, operating from their house, promised them employment in Japan. Bacos assured the complainants that Dimayuga could deploy them abroad. The complainants paid placement fees, with money either handed to Dimayuga in Bacos’s presence or given directly to Bacos, who then passed it to Dimayuga. Receipts were issued. The promised deployment never materialized. POEA certifications confirmed that neither accused was licensed to recruit.
Bacos denied involvement, testifying she merely served snacks and had no part in the transactions. She asserted she did not receive money or sign receipts. A defense witness, a former housemate, claimed no knowledge of Dimayuga’s business.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Bacos’s conviction as a principal for Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale, and not merely as an accomplice.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction as a principal. The legal logic hinges on the statutory definition of recruitment under the Labor Code and the established facts of active participation. Article 13(b) of the Labor Code defines recruitment broadly as “any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for employment.” Illegal recruitment under Article 38(a) occurs when such acts are undertaken by non-licensees. It is deemed large scale, constituting economic sabotage under Article 39, when committed against three or more persons.
The Court found all elements present: Bacos and Dimayuga undertook recruitment activities without the required license or authority, and they committed these acts against three or more complainants. Critically, Bacos was not a passive bystander. Her acts of personally assuring the complainants of overseas employment and receiving placement fees constituted direct participation in the recruitment process. These acts fall squarely within the enumerated acts constituting “recruitment,” specifically “promising” employment. Her active role made her a principal by direct participation, not a mere accomplice. The positive, credible testimonies of the complainants prevailed over her bare denial. Thus, the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of ₱100,000.00 was upheld, with modification to include 12% annual interest on the civil indemnity awarded to the complainants from the filing of the information until finality of judgment.