G.R. No. 181245 ; August 6, 2008
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. JIMMY ANG @ ANG TIAO LAM and HUNG CHAO NAN, appellant.

FACTS

Appellant Jimmy Ang was charged with Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale under Republic Act No. 8042 . The Information alleged that between November 1999 and June 2000, in Manila, he conspired with another, represented himself as capable of deploying workers abroad, and for a fee, recruited and promised employment in Taiwan to four individuals: Phex Garlejo, Edna Paragas, spouses Magdaleno and Marlene Ordonio, and Ellen Canlas. He collected placement fees ranging from P20,000 to P150,000 but failed to deploy them without valid reason or to reimburse their expenses.
The prosecution established that all four complainants gave money to appellant based on his promise of jobs in Taiwan, for which he issued receipts. After he failed to deploy them, they reported him to authorities. An entrapment operation was conducted on June 23, 2000, where appellant was arrested after receiving marked money from Garlejo and issuing a receipt. The defense, solely through appellant’s testimony, claimed he was merely a factory worker who acted as a liaison to find a broker in Taiwan and that the money received was reimbursement for his scouting expenses. He denied illegal recruitment.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming appellant’s conviction for Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction with modification on the fine. The legal logic is clear. First, the elements of illegal recruitment are present: (1) the accused undertook recruitment and placement activities, and (2) he did not have the required license or authority from the POEA. Appellant’s acts of promising overseas employment, collecting fees, and processing documents for the complainants constitute recruitment under the law. His defense that he was merely a liaison is unconvincing, as his direct dealings and fee collection clearly show he was engaged in recruitment.
Second, the lack of license was sufficiently proven. A PAOCTF agent testified that a verification with the POEA confirmed appellant was neither licensed nor authorized. This testimony constitutes competent evidence, and the defense failed to rebut it. Third, since illegal recruitment was committed against three or more persons, it qualifies as large scale, which is economic sabotage. The penalty is life imprisonment and a fine. The Court corrected the appellate decision by increasing the fine from P100,000 to P500,000, as mandated by Section 7(b) of R.A. 8042 for offenses constituting economic sabotage. Thus, appellant’s guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.