G.R. No. 207811. June 01, 2016.
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Delia Molina y Cabral, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Three separate Informations were filed against appellant Delia Molina. Criminal Case No. 07-1399 charged her with Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale, alleging she recruited and collected fees from eight individuals, including Elisa Escobar, Geraldine Cariño, and Diony Aragon, for promised factory jobs in Korea but failed to deploy them. Criminal Case No. 07-3108, also for Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale, involved similar allegations of recruiting three other individuals. Criminal Case No. 08-066 charged her with simple Illegal Recruitment for promising overseas employment to two complainants. The prosecution evidence established that complainants were introduced to Molina at the office of Southern Cohabite Landbase Management Corporation (SCLMC) by her co-accused, Vincent Zulueta. Molina personally assured them of employment in Korea within three months upon payment of a ₱75,000 placement fee, which they paid and for which they received cash vouchers. Despite compliance with subsequent requirements like language training, none were deployed, and their money was not refunded.
The defense claimed Molina was merely an employee of SCLMC, which she asserted was a licensed agency, and that she had no direct participation in the recruitment acts, attributing liability solely to Zulueta. The Regional Trial Court convicted Molina in all cases. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions but modified the penalties. Molina appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the prosecution failed to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that she was not a principal by direct participation.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the conviction of appellant Delia Molina for Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale and Simple Illegal Recruitment.

RULING

Yes, the conviction was proper. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s decision. For Illegal Recruitment under Article 38 of the Labor Code, two elements must concur: (1) the accused undertook recruitment activities without the required license or authority from the POEA, and (2) the accused undertook such activities against three or more persons individually or as a group for it to constitute large scale illegal recruitment. The prosecution conclusively proved both elements. Molina was not licensed to recruit workers. More critically, the testimonies of multiple complainants were consistent and credible in establishing that Molina, together with Zulueta, personally promised them specific overseas employment, assured them of deployment, and received their placement fees. Her active participation in the recruitment process, by giving assurances and being present during transactions, made her a principal by direct participation under Article 19 of the Revised Penal Code. Her defense of being a mere employee of a licensed agency was unavailing; the license of SCLMC was not presented in evidence, and her direct acts of recruitment and collection, proven beyond reasonable doubt, established her criminal liability independently. The failure to deploy the workers without valid reason and to reimburse their expenses completed the offenses.