LABOR LAW DIGEST: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RHODELINE CASTILLON (G.R. No. 130940, April 21, 1999)

LABOR LAW DIGEST: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RHODELINE CASTILLON 

(G.R. No. 130940, April 21, 1999)

FACTS:

Rhodeline Castillon appeals the December 8, 1995 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Davao City, which convicted her of large-scale illegal recruitment and imposed upon her the penalty of life imprisonment plus a fine of P100,000.

In convicting appellant, the trial court found that the victims paid the appellant P4,000 each, because of her fraudulent representation that she could provide them employment abroad.

From the evidence of the prosecution, records show that Castillon solicited, canvassed and demanded payment from four complainants, the partial amount of P4,000.00, in consideration of a promised employment abroad, through the efforts and influence of herself. The records likewise showed that she herself took the initiative of going with complainant to Mangagoy, Surigao del Sur, in order to receive from Emily and Nelia Perturbos the above-advance payments; while in the case of Acol and Bula-ag, she personally went to the[ir] parents . . . to make representations and assurances that she  would be responsible for providing employment for them abroad.

Castillon however denied and explained that she did not recruit complainants but she merely help[ed] them for humanitarian reason.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused-appellant guilty is beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of large scale illegal recruitment.

HELD: 
YES. The prosecution evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that the foregoing elements were present in this case.

Large-scale illegal recruitment has the following essential elements:

(1) The accused undertook [a] recruitment activity defined under Article 13(b) or any prohibited practice under Art. 34 of the Labor Code.

(2) He did not have the license or the authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers.

(3) He committed the same against three or more persons, individually or as a group. 

Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code defines recruitment and placement as follows:

. . . [A]ny act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers [which] includes referrals, contact services, promises or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not: Provided, That any person or entity which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement.

There is no question that appellant did not have a license to engage in the recruitment of workers, as she herself admitted, and that the crime was committed against more than three persons. Appellant merely contends that she did not engage in the recruitment and placement of workers. Her argument is belied, however, by the evidence on record.

The appeal is DENIED and the assailed Decision is AFFIRMED.