Home of ChanRobles Virtual Law Library

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 171644 : November 23, 2011]

DELIA D. ROMERO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, ROMULO PADLAN AND ARTURO SIAPNO, RESPONDENTS.

D E C I S I O N


PERALTA, J.:

This is to resolve the Petition for Review on Certiorari1 dated March 25, 2006 of petitioner Delia D. Romero assailing the Decision2 dated July 18, 2005 and Resolution3 dated February 13, 2006 of the Court of Appeals (CA), affirming the Decision4 dated February 24, 2004 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 44, Dagupan City, finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Recruitment as defined in paragraph (a) of Article 38 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 2018.

The records contain the following antecedent facts:

Private respondent Romulo Padlan (Romulo) was a former classmate of petitioner in college.  Sometime in September 2000 Romulo went to petitioner's stall (wedding gown rentals) at W. A. Jones St., Calasiao, Pangasinan to inquire about securing a job in Israel. Convinced by petitioner's words of encouragement and inspired by the potential salary of US$700.00 to US$1,200.00 a month, Romulo asked petitioner the amount of money required in order for him to be able to go to Israel. Petitioner informed him that as soon as he could give her US$3,600.00, his papers would be immediately processed.  To raise the amount, Romulo secured a loan from a bank and borrowed some more from his friends.  When he was able to raise the amount, Romulo went back to petitioner and handed her the money.  Petitioner contacted Jonney Erez Mokra who instructed Romulo to attend a briefing at his (Jonney's) house in Dau, Mabalacat, Pampanga.  Romulo was able to leave for Israel on October 26, 2000 and was able to secure a job with a monthly salary of US$650.00.  Unfortunately, after two and a half months, he was caught by Israel's immigration police and detained for 25 days. He was subsequently deported because he did not possess a working visa.  On his return, Romulo demanded from petitioner the return of his money, but the latter refused and failed to do so.

On the other hand, private respondent Arturo Siapno is petitioner's nephew.  Sometime in August 2000, he went to petitioner's stall. He was convinced by the petitioner that if he could give her US$3,600.00 for the processing of his papers, he could leave the country within 1 to 2 weeks for a job placement in Israel.  Arturo contacted a relative in the U.S. to ask the latter to cover the expenses for the former's overseas job placement.  The relative sent the US$3,000.00 to Teresita D. Visperas, petitioner's sister in Israel. Petitioner processed Arturo's papers and contacted Jonney Erez Mokra.  Jonney instructed Arturo to attend a briefing in Dau, Mabalacat, Pampanga.  Afterwards, Arturo left for Israel sometime in September 2000.  He was able to work and receive US$800.00 salary per month.  After three months of stay in Israel, he was caught by the immigration officials, incarcerated for ten days and was eventually deported.  After arriving in the country, Arturo immediately sought the petitioner.  Petitioner promised him that she would send him back to Israel, which did not happen.

Arturo, after learning that Romulo suffered the same fate, checked with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Dagupan District Office whether petitioner, Teresita D. Visperas and Jonney Erez Mokra had any license or authority to recruit employees for overseas employment.  Finding that petitioner and the others were not authorized to recruit for overseas employment, Arturo and Romulo filed a complaint against petitioner, Teresita and Jonney before the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI).

Consequently, an Information dated June 18, 2001 was filed against petitioner and Jonney Erez Mokra for the crime of Illegal Recruitment which reads as follows:

That sometime in the month of August and September 2000 in the Municipality  of Calasiao, Province of Pangasinan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being licensee or holder of authority, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously undertake and perform recruitment activity by recruiting ARTURO SIAPNO and ROMULO PADLAN to a supposed job abroad particularly in Israel, for a fee, without first securing the necessary license and permit to do the same.

CONTRARY to Art. 38 (a) of P.D. 442, as amended by P.D. 2018.

Upon arraignment on August 20, 2001, petitioner, with the assistance of her counsel pleaded not guilty, whereas accused Jonney Erez Mokra was and is still at-large.  Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.

To establish the facts earlier mentioned, the prosecution presented the testimonies of Romulo Padlan and Arturo Siapno. Petitioner, on the other hand, offered her own testimony, as well as Satchi Co Pontace's to prove that petitioner did not recruit the private respondents.  According to petitioner, private respondents went to her to inquire about the working status of her sister in Israel.  She told them that her sister was doing well.  When private respondents asked her how her sister was able to go to Israel, petitioner told them that she does not know and that she will have to ask her sister about that matter.  Petitioner then called her sister and told her that the private respondents wanted to ask for her help in going to Israel.  It was petitioner's sister and the private respondents who communicated with each other, and the petitioner had no knowledge as to the content of the former's conversations and agreements.

The RTC found petitioner guilty as charged. The dispositive portion of its decision reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused Delia Romero guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Recruitment as defined in paragraph (a) of Article 38 of Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 2018, and pursuant to law hereby sentences accused Delia Romero to suffer the penalty of Eight (8) Years and a fine of P100,000.00 plus costs.

Accused Delia Romero is directed to return the amount of $3,600.00 or its equivalent to complainant Romulo Padlan and the amount of $3,600.00 or its equivalent to Arturo Siapno.

The case as against Jonney Mokra aka Erez, is hereby ordered archived subject to reinstatement upon his arrest.

SO ORDERED.

On appeal, the CA affirmed in toto the decision of the RTC, the fallo of which states:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed Decision is AFFIRMED in toto.

SO ORDERED.

Hence, the present petition after petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA.  Petitioner enumerates the following assignment of errors:

First Assignment of Error

The Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of the accused of the offense charged (Illegal Recruitment) for said finding is contrary to law and evidence in record.

Second Assignment of Error

The Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of the accused in interpreting the gesture of good faith of the petitioner as referral in the guise of illegal recruitment.

Third Assignment of Error

The Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of the accused based merely on a certification from the DOLE-Dagupan District Office without said certification being properly identified and testified thereto.

Fourth Assignment of Error

The Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of accused based on speculations and probabilities and not on the evidence on record.

Fifth Assignment of Error

The Court of Appeals erred in not acquitting the accused on the ground of reasonable doubt.

Illegal recruitment is defined in Article 38 of the Labor Code, as amended, as follows:

ART. 38. Illegal Recruitment. - (a) Any recruitment activities, including the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of this Code, to be undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of authority, shall be deemed illegal and punishable under Article 39 of this Code. The [Department] of Labor and Employment or any law enforcement officer may initiate complaints under this Article.

(b) Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall be considered an offense involving economic sabotage and shall be penalized in accordance with Article 39 hereof.

Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring and/or confederating with one another in carrying out any unlawful or illegal transaction, enterprise or scheme defined under the first paragraph hereof. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group.

Article 13 (b) of the same Code defines, "recruitment and placement"
Top of Page