People v. Benedictus
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The accused-appellant was charged with illegal recruitment under Article 38 in relation to Articles 34 and 39 of the Labor Code. The prosecution alleged that in December 1992, the accused-appellant, who was not licensed by the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) to recruit workers, undertook illegal recruitment activities for overseas employment. Complainants Napoleon dela Cruz, Crisanta Vasquez, Evelyn de Dios, Mercy Magpayo, and Evangeline Magpayo met the appellant who promised them deployment to Taiwan by January 15, 1993. They paid various amounts for placement fees and processing, totaling P2,700.00 for Napoleon dela Cruz, P1,500.00 for Crisanta Vasquez, P4,400.00 for Evelyn de Dios, P2,600.00 for Mercy Magpayo, and P2,350.00 for Evangeline Magpayo. When the promised deployment did not materialize, the complainants, accompanied by the appellant, went to the Barangay Hall where the appellant signed a document promising to return the money. Subsequently, the complainants filed a complaint, supported by a POEA certification stating the appellant was not licensed to recruit. The appellant denied recruitment, claiming she only borrowed money, and presented an Affidavit of Desistance executed by the complainants after she allegedly repaid them. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 76, convicted the appellant of illegal recruitment in large scale, sentencing her to life imprisonment and a fine of P100,000.00. The RTC found the prosecution's version credible, noting the appellant's promise to return the money in her statement before the Barangay Captain and rejecting the Affidavit of Desistance as an afterthought. The RTC also considered the POEA certification and the appellant's admission of not being licensed. The Petition: The accused-appellant appealed the RTC decision, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. She anchored her appeal on the Affidavit of Desistance, claiming it created doubt about her liability and proved she was not engaged in recruitment. She also challenged the POEA certification as a fabrication and argued the prosecution failed to prove she lacked a license.
Issue(s)
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused-appellant committed illegal recruitment in large scale. Whether the Affidavit of Desistance executed by the complainants negates the appellant's liability for illegal recruitment. Whether the POEA certification is admissible and sufficient proof that the appellant was not licensed to recruit workers.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the RTC, finding the accused-appellant guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale. The Court dismissed the appeal for lack of merit.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of proving illegal recruitment in large scale: The Court held that the prosecution sufficiently proved the elements of illegal recruitment in large scale. The appellant promised job placements in Taiwan to five complainants, collected money from them for placement fees and passports, and was not licensed to recruit, as evidenced by a POEA certification and her own admission. The definition of recruitment and placement under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code, and illegal recruitment in large scale under Article 38(b), were met. The act constituted economic sabotage, warranting the penalty imposed. On the effect of the Affidavit of Desistance: The Court gave scant consideration to the Affidavit of Desistance. It was executed after the complainants had already testified under oath in court regarding the recruitment activities and the payment of fees. The affidavit did not expressly repudiate their testimonies and was executed after the appellant allegedly repaid the amounts given. The Court reiterated that affidavits of desistance, especially when executed as an afterthought or arising from personal considerations, should not be given persuasive value. Rejecting solemn testimonies based on subsequent changes of mind would make trials a mockery. On the admissibility and probative value of the POEA certification: The Court found the challenge against the POEA certification to be without merit. The certification, issued by a public officer in the performance of an official duty, is a public document and constitutes prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein, pursuant to Section 23 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. Furthermore, the appellant admitted in open court that she was not licensed or authorized to recruit workers, rendering the challenge to the certification moot and reinforcing the finding of guilt.
Main Doctrine
Illegal recruitment in large scale, defined as recruitment activities undertaken by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority against three or more persons, individually or as a group, constitutes economic sabotage and is punishable by life imprisonment and a fine of P100,000.00.