People v. Nasi-Villar
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Rosario Nasi-Villar and Dolores Placa were charged with Illegal Recruitment under Sections 6 and 7 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8042, for acts allegedly committed in January 1993. The Information alleged that they conspired to recruit Nila Panilag for employment abroad, demanded and received P6,500.00 as a placement fee, despite being non-licensees or non-holders of authority to recruit. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found petitioner guilty of illegal recruitment under the Labor Code, as amended, and sentenced her to an indeterminate penalty of four to five years imprisonment. The RTC made no pronouncement on civil damages and ordered the records archived for Dolores Placa, who was at large. The Petition: Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that the RTC erred in finding her guilty based on the evidence. The CA affirmed the RTC's finding of guilt but modified the decision by ordering petitioner to pay Nila Panilag P10,000.00 as temperate damages. The CA noted that R.A. No. 8042, under which petitioner was charged, was enacted after the alleged commission of the crime, and thus, petitioner should have been charged under the Labor Code. Petitioner then filed a Petition for Review with the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's decision and resolution, alleging that the CA erred in failing to consider that R.A. No. 8042 cannot be given retroactive effect and that her conviction constitutes a violation of the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto law.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding the petitioner guilty of illegal recruitment under the Labor Code despite the Information charging her under R.A. No. 8042. Whether the conviction of the petitioner under the Labor Code, when the alleged acts were committed prior to the effectivity of R.A. No. 8042, constitutes a violation of the prohibition against ex post facto law.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The assailed Decision dated 27 June 2005 and Resolution dated 28 November 2006 of the Court of Appeals are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of conviction under the Labor Code despite the charge under R.A. No. 8042: The Supreme Court reiterated the principle that the real nature of the crime charged is determined not by the caption or preamble of the information nor by the specification of the law alleged to have been violated, but by the actual recital of facts in the complaint or information. The Court held that the allegations in the body of the Information clearly charged petitioner with illegal recruitment as defined in Article 38, in relation to Article 13(b) of the Labor Code. The evidence on record substantiated this charge to a moral certainty. Therefore, even though the Information erroneously designated the offense as covered by R.A. No. 8042, the Court of Appeals was correct in affirming the conviction under the Labor Code, which was the law in force at the time of the commission of the offense. The Court emphasized that what controls is not the designation but the description of the offense charged, and the accused ought to be punished for the acts alleged if they constitute a crime, regardless of the technical name. On the issue of ex post facto law and retroactive application of R.A. No. 8042: The Supreme Court clarified that there was no violation of the prohibition against ex post facto law nor a retroactive application of R.A. No. 8042. An ex post facto law aggravates a crime, makes it greater than it was when committed, or changes the punishment to inflict a greater one. Penal laws operate prospectively, except when favorable to the accused. R.A. No. 8042 amended the Labor Code and provided for a higher penalty, but there was no indication that it would take effect retroactively. The Court found that neither the trial court nor the appellate court gave R.A. No. 8042 retroactive application; instead, both courts passed upon petitioner's case under the aegis of the Labor Code, which was the applicable law in 1993 when the acts were committed. Therefore, the proceedings did not violate the prohibition against ex post facto law.
Main Doctrine
The designation of the offense in the Information is not determinative of the nature of the crime charged; rather, it is the actual recital of facts that controls. An accused can be convicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the crime, even if the Information erroneously cites a later law, provided the facts alleged constitute an offense under the earlier law.