People v. Ang
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Appellants Jimmy Ang @ Ang Tiao Lam and Hung Chao Nan were charged with illegal recruitment in large scale for violating Sections 6(l) and (m) of Republic Act No. 8042. The Information alleged that between November 1999 and June 23, 2000, the accused, conspiring with an unknown individual, recruited and promised employment as factory workers in Taiwan for a fee to Phex M. Garlejo, Edna Paragas, Spouses Magdaleno Diosdado S. Ordonio & Marlene G. Ordonio, and Ellen B. Canlas. They collected placement and processing fees greater than those allowed by the Secretary of Labor and Employment and failed to deploy the complainants without valid reasons, nor did they reimburse the expenses incurred despite demands. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 12, found the appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced them to life imprisonment and a fine of P100,000.00, plus actual damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence, with the modification that legal interest be paid on the actual damages from the filing of the Information until fully paid. The Petition: The appellants filed a petition for review on certiorari, assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals. They argued that the prosecution failed to establish their guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that no evidence was presented showing they lacked a license or authority from the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) to recruit.
Issue(s)
Whether the prosecution sufficiently established the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt for illegal recruitment in large scale. Whether it is necessary to prove that the accused has no license or authority to recruit or deploy workers to be convicted of illegal recruitment under Section 6(l) and (m) of Republic Act No. 8042.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the conviction of the appellants for illegal recruitment in large scale is affirmed, with the modification that the fine imposed is increased to P500,000.00.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of guilt beyond reasonable doubt: The Court found that the prosecution satisfactorily established that the appellant engaged in the act of recruitment and placement of workers for deployment abroad. The private complainants testified that they were promised jobs in Taiwan and paid significant amounts as placement and processing fees. It was also proven that the complainants were never deployed to Taiwan as factory workers. Furthermore, the appellant failed to reimburse the amounts paid despite non-deployment and repeated demands. The evidence presented by the prosecution, including the testimonies of the private complainants and the receipts issued by the appellant, established the elements of illegal recruitment. On the issue of the necessity of proving lack of license: The Court held that it is not necessary to prove that the accused is a non-licensee or non-holder of authority to be convicted of illegal recruitment under Section 6(l) and (m) of Republic Act No. 8042. The law clearly provides that "any person, whether a non-licensee, non-holder, licensee or holder of authority" may be held liable for illegal recruitment for the acts enumerated in paragraphs (a) to (m) thereof. Since the appellants were charged with violations of Section 6(l) and (m), the element of being a non-licensee or non-holder was not an essential element of the crime charged. Therefore, the trial court and the Court of Appeals correctly found the appellant guilty as charged without this specific proof.
Main Doctrine
Illegal recruitment in large scale, as defined under Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042, is considered economic sabotage and is punishable by life imprisonment and a fine of not less than P500,000.00. The offense is committed when illegal recruitment is perpetrated against three or more persons, individually or as a group. Furthermore, for violations of Section 6(l) and (m) of RA 8042, it is not necessary to prove that the accused is a non-licensee or non-holder of authority, as these acts are punishable regardless of the license status of the perpetrator.