People v. Molina
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Accused-appellant Delia C. Molina and Juliet Pacon were charged with Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale under Sections 6 and 7 of Republic Act No. 8042. The Information alleged that from April to September 2006, in Makati City, the accused conspired to recruit five persons for employment abroad for a fee, receiving substantial amounts from each complainant. However, the accused failed to deploy the complainants and refused to reimburse the amounts paid, causing damage and prejudice. Procedural History: The case proceeded only against accused-appellant Molina, as Juliet Pacon was at-large. Molina pleaded not guilty. The prosecution presented five private complainants and an officer from the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). The defense presented Molina as its sole witness. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 137, found Molina guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced her to life imprisonment, a fine of ₱500,000.00, and ordered her to pay actual damages to the complainants. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision. Molina appealed to the Supreme Court. The Petition: Accused-appellant Molina argued that she never recruited or promised employment to the private complainants, nor did she receive any payments. She claimed it was Juliet Pacon who handled the recruitment and received the payments. Molina asserted she had no contractual obligations and no direct participation in the transactions between the complainants and Pacon.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale. Whether accused-appellant, as President of a licensed recruitment agency, can be held liable for illegal recruitment under Section 6(m) of R.A. No. 8042 for failure to reimburse expenses when deployment did not materialize. Whether accused-appellant is liable for illegal recruitment in large scale despite payments being made to her co-accused, Juliet Pacon; and the classification of the offense as illegal recruitment in large scale and economic sabotage; and the penalties and damages.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals with modification, upholding the conviction of Delia C. Molina for illegal recruitment in large scale. She was sentenced to life imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine of ₱500,000.00, plus costs. She was also ordered to pay actual damages to the private complainants, with interest computed from the date of finality of the decision until fully paid.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal recruitment in large scale: The Court affirmed the findings of the RTC and CA. The testimonies of the private complainants, who positively identified accused-appellant as the President of the agency and stated that she assured them of deployment, were given credence. The fact that payments were made to Juliet Pacon was deemed immaterial as the transactions occurred within the agency owned and managed by Molina, and Pacon was introduced as an agent or the owner. The Court reiterated that the absence of receipts directly to the recruiter is not fatal to the prosecution's case, especially when corroborated by other evidence. Molina's defense of general denial was considered weak against the affirmative testimonies of the complainants. On the issue of liability as a licensee or holder of authority under Section 6(m) of R.A. No. 8042: The Court ruled that even if the agency held a license or authority, Molina is still liable under Section 6(m) of R.A. No. 8042 for failure to reimburse expenses incurred by the workers for documentation and processing when deployment did not occur without their fault. The RTC correctly pointed out that the existence of a valid license at the commencement of the recruitment process does not justify acquittal if the subsequent failure to deploy and reimburse occurs. The agency's license was suspended and later cancelled, further weakening any claim of lawful operation during the entire period relevant to the complainants' applications. On the issue of liability despite payments being made to co-accused Juliet Pacon; and the classification of the offense as illegal recruitment in large scale and economic sabotage; and the penalties and damages: The Court held that accused-appellant cannot escape liability on the ground that she did not personally recruit the complainants or receive their payments. The recruitment activities took place in the agency where she was the President. Private complainants testified that Molina was introduced to them as the owner or President of the agency and that she assured them of employment. The cash vouchers, though received by Pacon, bore the name of the agency, Southern Cotabato Landbase Management Services, which was owned and managed by Molina. Therefore, Pacon acted as an agent, and Molina, as the principal officer, is liable for her actions within the scope of the agency's business. The Court reiterated that illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three or more persons individually or as a group. In this case, five complainants were victimized, thus satisfying the 'large scale' element. Consequently, illegal recruitment in large scale is considered an offense involving economic sabotage under Section 6(m) of R.A. No. 8042. The Court affirmed the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of ₱500,000.00, consistent with Section 7(b) of R.A. No. 8042 for offenses involving economic sabotage. The Court modified the award of actual damages by stating that the interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum should be computed from the date of finality of the judgment until fully paid, not from the date of filing the criminal case as initially ordered by the RTC.
Main Doctrine
A licensee or holder of authority is still liable for illegal recruitment under Section 6(m) of R.A. No. 8042 for failure to reimburse expenses incurred by a worker for documentation and processing for deployment, when the deployment does not actually take place without the worker's fault. Officers of a juridical person engaged in illegal recruitment are liable.