People of the Philippines vs. Engineer Rodolfo Diaz
**Facts:**
1. **Initial Events (June 1992):** Maria Anne Navarro, Maria Theresa Fabricante, and Maria Elena Ramirez were studying Japanese (Niponggo) at the Henichi Techno Exchange Cultural Foundation under Mrs. Remedios Aplicador in Davao City.
2. **Introduction to Recruitment (July 1992):** Mrs. Aplicador referred the three women to Paulo Lim, who mentioned Engineer Rodolfo ‘Erwin’ Diaz was recruiting workers for Brunei. Lim described Diaz, met with his children who were allegedly applying for work in Brunei under Diaz’s arrangements.
3. **First Meeting With Diaz (July 18, 1992):** The complainants, accompanied by Lim and Aplicador, visited Diaz at the CIS Detention Center, where he was detained due to other applicants filing complaints against him. Diaz laid out the requirements for recruitment and mentioned fees.
4. **Payment and Paperwork:** Navarro, Fabricante, and Ramirez paid varying amounts to Diaz for processing fees – Navarro (P2,300), Fabricante (P2,000), and Ramirez (P2,500). Diaz promised jobs and mentioned placement fee structures and other conditions verbally.
5. **Follow-ups and Suspicion:** Arrangements and conditions of the recruitment were repeatedly discussed and the complainants continuously inquired about their status. Navarro mortgaged a piano for additional funds to meet recruitment demands.
6. **Discovery of Fraud (August 1992):** Fabricante visited the POEA (Philippine Overseas Employment Administration) to verify Diaz’s credentials and discovered he was not registered as a recruiter. The complainants demanded refunds from Diaz who initially resisted but eventually returned the money.
7. **Legal Action:** Following the admissions from POEA and the return of funds, the complainants filed a case against Diaz for illegal recruitment.
**Procedural Posture:**
1. **Trial Court Judgment:** On September 2, 1993, the Regional Trial Court, 11th Judicial Region, Branch 10, Davao City, found Diaz guilty of Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a fine of P100,000.00.
2. **Appeal:** Diaz appealed, contesting the evidence and claiming he merely facilitated travel documents and did not engage in recruitment.
**Issues:**
1. Whether the accused confined himself to facilitating passports and medical examinations or engaged in illegal recruitment by promising employment abroad.
2. Whether the accused was merely a travel document facilitator or a recruiter.
3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to convict the accused of large scale illegal recruitment.
**Court’s Decision:**
1. **Issue 1:** The court concluded Diaz performed recruitment activities by promising employment abroad for a fee, taking steps beyond merely facilitating travel documents. Testimonies from complainants clearly depicted his recruitment activities and promises regarding employment in Brunei.
2. **Issue 2:** The Court held Diaz as being involved in recruitment, contrary to his defense that he was only facilitating documents. The trial and testimonies revealed Diaz’s promises and collection of money for various recruitment-related services.
3. **Issue 3:** Evidence including POEA certification, testimonies of the complainants, and Diaz’s own inconsistent statements verified he lacked proper authority for overseas recruitment, meeting the criteria for illegal large scale recruitment.
**Doctrine:**
1. **Illegal Recruitment Definition:** As per Articles 38 (a) in relation to Articles 13 (b) of the Labor Code, illegal recruitment involves any recruitment activity by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority. Large scale illegal recruitment entails recruitment involving three or more persons.
2. **Recruitment Activities:** Providing promises of employment and collecting fees for processing constitutes recruitment.
**Class Notes:**
1. **Elements of Illegal Recruitment:**
– Recruitment activity conducted without license/authority.
– Involvement in acts of recruiting, canvassing, or promising employment.
– When involving three or more persons, it qualifies as large scale recruitment (economic sabotage).
2. **Article 13(b) of the Labor Code:** Defines recruitment and placement activities.
3. **Article 38(a) and (b):** Details illegal recruitment and its qualifying circumstances for classification as economic sabotage.
**Historical Background:**
The case reflects the ongoing societal issue of illegal recruitment and exploitation of overseas employment seekers in the Philippines during the early 1990s. The POEA’s control over recruiting agencies was a critical defense against such fraudulent activities. The legislative landscape aimed to protect labor migrants was also evolving, as seen by the later implementation of R.A. 8042 (Migrant Workers Act), emphasizing the context in which such cases were processed pre-R.A. 8042.
Leave a Reply