PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CELIA FLOR COSA Y VILLEGAS, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Cosa

The Case

This is the case of People versus Cosa, a criminal appeal from a conviction for illegal recruitment committed in large scale. The accused, Celia Flor Cosa, was charged by the People of the Philippines with recruiting workers for overseas employment without the license or authority required by law, and with taking their money in the process. The case matters for two reasons. First, it shows how the Supreme Court treats the factual findings of the trial court on appeal. Second, and more importantly for the Bar, it is a clean illustration of the penalty under the Labor Code for illegal recruitment in large scale, which the Court describes as an offense involving economic sabotage, and of the rule that the fine prescribed by law must be imposed together with the penalty of life imprisonment.

Procedural History

The accused was charged before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 15, in two separate informations for two counts of illegal recruitment in large scale, and in eleven informations for estafa. At her arraignment she entered a plea of not guilty to all the charges. Because the cases arose from related factual settings, the trial court conducted a consolidated trial on the merits.

On the twentieth of December 1993, the trial court rendered its decision. It found the accused guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale in one case and imposed the penalty of life imprisonment under Article 39(a) of the Labor Code. In the second illegal recruitment case it found her guilty of the offense punishable under Article 39(c) and imposed an indeterminate penalty. In the estafa cases, it acquitted her in four and convicted her in seven, imposing indeterminate penalties and ordering indemnity to the offended parties.

The accused appealed to the Supreme Court, but only from the decision in the case where she was convicted of illegal recruitment in large scale and sentenced to life imprisonment. Her appeal to the Court of Appeals concerned the other criminal cases. In her appeal before the Supreme Court, she contended that the trial court erred in finding her to be the treasurer or cashier of Japs International Trading Corporation and in finding that she connived with the other corporate officers in illegal recruitment activities, when she was in truth merely a low-key employee of the firm.

Facts

Japs International Trading Corporation held itself out as an agency engaged in the recruitment of workers for employment abroad. It was not licensed or authorized by the Department of Labor and Employment to do so. Its officers included Floro Cosa, the father of the accused, as president; Bing Domingo as secretary; Frederick Domingo as operations manager; and the accused, Celia Flor Cosa, as treasurer or cashier.

Between August and September 1992, several applicants came to the office of the corporation in Malate, Manila, hoping to be deployed to Japan as factory workers, waiters, and the like. They were told of the requirements, such as a passport, medical examination, and a placement fee ranging from thirty thousand to seventy thousand pesos. The complainants testified that they dealt with the accused, that she informed them of the job requirements, that they paid their placement and medical fees to her, and that she issued receipts bearing her signature, in some instances as treasurer of the company. They were promised deployment within sixty days, and some were given memoranda of agreement providing for a refund should deployment fail.

None of the complainants was deployed abroad, and none recovered the money paid. In October 1992, some applicants brought policemen to the office, and the accused was arrested. She was under detention from October 1992 onward. In her defense, she testified that she was merely an employee who recorded the names of applicants, answered their inquiries, and signed receipts upon the instruction of the officers, turning the money over to them. She claimed she was not aware of her designation as treasurer and received no salary, only a weekly allowance.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in finding the accused to be the treasurer or cashier of the corporation and in finding that she connived with the other corporate officers in illegal recruitment activities, rather than being a mere low-key employee.
• Whether or not the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal recruitment in large scale under Article 38 of the Labor Code.
• Whether or not the penalty of life imprisonment imposed by the trial court accords with Article 39(a) of the Labor Code, including the fine that the law prescribes.

Applicable Provisions

Article 38 of the Labor Code, as quoted by the Court, provides:

ART. 38. Illegal Recruitment. - (a) Any recruitment activities, including the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of this Code to be undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of authority shall be deemed illegal and punishable under Article 39 of this Code. The Ministry of Labor and Employment or any law enforcement officer may initiate complaints under this Article. (b) Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall be considered an offense involving economic sabotage and shall be penalized in accordance with Article 39 hereof. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring and/or confederating with one another in carrying out any unlawful or illegal transaction, enterprise or scheme defined under the first paragraph hereof. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group.

This provision defines the offense and supplies the test for large scale, namely recruitment against three or more persons individually or as a group, which the Court applied to the eleven complainants in this case.

Article 39(a) of the Labor Code, which the Court applied in imposing the penalty, provides:

ART. 39. Penalties. - (a) The penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) shall be imposed if illegal recruitment constitutes economic sabotage as defined herein.

This provision fixes both the prison term and the fine, and it is the basis for the Court's correction of the trial court's failure to impose the fine.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the appeal was bereft of merit. The prosecution witnesses gave detailed and consistent accounts of how the accused dealt with each complainant, and the accused never denied the acts attributed to her: getting the applicants to submit requirements, accepting their papers, receiving placement and other fees, issuing receipts, and assuring them of overseas employment. The Court stressed that it is the trial court, not the appellate court, which has the good chance of observing first hand the deportment of witnesses and the manner in which their testimony is given, and it found no reason to discard the trial court's evaluation.

The Court added that the evidence, both testimonial and documentary, showing that the accused was the treasurer of the corporation, completely negated her claim of being a simple employee. But the Court went further and said that it would not really matter whether she was the treasurer or an ordinary employee, because her criminal liability would still stand for being a conspirator with the corporate officers in the illegal recruitment activities, as explicitly alleged in the information. The group acted in concert in performing their designated roles to ensure the success of the business.

On the second issue, the Court held that the recruitment activities of the accused, along with the other officers, were in clear violation of Article 38 of the Labor Code, since the corporation had no license or authority from the Department of Labor and Employment. The offense was committed in large scale because it was committed against three or more persons individually or as a group.

On the third issue, the Court held that the penalty of life imprisonment imposed by the trial court accorded with the law. However, the trial court failed to impose the fine of one hundred thousand pesos, which the law equally mandates. The Court therefore affirmed the conviction and added the fine.

Doctrine

Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale when it is committed against three or more persons individually or as a group, and when committed by a syndicate or in large scale it is considered an offense involving economic sabotage, penalized under Article 39 of the Labor Code. The penalty for illegal recruitment constituting economic sabotage is life imprisonment and a fine of one hundred thousand pesos, and both must be imposed, because the law mandates each of them. A person who participates in the recruitment enterprise as a conspirator, performing a designated role in the scheme, is criminally liable even if she claims to be a mere employee, since conspiracy makes the act of one the act of all. Finally, the factual findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are accorded great weight on appeal, because that court had the opportunity to observe the witnesses first hand.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal recruitment in large scale, and in addition to the penalty of life imprisonment, ordered her to pay a fine of one hundred thousand pesos, with costs against her.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that illegal recruitment in large scale is economic sabotage, punishable by life imprisonment and a fine of one hundred thousand pesos, and the courts must impose both. Examiners like to use this case to test the definition of large scale recruitment, the liability of a mere employee as a conspirator, and the rule that the fine under Article 39(a) is mandatory and cannot be omitted.