PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MARIA JENNY REA Y GUEVARRA AND ESTRELLITA TENDENILLA, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

People versus Rea

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines sought to hold Maria Jenny Rea and Estrellita Tendenilla liable for illegal recruitment in large scale, a labor-law offense punished under the Labor Code. The two were accused, together with a certain Ginette Azul who remained at large, of promising Filipino workers jobs in London as caregivers and general services, collecting placement fees from them without any license or authority from the Department of Labor and Employment, and then failing to deploy them. The case matters because it shows how the Supreme Court treats the crime of illegal recruitment when the recruiters never held themselves out as an agency but simply gave the impression that they had the power to send workers abroad, and because it shows how conspiracy and the number of victims convert the offense into large-scale illegal recruitment.

Procedural History

The Regional Trial Court of Mandaluyong City, Branch 214, tried the two accused after they pleaded not guilty, and after trial rendered judgment finding them guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal recruitment in large scale. Each was sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of five hundred thousand pesos, and each was ordered to indemnify the private complainants in the amounts corresponding to the fees they had paid. The case against Ginette Azul was placed in the archives pending her arrest.

The accused appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court's decision in January 2011. They then filed a notice of appeal, and the Supreme Court directed the parties to submit supplemental briefs. The Office of the Solicitor General manifested that it would adopt its appellee's brief, while the appellants filed their supplemental brief insisting that the evidence did not prove that they had offered jobs to the private complainants. The case thus reached the Supreme Court by ordinary appeal from a judgment of conviction.

Facts

Ginette Azul owned Von Welt Travel Agency in Quezon City, while Estrellita Tendenilla owned Charles Visa Consultancy in Intramuros, Manila. Maria Jenny Rea was Tendenilla's employee and babysitter. From June to August 2005, six complainants came to these offices seeking work abroad. Alvaro Trinidad and Michael Soriano were introduced by Azul to Tendenilla, who represented that she had a British employer in London and could send them there. Rebecca Villaluna attended a briefing where Tendenilla told the applicants they would go to London and, while waiting, work in Singapore or Hong Kong. Maricel Tumamao was told by Tendenilla that she was an ex-consul in Vienna who could deploy people to the United States, London, and Bangkok. Nyann Pasquito and Cyrus Chavez were promised caregiver jobs in London. The complainants paid placement fees, in amounts ranging from one hundred thousand to two hundred fifty thousand pesos, which Azul received and in turn handed to Tendenilla.

The complainants were then flown to Thailand. Alvaro and Michael left in early July 2005 and were accompanied by Rea to Malaysia to obtain a non-immigrant visa. Maricel and Rebecca left shortly after, accompanied by Tendenilla and Rea, and were instructed to go to Penang, Malaysia to have their passports stamped. Nyann and Cyrus, upon arriving in Thailand, gave Tendenilla partial payments, and were then brought toward Penang, where they were asked to sign a fictitious employment contract to expedite the processing of their visas.

In the end, none of the complainants was deployed to London. Instead, they were arrested by immigration authorities in Thailand and deported. Tendenilla denied recruiting the complainants, claiming she was a tour guide in Bangkok, while Rea claimed she merely delivered hotel vouchers and met people at the airport as instructed by Azul.

Issues

• Whether or not the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of illegal recruitment in large scale against the appellants.
• Whether or not Tendenilla made representations of her power to recruit workers for overseas employment and collected placement fees from the complainants.
• Whether or not Rea is liable as a co-conspirator in the crime.

Applicable Provisions

Article 13, paragraph b, of the Labor Code defines recruitment and placement:

"Recruitment and placement" refers to any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not: Provided, That any person or entity which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement.

This definition is the heart of the case, because the Court held that the acts of the appellants fell squarely within it even without a formal agency.

Ruling

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. On the first issue, it held that illegal recruitment in large scale is committed upon the concurrence of three elements: first, the offenders undertake any activity within the meaning of recruitment and placement as defined in Article 13, paragraph b, or any prohibited practice under Article 34 of the Labor Code; second, the offenders have no valid license or authority required by law to engage in recruitment and placement; and third, the offenders commit the acts against three or more persons, individually or as a group. All three were present.

On the second issue, the Court found that Tendenilla's misrepresentations of her purported power to recruit for overseas employment, and her collection of placement fees personally or through Azul on her behalf, were clearly established by the testimonies of the complainants. The Court put the principle simply: illegal recruitment is committed by persons who, without authority from the government, give the impression that they have the power to send workers abroad for employment purposes.

On the third issue, the Court held that Rea was a co-conspirator, given her presence when the complainants paid their placement fees, her presence at the training center during the orientation, and her act of accompanying the complainants to Thailand. Conspiracy having been shown, all the conspirators were liable for the crime.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain that illegal recruitment in large scale requires three elements: engagement in recruitment and placement as defined by Article 13, paragraph b, of the Labor Code or a prohibited practice under Article 34; absence of a valid license or authority; and commission of the acts against three or more persons. The essence of the offense is giving the impression, without government authority, of the power to send workers abroad for employment. A person who participates in the scheme, even by acts that seem merely auxiliary such as accompanying applicants or being present at the collection of fees, is liable as a co-conspirator.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, upholding the conviction of both appellants for illegal recruitment in large scale and the penalties and indemnities imposed on them.

Remember This

Memorize this line: illegal recruitment is committed by persons who, without authority from the government, give the impression that they have the power to send workers abroad for employment purposes. Examiners use this case to test the three elements of large-scale illegal recruitment and the liability of a co-conspirator whose participation appears minor.