G.R. No. 38332 - People vs. Ducosin

An information for illegal recruitment was filed on January 12, 1988 against spouses Dan and Loma Goce and Nelly D. Agustin in the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 5.
The allegations involved recruiting Filipino workers for overseas employment without obtaining the necessary license from the Department of Labor, in violation of Articles 38 and 39 of the Labor Code (Presidential Decree No. 442 as amended by Section 1(b) of PD No. 2018).
The recruitment allegedly occurred between May 1986 and June 25, 1987, involving eight complainants who paid various fees for promised overseas employment.

A warrant of arrest was issued on January 21, 1987, although none of the accused were initially arrested.
The case was ordered archived on February 2, 1989, despite a standing warrant of arrest remaining against the accused.
On March 17, 1989, upon a request by one of the complainants for a copy of the arrest warrant, renewed efforts were made to locate the accused.
Nelly Agustin was finally apprehended by the Paranaque police around midday on February 26, 1993.
Following her apprehension, Agustin’s counsel filed a motion on March 8, 1993 to revive the case, leading to its reinstatement on April 15, 1993, and subsequent arraignment on May 3, 1993, where Agustin pleaded not guilty.

The trial court set forth the schedule, and the case went to trial with Agustin denying involvement in illegal recruitment.
Several complainants, including Rogelio Salado, Ramona Salado, Dionisio Masaya, and Ernesto Alvarez testified for the prosecution:

Rogelio Salado testified that he was introduced to Agustin at her residence and initially dealt with her as the manager of the Clover Placement Agency, where he learned about significant processing and placement fees.
Salado recounted subsequent dealings at the agency’s office where he encountered the Goce spouses, agreed to a higher fee, received a receipt showing a lower amount than paid, and later discovered that the agency was not licensed.
Ramona Salado testified that upon being persuaded by Agustin, she and her husband paid placement fees based on assurances of employment in Oman, only to later learn their overseas deployment was never effected.
Dionisio Masaya, who paid initial and subsequent fees for a job in Oman, testified about the delay and failure of his promised employment as well as receiving only partial refunds.
Ernesto Alvarez testified that he was offered a job as an ambulance driver in Oman by Agustin, who collected processing fees from him in two installments, but similarly, he did not get overseas employment.

Meanwhile, Agustin testified in her own defense that she was merely acting as an introducer or intermediary, asserting that her role was limited to connecting the complainants to the Goce couple—the actual operators of the placement agency.

Exhibit D: A cash voucher showing a receipt of P10,000.00 for a placement fee, signed by Agustin.
Exhibit E: A receipt dated February 5, 1987, acknowledging the receipt of P4,000.00 from Rogelio and Ramona Salado for processing documents for Oman.
Exhibit F: A receipt dated March 10, 1987 showing a P2,000.00 processing fee received from Ernesto Alvarez.

A certification from Cecilia E. Curso, Chief of the Licensing and Regulation Office of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, established that Dan and Loma Goce and Nelly Agustin were not licensed to engage in recruitment for overseas employment.

The case centers on illegal recruitment under Articles 38 and 39 of the Labor Code, which penalizes unlicensed recruitment activities and considers them to involve economic sabotage if committed on a syndicate or large-scale basis.
The court noted that illegal recruitment is committed not only when a person directly recruits workers but also when they give the impression of having the capacity to secure overseas employment and collect fees in connection therewith.

Agustin maintained that her involvement was limited to introducing complainants to the Goce couple, emphasizing her status as a neighbor and her prior connection through her son’s employment processed by the Goce agency.
She argued that:

Her referral did not equate to illegal recruitment as defined by the Labor Code.
There was no evidence of a conspiracy between her and the Goce spouses to commit the offense.
The fees collected were for different personal reasons (such as loans or other transactions) rather than as payment for securing employment abroad.

The defense also attacked the reliability of the documentary evidence, noting that only secondary (xerox) copies of receipts were available, although the prosecution had substantiated payments through testimony and documentary corroboration.

Whether Nelly Agustin’s conduct of introducing complainants to the Goce couple should be classified as illegal recruitment under Articles 38 and 39 of the Labor Code.
Whether the evidence establishes that Agustin conspired with the Goce spouses in a fraudulent recruitment scheme.
Whether the testimonies and documentary receipts (albeit in xerox format) are sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Agustin engaged in recruitment activities by collecting fees intended for overseas employment placement.
Whether Agustin’s characterization of her role as merely “referring” or “introducing” complainants can absolve her of the responsibilities and criminal liability attached to illegal recruitment.