G.R. No. 100285 - People vs. Duque

Appellant Napoleon Duque was charged with illegal recruitment under Section 38 in relation to Section 39 of Presidential Decree No. 442 (Labor Code of the Philippines), as amended.
The charge centered on Duque allegedly recruiting workers for overseas employment without being licensed or authorized by the proper government agency (POEA).

The offense was committed sometime in January 1986 at Calamba, Laguna.
The information filed by the prosecution stated that Duque knowingly conducted recruitment without the necessary license; he collected money in exchange for promising placement abroad, which eventually was not provided.
The alleged activity involved collecting placement fees from several individuals with the promise of securing documents (passport, visa, medical certificate, etc.) for overseas employment, but failing to deliver on his promises.

Recounted being invited to Duque’s house where he was informed that recruitment for jobs in Saudi Arabia was underway.
Agustin Ulat was asked to secure personal documents and was convinced to mortgage his property to provide P20,000.00 for processing fees.
Despite his payment and trust in Duque—who presented himself as a licensed recruiter and a reputable member of a well-known Catholic organization—the promised employment did not materialize, and no receipt was issued for his payment.

Testified that he visited Duque’s house with the prospect of overseas employment.
Stated that he handed over P5,000.00 without obtaining a receipt, relying on the assurances given by the accused.

Asserted he gave Duque P7,000.00 as a placement fee on February 18, 1986.
Despite a promise to supply a receipt the following day, the accused refused to issue one when reminded.

Testified that she paid Duque P9,000.00 during the recruitment meeting in his house.
Also noted that no receipt was issued upon demand, and Duque’s assurances to “trust him” did not materialize into the promised employment.

Collectively, the complainants filed a complaint and executed a joint affidavit with the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA) after discovering that Duque lacked the necessary license to conduct recruitment.

The prosecution presented a certification from the licensing branch of the POEA stating that no record existed of any license or authorization granted to Duque.
Despite Duque’s denial of directly recruiting or receiving money for placement abroad, he admitted that his house served as the meeting place for individuals (such as Delfin and Engr. Acopado) who purportedly promised overseas employment.
The positive identification of Duque by the private complainants as the person who collected fees and promised placement was a critical element in the trial verdict.

Duque’s recruitment activities were characterized as organized and large scale because they involved more than three complainants, meeting the criteria for illegal recruitment “in large scale” under the Labor Code.
The modus operandi revealed that Duque systematically induced trust by representing himself as a licensed recruiter and using his residence as a business office.

Whether the criminal offense committed by Duque for illegal recruitment had prescribed at the time of prosecution.
The crux of the issue involved the computation of the prescriptive period under Article 290 of the Labor Code and Section 2 of Act No. 3326, as amended.

Appellant argued that the prescriptive period should have commenced when the complainants parted with their money in January 1986.
The contention was that the offense was discovered by the complainants at the time of payment, thereby starting the run of the prescriptive period.

Whether the discovery of the illegal nature of the recruitment—i.e., the lack of a necessary license—occurred later when the complainants approached the POEA in December 1989, as opposed to the date of payment.
The issue further examines the impact of the institution of judicial proceedings on the computation of the prescription period.