Case Summary (G.R. No. 181277)
Petitioner
Aurora T. Aquino claimed she was a duly licensed labor contractor (license issued 22 May 1973), acted as authorized representative for foreign employers (special power of attorney), processed applications while licensed, attempted to secure renewal after license expiration, and issued refunds/checks to applicants when placements failed.
Respondent and Complainants
Complainants included Rodrigo Nicolas, Braulio Sapitula, Aurelio Costales, Benito Vertudez and others who paid recruitment fees (amounts ranging up to P1,500 each) for alleged placement in Guam. The prosecution relied on their testimonies and documentary receipts; some complainants later executed affidavits of desistance in a separate estafa case.
Key Dates
- Recruitment and payments: mainly 1973–1975 (specific applicant dates vary).
- License valid until 18 May 1974; alleged post-expiration activities occurred thereafter.
- Complaint/information filed: 2 November 1978 (complaint filed) / information filed 1 December 1978.
- Trial and appeals: RTC conviction; Court of Appeals affirmed (decision 15 November 1989); Supreme Court decision rendered 21 November 1991 (appeal initially denied 21 March 1990; motion for reconsideration granted 9 May 1990).
Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis
Primary statutes and rules considered: Articles 24 and 25 of Presidential Decree No. 442 (Labor Code) regarding licensing/authority to recruit and the prohibition on travel agencies recruiting; Article 39( b) (penal provision) and the Indeterminate Sentence Law applied by the trial court. Because the Supreme Court decision date is post-1990, constitutional principles from the 1987 Constitution (notably presumption of innocence, burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt, and due process) inform the criminal-law analysis adopted by the Court.
Procedural History
Aurora Aquino was arraigned and pleaded not guilty. After trial, the Regional Trial Court convicted her of illegal recruitment and imposed an indeterminate sentence (4 to 7 years), a P20,000 fine, and ordered indemnification of P5,270 plus interest. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. The Supreme Court initially denied review but subsequently granted reconsideration and re-examined the findings.
Prosecution’s Factual Allegations
The prosecution presented testimony that the complainants applied for jobs (mainly in 1973–1974) at Aquino’s office and paid recruitment fees (commonly P1,500 or partial amounts). Some payments were later refunded partly in cash and partly by a “group refund check” for P5,270 which the complainants claimed bounced for lack of funds. The prosecution alleged recruitment activities continued after the petitioner’s license expired (after 18 May 1974) and relied on the complainants’ testimony, including Benito Vertudes’ claim of a June 1974 application.
Defense’s Factual Assertions
Aquino asserted she was a licensed labor contractor during the relevant recruitment activities, acted as the authorized representative of foreign employers (showing special power of attorney), processed applications and submitted them while licensed, and that recruitment ceased upon unsuccessful renewal and the Ministry of Labor’s policy phasing out private recruiters. She asserted she issued refunds, including a group check, and sought renewal communications with the Ministry; she denied recruiting after license expiration and disputed dates for certain applicants (notably Vertudes).
Trial Court and Court of Appeals Findings
The trial court found Aquino guilty of illegal recruitment, imposed imprisonment, fine, indemnity of P5,270 with interest, and ordered imprisonment at Muntinlupa. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction in all respects. The Supreme Court, after review, identified and considered challenges to jurisdiction, whether recruitment occurred after license expiration, and the propriety of the indemnity order.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
- Whether the Regional Trial Court of Manila had jurisdiction.
- Whether the petitioner illegally recruited complainants after her license expired on 18 May 1974 (i.e., whether continued collection of payments after expiration constitutes illegal recruitment).
- Whether the indemnification order in the amount of P5,270 should be sustained.
Jurisdictional Analysis
The Supreme Court applied established principles: a court’s jurisdiction is determined by the information’s allegation as to the situs of the crime, and parties who invoke a court’s jurisdiction and actively participate ordinarily cannot later deny that jurisdiction (estoppel). The petitioner did not challenge jurisdiction in the lower courts; she only raised it after adverse rulings. Citing Tijam v. Sibonghanoy and other precedents (Colmenares v. Villar, People v. Galano, Echaus v. Blanco, Crisostomo v. Court of Appeals, Libudan v. Gil, People v. Casuga y Munar), the Court held that belated challenges to jurisdiction, after participation to secure affirmative relief, are not permissible and would disrupt finality and administration of justice. Therefore, the Court rejected the jurisdictional ground as untimely and estopped.
Legal Characterization of Illegal Recruitment and Temporal Element
The Court emphasized criminal-law principles under the 1987 Constitution: presumption of innocence and prosecution’s burden to prove every essential element beyond reasonable doubt. It analyzed Articles 24 and 25 (the Court noted that although charged under Article 25, the case implicated Article 24) and stressed that illegal recruitment penalizes the operation of an employment agency without the required license. Crucially, the Court focused on the timing of the prohibited activity: recruitment (advertising, solicitation, acceptance of applications and inducements) must occur without a license. The Court distinguished between recruitment as an ongoing operation and post-termination collections or winding-up activities. It held that inducements, advertising and the active solicitation occurred while Aquino was licensed; therefore the recruitment acts took place within the lawful period. The mere receipt of carry-over payments after license expiration for services and transactions initiated while licensed does not, standing alone, constitute criminal recruitment. The Court observed that business winding-up and collections of unpaid accounts are ordinary commercial acts and should not automatically transform into criminal acts absent proof that recruitment operations continued after license denial or expiration.
Application to Individual Complainants; Burden of Proof
Applying the temporal test, the Court found that for complainants Rodrigo Nicolas, Braulio Sapitula, and Aurelio Costales the application, solicitation and inducements indisputably occurred in 1973 while petitioner was licensed; no credible evidence showed recruitment after 18 May 1974. For Benito Vertudes, the prosecution’s allegation that he applied in June 1974 was a negative allegation essential to the crime’s element (i.e., recruiting without a license). The petitioner directly contradicted that date, testifying Vertudes applied in 1973. Because the prosecution offered Vertudes’ uncorroborated testimony alone and failed to prove the post-expiration date beyond reasonable doubt, the Court resolved that doubt in favor of the accused consistent with the rule of strict construction of penal statutes (citing People v. Yu Hai). The Court therefore concluded the prosecution failed to establish illegal recruitment after license expiratio
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 181277)
Case Caption, Reporter and Author
- Reporter citation: 281 Phil. 271, Third Division, G.R. No. 91896, November 21, 1991.
- Parties: Aurora T. Aquino, Petitioner; Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines, Respondents.
- Opinion authored by Justice Gutierrez, Jr.
- Justices joining the final decision: Chief Justice Fernan (Chairman), Bidin, Davide, Jr., and Romero, JJ., concurred.
Nature of the Proceeding and Relief Sought
- Petition for review on certiorari filed in the Supreme Court seeking reversal of a November 15, 1989 decision of the Court of Appeals which had affirmed the trial court’s conviction of the accused-petitioner for illegal recruitment.
- The petitioner urged reversal on three principal grounds: (I) lack of jurisdiction by the Regional Trial Court of Manila; (II) erroneous finding that recruitment occurred after the expiration of petitioner’s license on May 18, 1974; and (III) erroneous sustaining of an order requiring indemnification of complainants in the total amount of P5,270.00.
Information and Criminal Charge
- The information filed against the accused-petitioner alleged:
- That on or about and during the period between May 23, 1974 to May, 1975, in the City of Manila, the accused did willfully, unlawfully and knowingly, being a private individual, recruit workers for employment abroad without first obtaining the required license or authority from the Ministry of Labor, in violation of Article 25, Presidential Decree 442.
- Upon arraignment, the accused pleaded not guilty and the case went to trial.
Prosecution’s Factual Allegations (as presented at trial)
- Summary of five complainants’ factual narratives and related payments:
- Rodrigo Nicolas
- Met petitioner in January 1973 at petitioner’s Manila Hotel office after responding to a published notice recruiting for Guam; applied as a carpenter.
- Paid P1,000 as part payment of P1,500 required; second payment of P500 on September 24, 1974.
- Of P1,500 paid, P1,000 was later refunded by petitioner; remaining P500 was included in an alleged “group refund check” for P5,270 which could not be cashed for lack of funds.
- Braulio Sapitula
- Applied on or about March 12, 1973 for a carpenter position at petitioner’s Manila Hotel office; paid P500 initial and P1,000 on February 5, 1975.
- Aurelio Costales
- Applied sometime in May 1973 at Greenwich Travel Agency; paid P800 partial of P1,500 recruitment fee and later P550 on September 24, 1974.
- Petitioner's partial refund to Costales amounted to P700; the balance P650 was alleged part of the dishonored group refund check for P5,270.
- Benito Vertudez
- Applied sometime in June 1974 at petitioner’s agency; completed application and paid P70 for mailing expenses and subsequently paid two separate sums of P500 in September 1974.
- Received a check for P1,070 from petitioner when he requested refund; that check was allegedly dishonored for lack of funds.
- General prosecution timeline
- A complaint was filed November 2, 1978 for violation of Article 24, P.D. No. 442 before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch VIII.
- Rodrigo Nicolas
Accused-Petitioner’s Version and Defenses (as testified and evidenced)
- Licensing and representation assertions:
- Aurora T. Aquino testified she was a licensed labor contractor, producing a Labor Contractor’s License dated May 22, 1973, issued after payment of P6,000 for year 1973-1974 (exhibits referenced).
- She alleged appointment by several employers in Guam and London as their representative in the Philippines, citing a Special Power of Attorney executed by George J. Viegas dated November 29, 1973, authorizing recruitment for Guam and London.
- Timeline and handling of applicants:
- She acknowledged processing applications of Benito Vertudes, Braulio Sapitula, Alfredo Empredo, Rodrigo Nicolas and Aurelio Costales, and submitting their application papers to her employer abroad, George J. Viegas.
- She stated applicants were unable to leave for Guam because her employer had difficulties with his contract with the government of Guam.
- Refunds and instruments:
- Petitioner claimed to have refunded amounts to Sapitula (P500), Empredo (P300 on Jan. 28, 1974), Vertudes (P500), and a group refund check issuance (Exh. 11 for P5,270) which was received by Aurelio Costales.
- Petitioner contended she issued receipts and purported refund instruments on specific dates and offered documentary exhibits indicated in trial record.
- License renewal attempts and operational posture:
- Petitioner’s license expired May 18, 1974. She testified she applied for renewal and sent follow-up letters to the Bureau of Labor/Minister Blas Ople (exhibits cited: dated Feb. 4, 1975; earlier renewal letter July 4, 1974; further letters March 3, 1975 and April 29, 1975 were noted but some were not submitted and offered).
- She claimed a Ministry of Labor policy was phasing out private recruitment agencies and she was told to proceed with operations until Secretary returned from abroad; she asserted she ceased operations in 1976 and maintained she conducted winding-up from her residence in Quezon City.
- Petitioner denied recruiting after license expiry and denied any administrative notice or raid for illegal activities.
Trial Court Judgment and Penalty Imposed
- Trial court verdict:
- The trial court found accused Aurora T. Aquino guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Recruitment in violation of Art. 25, PD 442 (penalized under Art. 39 par. (b), Labor Code), without mitigating circumstance.
- Sentencing imposed by trial court:
- Indeterminate imprisonment of four (4) years up to seven (7) years.
- Fine of P20,000.00.
- Accessory penalties of the law; ordered service of imprisonment at the National Penitentiary at Muntinlupa, Rizal.
- Ordered indemnification of complainants in the total amount of P5,270.00 with legal interest from filing of information on December 1, 1978 until paid, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
- Ordered to pay costs of proceedings.
Court of Appeals Disposition
- The Court of Appeals, after submission of memoranda, affirmed the trial court decision in all aspects.
- The dispositive portion: “WHEREFORE, the guilt of appellant of the crime charged having been established beyond reasonable doubt, the appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED in all aspects. No costs.”
- Petitioner thereafter sought review in the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Procedural History in the Instant Review
- Initial action by Supreme Court: Petition for review initially denied on March 21, 1990.
- Motion for reconsideration filed April 5, 1990; motion given due course on May 9, 1990.
- Petitioner’s three principal grounds for relief restated before the Supreme Court (jurisdiction, recruitment after license expiration, indemnification).
Statutory Provisions Quoted and Legal Framework Concerning Recruitment and Licensing
- Article 25, P.D. 442 (quoted in the record):
- Prohibits travel agencies from engaging in recruitment and placement of workers for overseas employment whether for profit or not; empowers the Secretary of Labor to issue rules and regulations for issuance of license or authority; indicates existing authorities or licenses remain valid for the duration indicated unless cancelled, revoked or suspended; allows renewal if holders comply with the Code and implementing rules.
- Article 24, P.D. 442 (quoted in the record and noted as the actually implicated provision):
- “Authority or license to recruit. - No individual or entity may engage in the business of a private fee-charging employment agency without first obtaining a license from the Department of Labor. ‘No individual or entity may operate a private non-fee charging employment agency without first obtaining an authority from the Department of Labor.’”
- The Solicitor General’s positio