Title
People vs. Agustin
Case
G.R. No. 113161
Decision Date
Aug 29, 1995
Nelly Agustin convicted of large-scale illegal recruitment for promising overseas jobs, collecting fees, and conspiring with unlicensed recruiters, affirmed by the Supreme Court.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 113161)

Background of the Case

An information was filed on January 12, 1988, in the Regional Trial Court of Manila. It alleged that from May 1986 to June 25, 1987, the accused conspired to recruit individuals for overseas employment without the required license from the Department of Labor. A warrant for the arrest of the accused was issued on January 21, 1987, but they were not apprehended until Nelly Agustin's arrest on February 26, 1993.

Proceedings and Testimonies

Following her arrest, Nelly Agustin's lawyer filed a motion to revive the case, and the trial commenced with the prosecution presenting testimonies from four complainants. Testimonies illustrated that the accused, particularly Agustin, had portrayed herself as having the ability to facilitate recruitment for overseas jobs, assuring various fees for placement, processing, and documentation.

Actions Constituting Illegal Recruitment

The prosecution witnesses detailed how Agustin solicited payments for processing fees and other documents, indicating her direct involvement in the recruitment process. For instance, Rogelio Salado testified that he was convinced to pay initial amounts as processing fees upon Agustin’s assurances.

Defense Claims

In her defense, Agustin claimed that she was merely introducing the complainants to the Goce spouses, whom she described as licensed recruiters. She denied any liability in the recruitment process and argued that her actions did not amount to illegal recruitment as defined by the Labor Code.

Ruling of the Trial Court

The trial court convicted Agustin of illegal recruitment defined under Articles 38 and 39 of the Labor Code, citing the testimonies of the complainants as credible and sufficient to establish her involvement in the recruitment scheme. The court emphasized that the prosecution's evidence depicted her as having misled her victims about her capacity to facilitate overseas employment.

Appellate Review and Findings

On appeal, Agustin raised arguments challenging the existence of a conspiracy and her active role in illegal recruitment. However, the reviewing court found these arguments interrelated and did not support her claims regarding a lack of i

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.