G.R. No. 207711 - Osorio vs. People

Case Summary (G.R. No. 207711)

Procedural History

An Information for large-scale illegal recruitment was filed against appellant on August 29, 1997. Arraigned and pleaded not guilty. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Quezon City, after trial, convicted appellant of illegal recruitment in large scale and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a P500,000 fine, and ordered indemnity of US$300 to each complainant. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. The Supreme Court denied the appeal on the merits, affirming the conviction but modifying the restitution order to require payment in the peso equivalent of US$300 to each complainant; costs were imposed on appellant.

Core Facts as Found by Trial Court and Appellate Court

The three complainants each testified that appellant, whom they met in public locations (an aircon bus and SM North EDSA), represented himself as able to secure U.S. nursing employment, promised high monthly wages (US$2,000) and imminent departure dates, claimed connections with the U.S. Embassy and even presented purported visa photocopies or airline confirmations. Appellant allegedly required and received payments (US$300 each claimed as payment to secure U.S. visas or for the U.S. consul) and in at least one instance received jewelry intended to be sold. Appellant did not issue receipts and failed to produce visas or passports; he did not show up for the scheduled departures and later became unavailable. The complainants in due course filed complaints with the NBI.

Prosecution Evidence

The prosecution presented the three complainants as witnesses (Bamba, Lagman, Singh), whose testimonies described the pattern of canvassing, promises, collection of documents and monies, and appellant’s disappearance prior to the scheduled departure. Documentary evidence included a POEA Licensing Branch certification (Exhibit A) establishing that appellant was not a licensed recruiter/holder of authority, and an affidavit of one complainant (Exhibit B). The trial court and CA found the testimonial evidence credible and sufficient to establish the elements of illegal recruitment in large scale.

Defense Evidence and Assertions

Appellant testified that his interactions with the complainants were social and advisory rather than constituting recruitment; he asserted a romantic relationship with Bamba and claimed the complainants sought his advice in applying abroad. He produced three certifications allegedly signed by the complainants (Exhibits a2, a3, a4) stating that he did not recruit them and that no money changed hands. He also referenced a counter-affidavit he filed during preliminary investigation denying recruitment. Appellant argued that the prosecution’s failure to present receipts was fatal to the case.

Legal Framework and Elements of the Offense

Under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code, recruitment and placement include canvassing, enlisting, contracting, promising or advertising for employment and shall be deemed recruitment when an offer or promise for a fee is made to two or more persons. Section 6 of R.A. No. 8042 defines illegal recruitment as recruitment by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority and provides that one who, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment abroad to two or more persons is deemed engaged in recruitment. Illegal recruitment is “large scale” if committed against three or more persons individually or as a group. The prosecution must prove: (1) the accused undertook recruitment activities under the cited definitions; (2) the accused lacked the requisite license or authority; and (3) the accused committed the acts against three or more persons.

Court’s Analysis on Sufficiency of Evidence

The RTC and CA credited the collective testimony of the complainants and found the prosecution established the three essential elements beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court, applying the same analysis, affirmed that the testimonial evidence sufficiently proved that appellant engaged in recruitment activities as defined and did so without POEA authorization. The courts treated the factual findings of credibility as conclusive in the absence of a showing that the lower courts ignored, misunderstood, or misapplied substantial facts.

Treatment of Absence of Receipts and Relevance of Payments

The courts rejected appellant’s contention that receipts were indispensable. The jurisprudence relied upon—consistent with the statutory scheme—recognizes that the absence of receipts does not preclude conviction where witnesses can positively identify the accused as responsible for prohibited recruitment. The act of offering or promising employment for a fee—whether or not profit was realized or a receipt issued—falls within the statutory definition. The trial court therefore properly convicted despite the lack of documentary receipts.

Evaluation of the Certifications and Appellant’s Credibility

The trial court and appellate court found the certifications offered by appellant to be devoid of probative weight. The Supreme Court agreed and emphasized that appellant had the opportunity and duty to produce those certifications during the preliminary investigation or attach them to his counter-affidavit but failed to do so. The failure to produce favorable documentary evide

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 207711)

Procedural History

Case citation: 541 Phil. 326, Third Division, G.R. No. 169076, January 27, 2007.
Information for large scale illegal recruitment (under Sections 6 and 7 of R.A. No. 8042) filed by the Senior State Prosecutor on August 29, 1997.
Arraignment: appellant pleaded not guilty with counsel present.
Trial court (Regional Trial Court, Quezon City, Criminal Case No. Q-97-72769) rendered judgment on November 10, 2000, finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentencing him to life imprisonment and P500,000.00 fine; ordered indemnity of US$300.00 to each of the three complainants.
On February 23, 2005, the Supreme Court resolved to transfer the case to the Court of Appeals (CA).
Court of Appeals rendered judgment affirming the RTC on June 22, 2005.
Appeal to the Supreme Court; Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction with modification on January 27, 2007 (modifying the indemnity order to require refund of the peso equivalent of US$300.00 to each complainant). Costs against appellant.
Trial court decision penned by Judge Lydia Querubin Layosa (CA rollo, pp. 51–56). Supreme Court opinion penned by Justice Callejo, Sr.; concurrence by Justices Ynares-Santiago (Chairperson), Austria-Martinez, and Chico‑Nazario.

Parties

Appellee: People of the Philippines (prosecution).
Appellant: Joseph Jamilosa (accused/convict).
Private complainants/witnesses: Imelda D. Bamba (also referenced as Haide/Haidee R. Ruallo in the Information), Geraldine M. Lagman, and Alma E. Singh.
Government counsel on appeal: Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).

Charging Information (Inculpatory Portion)

Allegation timeframe: sometime in January to February, 1996, or thereabout, in Quezon City, Metro Manila.
Accused represented that he had capacity, authority or license to contract, enlist, deploy or transport workers for overseas employment.
Accused is alleged to have willfully, unlawfully and criminally recruited, contracted and promised to deploy, for a fee, complainants Haide R. Ruallo, Imelda D. Bamba, Geraldine M. Lagman and Alma E. Singh for work in Los Angeles, California (nursing home and care center) without first obtaining required license/authority from the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA).
Charge framed as illegal recruitment in large scale, “for a fee,” contrary to law.

Prosecution Case — Witness Testimonies (Facts as Found by Trial Court and CA)

General: Prosecution presented three witnesses — Imelda D. Bamba, Geraldine M. Lagman, and Alma E. Singh — all nurses, who testified to recruitment by the appellant and payments to him to secure US visas/processing and travel.
Imelda D. Bamba:
- Met appellant on January 17, 1996, aboard an aircon bus in Cubao while en route to SM North EDSA.
- Appellant introduced himself as a recruiter for employment abroad; said his sister was a head nurse in a Los Angeles nursing home and he could secure employment at US$2,000/month, with departure in two weeks.
- Claimed appellant represented he had connections with the US Embassy and was an FBI agent on mission; appellant required US$300.00 intended for the US consul.
- Appellant gave his pager number; on January 21 he fetched her at work; she gave photocopies of credentials; on Jan 28 or 29 she handed US$300.00 at McDonald’s North EDSA; appellant showed photocopy of supposed US visa.
- Appellant took several pieces of jewelry she was selling, promising to sell them at the US embassy; did not issue receipt for money or jewelry.
- Appellant instructed her to resign and told her she was booked on Northwest Airlines to leave Feb 25, 1996; appellant promised to give visas/passports but failed to appear and later claimed he went to the province because his wife died.
- Complainants could not leave; inquiries at appellant’s supposed residence and hotel unsuccessful; US Embassy had no record of appellant; she filed complaint with the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI).
Geraldine M. Lagman:
- Met appellant on January 22, 1996, at SM North EDSA (Fast-Food Center basement) through Bamba.
- Appellant assured he could send nurses abroad despite lack of hospital experience; requested US$300.00 for American visa and P3,400.00 for processing fee.
- On January 24 she handed passport and transcript; later appellant showed photocopy of alleged US visa and she gave US$300.00 plus two bottles of Black Label; no receipt was issued though appellant promised one later.
- Received a call from a phone company (Extelcom) warning appellant was a swindler who failed to pay P100,000 telephone bills; she grew suspicious.
- Appellant later claimed his mother passed away and failed to meet them; she filed complaint with NBI.
Alma E. Singh:
- Met appellant on February 13, 1996; appellant claimed to be an undercover FBI agent with contact in US embassy and could secure work for nurses in US home care centers.
- On February 14 appellant got her passport and picture; on February 15 she gave US$300.00 and a bottle of cognac as “grease money”; appellant refused to give receipt, saying none was needed because she would be directly hired.
- On February 19 she submitted copies of diploma, board certificate and PRC license; appellant met her father and obtained a Northwest Airlines ticket confirmation, advising a P10,000.00 payment for half the plane ticket later.
- Appellant avoided subsequent meetings; she and others did not depart and filed complaint with NBI.

Documentary Evidence Offered by Prosecution

Exh. aAa: Certification dated February 23, 1998, issued by Hermogenes C. Mateo, Director II, Licensing Branch, POEA (establishing that appellant was not licensed/authorized).
Exh. aBa: Affidavit of Alma E. Singh dated February 23, 1996.
Other documentary references: photocopies of alleged US visas shown to complainants (testified to by witnesses); Northwest Airlines computer printout shown to relatives (per witness testimony).

Appellant’s Defense — Testimony and Evidence (as per his Brief and Direct Testimony)

Appellant Joseph Jamilosa testified he first met Imelda Bamba on a bus; she borrowed his cellular phone.
He denied telling Bamba he could get her a job in Los Angeles; asserted Bamba wanted to leave her company nurse position because of workplace problems.
He courted and dated Bamba; claimed he met Lagman and Singh only through Bamba.
Asserted complainants sought his advice on how to apply for jobs abroad.
Presented three certifications allegedly signed by the complainants to the effect that he never recruited them and no money was involved: Exh. a2a (Bamba, Jan 17, 1996), Exh. a4a (Lagman, Jan 22, 1996), and Exh. a3a (Singh, Feb 19, 1996).
Claimed he made complainants sign these certifications to “prove that he was settling the cases” or because one complainant told him they were planning to sue him.
Admitted executing and filing a counter-affidavit dated June 16, 1997 (stated in cross-examination); asserted at trial that the counter-affidavit was prepared while in jail and “probably not assisted by a lawyer.”
Did not present the certifications during preliminary investigation before the Department of Justice and did not attach them to his counter-affidavi