People of the PH v LOMA Goce y Olalia, DAN Goce and NELLY Agustin, accused Facts: Jan 1988 information

n for illegal recruitment by a syndicate and in large scale was filed against Sps. Goce and Agustin. A warrant of arrest was issued but none of them was arrested. Case was archived. Mar 1989 Rogelio Salado, complainant, learned of the whereabouts of Agustin. By virtue of the standing WOA, Agustin was arrested. The case was revived. Agustin was arraigned and pleaded not guilty. Four Complainants: Rogelio Salado he was introduced to Agustin by his brother in law, Lorenzo Alvarez, in March or April 1987. Agustin presented herself as manager of Clover Placement Agency and showed Salado a copy of a job order for Oman. She requested 5k as processing fee for which a receipt was issued. Agustin later introduced Salado to the Sps. Goce, owners, where they requested a higher fee of 12k. Receipts were issued. Ramona Salado spouse of Rogelio. She was introduced to Agustin by her brother Alvarez. Agustin persuaded her to apply as a cutter/sewer in Oman. Salado agreed since she will be working in Oman same as her hubby. She initially paid 2k, then an additional 2k. Dionisio Masaya applied for a job in Oman via Clover Placement Agency. He initially paid 1.9k, then an additional 10k. Ernesto Alvarez was offered by Agustin a job as ambulance driver in Oman, with salary of $600-$700. He paid 3k.

Bottom line all complainants were not able to leave for Oman. They discovered that the agency was not licensed by POEA. Agustins defense she was a neighbor of the Sps. Goce who were licensed recruiters and owners of Clover. Because said agency was able to send her son to Saudi, she agreed to INTRODUCE the complainants to the Sps. She denied any participation in the illegal recruitment since INTRODUCING an applicant is not one of those prohibited acts. She admits giving money to some of the complainants but claims that it is not for partial payment /return of the fees but as a loan which she extended to them. Issues: 1. WON act of introducing falls within the meaning of illegal recruitment / WON there is proof that Agustin offered or promised overseas employment to complainants. 2. WON there is proof of conspiracy to commit illegal recruitment Ratio 1. Agustin is accused of violating Art 38 & 39 LC.

Art 38, as amended by PD 2018, provides that any recruitment activity, including the prohibited practices in Art 34 undertaken by non-licensees / non-holders of authority shall be deemed illegal and punishable under Art 39. It further provides that illegal recruitment shall be considered an offense involving economic sabotage if: (a) committed by a syndicate carried out by a group of three or more persons conspiring and/or confederating with one another; (b) in large scale against three or more persons individually or as a group. All accused are not licensed to recruit as certified by POEA and are therefore guilty of illegal recruitment if proven that they committed any of the prohibited acts. Hence Agustin is claiming that the act of introducing applicants to the owners of a placement agency is not illegal. Court said that under LC, recruitment and placement refer to any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers and includes REFERRALS, contract services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not Referral is the act of passing along or forwarding of an applicant for employment after an intial interview of a selected applicant for employment to a selected employer, placement officer or bureau. Despite denials of Agustin, the testimonial evidence of all four complainants show that she further committed acts constitutive of illegal recruitment (meaning, her participation did not just end when she introduced them to the Sps.) It was Agustin who informed them of the fees to pay and the papers they had to submit. She also represented herself as the manager of the agency and claimed that she/agency is able to send Filipinos for employment abroad by showing job orders. She also persuaded them to take these job offers. All these show that she played a pivotal role. As to the claim that there was no proof that she obtained money from them, this is belied by the photocopies of the receipts. Court said when the original has been lost or cannot be produced, its contents may be proved by a copy or a recital of its contents or by the recollection of witnesses. Even still, the absence of receipts will not warrant the acquittal of Agustin. In People v Comia, the Court held that failure to ask for receipt for fees paid, and failure to present receipts is not fatal to the case. Their testimonies, being clear and positive, are sufficient to establish that factum probandum. 2. Evidence presented by the prosecution clearly establish that Agustin confabulated with the Sps. In their plan to deceive the complainants. Although the other accused have not been tried, there is sufficient basis for Agustins conviction as discussed above. (yan talaga sabi sa case, ikli lang) RTC affirmed.