Está en la página 1de 3

G.R. No.

181475 No receipts to show that he actually
received money from private complainant
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs LARRY LAURO DOMINGO

RTC: guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Recruitment (Large Scale) 1. same had no bearing on his culpability in light of the categorical
and of assertions of the complaining witnesses that appellant was the one who
2 counts of Estafa. recruited them.
CA: Affirmed the trial courts decision
Trial court for failing to give weight
SC: Denied petition. Affirmed RTC’s and CA’s decisions. to Cabigaos retraction.
ANTECEDENTS: 1. That the mere retraction by a prosecution witness does not necessarily
vitiate his original testimony and that, in any event, the prosecution had
proven beyond reasonable doubt that at least three were illegally
1. LARRY LAURO DOMINGO was charged of the crime of illegal recruited by the accused - Cambay, Ondra, Aguilar and Ma. Leah.
recruitment, defined and penalized under the provisions of Article 38
in relation to Articles 34 and 39 of the Labor Code of the Philippines AS TO ESTAFA
and 23 counts of Estafa. at the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos,
Bulacan, Branch 11
The elements constituting the crime, as penalized under Article 315 paragraph
2. Of the 23 complainants, only five testified and that one complainant
2(a) of the Revised Penal Code, were sufficiently established.
recanted his testimony Testifying anew, that the one who actually
recruited him and his co-complainants and received their money was
Danilo Gimeno (Gimeno), and that they only agreed among themselves 1. Appellant deceived the complainants by assuring them of employment
to file a case against appellant because Gimeno was nowhere to be abroad provided that they submit certain documents and pay the
found. required placement fee;
2. complainants paid appellant the amount he asked on account of
RTC DECISION appellants representations which turned out to be false; and
3. complainants suffered damages when appellant failed to return the
 By Joint Decision dated October 19, 2004, the trial court found amounts they paid and the papers they submitted, despite demand.
appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal
Recruitment (Large Scale) and of 2 counts of Estafa. APPEAL AT SUPREME COURT

APPEAL TO CA
The Court finds that the prosecution ably discharged its onus of proving the
guilt beyond reasonable doubt of appellant of the crimes charged.
 Affirmed the trial courts decision
1. Holding that the straightforward and consistent testimonies of the 1. That no receipt or document in which appellant acknowledged receipt
complaining witnesses sufficiently supported the trial courts of money for the promised jobs was adduced in evidence does not free
conclusion him of liability.
2. that appellant undertook recruitment activities beginning 2. For even if at the time appellant was promising employment no cash
September up to December 1999 in Dakila, Malolos, Bulacan was given to him, he is still considered as having been engaged
without the license therefor, and failed to deploy those he in recruitment activities, since Article 13(b) of the Labor Code states
recruited. that the act of recruitment may be for profit or not. It suffices that

who did not have the authority or license to recruit and deploy. promising or advertising for employment. under which the accused stands charged. to be undertaken by non- Comila. paragraph (a) of the Labor Code.(a) Any recruitment AS TO ESTAFA. whose credibility has not been impaired. influence. the Court finds that the prosecution evidence consisting of the testimonies of the four On the other hand. offers or promises for a fee employment to two or retraction an afterthought to deny its probative value. In the first. In the case at bar. transporting. . least of all by a hiring. The Ministry of Labor and Employment or any law discern: illegal recruitment is malum enforcement officer prohibitum. That any person or entity which. mere affidavit executed after the lapse of considerable time. It is thus not unreasonable to consider his manner. paragraph 2. credit. contract services. This misrepresentation. . qualifications. x x x (Emphasis supplied) syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring and/or confederating with one another in carrying out any unlawful or illegal transaction. with Article 39 hereof. Article 38.[8] For a testimony canvassing. or by means of similar deceits executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a of fraud. appellant promised or offered employment for a fee to the complaining witnesses to warrant his conviction for illegal LEGAL BASIS recruitment. (Emphasis supplied) constitutes estafa under Article 315. in any after the complaint was filed. Estafa under Article 315. while estafa is malum in se. Cabigao’s recantation. or procuring workers. and even with Cabigaos recantation. imperative. has not amended. individually or as a group. solemnly given in court should not be set aside lightly. The term recruitment and placement is defined under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code of the Philippines as follows: 3. the same is subject to the test of (b) Recruitment and placement refers to any act of credibility and should be received with caution. In the second. utilizing. agency. locally or abroad. Like any other testimony. including the prohibited practices enumerated charged and convicted of both illegal recruitment and estafa. as other complainants. People v. AT ALL EVENTS. provides: been overcome. enlisting. is committed by any person who large scale shall be considered an offense involving defrauds another by using fictitious name. under Article 34 of this Code. it is well established that a person may be activities. contracting. par. Provided. Appellant. the Affidavit of Recantation was executed three years not. does not necessarily cancel an earlier declaration. of the (a) Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in Revised Penal Code. Art. which induced the complaining scale if committed against three (3) or more persons witnesses to part off with their money for placement and medical fees. 38. and includes referrals. property. 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code. such an intent is may initiate complaints under this Article. or falsely economic sabotage and shall be penalized in accordance pretends to possess power. business or imaginary transactions. the criminal intent of the accused is not necessary for conviction. more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large abroad for employment.[10] enlightens: licensees or non-holders of authority shall be deemed illegal and punishable under Article 39 of this x x x The reason therefor is not hard to Code. whether for profit or 4. Illegal Recruitment. enterprise or scheme defined under the first paragraph misrepresented to the complaining witnesses that he had the capacity to send them hereof. (Emphasis supplied) 5.

To prove illegal recruitment in large scale. the prosecution must prove three essential elements. to wit: (1) the person charged undertook a recruitment activity under Article 13(b) or any prohibited practice under Article 34 of the Labor Code. and (3) he/she committed the prohibited practice against three or more persons individually or as a group. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group. (2) he/she did not have the license or the authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers.[7] .