Gaspar v. People

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 234839. March 13, 2019.]

GLORIA R. GASPAR, petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated March 13, 2019, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 234839 (Gloria R. Gaspar vs. People of the Philippines). — This treats of the Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court filed by petitioner Gloria R. Gaspar (Gloria), seeking the reversal of the Decision 2 dated February 27, 2017 and the Resolution 3 dated October 9, 2017, rendered by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 37516, convicting her of the crime of Simple Illegal Recruitment.

The Antecedents

On May 8, 2012, an Information was filed against Gloria for illegal recruitment, committed as follows:

That sometime on November 22, 2009, in the [M]unicipality of Tayug, [P]rovince of Pangasinan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, pursuant to Section 6, p. (m) of Republic Act 8042, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and helping one another did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously recruit JOCELYN ESTIOCO for employment abroad (Dubai), without first securing the requisite license or authority from the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA), to the damage and prejudice of said JOCELYN ESTIOCO.

CONTRARY to Section 6, p. (m) of Republic Act 8042, otherwise known as Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995. 4

The antecedent facts reveal that private complainant Jocelyn Estioco (Jocelyn) met Gloria through the introduction of the latter's cousin, Nancy Corpuz (Nancy). Gloria asked Jocelyn if she was interested to work in Dubai as a cook, and told her that she needed to submit her resume and passport. Then, Gloria gave Jocelyn the e-mail address and cellphone number of her daughter Jaydee Ann, who was working in Dubai. 5

Consequently, Jocelyn sent scanned copies of her documents to Jaydee Ann via e-mail. Later, Gloria told Jocelyn to go to Manila to meet a certain Juliet, who will be the contact agent in processing Jocelyn's papers. Gloria handed Jocelyn P20,000.00, which purportedly came from Jocelyn's employer, to be used for processing her papers and purchasing her plane ticket. Jocelyn left for Dubai on December 15, 2009. 6 CAIHTE

Upon arriving in Dubai, Jocelyn was fetched by the driver of Jaydee Ann's employer and brought to the latter's house, where she met Jaydee Ann. She was informed that she will work as a domestic helper at the house of the cousin of Jaydee Ann's employer. 7

Jocelyn experienced dire working conditions at her employer's home. She was forced to work without any employment contract and legal papers. She slept for only three hours a day, and was fed burnt rice and soy sauce. She stayed thereat for one year and one month, and all she did was work. She received a salary of 800 Dirhams or P9,000.00. 8

Fed up with her situation, Jocelyn confronted her employer. She learned that Jaydee Ann received 5,000 dirhams from the latter, which was supposed to be given to Jocelyn's family. She tried contacting Jaydee Ann, but to no avail. 9

Upon returning home to the Philippines, Jocelyn filed a complaint for illegal recruitment against Gloria and Jaydee Ann. 10

On the other hand, Gloria vehemently denied the charges leveled against her. She claimed that she cannot be held guilty of illegal recruitment, considering that she did not commit any recruitment activities. All she did was relay the information given by her daughter Jaydee Ann to Jocelyn. 11

Ruling of the Trial Court

On March 30, 2015, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tayug, Pangasinan, Branch 51, rendered a Decision 12 finding Gloria guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of simple illegal recruitment. The RTC found that Gloria engaged in recruitment and placement of workers without any license or authority to do so.

The dispositive portion of the RTC decision reads:

WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused GLORIA R. GASPAR GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime Simple Illegal Recruitment and hereby imposes upon her an indeterminate prison term of Seven (7) to Ten (10) years and a fine of PhP300,000.00. Additionally, she will indemnify Jocelyn Estioco in the amount of PhP7,200.00, with 12% interest per annum, reckoned from the filing of the information until the finality of the judgment as actual damages, plus 16,800 dirhams (800 dirhams x 21 months), or its equivalent in pesos, by way of unpaid salaries.

In the meantime, the case against JAYDEE ANN GASPAR is hereby ARCHIVED, subject to revival upon her arrest or on motion by the prosecution. Issue, therefore, alias warrant of arrest against herein accused Jaydee Ann Gaspar.

No costs.

SO ORDERED. 13

Aggrieved, Gloria filed an appeal before the CA.

Ruling of the CA

On February 27, 2017, the CA rendered the assailed Decision, 14 affirming the conviction handed down by the RTC. The CA held that Gloria's acts constituted "referring, canvassing, enlisting, procuring, and providing contact services for Jocelyn and promising overseas work," despite the fact that Gloria was not a licensee or holder of authority. 15 Furthermore, the CA held that Gloria and Jaydee Ann conspired and confederated with each other in recruiting and placing Jocelyn for work in Dubai.

The dispositive portion of the CA decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Appeal is DENIED. The Decision rendered by Branch 51 of the [RTC] of Tayug, Pangasinan on 30 March 2015 in Criminal Case No. T-5516 is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED. 16

Dissatisfied with the ruling, Gloria filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied by the CA in its Resolution 17 dated October 9, 2017.

Undeterred, Gloria filed the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari before this Court.

The Issue

The main issue for the Court's resolution rests on whether or not Gloria is guilty of simple illegal recruitment. DETACa

Ruling of the Court

The instant petition is bereft of merit.

It must be noted at the outset that the jurisdiction of the Court in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court is limited only to reviewing errors of law, not of fact, unless the factual findings complained of are completely devoid of support from the evidence on record, or the assailed judgment is based on a gross misapprehension of facts. 18 The Court finds that none of the mentioned circumstances are present to warrant a review of the factual findings of the case.

Furthermore, the resolution of the main issue raised in the case at bar, which chiefly pertains to the nature of the acts committed by Gloria, involves a calibration and re-evaluation of the evidence presented by the parties, which is outside the province of a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court.

Be that as it may, the CA did not commit any reversible error that would warrant the reversal of its assailed decision.

Gloria actively engaged in enlisting

Essentially, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8042, or the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, broadened the concept of illegal recruitment under the Labor Code, and provided stiffer penalties for any violation thereof. 19 Particularly, Section 6 of R.A. No. 8042 defines illegal recruitment as follows:

SEC. 6. Definition. — For purposes of this Act, illegal recruitment shall mean any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers and includes referring, contract services, promising or advertising for employment abroad, whether for profit or not, when undertaken by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority contemplated under Article 13(f) of Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, otherwise known as the Labor Code of the Philippines: Provided, That any such non-licensee or non-holder who, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment abroad to two or more persons shall be deemed so engaged. It shall likewise include the following acts, whether committed by any person, whether a non-licensee, non-holder, licensee or holder of authority. (Emphasis Ours)

It bears stressing that a non-licensee or non-holder of authority commits illegal recruitment for overseas employment by performing any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers, which includes referring, contract services, promising or advertising for employment abroad, whether for profit or not. 20 Illegal recruitment is committed whenever a person who, without authority from the government, gives the impression that he/she has the power to send workers abroad for employment purposes. 21 Such non-license holder shall be liable by the simple act of engaging in recruitment and placement activities. 22 It is the absence of the necessary license or authority to recruit and deploy workers that renders the recruitment activity unlawful.

As correctly observed by both the RTC and the CA, Gloria actively engaged in the recruitment and placement of Jocelyn for overseas work.

To begin with, Jocelyn never volunteered to work in Dubai. Initially, it was Nancy, Gloria's cousin, who introduced Gloria to Jocelyn as someone who had the capacity to send workers for employment abroad. Likewise, it was Gloria who broached the subject of work in Dubai, and asked Jocelyn if she wanted to work there. When Jocelyn answered in the affirmative, Gloria then offered Jaydee Ann's contact details, and gave Jocelyn instructions regarding the documents she needed to prepare.

In fact, Gloria admitted during her testimony in open court that she asked Jocelyn if the latter was interested to work abroad as a domestic helper. 23 Furthermore, Gloria confirmed that she was the one who referred Jocelyn to Jaydee Ann for work in Dubai. 24 She, likewise, admitted that she explained to Jocelyn that although she did not yet know the salary the latter would receive, she nonetheless related that the advance payment that will be sent to her and her ticket fees will be deducted from her salary. To be sure, all these facts show that Gloria was indeed instrumental in the recruitment and placement of Jocelyn. aDSIHc

Gloria did not possess the requisite

Notably, a non-licensee or non-holder of authority is a person, corporation or entity which has not been issued a valid license or authority to engage in recruitment and placement by the Secretary of Labor. 25

In the instant case, Gloria did not possess the necessary license or authority to recruit Jocelyn for employment to Dubai. The prosecution submitted a Certification issued by Lucia L. Villamayor, Director II, Licensing Branch of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) dated February 15, 2011, certifying that Gloria and Jaydee Ann are not licensed or authorized by the POEA to recruit workers for oversees employment. 26 In fact, in her Petition for Review on Certiorari, Gloria admitted that she did not have a license or authority to engage in recruitment or placement of workers abroad. 27

Seeking exoneration from the charge, Gloria maintains that she did not engage in any recruitment activities. In addition, she shifts the blame unto her daughter Jaydee Ann, and downplays her role as merely that of a mother who simply relayed the information given by Jaydee Ann to Jocelyn.

The Court is not persuaded.

It must be noted that Jocelyn discovered the employment opportunity abroad, and thereafter, was able to depart for Dubai, through the connivance and efforts of Gloria and Jaydee Ann. During the course of Jocelyn's preparations for her employment, Gloria kept the line of communication open between Jocelyn and Jaydee Ann. Gloria even handed over the P20,000.00 sent by Jocelyn's employer, which was used for processing Jocelyn's papers and purchasing her ticket. In fact, Gloria even admitted that although Jaydee Ann and Jocelyn were in contact, she remained involved in the communications because her daughter did not trust Jocelyn. In the end, she admitted that she, Jaydee Ann and Jocelyn constantly communicated with each other. 28 Clearly, all of these facts show that Gloria actively participated in all stages of Jocelyn's recruitment and eventual employment. Undoubtedly, Gloria was a necessary conduit in the placement of Jocelyn for overseas employment. This is the essence of recruitment as defined and penalized by the law.

Besides, Gloria's act of relaying information from Jaydee Ann to Jocelyn constitutes a referral, which is already prohibited by law when undertaken by a non-licensee like Gloria.

Suffice to say, jurisprudence defines "referral," as passing along or forwarding an applicant for employment to a selected employer, placement officer or bureau. In People v. Martinez, 29 the Court regarded a mere suggestion of employment abroad as a referral. Likewise, in Rodolfo v. People, 30 the Court declared as guilty the accused who admitted that she brought the private complainants to the agency.

Additionally, in People v. Agustin, 31 the Court deemed the act of the accused in introducing the private complainant to the placement agency as a referral. In Agustin, the Court stressed that "there is illegal recruitment when one gives the impression of having the ability to send a worker abroad." 32 Undoubtedly, by actively facilitating the recruitment and deployment of Jocelyn, Gloria shall be held guilty of simple illegal recruitment.

Given all the foregoing facts, the Court finds no reason to deviate from the findings and conclusions of the trial and appellate courts.

In fine, the primary purpose of R.A. No. 8042 is to ensure that the "dignity and fundamental human rights and freedoms of the Filipino citizens shall not, at any time, be compromised or violated." 33 The dire situation experienced by Jocelyn is precisely what the lawmakers intended to guard against. Jocelyn was victimized by non-licensee holders Gloria and Jaydee Ann. She was promised employment as a cook in Dubai. Seeking to obtain a better life abroad, she accepted the offer, only to be deceived thereafter. Contrary to what was promised her, she was employed as a household servant, who was saddled with hard work, slept for three hours a day, and had nothing to eat but burnt rice. 34 These are the pernicious and deplorable conditions that may have been avoided, through legitimate recruitment and placement from licensed agencies.

The Proper Penalty

It must be noted at the outset that the Information filed against Gloria charged her of conspiring with Jaydee Ann in recruiting Jocelyn for employment abroad, without securing the necessary license from the POEA, contrary to Section 6 (m) of R.A. No. 8042. ETHIDa

A perusal of the cited Section 6 (m) would reveal that the same punishes any person (whether a licensee or non-holder of authority) who fails to reimburse expenses incurred by a worker in connection with his/her documentation and processing for purposes of deployment, when the deployment does not actually take place without the worker's fault.

Nothing in the records would support a conviction under the said Section. Nonetheless, the Information clearly and sufficiently mentions that Gloria conspired and confederated with Jaydee Ann to recruit Jocelyn without a license from the POEA. More importantly, the concurrence of these two essential elements were proven during the trial. Consequently, Gloria may be convicted of simple illegal recruitment under the said Information.

It must be remembered that an accused may be convicted on the basis of the recital of facts mentioned in the Information, despite an error in the designation of the proper offense. It is not the designation of the offense in the Information that is controlling, but the allegations therein which directly apprise the accused of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. 35 Thus, "in the event, that the appellation of the crime charged as determined by the public prosecutor, does not exactly correspond to the actual crime constituted by the criminal acts described in the information to have been committed by the accused, what controls is the description of the said criminal acts and not the technical name of the crime supplied by the public prosecutor." 36

In the instant case, there is no question that the recital of facts in the Information sufficiently charged Gloria of simple illegal recruitment.

Anent the proper penalty that must be imposed, it bears noting that the applicable law at the time of the commission of the offense was still R.A. No. 8042. Thus, although R.A. No. 10022, approved on March 8, 2010, has since introduced an amendment to the Migrant Workers' Act, by raising the imposable penalty for simple illegal recruitment, 37 the amendment does not apply herein because the illegal recruitment subject of this case was committed in November 2009, before the said amendment took effect. R.A. No. 10022 shall not be given a retroactive effect, considering that such situation will lead to the imposition of a higher penalty against the accused. This is in line with the Court's ruling in People v. Sps. Cagalingan. 38

This said, under Section 7 of R.A. No. 8042, the penalty for simple illegal recruitment is as follows:

SEC. 7. Penalties. —

(a) Any person found guilty of illegal recruitment shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of not less than six (6) years and one (1) day but not more than twelve (12) years and a fine not less than two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00) nor more than five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00).

(b) The penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of not less than five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) nor more than one million pesos (P1,000,000.00) shall be imposed if illegal recruitment constitutes economic sabotage as defined herein.

Provided, however, that the maximum penalty shall be imposed if the person illegally recruited is less than eighteen (18) years of age or committed by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority. (Emphasis Ours)

Applying the afore-quoted provision of law, the maximum penalty for simple illegal recruitment shall be imposed against Gloria, who was a non-licensee or non-holder of authority. Accordingly, a modification of the penalty imposed by the RTC is, therefore, necessary. Gloria shall be sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to twelve (12) years, as maximum. In addition, she shall be held liable to pay a fine of P500,000.00.

Finally, the Court finds that the RTC erred in ordering the reimbursement of unpaid salaries to Jocelyn. Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042, entitles the overseas worker to a full reimbursement of his placement fee, plus unpaid salaries for the unexpired portion of the employment contract, in cases of "termination of overseas employment without just, valid or authorized cause as defined by law or contract." The Court finds that such a situation warranting reimbursement of the placement fee and unpaid salaries does not obtain in the case at bar. There is nothing in the records which would show that Jocelyn was terminated without any just, valid or authorized cause. On the contrary, she voluntarily left her employment.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the Decision dated February 27, 2017, and the Resolution dated October 9, 2017, rendered by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 37516, convicting petitioner Gloria R. Gaspar of Simple Illegal Recruitment, are AFFIRMED with modification. Gloria R. Gaspar is hereby sentenced to a prison term of ten (10) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to twelve (12) years, as maximum. In addition, she is ordered to pay a fine of P500,000.00. The amount due shall earn a legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of the finality of this Resolution until the full satisfaction thereof. cSEDTC

SO ORDERED." (Carandang, J., designated as additional Member per Special Order No. 2624 dated November 28, 2018.)

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 11-26.

2. Penned by Associate Justice Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles, with Associate Justices Amy C. Lazaro-Javier (now a Member of this Court), and Florito S. Macalino, concurring; id. at 32-46.

3.Id. at 48-49.

4.Id. at 67.

5.Id. at 68.

6.Id.

7.Id. at 69.

8.Id.

9.Id.

10Id. at 33-34.

11.Id. at 34-35.

12. Rendered by Presiding Judge Rusty M. Naya; id. at 67-82.

13.Id. at 82.

14.Id. at 32-46.

15.Id. at 42.

16.Id. at 46.

17.Id. at 48.

18.Tenazas, et al. v. R. Villegas Taxi Transport, et al., 731 Phil. 217, 228 (2014), citing "J" Marketing Corp. v. Taran, 607 Phil. 414, 424-425 (2009).

19.People v. Abella, 778 Phil. 747, 756-757 (2016).

20.People v. Tolentino, 762 Phil. 592, 607 (2015).

21.Id. at 611, citing People v. Inovero, 737 Phil. 116, 126 (2014); People v. Lalli, 675 Phil. 126 (2011); People v. Abat, 661 Phil. 127 (2011).

22.People v. Sison, G.R. No. 187160, August 9, 2017, 835 SCRA 620, 635.

23.Rollo, p. 41.

24.Id. at 39.

25.Trans Action Overseas Corp. v. Sec. of Labor, 344 Phil. 125, 133 (1997).

26.Rollo, p. 43.

27.Id. at 20.

28.Id. at 40.

29. 628 Phil. 155, 165 (2010).

30. 530 Phil. 131, 138 (2006).

31. 317 Phil. 897, 907 (1995).

32.Id. at 908, citing People v. Manungas, Jr., 301 Phil. 1, 6 (1994).

33.R.A. No. 8042, Section 2 (c).

34.Rollo, p. 69.

35.People v. Banihit, 393 Phil. 465, 477 (2000).

36.Id. at 476.

37.R.A. No. 10022, Section 6 provides:

   Section 6. Section 7 of Republic Act No. 8042, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows:

   SEC. 7. Penalties. —

   (a) Any person found guilty of illegal recruitment shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of not less than twelve (12) years and one (1) day but not more than twenty (20) years and a fine of not less than One million pesos (P1,000,000.00) nor more than Two million pesos (P2,000,000.00).

38. 800 Phil. 680 (2016).