2.

G.R. No. 197049 June 10, 2013

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plainti!"##ellee $%. &"RI" JENN' RE" ( G)E*"RR"
an+ ESTRELLIT" TEN,ENILL", "--u%e+!"##ellant%
F".TS/ In the Information before the RTC, appellants and Ginette Azul (Azul) were charged
with illegal recruitment (large scale). Appellants were arrested while Azul remained at large.
Azul owns on !elt Tra"el Agenc# located in $uezon Cit#, while Tendenilla owns
Charles isa Consultanc# in Intramuros, %anila. Rea is Tendenilla&s emplo#ee and bab#sitter.
The t0ial -ou0t found that all elements of illegal recruitment in large scale were
established through the testimonies of the pri"ate complainants and that appellants conspired to
commit the crime.
The .ou0t o "##eal% affirmed the trial court's decision.
"##ellant% essentiall# argue that the prosecution has failed to establish their guilt
be#ond reasonable doubt. Appellants claim that their supposed criminal liabilit# is attributed to
their mere presence in Thailand at the time when the pri"ate complainants were also there.
The# assert that it was Azul, based on the testimonies of the pri"ate complainants, who
promised emplo#ment abroad and who recei"ed pa#ment from them. Rea a"ers that deli"ering
a "oucher, meeting people at the airport and sleeping in the house of Tendenilla can hardl#
(ualif# as recruitment acti"ities.
ISS)E/ !hether appellants are guilt# of Illegal Recruitment in large scale.
HEL,/ 'ES. As culled from the testimonies of the pri"ate complainants, it was established that
first, the# all met Tendenilla through Azul) second, Tendenilla personall#, or through Azul,
assured them that she has the power and capacit# to deplo# wor*ers to +ondon) third, the# also
paid Tendenilla, directl# or through Azul, placement fees in the amounts ranging
from ,-..,...... to ,/..,...... each) fourth, the# were sent first to Thailand while waiting for
the processing of their wor*ing "isas to +ondon) fifth, the# tra"elled to ,enang, %ala#sia to
obtain a non0immigrant Thailand "isa to "alidate their sta# in Thailand) and si1th, the# were
arrested and deported bac* to the ,hilippines b# the Thailand immigration office.
Conspirac# ma# be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was
perpetrated) or from the acts of the accused e"incing a 2oint or common purpose and design,
concerted action and communit# of interest.
In the case at bar, it cannot be doubted that both accused0appellants indispensabl#
cooperated and coordinated in illegall# recruiting the pri"ate complainants. 3rom the e"idence, it
can be seen that the success of the scheme depended on accused0appellants& 2oint efforts.
4strellita Tendenilla directl# dealt with the pri"ate complainants, promising them emplo#ment,
demanding mone# from them, conducting dubious trainings, and sending them to Thailand.
%aria 5enn# Rea, on the other hand, co"ered the ne1t phase of the process, that is, tra"elling
with the pri"ate complainants to Thailand, bringing them to the border of Thailand and %ala#sia,
securing their fraudulent non0immigrant "isas, and accompan#ing them bac* to the ,hilippines.
6ased on the foregoing, appellants were correctl# found guilt# of large scale illegal
recruitment tantamount to economic sabotage. 7nder 8ection 9(b) of Republic Act :o. ;.</,
the penalt# of life imprisonment and a fine of not less than,=..,...... nor more
than ,-,...,...... shall be imposed if illegal recruitment constitutes economic sabotage. Thus,
the trial court, as affirmed b# the appellate court, is correct in imposing the penalt# of life
imprisonment and a fine of ,=..,...... for each of the appellants.