People v Jamilosa

G.R. No. 169076, January 27, 2007

Facts:

Sometime in the months of January to February1996, representing to have the capacity, authority
or license to contract, enlist and deploy or transport workers for overseas employment, Joseph
Jamilosa did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and criminally recruit, contract and promise to
deploy, for a fee the complainants Imelda D. Bamba, Geraldine M. Lagman and Alma E. Singh,
for work or employment in Los Angeles, California, U.S.A. in Nursing Home and Care Center.

According to Imelda Bamba, sometime in January 1996, she met the Jamilosa on a bus. She was
on her way to SM North Edsa where she was a company nurse. Jamilosa introduced himself as a
recruiter of workers for employment abroad. He also presented himself as an FBI agent on an
official mission for a month in the Philippines and that he has connections in the US Embassy. The
appellant told her that his sister is a head nurse in a nursing home in Los Angeles, California, USA
and he could help her get employed as a nurse. Days after, Jamilosa fetched her at her office, went
to her house and gave him the necessary documents and handed to him the amount of US$300.00
supposedly intended for the US Consul and the latter showed her a photocopy of her supposed US
visa. However, the appellant did not issue a receipt for the said money. Thereafter, appellant told
her to resign from her work because she was booked with Northwest Airlines and to leave for USA
a month after. On the scheduled departure, Jamilosa failed to show up. He instead called and
informed her and some other recruits that he failed to give their passports and US visas for the
reason that he had to go to the province because his wife died. They tried to contact him in any
way but to no avail. They also inquired from the US embassy and found out that there was no such
person connected with the said office.

Geraldine Lagman testified that she is a registered nurse. Lagman and Bamba are cousins. Lagman
visited Bamba at SM North Edsa. Bamba then informed her that she was going to meet Jamilosa.
Bamba invited Lagman to go with her. Jamilosa convinced them of his ability to send them abroad.
On their next meeting, Lagman handed to the latter the necessary documents and an amount of
US$300.00 without any receipt issued by the appellant out of trust and after the appellant promised
her that he would issue the necessary receipt later. Four days after their meeting, a telephone
company called her because her number was appearing in the appellant’s cellphone documents.
The caller is trying to locate him as he was a swindler. She became suspicious and told Bamba
about the matter. One week before her scheduled flight, appellant told her he could not meet them
because his mother passed away.

Lastly, Alma Singh, who is also a registered nurse, declared that she first met the appellant at SM
North Edsa when Imelda Bamba introduced him to her. Appellant told her that he is an undercover
agent of FBI and he could fix her US visa. On their next meeting, she gave all the pertinent
documents and the amount of US$300.00. When she asked for a receipt, the appellant assured her
that there is no need for one because she was being directly hired as a nurse in the US. Appellant
asked Singh for P10,000 to cover half the price of her plane ticket, however, she did not meet him
the following day. She instead inquired first to Bamba if she had given the appellant the same
amount and found out that she didn’t. They paged the appellant through his beeper to set up another
appointment but the appellant avoided them as he had many things to do.

Jamilosa testified on direct examination that he never told Bamba that he could get her a job in
USA, the truth being that she wanted to leave SM as company nurse because she was having a
problem thereat. Bamba called him several times, seeking advices from him. He started courting
Bamba and went out dating until later became his girlfriend. He met Lagman and Singh thru
Bamba. As complainants seeking advice on how to apply for jobs abroad, lest he be charged as a
recruiter, he made Bamba, Lagman and Singh sign separate certifications, all to effect that he never
recruited them and no money was involved. Bamba filed an illegal recruitment case against him
because they quarreled and separated.

RTC rendered judgment finding accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal recruitment in
large scale.

The CA rendered judgment affirming the decision of the RTC.

Issue:

Whether or not Joseph Jamilosa is guilty of the crime illegal recruitment in large scale.

Held:

YES, Joseph Jamilosa is guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale.

Article 13(b) of the Labor Code of the Philippines defines recruitment and placement as 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. Provided, that any person or entity which, in any manner, offers or
promises for a fee employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment
and placement.

Section 6 of R.A. No. 8042 defined illegal recruitment as 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.

Any recruitment activities to be undertaken by non-licensee or non-holder of contracts shall be

deemed illegal and punishable under Article 39 of the Labor Code of the Philippines. Illegal
recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons
individually or as a group.
There are three (3) essential elements to prove illegal recruitment in large scale:

(1) the person charged undertook a recruitment activity under Article 13(b) or any prohibited
practice under Article 34 of the Labor Code;

(2) accused did not have the license or the authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and
placement of workers; and

(3) accused committed the same against three or more persons individually or as a group.

The prosecution produced enough evidence and showed that the three elements are present to prove
the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt for the crime charged.

The courts find the testimonies of the complaining witnesses to be credible and deserving of full
probative weight. The failure of the prosecution to adduce in evidence any receipt or document
signed by appellant where he acknowledged to have received money and liquor does not free him
from criminal liability. Even in the absence of money or other valuables given as consideration for
the “services” of appellant, the latter is considered as being engaged in recruitment activities.
According to Article 13(b) of the Labor Code, the act of recruitment may be for profit or not. It is
sufficient that the accused promises or offers for a fee employment to warrant conviction for illegal
recruitment.