People vs Tan Tiong Meng

FACTS:
Six(6) complainants went to Borja’s house to meet accused, Tan Tiong Meng,
allegedly a job recruiter . Accused promised to complainants that they could get jobs as
factory worker in Taiwan with a monthly salary of P20K. Accused required them to submit
their passports, bio-data and their high school diploma as well as to pay P15K each for
placement and processing fees. Accused kept on promising to complainants that they
would be able to leave, but the promises were never fulfilled. When complainants knew
that accused was not a licensed or authorized overseas recruiter, they filed for
complaints for illegal recruitment and estafa against accused.
Accused contend that he merely acted as a collector of money for the principal
recruiter Borja who made the representations that he(accused) could give the applicants
jobs in Taiwan.

ISSUE: WON accused is guilty of the offense of illegal recruitment in large scale and
6 counts of estafa.

HELD: YES.
Circumstances belie the version of accused: (1) Mascardo(one of the complainants)
testified that accused could no longer return the money because he had already sent it
to his brother-in-law in Taiwan; (2) all the receipts issued to complainants were signed by
accused; (3) Accused admitted that he and his wife are respondents in about 70 cases of
estafa and illegal recruitment; (4) complainants pointed to Tan and not Borja as the one
who had represented to them that he could give them jobs in Taiwan.
The accused’ acts of accepting placement fees from job applicants and
representing to said applicants that he could get them jobs in Taiwan constitute
recruitment and placement under the Labor Code and is deemed illegal and punishable
under Art. 39 of the Labor Code.
The offense committed against the 6 complainants is illegal recruitment in large
scale. Accused is also guilty of 6 separate crimes of estafa. A person convicted for illegal
recruitment under the Labor Code can be convicted for violation of the RPC provisions on
estafa provided the elements are present: (1) the accused defrauded another by abuse
of confidence or by means of deceit; and (2) damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary
estimation is caused to the offended party or third person.
People vs Linda Sagaydo

FACTS:
The accused went to Gina’s(one of the complainants) house and encourage her to
work as factory worker in Korea. Gina asked if accused was a licensed recruiter, and
accused answered in the affirmative. Accused told Gina that she could not have the
latters travel papers and passport processed unless she gave an advance payment of
P15K. Gina handed P15K to the accused who assured Gina that she was leaving for Korea
on Jan 6 1992, provided Gina paid her remaining balance of P30K. Accused told Gina
that her flight would be postponed. 3 months later, Gina demanded from accused the
return of P15K advance payment she had given her, but accused just answered that she
would process her papers. 7 months later, Gina asked again from the accused, but to no
avail. Gina inquired to POEA, which issued a certification that accused was not licensed
nor authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment.
Other complainants(Tibeb, Pita, Bolinao) all residents of La Union, handed P39K,
P40K, P35K respectively, assuring them that they would be able to work as a factory
worker in Korea. They found out from the POEA that accused was not a licensed nor
authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment.
Accused alleged that she only processed the travel documents of the private
complainants as tourists, and that no recruitment for employment abroad took place.

ISSUE: WON accused is guilty of illegal recruitment and estafa.

HELD: YES.
Elements of illegal recruitment committed in large scale are present: (1) engaged
in the recruitment and placement of workers defined under Art. 13 or in any of the
prohibited activities under Art. 34 of the Labor Code; (2) does not have a license or
authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placements of workers; and (3)
committed the infraction against 3 or more persons, individually or as a group.

Accused made a promise of employment which amounted to recruitment as

defined under Art. 13(b) of the Labor code. Accused engaged in illegal recruitment
against 4 persons named above.
A person convicted of illegal recruitment may also, in addition, be convicted of
estafa under Art. 315(2)(a) of the RPC. There is no double jeopardy because illegal
recruitment and estafa are distinct offenses. Illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum, in
which criminal intent is not necessary, whereas estafa malum in se in which criminal
intent is necessary. In the case at bar, complainants parted with their money upon the
prodding and enticement of accused on the false pretense that she had the capacity to
deploy the for employment aborad.
 The fact that private complainants Tibeb and Bolinao failed to produce receipts as
proof of their payment to accused does not free the latter from liability. The absence of
receipts cannot defeat a criminal prosecution for illegal recruitment. As long as the
witnesses can positively show through their respective testimonies that the accused is
the one involved in prohibited recruitment, he may be convicted of the offense despite
the absence of receipts.