1. In Crim. Case No. Q-00-94240, the prosecution having established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the Court finds Florencio O.
Gasacao GUILTY of Large Scale Illegal Recruitment punishable under Section 7, (b) of R.A. 8042. He is sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and
a fine of P500,000.00. He shall also indemnify Dennis C. Cabangahan in the amount of P8,750.00; Lindy M. Villamor for P20,000.00; Victorino U.
Caderao for P20,000.00; Rommel B. Patolen for P20,000.00; and Erencio C. Alaba for P20,000.00. Complainants Louie A. Arca and Joseph A.
Demetria did not testify.
2. In Crim. Case No. Q-00-94241, complainants Melvin I. Yadao, Frederick Calambro and Andy Bandiola did not testify. Moreover, the Court believes
all these complainants should have been grouped in just one (1) information. Hence, for failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt, the Court finds Florencio O. Gasacao NOT GUILTY of the offense charged.
SO ORDERED.5
Conformably with our pronouncement in People v. Mateo,6 which modified pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court insofar as they provide for direct
appeals from the RTC to the Supreme Court in cases where the penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, as in this case, as
well as this Court’s Resolution dated September 19, 1995, we resolved on February 2, 2005 to transfer the case to the Court of Appeals for appropriate
action and disposition.7
On May 18, 2005, the Court of Appeals promulgated the assailed Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. The appealed Joint Decision dated March 5, 2001 of
the trial court in Criminal Case No. Q-00-94240 is hereby AFFIRMED and UPHELD.
With costs against the accused-appellant.
SO ORDERED.8
Hence, this appeal.
The core issue for resolution is whether error attended the trial court’s findings, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, that appellant was guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of large scale illegal recruitment.
RA No. 8042 defines illegal recruitment as follows:
II. ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT
Sec. 6. DEFINITIONS. – For purposes of this Act, illegal recruitment shall mean any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing,
hiring, 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 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
persons, whether a non-licensee, non-holder, licensee or holder of authority.
(a) To charge or accept directly or indirectly any amount greater than the specified in the schedule of allowable fees prescribed by the Secretary of
Labor and Employment, or to make a worker pay any amount greater than that actually received by him as a loan or advance;
....
(l) Failure to actually deploy without valid reason as determined by the Department of Labor and Employment; and
(m) Failure to reimburse expenses incurred by the workers in connection with his documentation and processing for purposes of deployment, in cases
where the deployment does not actually take place without the worker's fault. Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall
be considered as offense involving economic sabotage.
Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring or confederating with one
another. It is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group.
A license is a document issued by the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) authorizing a person or entity to operate a private employment
agency, while an authority is a document issued by the DOLE authorizing a person or association to engage in recruitment and placement activities as
a private recruitment entity. However, it appears that even licensees or holders of authority can be held liable for illegal recruitment should they commit
any of the above-enumerated acts.
Thus, it is inconsequential that appellant committed large scale illegal recruitment while Great Eastern Shipping Agency, Inc. was holding a valid
authority. We thus find that the court below committed no reversible error in not appreciating that the manning agency was a holder of a valid authority
when appellant recruited the private complainants.