4/13/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC Decision with modification. The CA maintained Rios' conviction for violation of Section 6(m) of RA 8042. However, the CA removed Rios' conviction for violation of Section 6(l) of RA 8042. The provision states: 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, contact services, promising or advertising for employment abroad, whether for profit or not, when undertaken by a non-license 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-license or nonholder, 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. xxxx (l) Failure to actually deploy without valid reasons as determined by the Department of Labor and Employment; x x x (Emphasis supplied) The CA held that under Section 6(l) of RA 8042, there must be independent evidence from the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) to establish the reason for nondeployment, such as the absence of a proper job order. The prosecution did not present any document from DOLE during trial to establish the reason for the failure to deploy the private complainants. Thus, Rios could not be held liable for violation of the said provision. On the conviction for Large Scale Illegal Recruitment under Section 6(m) of RA 8042, the CA held: In the case at bench, it is inarguable, as even admitted by accusedappellant in her confession of judgment as to the civil aspect for the estafa case, that: 1) Green Pastures is a duly licensed recruitment agency; 2) accused-appellant is the president and general manager of Green Pastures; 3) accused-appellant and co-accused Ana Espiritu received the placement fees of private complainants Liwayway Tiglao, Rico Dacillo, Eduardo Milanes, Marlone Papio, and Michael Custodio, for and in behalf of Green Pastures; and 4) Green Pastures failed to reimburse the expenses incurred by private complainants in connection with their supposed deployment abroad. Consequently, with the foregoing facts proven and admitted by accusedappellant, it is clear that Green Pastures gave the distinct impression that it had the power and ability to send private complainants abroad for work, otherwise private complainants would not have parted with their money taking note that some of them even went to the extent of borrowing money. Thus, accused-appellant, as president and general manager of Green Pastures, is liable as principal for violation of Section 6(m) of R.A. 8042. It is inconsequential whether or not the prosecution failed to show proof that private complainants parted with their money by virtue of accusedhttps://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66232 8/29