FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 120353. February 12, 1998]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FLOR N. LAUREL, accusedappellant.
DECISION
BELLOSILLO, J.:
This is an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila finding
accused-appellant Flor N. Laurel guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale penalized
under Art. 38, par. (b), in relation to Art. 39, par. (a), of the Labor Code.
From 19 October 1991 to 25 May 1992 accused-appellant Flor N. Laurel promised
employment abroad for a fee to complaining witnesses Ricardo San Felipe, Rosauro
San Felipe, Juanito Cudal and Cenen Tambongco, Jr. However, after receiving
P12,000.00 from Tambongco, Jr., P11,000.00 from each of the San Felipe brothers and
P6,000.00 from Cudal, Laurel reneged on her promises and went into hiding.
Verification with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) revealed
that Laurel was neither licensed nor authorized to recruit workers for overseas
employment.i[1] Consequently, she was haled to court and charged with large scale
illegal recruitment.
Accused Laurel did not deny the charge against her. Instead, when called to the witness
stand, she presented an affidavit of desistance by Juanito Cudal as well as several
receipts, Exhs. "2," "3," "4," "5" and "6," signed by the other private complainants
acknowledging payment by her of the amounts taken from them in "full settlement" of
her obligation.ii[2] Thus, on the basis of these documents, she moved to dismiss the
case. But the court a quo denied her motion on the ground that the elements of large
scale illegal recruitment were established beyond reasonable doubt through the
combined testimonies of the four (4) offended parties. The court a quo noted that the
affidavit of desistance as well as the receipts for payments made were prepared and
signed after the prosecution had already rested its case. Consequently, the trial judge
rendered a decision convicting the accused Flor N. Laurel and sentenced her to life
imprisonment and to pay a fine of P100,000.00 conformably with Art. 39, par. (a), of the
Labor Code. In addition, the accused was ordered to return the balance of what she had
received from each complainant.iii[3] Hence, this appeal.
As in the court below, accused-appellant does not deny the charge against her. She
contends however that she should have been convicted only of simple illegal
recruitment and not of large scale illegal recruitment.
She argues through counsel that since illegal recruitment in large scale is defined in Art.
38, par. (b), of the Labor Code immediately following the definition of illegal recruitment