committed by a syndicate, it follows that for illegal recruitment to be considered
committed in large scale it should have been committed by a syndicate. Hence, an
individual who commits an act of illegal recruitment even if it be against three (3) or
more persons cannot be charged with illegal recruitment in large scale.
The interpretation is completely erroneous. Article 38, par. (b), of the Labor Code reads:
Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall be
considered an offense involving economic sabotage x x x x
Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group
of three (3) or more persons conspiring and/or confederating with one another in
carrying out any unlawful or illegal transaction, enterprise or scheme defined
under the first paragraph hereof.
Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three
(3) or more persons individually or as a group (underscoring supplied).
The language of the law is very clear that illegal recruitment is committed in large scale
if done against three or more persons individually or as a group. The number of
offenders, whether an individual or a syndicate, is clearly not considered a factor in the
determination of its commission. The rule is well-settled that when the language of the
statute is clear, plain and free from ambiguity, there is no room for attempted
interpretation or extended court rationalization of the law.iv[4] The duty of the court is to
apply it, not to interpret it.v[5] Counsel for accused-appellant was misled by the fact that
illegal recruitment in large scale is defined immediately after illegal recruitment by a
syndicate. However, the only reason therefor is that they are both considered offenses
involving economic sabotage as the law itself so provides. Besides, we have affirmed
time and again the conviction of an individual for large scale illegal recruitment.vi[6]
As regards the alleged desistance by private complaints, we rule that although an
affidavit of desistance may be given due course even if executed only on appeal, it may
be given such credit only when special circumstances exist engendering doubt on the
criminal liability of the accused.vii[7] Otherwise, without such special circumstances,
courts look with disfavor on affidavits of retractionviii[8] considering them as exceedingly
unreliable.ix[9]
There is absolutely nothing in the affidavits of retraction executed by private
complainants which creates doubt on the guilt of accused-appellant. The complainants
merely allege that they made a mistake and "misunderstood the circumstances." x[10]
However, aside from such sweeping statement as "misunderstood the circumstances,"
no detail is given as to how their mistake or misapprehension of circumstances can
indicate absence of or at least cast doubt on the guilt of accused-appellant. On the
contrary, we have every reason to conclude that the affidavits of retraction were
executed by private complainants only because accused-appellant returned the money
taken from them as evidenced by the receipts marked as Exhs. "2," "3," "4," "5" and
"6."xi[11] As complainant Ricardo San Felipe testified in court: "I will withdraw, if the