People vs Ortiz-Miyake : 115338-39 : September 16, 1997 : J. Regalado... http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/sep1997/115338_39.htm which provides a lower penalty. The Court finds the arguments of the Solicitor General meritorious and adopts his position. The Labor Code defines recruitment and placement as x x x any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers and includes referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not x x x. [25] Illegal recruitment is likewise defined and made punishable under the Labor Code, thus: Art. 38. Illegal Recruitment. (a) Any recruitment activities, including the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of this Code, to be undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of authority shall be deemed illegal and punishable under Article 39 of this Code. x x x. (b) Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall be considered an offense involving economic sabotage and shall be penalized in accordance with Article 39 hereof. x x x Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group. Art. 39. Penalties. (a) The penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) shall be imposed if Illegal Recruitment constitutes economic sabotage as defined herein; xxx (c) Any person who is neither a licensee nor a holder of authority under this Title found violating any provision thereof or its implementing rules and regulations shall, upon conviction thereof, suffer the penalty of imprisonment of not less than four (4) years nor more than eight (8) years or a fine of not less than P20,000.00 nor more than P100,000.00, or both such imprisonment and fine, at the discretion of the court. x x x [26] During the pendency of this case, Republic Act No. 8042, otherwise known as the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, was passed increasing the penalty for illegal recruitment. This new law, however, does not apply to the instant case because the offense charged herein was committed in 1992, before the effectivity of said Republic Act No. 8042. Hence, what are applicable are the aforecited Labor Code provisions. It is evident that in illegal recruitment cases, the number of persons victimized is determinative. Where illegal recruitment is committed against a lone victim, the accused may be convicted of simple illegal recruitment which is punishable with a lower penalty under Article 39(c) of the Labor Code. Corollarily, where the offense is committed against three or more persons, it is qualified to illegal recruitment in large scale which provides a higher penalty under Article 39(a) of the same Code. The position of the Solicitor General is that the conviction of appellant should be merely for the lesser offense of simple illegal recruitment. He submits that the Regional Trial Court of Makati erred in convicting appellant of illegal recruitment in large scale because the conviction was based on an earlier decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Paraaque where appellant was found guilty of estafa committed against Generillo and Del Rosario. It is argued that the Makati court could not validly adopt the facts embodied in the decision of the Paraaque court to show that illegal recruitment was committed against Generillo and Del 4 of 9 1/24/2016 11:39 PM