4/13/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Section 6(m) of RA 8042 criminalizes the failure to reimburse documentation and processing expenses incurred by the applicant in case of non-deployment, and not the failure to deploy, which is covered by a different provision. The law thus makes it incumbent upon recruitment agencies, under pain of criminal sanction, to promptly reimburse applicants when they are not deployed without their fault, as it is the agency itself that knows of the schedule of deployment, persons to be deployed, failure to deploy, and the reasons therefor. In People v. Molina,[43] the Court convicted the president of the recruitment agency under Section 6(m) of RA 8042. The Court held: Moreover, Section 6, paragraph (m) of R.A. No. 8042 provides that in case of juridical persons, the officers having control, management or direction of their business shall be liable. Accused-appellant, as President of the recruitment agency, is therefore liable for illegal recruitment in large scale for failure to reimburse the expenses incurred by private complainants in connection with their documentation and processing for purposes of deployment to South Korea, which did not actually take place without their fault under Section 6, paragraph (m) of R.A. No. 8042.[44] As president and general manager of Green Pastures, Rios had control, management, and direction of the business. She knew, or ought to have known, of the failure to deploy the applicants without their fault and the need to reimburse their documentation and placement fees. Despite this, Rios and Green Pastures did not reimburse the applicants, prompting the latter to file the present cases. While partial reimbursements were made to Tigalo, Dacillo, Milanes, Papio and Custodio, the reimbursements were made only after the case had been filed in court. There was thus no genuine effort on the part of Green Pastures and Rios to comply with the law and immediately reimburse the complainants for all their documentation and processing expenses after they were not deployed for work abroad. Thus, the Court affirms Rios' conviction for Illegal Recruitment committed under Section 6(m) of RA 8042, against complainants Tiglao, Dacillo, Milanes, Papio and Custodio. As the offense was committed against three or more persons, the Court also affirms that the same was committed in Large Scale. As to the lack of receipts, the Court previously ruled in People v. Alvarez:[45] In illegal recruitment, mere failure of the complainant to present written receipts for money paid for acts constituting recruitment activities is not fatal to the prosecution, provided the payment can be proved by clear and convincing testimonies of credible witnesses.[46] Thus, the lack of official receipts is not fatal to prove the existence of Illegal Recruitment as long as there is testimony from convincing and credible witnesses, as in this case. Notably, the duty to issue official receipts is on the recruitment agency and the recruiter's failure to issue receipts should not be taken against the applicants or claimants. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66232 21/29