6/9/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Illegal recruitment is defined in Article 38 of the Labor Code, as amended as follows: "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. The Ministry of Labor and Employment or any law enforcement officer may initiate complaints under this Article. (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. 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. Article 13(b) of the same Code defines 'recruitment and placement' as: '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: Provided, that any person or entity which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement.'" In People v. de Leon,[8] we said that to prove illegal recruitment, only two elements need be shown: (1) the person charged with the crime must have undertaken recruitment activities; and (2) the said person does not have a license or authority to do so. There is no question that appellant committed large scale illegal recruitment as she recruited at least three persons, giving them the impression that she had the capability of sending them abroad. The fact that no documents evidencing the recruitment activities were presented by the prosecution only strengthens, not weakens, its case against appellant. This is because only a legitimate recruitment agency would have asked the complainants to sign employment contracts, health certifications and applications for employment. Appellant took advantage of her victims' gullibility in not knowing that the above documents were necessary for a valid overseas placement as the latter believed that all they had to do to obtain employment in Japan was to pay a certain amount to appellant and everything would be fixed. From the large amounts appellant charged, it is obvious that those were to be used, not just for plane fare, but also supposedly as placement fees. Certainly, a plane ticket to Japan will not cost P75,000.00, especially not in 1991 when these events transpired. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/34852 3/6