This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-03-10 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Thus for illegal recruitment in large scale to prosper, the prosecution has to prove three essential elements, to wit: (1) the accused undertook a recruitment activity under Article 13(b) or any prohibited practice under Article 34 of the Labor Code; (2) the accused did not have the license or the authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers; and (3) the accused committed such illegal activity against three or more persons individually or as a group.[9] | |||||
|
2009-04-07 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| To prove illegal recruitment in large scale, the prosecution must prove three essential elements, to wit: (1) the person charged undertook a recruitment activity under Article 13(b) or any prohibited practice under Article 34 of the Labor Code; (2) he/she did not have the license or the authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers; and (3) he/she committed the prohibited practice against three or more persons individually or as a group.[7] | |||||
|
2008-12-10 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Appellant cannot escape liability by claiming that she was not aware that before working for her employer in the recruitment agency, she should first be registered with the POEA. Illegal recruitment in large scale is malum prohibitum, not malum in se. Good faith is not a defense.[7] The claim of accused-appellant that she received no payment and that the payments were handed directly over to her co-accused fails in the face of the testimony of the complainants that accused-appellant was the one who received the money. In spite of the receipts having been issued by her co-accused, the trial court found that payments were directly made to accused-appellant, and this finding was upheld by the CA. Nothing is more entrenched than the rule that where, as here, the findings of fact of the trial court are affirmed by the CA, these are final and conclusive upon this Court.[8] And even if it were true that no money changed hands, money is not material to a prosecution for illegal recruitment, as the definition of "recruitment and placement" in the Labor Code includes the phrase, "whether for profit or not." We held in People v. Jamilosa that it was "sufficient that the accused promises or offers for a fee employment to warrant conviction for illegal recruitment."[9] Accused-appellant made representations that complainants would receive employment abroad, and this suffices for her conviction, even if her name does not appear on the receipts issued to complainants as evidence that payment was made. | |||||