G.R. No. 171644: Nov. 23, 2011 DELIA D. ROMERO, P, v. PEOPLE, ROMULO PADLAN and ARTURO SIAPNO, R.

FACTS:
Sept 2000, Padlan went to P Ms Romero's(his classmate) stall to inquire about securing a job in Israel. Convinced by P's words of encouragement and inspired by the
potential salary of US$700-1,200 a month, Romulo asked P the amount of money required in order for him to be able to go to Israel. P informed him that as soon as he
could give her US$3,600.00, his papers would be immediately processed.

P contacted Mokra who instructed Romulo to attend a briefing at his (Mokra's) house in Pampanga. Padlan was able to leave for Israel on October 2000 and was able to
secure a job. Unfortunately, after two and a half months, he was caught by Israel's immigration police, detained, and then deported.
Also, R Siapno, P's nephew suffered the same fate as Padlan. Siapno, after learning what happened to Padlan checked with DOLE whether Ps Visperas and Mokra had
any license or authority to recruit employees for overseas employment.

Padlan and Siapno then filed a complaint before the NBI, and claimed for refund. An Information was filed against petitioner and Jonney Erez Mokra for the crime of
Illegal Recruitment which reads as follows:
Upon arraignment, P, with assistance of her counsel pleaded not guilty, whereas accused Mokra was and is still at-large.
RTC: found P guilty
CA: affirmed in toto RTCs decision.
P Romero filed petition with SC.; averred that
The accommodation she extended to the two cannot be considered recruitment as she merely referred the two to her sister who was working in Israel to aid them
as to how to apply for work there. So, it was her sister who communicated with them, and she has no knowledge as to the content of their communication and
agreements
There were no receipts proving the receipt of the recruitment fees
It is wrong to convict her on the basis of a mere certification received from DOLE when POEA is the agency primarily involved.

ISSUE:
(1) WON Romero is guilty of illegal recruitment despite the absence of receipts of money alleged to have been paid to her for the processing of overseas employment in
Israel -- YES

RULING: Petition denied

ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT, TWO ELEMENTS
The crime of illegal recruitment (Art 38) is committed when two elements concur, namely:
(1) the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable one to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers; and (2) he undertakes either
any activity within the meaning of "recruitment and placement" defined under Article 13 (b), or any prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor
Code.

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 nonholders of authority, shall be deemed illegal and punishable under Article 39 of this Code. The [Department] of Labor and Employment or any law
enforcement officer may initiate complaints under this Article.

No license
o A non-licensee or non-holder of authority is any person, corporation or entity which has not been issued a valid license or authority to engage in recruitment and
placement by the Secretary of Labor, or whose license or authority has been suspended, revoked or cancelled by the POEA or the Secretary Certification from
Dole/POEA
oClearly, the creation of the POEA did not divest the Secretary of Labor of his/her jurisdiction over recruitment and placement of activities.
oIn this case, the certification of DOLE is proof of one of the elements of illegal recruitment: lack of license of authority.

Recruitment activities
oArticle 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.
oCourt ruled that in illegal recruitment cases, the failure to present receipts for money that was paid in connection with the recruitment process will not affect the
strength of the evidence presented by the prosecution as long as the payment can be proved through clear and convincing testimonies of credible witnesses
oIn this case, the testimonies of the two complainants corroborated that Romeros activities can be considered recruitment:
They were convinced by Romeros encouragement and sweet words
They were promised employment in exchange of the $3,600
There were other applicants in her gown rental stall making her recruitment activity look credible.

CREATION OF POEA DID NOT DIVEST SECRETARY OF LABOR OF HIS JURISDICTION OVER RECRUITMENT AND PLACEMENT ACTIVITIES
P claims that the prosecution committed a procedural lapse in not procuring a certification from the agency primarily involved ie POEA. The said argument, however, is
flawed. A non-licensee or non-holder of authority is any person, corporation or entity which has not been issued a valid license or authority to engage in recruitment and
placement by the Secretary of Labor, or whose license or authority has been suspended, revoked or cancelled by the POEA or the Secretary. Clearly, the creation of the
POEA did not divest the Secretary of Labor of his/her jurisdiction over recruitment and placement of activities.

ACTS OF P CONSTITUTE REFERRAL UNDER ART. 13 (B) OF THE LABOR CODE

P insists that the CA was wrong in affirming the factual findings of the trial court. According to her, the accommodation extended by the P to the Rs is far from the
referral as contemplated in Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code. Nevertheless, the testimonies of the private respondents clearly establish the fact that petitioner's conduct
falls within the term recruitment as defined by law.
As testified by Padlan, P convinced him and Siapno to give her US$3,600.00 for the processing of their papers. Thus, it is apparent that P was able to
convince the private Rs to apply for work in Israel after parting with their money in exchange for the services she would render.

ABSENCE OF RECEIPTS, NOT FATAL

The Court already ruled that absence of receipts in a case for illegal recruitment is not fatal, as long as the prosecution is able to establish through credible testimonial
evidence that accused-appellant has engaged in illegal recruitment. Such case is made, not by the issuance or the signing of receipts for placement fees, but by
engagement in recruitment activities without the necessary license or authority.