2.
6 ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT
Elements of Crime
PEOPLE V. EVANGELINE ORDONO
G.R. NO. 129593 143533-35
FACTS:
This is an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 25, Tagudin, Ilocos
Sur,finding the accused-appellant Evangeline P. Ordono guilty of: (1) two counts of
illegalrecruitment and sentencing her to suffer for each count the penalty of life imprisonment
and afine of P100,000.00; and, (2) two counts of estafa for which she was sentenced to suffer:
(a) inCriminal Case No. 450-T, six (6) years and one (1) day to ten (10) years and one (1) day
of prision mayor and to indemnify the offended party Jerry Lozano in the total amount of
P48,500.00 and to pay him P40,000.00 in moral damages; and, (b) in Criminal Case No. 451-
T,ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor to fourteen (14) years and one (1) day of
reclusion temporal and to indemnify the offended party Presenio Lorena in the total amount of
P65,000.00.chanrobles virtual law library In Criminal Case Nos. 448-T and 449-T (for illegal
recruitment), the informations, save for thenames of the complainants and the amounts
involved, allegedThat on or about the month of December 1992, in the municipality of Tagudin,
province of Ilocos Sur, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-namedaccused did then and there wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, in violation of
and in disregardof the provisions of the Labor Code of the Philippines, rules and regulations,
engage in therecruitment and placement of workers by then and there offering and undertaking
to secureoverseas employment for [name], particularly in Korea, without the requisite authority
or license from the Department of Labor and Employment, charging, collecting and receiving
fee inthe amount of [amount]
ISSUE:
Accused was convicted of 2 counts of illegal recruitment and 2 counts of estafa.
HELD:
To be convicted for illegal recruitment, 2 elements must concur: (1) the offender has no
validlicense 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”. The 2 elements were proven. The testimonies of
complainantcorroborated each other and were buttressed by other prosecution witnesses. The
elements of estafa are: (1) the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means
of deceit; and(2) damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused by offended
party. These were also established in the case.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE VS LETICIA SAGAYAGA,
ET.AL., ACCUSED,
423 SCRA 468. FEBRUARY 23, 2004.
FACTS:
The appellant Leticia Sagayaga was accused of Large scale illegal recruitment and was
sentenced with life imprisonment by the Regional Trial Court. Other accused remained at large.
Complainants Elmer Janer, Eric Farol and Elmer Ramos went to Alvis Placement Service
Corporation on various and separate dates to apply for overseas employment as factory workers
in Taiwan. All three complied with the needed documents and paid placement fees in the
amount of Php 75,000.00 to appellant, Php 75,000.00 to appellant, and Php 70,000.00 partly to
Vicente So Han Yan and herein appellant, respectively. After failure of the committed dates of
their departure to be fulfilled, all of them demanded from the appellant for a refund of their
placement fees. A Promissory note was given to Janer by herein appellant who in the note
designated herself as the Assistant General Manager of the placement agency, for a promised
refund of the placement fee but the same was not again fulfilled, prompting the former to file
charges against the accused. Farol and Ramos however were reimbursed with Php 11,000.00
and Php 5,000.00 respectively and were provided with checks for the payment of the balance
but the payment was not materialized as the checks bounced due to the closure of the account
used in the check. All three filed a complaint before the Philippine Overseas Employment
Agency against the appellant and all the foregoing accused-at-large.
Sagayaga contested the allegations stating that as the Treasurer of the Corporation, her work
was limited to handling fees and depositing the same to the bank under the account of the
corporation only. The spouses So were the ones with effective and actual control of the business
transactions of the agency. Moreover, she signed as the Assistant General Manager for the
corporation as allegedly, through the instructions of the spouses. The checks and notes were
never paid according to her because the accused-spouses disappeared and left. The trial court
however ruled for the conviction of the appellant of the crime charged beyond reasonable
doubt, for illegal recruitment in large scale.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Appellant committed acts of illegal recruitment in large scale.
HELD:
Yes. The appellant committed acts of illegal recruitment in large scale. Under R.A. 8042, illegal
recruitment may be committed by any person, whether a non-licensee, non-holder of authority,
licensee or holder of authority if they act as principals, accomplices and accessories in the crime
committed. Since appellant, as shown by the records of the POEA acted as the Vice-President
Treasurer and Assistant General Manager of the corporation, these positions invest on the
incumbent the authority to manage, control and direct the corporate affairs. She then becomes
a Principal by direct participation, having dealt directly with the complainants. To relieve an
accuse of criminal liability under R.A. 8042, a full reimbursement of the documentation and
processing of an applicant’s deployment must be had. However, the same was not satisfied by
any of the accused in all three cases, for no full reimbursement was made. Under R.A. 8042,
one commits acts of illegal recruitment in large scale if the offense involved economic sabotage
being committed against three (3) or more persons either individually or as a group. Appellant
was therefore guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale.
G.R. No. 150530, February 20, 2003
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ALEX BAYTIC,
ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
FACTS:
ALEX BAYTIC appeals from the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City[1]
finding him guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale and sentencing him to life imprisonment
and to pay a fine of P500,000.00. Accused is further ordered to reimburse complaining
witnesses Ofelia Bongbonga, Millie Passi and Nolie Bongbonga P3,500.00, P4,000.00 and
P4,000.00, respectively, representing the amounts fraudulently taken from them.
According to private complainant Ofelia Bongbonga, accused Baytic promised her and her two
(2) co-applicants an interview by his cousin, a doctor from Italy, on 7 October 1998 at the
Corinthian Gardens. However, on the appointed date of their interview, the accused failed to
appear. Ofelia, Millie and Nolie frantically searched for him but he was nowhere to be found.
Ofelia further testified that sometime in January 1999 they heard over the radio that accused
Baytic was arrested in Pasig City for illegal recruitment activities. Upon inquiry from the radio
station, she learned that the accused was already detained at the Pasig Provincial Jail, so she
followed him there. Thereafter, she and her two (2) other companions, Millie and Nolie, who
were likewise victimized by the accused filed the instant case against him.
Like the two (2) other complainants, Nolie Bongbonga averred that the accused through
misrepresentations persuaded her to give him P4,000.00 for the processing of certain travel
documents. As proof thereof she presented a receipt dated 5 October 1998 purportedly signed
and issued by the accused.
Accused Alex Baytic, testifying in his defense, not only denied the accusations against him but
also insisted that it was actually Kennedy Hapones, a new acquaintance, who was the illegal
recruiter. He was suspected of being in cahoots with Hapones because whenever the latter and
the applicants talked, Hapones would always point at him, although he never had the
opportunity to know what Hapones had actually said to them.
But the trial court sustained the complaining witnesses and gave more credence to their
straightforward and consistent testimonies.
Accused-appellant now prays that the Court to take a second hard look at his conviction in view
of the alleged failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He takes
exception to the finding of the trial court that all the elements of the crime of illegal recruitment
in large scale are present. He argues that the first element, i.e., the accused engages in the
recruitment and placement of workers, defined under Art. 13, or in any prohibited activities
under Art. 34, of the Labor Code, is not present because he did not solicit any money from the
complainants nor did he promise them employment in Italy. The truth of the matter, according
to him, is that he himself was victimized by Kennedy Hapones, the real illegal recruiter. He
explained that when Hapones could not be contacted, the complainants vented their anger
towards him, being Hapones constant companion.
Such being the case, accused-appellant insists that the second element, which is the absence of
license or authority to recruit, could not have been present because there was in fact no need
for him to apply for the license as he was not in the recruitment business.

ISSUE:
Whether it not the elements of the crime Illegal Recruitment is present in this case?
HELD:
We are not impressed. Illegal recruitment is committed when two (2) elements concur. First,
the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable one to engage lawfully
in recruitment and placement of workers. Second, he or she undertakes either any activity
within the meaning of recruitment and placement defined under Art. 13, par. (b), or any
prohibited practices enumerated under Art. 34 of the Labor Code. In case of illegal recruitment
in large scale, a third element is added: that the accused commits the acts against three or more
persons, individually or as a group.[4]
The first element is present. POEA representative Flordeliza Cabusao presented in evidence a
certification from one Hermogenes Mateo, Director III, Licensing Branch, showing that
accused-appellant was neither licensed nor authorized to recruit workers for overseas
employment.
The second element is likewise present. Accused-appellant is deemed engaged in recruitment
and placement under Art. 13, par. (b), of the Labor Code when he made representations to each
of the complainants that he could send them to Italy for employment as utility personnel.
Prosecution witness Ofelia Bongbonga categorically stated that accused-appellant promised
her employment for a fee, a testimony corroborated by both complaining witnesses Nolie
Bongbonga and Millie Passi. His promises and misrepresentations gave the complainants the
distinct impression that he had the authority to engage in recruitment, thus enabling him to
collect from them various amounts for recruitment and placement fees without license or
authority to do so.
His denials cannot prevail over the positive declaration of the prosecution witnesses. Accused-
appellant's unsubstantiated denials cannot be given greater evidentiary value over the testimony
of credible witnesses who testified on affirmative matters. There is therefore no discernible
reason to disturb the findings of the trial court, which is in the best position to assess the
witnesses' credibility and to appreciate complainants' candor and truthfulness.
Accused-appellant recruited at least three (3) persons, giving them the impression that he had
the authority to deploy people abroad. As such, his crime of economic sabotage can be
categorized as illegal recruitment in large scale punishable by life imprisonment and a fine of
P100,000.00, now increased to a minimum of P500,000.00 by virtue of Rep. Act No. 8042,
also known as the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995."
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision finding accused-appellant ALEX BAYTIC guilty of
illegal recruitment in large scale, sentencing him to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of
P500,000.00 as well as reimburse complainants Ofelia Bongbonga, Millie Passi, and Nolie
Bongbonga the amounts of P3,500.00, P4,000.00 and P4,000.00, respectively, is AFFIRMED.
Costs against accused-appellant.
Large Scale
PEOPLE VS. BULI-E, 404 SCRA 105,
G.R. NO. 123146 JUNE 17, 2003
FACTS:
The complainants, upon learning that she was recruiting workers for overseas employment,
went to the house of appellant Alona Buli-e in Baguio City. Buli-e then confirmed that she was,
in fact recruiting contract workers for Taiwan and that although she did not have a license of
her own to recruit, her boss, the spouses Jose and Josefa Alolino, who was a licensed recruiter,
was in the process of getting her one which would soon be issued.
Upon this representation, the complainants gave placement fees and other requirements to Buli-
e. Buli-e even accompanied the complainants for their medical check-up in Manila. During
their medical check-ups, complainants were able to talk to the spouses Alolino who assured
them that they were licensed to recruit overseas contract workers and that they can deploy
workers within two to three months.
After months of waiting and despite compliance with all the requirements, complainants were
not deployed abroad as promised prompting them to check with the POEA office in Baguio
City if the appellants were licensed to recruit overseas contract workers. Upon learning that
Buli-e and the spouses Alolino had no license to recruit in any part of the Cordillera
Administrative Region, the complainant filed their complaint with the POEA-CAR and the
Prosecutor’s Office.
The RTC found Buli-e and the spouses Alolino guilty of large scale illegal recruitment and
estafa. The Court of Appeals affirmed the same.
ISSUES:
Whether there was conspiracy between Buli-e and spouses Alolino in the commission of the
crimes of large scale illegal recruitment and estafa.
HELD:
Yes. A conspiracy may be inferred even though no actual meeting between or among them to
coordinate ways and means is proved. Settled is the rule that if it is proved that two or more
persons, aimed, by their acts, at the accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each doing a
part so that their acts, although apparently independent, were in fact connected and cooperative,
indicating a closeness of personal association and a concurrence of sentiment, a conspiracy
may be inferred even though no actual meeting between or among them to coordinate ways and
means is proved.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. ROSE DUJUA, ET.AL., ACCUSED,
422 SCRA 169. FEBRUARY 5, 2004.
FACTS:
Ramon Dujua, together with his mother Rose Dujua, aunt Editha Singh and uncle Guillermo
Willy Samson were charged with Illegal recruitment in large scale and with separate counts of
estafa.
An information alleged herein respondents of illegal recruitment in large scale after promising
the recruited complainants of an overseas employment without having first to secure the
required license and authority to recruit from the Department of Labor as required by law. Two
other complainants namely, Roberto Perlas and Jaime Cabus, also charged the respondents with
Estafa along with the aforementioned case. Four of those who filed the Information however
were the ones who only testified.
Beldon Caluten was promised for a work at Japan and he then complied with the placement
fee, with issued receipts by Rose Dujua except for the last payment. The promised work was
never materialized so he asked for a refund from Ramon but this was not given, which prompted
the former to file charges in the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). Jaime Cabus was
promised an overseas work at Taiwan. At the airport, they were prevented from leaving by
Ramon after telling that their tickets were still being processed. Jaime felt that the flight would
not push through and asked for the reimbursement of the previous payment but the same was
never done so by the accused, thus, prompting him to file a case before the NBI. Roberto Perlas
having also been convinced, paid a placement fee of a total sum of Php 30,000.00 for a
promised work at Taiwan. The employment was also not materialized and no refund was given
to him, thus prompting him to file a complaint against the accused. The same went for Romulo
Partos who was later replaced by his wife and paid Php 25,000.00 and Php 50,000.00
respectively, for a promised work at Japan. The work was likewise never materialized and no
refund was made thus, the complaint was filed. During arraignment, the POEA issued a
Certification showing that neither Ramon Dujua nor even the World Pack Travel and Tours is
duly authorized and licensed to recruit workers abroad. Ramon Dujua admitted that he met the
complainants but denied that he recruited the same for he worked at the company only as a
janitor, messenger and an errand boy. He alleged that it was his aunt Editha Singh who owns
the company and his mother, Rose Dujua who managed the same and that he was charged only
because the complainants were angry at his mother. The RTC rendered its decision convicting
Ramon Dujua of illegal recruitment and oof two (2) counts of estafa. His mother, aunt and
uncle who remained at large were also charged with the offense and their case was archived.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused-appellant committed acts of illegal recruitment in large scale.
HELD:
Yes. Ramon Dujua committed acts of illegal recruitment in large scale. The essential elements
of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale are: (1) the accused engages in acts of
recruitment and placement of workers defined under Article 13 (b) or in any prohibited
activities under Art. 34 of the Labor Code; (2) the accused has not complied with the guidelines
issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment, particularly with respect to the securing of
a license or an authority to recruit and deploy workers, either locally or overseas; and (3) the
accused commits the unlawful acts against three or more persons, individually or as a group.
All three elements have been established beyond reasonable doubt.
First, the testimonies of the complaining witnesses were categorical, firm and positive in
identifying the appellant as the person who recruited them for employment abroad. The
appellant’s mere denials cannot prevail. Second, the appellant did not have any license or
authority to recruit persons for overseas work as evidenced by the Certification by the POEA.
Third, Romulo Partos was included as one of the complainants as evidence reveals that he was
also recruited and thereafter was replaced by his wife. Thus, it reveals that Ramon Dujua has
been alleged and has been proven to have undertaken the recruitment of three persons, namely,
Cabus, Caluten and Partos. Moreover, the elements of Estafa are also present thus, it is rightful
that herein appellant must also be charged with estafa with the corresponding penalties.
Referrals
PEOPLE VS MERIS
GR NO. 11745-7447, MARCH 28, 2000
FACTS:
Accused-appellant was charged and convicted of illegal recruitment in large scale and estafa.
She contends that her conviction was erroneous because the court never acquired jurisdiction
over her person, as her arrest was illegal, and that the prosecution failed to establish estafa.
ISSUE:
WON Accused-appellant is guilty of illegal recruitment
HELD:
YES. Accused-appellant’s contention that she was a mere applicant and eventually a victim
like complainants holds no water. Note should be made of the fact that throughout the trial of
the case, no mention was made that accused-appellant exerted any effort to seek a refund for
her money nor did she file a case against Julie Micua, her alleged victimizer. Her only excuse
was that at the time of the filing of the complaint in Manila, she was confused and the
investigating officer would not listen to her side of the controversy. Moreover, accused-
appellant and her husband’s acts of receiving almost all the payments of the complainants and
issuing receipts signed by Julie Micua contradict her claim of being a mere applicant. There
were even times that accused-appellant herself signed the receipts for the placement fees.[23]
Taken as a whole, the evidence shows that accused-appellant conspired and actively
participated in the deceitful plan adopted by her co-accused Julie Micua, Rico Cordova and her
own husband, Renato Meris, to hire without license or authority, gullible and naïve applicants
for non-existent overseas jobs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. DOMINGA CORRALLES FORTUNA.
395 SCRA 354. JANUARY 16, 2003.
FACTS:
On September 29, 1998, appellant was charged with Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale.
Fortuna undertook a recruitment activity by convincing six (6) applicants without any license
or authority in overseas private recruitment or placement activities. In turn, the recruited
individuals gave and delivered to the accused the total sum of Php 32,400.00 representing he
medical fees for the promised employment. However, the applicants were not able to get a job
in Taiwan and as a result, they demanded a reimbursement for the previous payment but after
repeated demands, the same was not fulfilled, prompting them to file a case against herein
appellant. Fortuna, upon arraignment, peaded not guilty of the crime charged.
Garnot, Magpalayo, and Andasan, three of the complainants, testified that each of them gave
Php 5,400.00 each to herein appellant for the processing fee for medical examination and other
expenses necessary for securing their passports. Only these three remaining complainants
pursued the case since the others were finally able to leave for abroad. The RTC rendered a
decision convicting the appellant of illegal recruitment in large scale.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Fortuna committed acts of illegal recruitment in large scale.
HELD:
Yes, Fortuna committed acts pf illegal recruitment in large scale. The crime of illegal
recruitment is committed, when among other things, a person, who without being duly
authorized according to law, represents or gives distinct impression that he or she has the power
or the ability to provide work abroad, convincing those to whom the Impression is given to
thereupon part with their money in order to be assured of that employment, Verily, the
testimony represented by the complaining witnesses adequately established the commission of
the offense. It is contrary to human nature and experience for persons to conspire and accuse a
stranger of such a serious crime that would take the latter’s liability and send him or her to
prison. The rule has been said that a person charged with illegal recruitment may be convicted
on the strength of the testimony of the complainants if found to be credible and convincing and
the absence of receipts to evidence payments to the recruiter would not warrant an acquittal, a
receipt not being the fatal to the prosecution’s cause. The court finds the information which has
charged the appellant with the offense of illegal recruitment in large scale, defined and
penalized in R.A. 8042, to be sufficient in form and substance. The requisites constituting the
offense have been sufficiently proven. First, the appellandt undeniably has not been duly
licensed to engage in recruitment activities. Second, Fortune has ebgaged in illegal recruitment
activities, offering private employment abroad for a fee. Third, Fortuna has committed the
questioned illegal recruitment activites against three or more persons. Thus, the penalty for
Fortuna is deemed affirmed.
Employees
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ELIZABETH CORPUZ
G.R. No. 148198. October 1, 2003
FACTS:
Private complainants Belinda Cabantog, Concepcion San Diego, Erlinda Pascual and Restian
Surio went to Alga-Moher International Placement Services Corporation to apply for
employment in Taiwan. They were introduced by an “Aling Josie” to the agency's President
and General Manager Mrs. Evelyn Gloria H. Reyes. Mrs. Reyes asked them to accomplish the
application forms. Thereafter, they were told to return to the office with P10,000.00 each as
processing fee. Private complainants returned to the agency to pay the processing fees. Mrs.
Reyes was not at the agency that time, but she called her secretary of three months, herein
appellant Elizabeth Corpuz, on the telephone and told the latter to receive private complainants'
processing fees. In compliance with the order of her employer and since the cashier was absent,
appellant received the processing fees of private complainants. Thereafter, appellant advised
the private complainants to wait for the contracts to arrive from the Taiwan employers.
Two months later, nothing happened to their applications. Thus, private complainants decided
to ask for the refund of their money from appellant who told them that the processing fees they
had paid were already remitted to Mrs. Reyes. When they talked to Mrs. Reyes, she told them
that the money she received from appellant was in payment of the latter's debt. Thus, private
complainants filed their complaint for illegal recruitment in large scale against appellant.
For her part, appellant resolutely denied having a hand in the illegal recruitment and claimed
that she merely received complainants' processing fees in compliance with the order of her
employer. Moreover, she had no knowledge that the agency's license was suspended by the
POEA on July 29, 1998, the day before the fact. The trial court found appellant guilty.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the appellant guilty of the crime charged.
HELD:
No. An employee of a company or corporation engaged in illegal recruitment may be held
liable as principal, together with his employer, if it is shown that he actively and consciously
participated in illegal recruitment. Settled is the rule that the existence of the corporate entity
does not shield from prosecution the corporate agent who knowingly and intentionally causes
the corporation to commit a crime. The culpability of the employee therefore hinges on his
knowledge of the offense and his active participation in its commission. Where it is shown that
the employee was merely acting under the direction of his superiors and was unaware that his
acts constituted a crime, he may not be held criminally liable for an act done for and in behalf
of his employer.
The prosecution failed to adduce sufficient evidence to prove appellant's active participation in
the illegal recruitment activities of the agency. As already established, appellant received the
processing fees of the private complainants for and in behalf of Mrs. Reyes who ordered her to
receive the same. She neither gave an impression that she had the ability to deploy them abroad
nor convinced them to part with their money. More importantly, she had no knowledge that the
license was suspended the day before she received the money. Their failure to depart for Taiwan
was due to the suspension of the license, an event which appellant did not have control of. Her
failure to refund their money immediately upon their demand was because the money had been
remitted to Mrs. Reyes on the same day she received it from them.
While we strongly condemn the pervasive proliferation of illegal job recruiters and syndicates
preying on innocent people anxious to obtain employment abroad, nevertheless, we find the
pieces of evidence insufficient to prove the guilt of appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. FLOR GUTIERREZ Y TIMOD The crime becomes Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale when the two elements concur, with the
[G.R. No. 124439. February 5, 2004] addition of a third element: the recruiter committed the same against three or more persons,
individually or as a group. As found by the trial court, the evidence on record, notably
FACTS: appellant’s own version, indicates that she was running her own labor recruitment business.

With the promises of jobs abroad unfulfilled, complainants decided to verify if the accused was
a licensed recruiter. Upon learning from the POEA that she was not so licensed, they proceeded
to the Philippine Anti-Crime Commission (PACC) to execute their respective affidavits. The
investigator confirmed with the POEA that the accused was not licensed or authorized to recruit
overseas contract workers. The accused was arrested on an entrapment operation.
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.
As appellant committed illegal recruitment against three or more persons, she is liable for
Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale.

In her defense, the accused claimed that as an “employee” of a duly licensed agency who was
tasked to recruit and offer job placements abroad, she could not be held liable for illegal
recruitment. She admitted that she had no authority to recruit in her personal capacity, but that
her authority emanated from a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) and a Certification issued by
a licensed agency. At the time complainants applied for overseas employment, the accused
was “employed” as a Marketing Directress of Sarifudin Manpower and General Services, a
duly licensed agency with License No. OS-91-LB-61193-NL issued by the Department of
Labor and Employment.[58] A Special Power of Attorney (SPA) from Sarifudin, dated May 1,
1994, states that she was authorized. Accused Flor Gutierrez filed the present appeal seeking
the reversal of her conviction.

ISSUE:

Whether or not, the conviction of the accused should be upheld even though she is licensed
recruiter.

HELD:

Illegal recruitment 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 Art. 13(b), or any of the prohibited practices
enumerated under Art. 34 of the Labor Code. Art. 13(b) of the Labor 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.