People of the PH vs.
Dela Piedra
G.R. No. 12177. January 24, 2001
J. Kapunan
Facts:
Accused-appellant Carol M. dela Piedra was charged and convicted for illegal recruitment in large
scale. In an information filed against her, Dela Piedra was accused of offering and promising for a fee
employment in Singapore to Amanita, Timbol and Modesto, the latter having paid an advance amount of
P2,000.
In her appeal to the Supreme Court, Dela Piedra challenges her conviction seeking to declare the
unconstitutionality of the Sec. 13(b) of the Labor Code for being void for vagueness thus violating her
right to due process.
ART. 13. Definitions.—(a) x x x.
(b) "Recruitment and placement" refers to 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.
Issue: Whether or not the assailed statute is unconstitutional for being void for vagueness.
Ruling:
Appellants contentions cannot be sustained.
Appellant submits that Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code defining "recruitment and placement" is
void for vagueness and, thus, violates the due process clause.19
Due process requires that the terms of a penal statute must be sufficiently explicit to inform
those who are subject to it what conduct on their part will render them liable to its penalties. 20 A criminal
statute that "fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is
forbidden by the statute," or is so indefinite that "it encourages arbitrary and erratic arrests and
convictions," is void for vagueness.21 The constitutional vice in a vague or indefinite statute is the injustice
to the accused in placing him on trial for an offense, the nature of which he is given no fair warning. 22
We reiterated these principles in People vs. Nazario:23
As a rule, a statute or act may be said to be vague when it lacks comprehensible standards
that men "of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its
application." It is repugnant to the Constitution in two respects: (1) it violates due process
for failure to accord persons, especially the parties targeted by it, fair notice of the conduct
to avoid; and (2) it leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions
and become an arbitrary flexing of the Government muscle.
Appellant's reliance on People vs. Panis is misplaced. The issue in Panis was whether, under the
proviso of Article 13 (b), the crime of illegal recruitment could be committed only "whenever two or more
persons are in any manner promised or offered any employment for a fee." The Court held in the
negative, explaining:
As we see it, the proviso was intended neither to impose a condition on the basic rule nor to
provide an exception thereto but merely to create a presumption. The presumption is that the individual
or entity is engaged in recruitment and placement whenever he or it is dealing with two or more persons
to whom, in consideration of a fee, an offer or promise of employment is made in the course of the
"canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring (of) workers."
The number of persons dealt with is not an essential ingredient of the act of recruitment and
placement of workers. Any of the acts mentioned in the basic rule in Article 13(b) will constitute
recruitment and placement even if only one prospective worker is involved. The proviso merely lays down
a rule of evidence that where a fee is collected in consideration of a promise or offer of employment to
two or more prospective workers, the individual or entity dealing with them shall be deemed to be
engaged in the act of recruitment and placement. The words "shall be deemed" create that presumption.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the regional trial court is MODIFIED. Appellant is hereby declared guilty of
illegal recruitment on two (2) counts and is sentenced, for each count, to suffer the penalty of four (4) to
six (6) years of imprisonment and to pay a fine of P30,000.00.
SO ORDERED.
