G.R. No.

125044 July 13, 1998

IMELDA DARVIN, petitioner,

vs.

HON. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

Facts:

Macaria Toledo, shows that sometime in March, 1992, she met accused-appellant Darvin in the latter's residence at
Dimasalang, Imus, Cavite, through the introduction of their common friends, Florencio Jake Rivera and Leonila
Rivera.

Accused-appellant allegedly convinced Toledo that by giving her P150,000.00, the latter can immediately leave for
the United States without any appearance before the U.S. embassy.

Toledo gave Darvin the amount of P150,000.00, as evidenced by a receipt stating that the "amount of P150,000.00
was for U.S. Visa and Air fare”.

However, when after a week, there was no word from Darvin, Toledo went to her residence to inquire about any
development, but could not find Darvin.

Thereafter, Toledo filed a complaint with the Bacoor Police Station against Imelda Darvin. Upon further
investigation, a certification was issued by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) stating that
Imelda Darvin is neither licensed nor authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment.

Accused-appellant was then charged for estafa and illegal recruitment by the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of
Cavite.

On the other hand, Darvin testified that she used to be connected with Dale Travel Agency and denied the
allegations. Bacoor, Cavite RTC found accused-appellant guilty of the crime of simple illegal recruitment but
acquitted her of the crime of estafa. The CA affirmed the RTC’s decision. Hence the instant case at hand.

Issue:

Whether or not the Darvin engaged in recruitment activities as defined under the Labor Code of the Philippines.

Ruling:

NO.

Before this Court, accused-appellant assails the decision of the trial and appellate courts in convicting her of the
crime of simple illegal recruitment. She contends that based on the evidence presented by the prosecution, her guilt
was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

We find the appeal impressed with merit.

Art. 13 of the Labor Code, as amended, provides the definition of recruitment and placement as:

. . .; b) 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.

On the other hand, Article 38 of the Labor Code provides:

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.

Applied to the present case, to uphold the conviction of accused-appellant, two elements need to 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.

The prosecution, as evidence, presented the certification issued by the POEA that accused-appellant Imelda Darvin
is not licensed to recruit workers abroad.

It is not disputed that accused-appellant does not have a license or authority to engage in recruitment activities. The
pivotal issue to be determined, therefore, is whether the accused-appellant indeed engaged in recruitment activities,
as defined under the Labor Code. Applying the rule laid down in the case of People v. Goce, 12 to prove that
accused-appellant was engaged in recruitment activities as to commit the crime of illegal recruitment, it must be
shown that the accused appellant gave private respondent the distinct impression that she had the power or ability to
send the private respondent abroad for work such that the latter was convinced to part with her money in order to be
so employed.

In this case, we find no sufficient evidence to prove that accused-ppellant offered a job to private respondent. It is
not clear that accused gave the impression that she was capable of providing the private respondent work abroad.
What is established, however, is that the private respondent gave accused-appellant P150,000.00. The claim of the
accused that the P150,000.00 was for payment of private respondent's air fare and US visa and other expenses
cannot be ignored because the receipt for the P150,000.00, which was presented by both parties during the trial of
the case, stated that it was "for Air Fare and Visa to USA." 13 Had the amount been for something else in addition to
air fare and visa expenses, such as work placement abroad, the receipt should have so stated.

By themselves, procuring a passport, airline tickets and foreign visa for another individual, without more, can hardly
qualify as recruitment activities. Aside from the testimony of private respondent, there is nothing to show that
accused-appellant engaged in recruitment activities. We also note that the prosecution did not present the testimonies
of witnesses who could have corroborated the charge of illegal recruitment, such as Florencio Rivera, and Leonila
Rivera, when it had the opportunity to do so. As it stands, the claim of private respondent that accused-appellant
promised her employment abroad is uncorroborated. All these, taken collectively, cast reasonable doubt on the guilt
of the accused.

This Court can hardly rely on the bare allegations of private respondent that she was offered by accused-appellant
employment abroad, nor on mere presumptions and conjectures, to convict the latter. No sufficient evidence was
shown to sustain the conviction, as the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish that accused-appellant
indeed engaged in recruitment activities, thus committing the crime of illegal recruitment.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby GRANTED and the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No.
15624 dated January 31, 1996, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Imelda Darvin is hereby
ACQUITTED on ground of reasonable doubt.

SO ORDERED.