4/12/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 615

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

G.R. No. 184058. March 10, 2010.*

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. MELISSA

CHUA, appellant.

Criminal Law; Labor Law; Estafa; Illegal Recruitment;

Recruitment and Placement Defined.—The term “recruitment and
placement” is defined under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code of the
Philippines as follows: (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.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale;
Any recruitment activities to be undertaken by non-licensee or non-
holder of contracts, or as in the present case, an agency with an
expired license, shall be deemed illegal and punishable under
Article 39 of the Labor Code of the Philippines; Illegal recruitment
is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three or
more persons individually or as a group.—From the foregoing
provisions, it is clear that any recruitment activities to be
undertaken by non-licensee or

_______________

* FIRST DIVISION.

133

VOL. 615, March 10, 2010 133

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178c42e7d22a5dccdeb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/11
4/12/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 615

People vs. Chua

non-holder of contracts, or as in the present case, an agency with

an expired license, shall be deemed illegal and punishable under
Article 39 of the Labor Code of the Philippines. And illegal
recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed
against three or more persons individually or as a group.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Essential Elements for
Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale to Prosper.—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.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Intent is immaterial in
illegal recruitment in large scale.—Assuming arguendo that
appellant was unaware of the illegal nature of the recruitment
business of Golden Gate, that does not free her of liability either.
Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale penalized under Republic Act
No. 8042, or “The Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of
1995,” is a special law, a violation of which is malum prohibitum,
not malum in se. Intent is thus immaterial.

APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeals.

   The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
  The Solicitor General for appellee.
  Public Attorney’s Office for appellant.

CARPIO-MORALES, J.:
 
Melissa Chua (appellant) was indicted for Illegal
Recruitment (Large Scale) and was convicted thereof by the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila. She was also
indicted for five counts of Estafa but was convicted only for
three. The Court

134

134 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Chua

of Appeals, by Decision1 dated February 27, 2008, affirmed

appellant’s conviction.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178c42e7d22a5dccdeb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/11
4/12/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 615

The Information2 charging appellant, together with one

Josie Campos (Josie), with Illegal Recruitment (Large
Scale), docketed as Criminal Case No. 04-222596, reads:

“The undersigned accuses JOSIE CAMPOS and MELISSA

CHUA of violation of Article 38 (a) PD 1413, amending certain
provisions of Book I, PD 442, otherwise known as the New Labor
Code of the Philippines, in relation to Art. 13 (b) and (c ) of said
Code, as further amended by PD Nos. 1693, 1920 and 2019 and as
further amended by Sec. 6 (a), (1) and (m) of RA 8042 committed
in a [sic] large scale as follows:
That sometime during the month of September, 2002, in the
City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring and
confederating together and mutually helping each other,
representing themselves to have the capacity to contract, enlist
and transport Filipino workers for employment abroad, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly for a fee, recruit
and promise employment/job placement abroad to ERIK DE GUIA
TAN, MARILYN O. MACARANAS, NAPOLEON H. YU, JR.,
HARRY JAMES P. KING and ROBERTO C. ANGELES for
overseas employment abroad without first having secured the
required license from the Department of Labor and Employment
as required by law, and charge or accept directly from:

ERIK DE GUIA TAN – P73,000.00

MARILYN D. MACARANAS –   83,000.00
NAPOLEON H. YU, JR. –   23,000.00
HARRY JAMES P. KING –   23,000.00
ROBERTO C. ANGELES –   23,000.00

For purposes of their deployment, which amounts are in excess of

or greater than that specified in the schedule of allowable fees as
pre-

_______________

1  Penned by Associate Justice Remedios Salazar-Fernando and

concurred in by Associate Justices Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente and Enrico
A. Lanzanas; Rollo, pp. 2-15.
2 Records, pp. 2-3.

135

VOL. 615, March 10, 2010 135

People vs. Chua

scribed by the POEA, and without valid reasons and without the
fault of said complainants, failed to actually deploy them and

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178c42e7d22a5dccdeb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/11
4/12/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 615

failed to reimburse expenses incurred in connection with their

documentation and processing for purposes of their deployment.
x x x x”

 
The five Informations3 charging appellant and Josie
with Estafa, docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 04-222597-
601, were similarly worded and varied only with respect to
the names of the five complainants and the amount that
each purportedly gave to the accused. Thus each of the
Information reads:

“x x x x
That on or about . . . in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said
accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually
helping each other, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously defraud xxx in the following manner, to wit: the said
accused by means of false manifestations which they made to the
said . . . to the effect that they had the power and capacity to
recruit the latter as factory worker to work in Taiwan and could
facilitate the processing of the pertinent papers if given the
necessary amount to meet the requirements thereof, and by
means of other similar deceits, induced and succeeded in inducing
said xxx to give and deliver, as in fact he gave and delivered to the
said accused the amount of . . . on the strength of said
manifestations and representations, said accused well knowing
that the same were false and fraudulent and were made solely to
obtain, as in fact they did obtain the amount of . . . which amount
once in their possession, with intent to defraud, they willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously misappropriated, misapplied and
converted to their own personal use and benefit, to the damage of
said . . . in the aforesaid amount of . . ., Philippine Currency.
x x x x”

 
Appellant pleaded not guilty on arraignment. Her co-
accused Josie remained at large. The cases were
consolidated, hence, trial proceeded only with respect to
appellant.

_______________

3 Id., at pp. 61-76.

136

136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Chua

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178c42e7d22a5dccdeb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/11
4/12/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 615

 
Of the five complainants, only three testified, namely,
Marilyn D. Macaranas (Marilyn), Erik de Guia Tan (Tan)
and Harry James King (King). The substance of their
respective testimonies follows:

Marilyn’s testimony:
 
After she was introduced in June 2002 by Josie to
appellant as capacitated to deploy factory workers to
Taiwan, she paid appellant P80,000 as placement fee and
P3,750 as medical expenses fee, a receipt4 for the first
amount of which was issued by appellant.
Appellant had told her that she could leave for Taiwan
in the last week of September 2002 but she did not, and
despite appellant’s assurance that she would leave in the
first or second week of October, just the same she did not.
She thus asked for the refund of the amount she paid
but appellant claimed that she was not in possession
thereof but promised anyway to raise the amount to pay
her, but she never did.
She later learned in June 2003 that appellant was not a
licensed recruiter, prompting her to file the complaint
against appellant and Josie.

Tan’s testimony:
 
After he was introduced by Josie to appellant at the
Golden Gate, Inc., (Golden Gate) an agency situated in
Paragon Tower Hotel in Ermita, Manila, he underwent
medical examination upon appellant’s assurance that he
could work in Taiwan as a factory worker with a
guaranteed monthly salary of 15,800 in Taiwan currency.

_______________

4 Vide Cash Voucher dated September 6, 2002, Id., at p. 13.

137

VOL. 615, March 10, 2010 137

People vs. Chua

 
He thus paid appellant, on September 6, 2002, P70,0005
representing placement fees for which she issued a receipt.
Appellant welched on her promise to deploy him to Taiwan,
however, hence, he demanded the refund of his money but
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178c42e7d22a5dccdeb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/11
4/12/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 615

appellant failed to. He later learned that Golden Gate was

not licensed to deploy workers to Taiwan, hence, he filed
the complaint against appellant and Josie.

King’s testimony:
 
His friend and a fellow complainant Napoleon Yu
introduced him to Josie who in turn introduced appellant
as one who could deploy him to Taiwan.
On September 24, 2002,6 he paid appellant P20,000
representing partial payment for placement fees
amounting to P80,000, but when he later inquired when he
would be deployed, Golden Gate’s office was already closed.
He later learned that Golden Gate’s license had already
expired, prompting him to file the complaint.
Appellant denied the charges. Claiming having worked
as a temporary cashier from January to October, 2002 at
the office of Golden Gate, owned by one Marilyn Calueng,7
she maintained that Golden Gate was a licensed
recruitment agency and that Josie, who is her godmother,
was an agent.
Admitting having received P80,000 each from Marilyn
and Tan, receipt of which she issued but denying receiving
any amount from King, she claimed that she turned over
the money to the documentation officer, one Arlene Vega,
who in turn remitted the money to Marilyn Calueng whose
present whereabouts she did not know.

_______________

5 Vide Cash Voucher dated September 6, 2002, Id., at p. 10.

6 Vide Cash Voucher receipt, Id., at p. 19.
7  Spelled as GOLDEN GATE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
and as MARILEN L. CALLUENG per certification dated June 23, 2003
of Atty. Felicitas Q. Bay, Director II, Licensing Branch of the POEA, Id.,
at p. 8.

138

138 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Chua

 
By Decision of April 5, 2006, Branch 36 of the Manila
RTC convicted appellant of Illegal Recruitment (Large
Scale) and three counts of Estafa, disposing as follows:

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178c42e7d22a5dccdeb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/11
4/12/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 615

“WHEREFORE, the prosecution having established the guilt of

accused Melissa Chua beyond reasonable doubt, judgment is
hereby rendered convicting the accused as principal of a large
scale illegal recruitment and estafa three (3) counts and she is
sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) for illegal recruitment.
The accused is likewise convicted of estafa committed against
Harry James P. King and she is sentenced to suffer the
indeterminate penalty of Four (4) years and Two (2) months of
prision correccional as minimum, to Six (6) years and One (1) day
of prision mayor as maximum; in Criminal Case No. 04-22598; in
Criminal Case No. 04-222600 committed against Marilyn
Macaranas, accused is sentence [sic] to suffer the indeterminate
penalty of Four (4) years and Two (2) months of prision
correccional as minimum, to Twelve (12) years and one (1) day of
reclusion temporal as maximum; and in Criminal Case No. 04-
222601 committed against Erik de Guia Tan, she is likewise
sentence [sic] to suffer an indeterminate penalty of Four (4) years
and Two (2) months of prision correccional as minimum, to Eleven
(11) years and One (1) day of prision mayor as maximum.
Accused Melissa Chua is also ordered to return the amounts of
P20,000.00 to Harry James P. King, P83,750.00 to Marilyn D.
Macaranas, and P70,000.00 to Erik de Guia Tan.
As regards Criminal Cases Nos. 04-222597 and 04-222599,
both are dismissed for lack of interest of complainants Roberto
Angeles and Napoleon Yu, Jr.
In the service of her sentence, the accused is credited with the
full period of preventive imprisonment if she agrees in writing to
abide by the disciplinary rules imposed, otherwise only 4/5 shall
be credited.
 SO ORDERED.”

 
The Court of Appeals, as stated early on, affirmed the
trial court’s decision by the challenged Decision of
February 27, 2008, it holding that appellant’s defense that,
as temporary
139

VOL. 615, March 10, 2010 139

People vs. Chua

cashier of Golden Gate, she received the money which was

ultimately remitted to Marilyn Calueng is immaterial, she
having failed to prove the existence of an employment
relationship between her and Marilyn, as well as the

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178c42e7d22a5dccdeb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/11
4/12/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 615

legitimacy of the operations of Golden Gate and the extent

of her involvement therein.
Citing People v. Sagayaga,8 the appellate court ruled
that an employee of a company engaged in illegal
recruitment may be held liable as principal together with
his employer if it is shown that he, as in the case of
appellant, actively and consciously participated therein.
Respecting the cases for Estafa, the appellate court,
noting that a person convicted of illegal recruitment may,
in addition, be convicted of Estafa as penalized under
Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code, held
that the elements thereof were sufficiently established, viz:
that appellant deceived the complainants by assuring them
of employment in Taiwan provided they pay the required
placement fee; that relying on such representation, the
complainants paid appellant the amount demanded; that
her representation turned out to be false because she failed
to deploy them as promised; and that the complainants
suffered damages when they failed to be reimbursed the
amounts they paid.
Hence, the present appeal, appellant reiterating the
same arguments she raised in the appellate court.
The appeal is bereft of merit.
The term “recruitment and placement” is defined under
Article 13(b) of the Labor Code of the Philippines as
follows:

(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

_______________

8 G.R. No. 143726, February 23, 2004, 423 SCRA 468.

140

140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Chua

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.” (emphasis supplied)

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178c42e7d22a5dccdeb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/11
4/12/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 615

On the other hand, Article 38, paragraph (a) of the

Labor Code, as amended, under which appellant was
charged, provides:

“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 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.
(b) Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in
large scale shall be considered an offense involving economic
sabotage and shall be penalized in accordance with Article 39
hereof.
Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if
carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring
and/or confederating with one another in carrying out any
unlawful or illegal transaction, enterprise or scheme defined
under the first paragraph hereof. Illegal recruitment is deemed
committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more
persons individually or as a group.” (emphasis supplied)

 
From the foregoing provisions, it is clear that any
recruitment activities to be undertaken by non-licensee or
non-holder of contracts, or as in the present case, an agency
with an expired license, shall be deemed illegal and
punishable under Article 39 of the Labor Code of the
Philippines. And illegal recruitment is deemed committed
in large scale if committed against three or more persons
individually or as a group.
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
141

VOL. 615, March 10, 2010 141

People vs. Chua

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

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178c42e7d22a5dccdeb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/11
4/12/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 615

In the present case, Golden Gate, of which appellant

admitted being a cashier from January to October 2002,
was initially authorized to recruit workers for deployment
abroad. Per the certification from the POEA, Golden Gate’s
license only expired on February 23, 2002 and it was
delisted from the roster of licensed agencies on April 2,
2002.
Appellant was positively pointed to as one of the persons
who enticed the complainants to part with their money
upon the fraudulent representation that they would be able
to secure for them employment abroad. In the absence of
any evidence that the complainants were motivated by
improper motives, the trial court’s assessment of their
credibility shall not be interfered with by the Court.10
Even if appellant were a mere temporary cashier of
Golden Gate, that did not make her any less an employee
to be held liable for illegal recruitment as principal by
direct participation, together with the employer, as it was
shown that she actively and consciously participated in the
recruitment process. 11
Assuming arguendo that appellant was unaware of the
illegal nature of the recruitment business of Golden Gate,
that does not free her of liability either. Illegal Recruitment
in Large Scale penalized under Republic Act No. 8042, or
“The Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995,”
is a special law, a violation of which is malum prohibitum,
not

_______________

9 People v. Jamilosa, G.R. No. 169076, January 23, 2007, 512 SCRA
340, 352.
10  People v. Saulo, G.R. No. 125903, November 15, 2000, 344 SCRA
605, 614.
11 People v. Nogra, G.R. No. 170834, August 29, 2008, 563 SCRA 723,
724.

142

142 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Chua

malum in se. Intent is thus immaterial. And that explains

why appellant was, aside from Estafa, convicted of such
offense.

“[I]llegal recruitment is malum prohibitum, while estafa

is malum in se. In the first, the criminal intent of the

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178c42e7d22a5dccdeb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/11
4/12/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 615

accused is not necessary for conviction. In the second,

such an intent is imperative. Estafa under Article 315,
paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code, is committed by
any person who defrauds another by using fictitious name,
or falsely pretends to possess power, influence,
qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or
imaginary transactions, or by means of similar deceits
executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission
of fraud.”12 (emphasis supplied)

 
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED.

Puno (C.J., Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro,

Bersamin and Villarama, Jr., JJ., concur.

Appeal denied.

Note.—Illegal recruitment is qualified into large scale

when three or more persons, individually or as a group are
victimized. (People vs. Bartolome, 557 SCRA 20 [2008])
——o0o—— 

_______________

12  People v. Comila, G.R. No. 171448, February 28, 2007, 517 SCRA
153, 167.

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000178c42e7d22a5dccdeb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/11