The Supreme Court in People v. Dioscora Mercado de Arabia and Francisca Littaua Tomas clarifies the extent of liability in illegal recruitment cases. The Court affirmed the conviction of Dioscora Mercado de Arabia for illegal recruitment in large scale, emphasizing her direct role in promising overseas employment for a fee without proper authorization. However, the Court acquitted Francisca Littaua Tomas due to insufficient evidence demonstrating her active participation in the recruitment activities, underscoring that mere presence or association is not enough to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

When Association Isn’t Enough: Examining Liability in Overseas Job Scams

This case stems from an incident where Dioscora Mercado de Arabia and Francisca Littaua Tomas were accused of illegal recruitment in large scale. From November 3, 1992, to December 12, 1992, in Quezon City, the accused allegedly conspired to unlawfully recruit and promise employment abroad to Cristina Arellano, Lourdes Pastor, Romeo Pastor, Imelda O. Corre, and Lilibeth O. Mabalot, without securing the necessary license or authority from the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), violating Article 38(b) in relation to Article 39(a) of the Labor Code, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 2018. The heart of the matter lies in determining whether both accused individuals actively participated in the illegal recruitment activities, warranting their conviction under the law.

The prosecution presented testimonies from five complainants—Lourdes Pastor, Romeo Pastor, Imelda Corre, Lilibeth Mabalot, and Cristina Arellano—and a corroborating witness, Antonia Reodique. Lourdes Pastor testified that Mercado promised her and her brother Romeo employment in Taiwan as factory workers with a monthly salary of P25,000.00, requiring a placement fee of P17,500.00 each. Lourdes stated that she handed her passport and placement fee to Mercado in the presence of Tomas. Romeo Pastor corroborated his sister’s testimony, stating that he submitted his documents and placement fee to Mercado and Tomas. Imelda Corre testified that Mercado promised her employment abroad as a factory worker for P25,000.00 monthly, asking for P10,000.00 as a placement fee, which she paid to Mercado in Tomas’ presence. Lilibeth Mabalot testified that Mercado promised her employment in Taiwan as a factory worker with a monthly salary of P25,000.00 to P30,000.00, requiring a P7,000.00 placement fee. Antonia Reodique, as a corroborating witness, testified that she overheard Tomas requiring Cristina Arellano to pay a placement fee of P12,000.00.

In their defense, both Mercado and Tomas claimed that they were not recruiters but were themselves victims of recruitment by Rebecca de Jesus Sipagan. Mercado and Tomas denied having recruited the complainants. Mercado stated that she met the complainants in Sipagan’s house, where they were all applying for work abroad. Tomas testified that she gave her passport, documents, and P30,000.00 placement fee to Sipagan. She stated that she met Mercado at Sipagan’s house and eventually rented a room in Mercado’s residence while awaiting departure for Taiwan. Tomas denied any involvement in the complainants’ recruitment and stated that the charges against them were fabricated due to the influence of an NBI agent who was a relative of some of the complainants.

The Regional Trial Court found both Mercado and Tomas guilty of illegal recruitment. The court held that the prosecution had presented substantial evidence proving the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Mercado and Tomas filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied, leading to their appeal.

On appeal, Mercado argued that the prosecution failed to demonstrate that she had given the complainants the distinct impression that she possessed the power or ability to send them abroad for employment, as required by law. She contended that, as a mere fortune teller and manghihilot with limited education, she could not have deceived the complainants into believing that she could send them to Taiwan. Tomas argued that the prosecution failed to prove her active participation in recruiting the complainants. She pointed out that the witnesses testified that they handed their money to Mercado and that it was Mercado who constantly enticed them to work in Taiwan. Tomas admitted only calling Imelda Corre to inform her about causing the surveillance of Rebecca Sipagan.

The Supreme Court partly granted the appeal. The Court defined illegal recruitment as engaging in activities mentioned in Article 13(b) of the Labor Code without the required license or authority from the POEA. Article 13(b) includes canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers, including referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for employment, whether for profit or not. The Court emphasized that illegal recruitment is considered committed in large scale if it involves three or more persons.

The essential elements of illegal recruitment in large scale are: (1) the accused engages in acts of recruitment and placement of workers as defined under Article 13(b) or in any prohibited activities under Article 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 securing 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. The Court found that these elements were present in Mercado’s case.

The Court emphasized that Mercado’s representations to the complainants about facilitating their employment in Taiwan as factory workers constituted a promise of employment, which falls under the definition of recruitment in Article 13(b) of the Labor Code. The Court also noted that Mercado was positively identified by all the complainants as the person who promised them employment abroad for a fee. These testimonies directly contradicted Mercado’s defense that she was merely an applicant like the complainants and that they were all recruited by Rebecca Sipagan.

Regarding Tomas, the Court found that the prosecution failed to prove her active participation in the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that Tomas’ mere presence when Lourdes Pastor gave her placement fee to Mercado was insufficient to establish her guilt. The Court also noted inconsistencies in Romeo Pastor’s testimony, where he sometimes referred to both Mercado and Tomas as recipients of his placement fee and at other times only mentioned Mercado. The Court highlighted similar inconsistencies in Lilibeth Mabalot’s testimony, noting that Imelda Corre only identified Mercado as the person who told her that they (Mercado and Tomas) had the capacity to send workers abroad and who received her passport and placement fee. The Court stated that the prosecution failed to establish Tomas’ guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Court emphasized that under the Bill of Rights, an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and it is the court’s duty to set the accused free if the prosecution fails to overcome this presumption. In summary, the Supreme Court acquitted Tomas of illegal recruitment in large scale due to insufficient evidence demonstrating her active participation, while affirming Mercado’s conviction based on direct evidence of her recruitment activities.

FAQs

What is illegal recruitment in large scale?	Illegal recruitment in large scale occurs when a person or entity, without the necessary license or authority from the POEA, engages in recruitment activities against three or more individuals, either individually or as a group.
What are the elements of illegal recruitment?	The essential elements are: (1) engaging in recruitment activities, (2) lacking the necessary license or authority, and (3) committing the unlawful acts against three or more persons.
What constitutes recruitment activities under the Labor Code?	Recruitment activities include canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers, including referrals, contract services, promising, or advertising for employment, whether for profit or not.
Why was Dioscora Mercado de Arabia convicted?	Mercado was convicted because she directly promised employment abroad for a fee to multiple complainants without the required license, thereby engaging in illegal recruitment in large scale.
Why was Francisca Littaua Tomas acquitted?	Tomas was acquitted because the prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence demonstrating her active participation in the recruitment activities. Her mere presence or association was not enough to establish guilt.
What is the significance of proving ‘active participation’ in illegal recruitment cases?	Proving active participation is crucial because it distinguishes those who directly engage in illegal recruitment from those who might merely be associated with the recruiters or present during the activities. It ensures that only those directly involved are held liable.
Can an accused be held civilly liable even if acquitted of the criminal charge?	Yes, the extinction of the penal action by a judgment of acquittal does not automatically extinguish the civil action, unless the acquittal is based on a declaration that the facts from which the civil liability might arise did not exist.
What was the court’s ruling on the reimbursement of Cristina Arellano’s placement fee?	Although Tomas was acquitted of the crime, she was still ordered to reimburse Cristina Arellano’s placement fee of P12,000.00 because it was proven that she received the money.

This case underscores the importance of distinguishing between direct participation and mere association in illegal recruitment cases. While active recruiters are held liable, individuals who are merely present or associated with the recruiters cannot be convicted without sufficient evidence of their direct involvement. Moving forward, this ruling provides a clear framework for assessing liability in recruitment scams, ensuring that only those directly involved face the consequences.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. DIOSCORA MERCADO DE ARABIA, G.R. No. 128112, May 12, 2000