BALITAO, MARIEL RATANI C.

Case Digest in Labor I (Labor Standards) under Usec. JBJ

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ELMA ROMERO y CRUZ
G.R. Nos. 103385-88
July 26, 1993

FACTS:

Sometime in January of 1989, complainant Doriza Dapnit went to the residence of Elma Romero
in Mandaluyong where she told Romero of her desire to work abroad. Romero informed her that
she can work in Taiwan as a factory worker with a monthly salary of US$5,000.00.

Dapnit, relying upon the representation of Romero that she can leave on April 1, 1989 for Taiwan
as a factory worker, paid the placement fee charged by the latter as evidenced by the receipts
issued by the accused-appellant totalling P21,000 and another P1,800.00 for the processing of
her passport which is not included in her claim as she was issued a passport.

When Dapnit was not able to leave on April 1, 1989 for Taiwan, Romero told her to wait as her
visa was not yet issued. However, after spending more than two (2) months futilely following up
her visa, Dapnit went to the office of POEAand found out that accused-appellant is not a licensed
recruiter as shown by the Certification issued by the POEA.

On June 30, 1989, complainant Doriza Dapnit executed an affidavit at the office of the POEA
charging Romero of illegal recruitment and/or estafa.

Another Complainant Bernardo Salazar testified that sometime in the middle of January 1989, he
went to RSI Enterprises located at Shaw Boulevard, Mandaluyong, Metro-Manila and met Romero
to apply for a job in Taiwan. Salazar was also promised that he can leave for Taiwan on April 1,
1989 as a factory worker with a monthly salary of US$600.00 as soon as he paid the placement
fee of P24,000.00 to which he paid as evidenced by the five (5) receipts issued by Romero.
Romero was not able to leave by April 1 and was also given the same excuse as Dapnit. He went
to the Anti-illegal Recruitment Branch of the POEA on June 30, 1989 and executed an affidavit
charging accused-appellant for illegal recruitment and/or estafa.

Another complainant Richard Quillope was presented to the court and sworn in, and testified
through his counsel that Romero also made representation to him as having capacity to send
workers abroad, overseas workers abroad. To which he paid processing fees as evidenced by
receipts but was not deployed as promised by the accused.

Salazar and Quillope executed a Joint Affidavit of Desistance.

ISSUE:

Is Romero guilty of Illegal Recruitment constituting economic sabotage when two of the
complainants already executed their Joint Affidavit of Desistance?
 BALITAO, MARIEL RATANI C.
Case Digest in Labor I (Labor Standards) under Usec. JBJ
LAW:

Civil Code
Art. 2034. There may be a compromise upon the civil liability arising from an offense; but
such compromise shall not extinguish the public action for the imposition of the legal
penalty.

Republic Act No. 8042

SEC. 6. Definition. - For purposes of this Act, illegal recruitment shall mean
any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or
procuring workers and includes referring, contract services, promising or
advertising for employment abroad, whether for profit or not, when undertaken
by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority contemplated under Article 13(f) of
Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, otherwise known as the Labor Code of
the Philippines: Provided, That any such non-licensee or non-holder who, in any
manner, offers or promises for a fee employment abroad to two or more persons
shall be deemed so engaged. It shall likewise include the following acts, whether
committed by any person, whether a non-licensee, non-holder, licensee or holder
of authority:
xxx
(m) Failure to reimburse expenses incurred by the worker in connection with his
documentation and processing for purposes of deployment, in cases where the
deployment does not actually take place without the worker's fault. Illegal
recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall be considered
an offense involving economic sabotage.

Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group

of three (3) or more persons conspiring or confederating with one another. It is
deemed committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons
individually or as a group.

CASE HISTORY:

The Trial Court dismissed Criminal Cases Nos. 78508 and 78509 on the basis of the
affidavit executed by complainants Richard Quillope and Bernardo Salazar but ruled that
Romero is guilty of estafa and Illegal Recruitment constituting economic sabotage as
regards the case of Dapnit.
Romero appealed to the SC.

RULING:

Romero is guilty of Illegal Recruitment constituting economic sabotage notwithstanding the Joint
Affidavit of Desistance executed by complainants Quillope and Salazar.

The contention of the accused-appellant that she cannot be convicted of large-scale illegal
recruitment which requires at least (3) persons to be victimized considering that only one victim
 BALITAO, MARIEL RATANI C.
Case Digest in Labor I (Labor Standards) under Usec. JBJ
testified against her while the other two complainants executed a joint affidavit of desistance
which resulted in the dismissal of their complaints against her is without merit.

The records show that aside from complainant Doriza Dapnit, complainant Bernardo Salazar and
Richard Quillope testified that they were both victims of accused-appellant's illegal recruitment
activities.

The fact that complainants Bernardo Salazar and Richard Quillope executed a Joint Affidavit of
Desistance does not serve to exculpate accused-appellant from criminal liability insofar as the
case for illegal recruitment is concerned since the Court looks with disfavor the dropping of
criminal complaints upon mere affidavit of desistance of the complainant, particularly where the
commission of the offense, as is in this case, is duly supported by documentary evidence.

Generally, the Court attaches no persuasive value to affidavits of desistance, especially when it is
executed as an afterthought. It would be a dangerous rule for courts to reject testimonies
solemnly taken before the courts of justice simply because the witnesses who had given them,
later on, changed their mind for one reason or another; for such rule would make solemn trial a
mockery and place the investigation of truth at the mercy of unscrupulous witness.

Complainants Bernardo Salazar and Richard Quillope may have a change of heart insofar as the
offense wrought on their person is concerned when they executed their joint affidavit of
desistance but this will not affect the public prosecution of the offense itself. It is relevant to note
that "the right of prosecution and punishment for a crime is one of the attributes that by a natural
law belongs to the sovereign power instinctly charged by the common will of the members of
society to look after, guard and defend the interests of the community, the individual and social
rights and the liberties of every citizen and the guaranty of the exercise of his rights." This cardinal
principle which states that to the State belongs the power to prosecute and punish crimes should
not be overlooked since a criminal offense is an outrage to the sovereign State.

The trial court had correctly found accused-appellant ELMA ROMERO guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT COMMITTED IN LARGE SCALE. Their decision was
affirmed.

OPINION:

Romero cannot exculpate herself from the crime illegal recruitment in large scale just because
two complainants executed, for whatever reason, a Joint Affidavit of Desistance.

Our legal system has expressed itself in several statutes that criminal acts are generally committed
against the whole People of the Philippines to avoid offenders getting away with their acts by
making amends to the complainants extra-judicially. The law cannot be left to hands to the
complainants, although they are the victims in the case, because this will defeat the very purpose
of our criminal justice system to uphold social control, deterring and mitigating crime, or
sanctioning those who violate laws with criminal penalties and rehabilitation efforts.

No retraction by a complainant can substitute to the power of the courts to decide on the
guilt of the accused.