NASI-VILLAR v.

PEOPLE

G.R. No. 176169, 14 November 2008

TINGA, J.:

FACTS:

This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by the petitioner
Rosario Nasi-Villar. This case originated from an Information for Illegal Recruitment as defined
under Sections 6 and 7 of R.A No. 8042 filed by the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Davao
Del Sur on October 5, 1998. The Information reads: “Than on or about the month of January 1993,
Rosario Nasi-Villar, conspiring together, confederating with and mutually helping one another
through fraudulent representation and deceitful machination, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously recruit Nila Panilag for employment abroad, demand and receive the
amount of PhP6,500.00 as placement fee, the said accused being a non-licensee or non-holder of
authority to engage in the recruitment of workers abroad to the damage and prejudice of the herein
offended party.”

On 3 July 2002, After due trial, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 18, Digos City found the
evidence presented by the prosecution to be more credible than that presented by the defense and
thus held petitioner liable for the offense of Illegal Recruitment under the Labor Code as amended.
The herein petitioner was charged to an indeterminate penalty from four years to five years.

Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) raising as sole issue the alleged error by the trial
court in finding her guilty of illegal recruitment on the basis of the trial court’s appreciation of the
evidence presented by the prosecution. The appellate court affirmed with modification the decision
of the RTC, declaring that petitioner should have been charged under the Labor Code and not
under R.A. No. 8042.

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration under an Information that erroneously designated the
offense as covered by R.A. No. 8042, but alleged in its body acts which are punishable under the
Labor Code, but was denied by the CA.

Hence, Petitioner filed the instant petition for review.

ISSUE:

Whether the CA erred in failing to consider that R.A. No. 8042 cannot be given retroactive effect
and the decision of the RTC constitutes a violation of the constitutional prohibition against ex post
facto law.
 RULING:

NO. The CA’s conviction of petitioner under the Labor Code is correct. There is no violation of
the prohibition against ex post facto law nor a retroactive application of R.A. No. 8042, as alleged
by petitioner.

Effectivity of Labor Code of the Philippines and R.A. No. 8042, reads:

Article 2. Date of effectivity. — This Code shall take effect six months after its promulgation. (1
November 1974, supplied)

Section 43. Effectivity Clause. — This Act shall take effect after fifteen (15) days from its
publication in the Official Gazette or in at least two (2) national newspapers of general circulation
whichever comes earlier. (15 July 1995, supplied)

In this case, what was applicable in 1993 is the Labor Code, where under Art. 38, in relation to
Art. 39, the violation of the Code is penalized with imprisonment of not less than four (4) years
nor more than eight (8) years or a ne of not less than P20,000.00 and not more than P100,000.00
or both. On the other hand, Sec. 7(c) of R.A. No. 8042 penalizes illegal recruitment with a penalty
of imprisonment of not less than six (6) years and one (1) day but not more than twelve (12) years
and a ne not less than P200,000.00 nor more than P500,000.00.

The basic rule is that a criminal act is punishable under the law in force at the time of its
commission. Since R.A. No. 8042, a special penal law, did not yet exist in January 1993 when the
crime was allegedly committed, the law cannot be used as the basis of fling a criminal action for
illegal recruitment, unless it is in favor of the accused. However, the penalty of imprisonment
provided in the Labor Code was raised or increased by R.A. No. 8042. Therefore, the Supreme
Court held that as it was proven that petitioner had committed the acts she was charged with, she
was properly convicted under the Labor Code, and not under R.A. No. 8042.