Illegal Recruitment under Migrant Law and Revised Penal Code

It is settled that a person may be charged and convicted separately of illegal recruitment under Republic Act No. 10022 in relation to the Labor Code, and estafa under Art. 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code. 

The crime of Simple Illegal Recruitment, as a general rule,  is committed when two essential elements concur:

(1) that the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable him to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers, and/ or 

(2) that the offender undertakes any activity within the meaning of recruitment and placement defined under Republic Act No. 10022 or any prohibited practices enumerated thereunder. 

For purposes of R.A. 10022, 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 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 enumerated  acts, whether committed by any person, whether a non-licensee, non-holder, licensee or holder of authority:

Article 13(b) of the Labor Code defines recruitment and placement as:

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. (Emphasis supplied.)

As this Court held in People v. Yabut (374 Phil. 575, 586) 

In this jurisdiction, it is settled that a person who commits illegal recruitment may be charged and convicted separately of illegal recruitment under the Labor Code and estafa under par. 2(a) of Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code. The offense of illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum where the criminal intent of the accused is not necessary for conviction, while estafa is malum in se where the criminal intent of the accused is crucial for conviction. Conviction for offenses under the Labor Code does not bar conviction for offenses punishable by other laws. Conversely, conviction for estafa under par. 2(a) of Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code does not bar a conviction for illegal recruitment under the Labor Code. It follows that ones acquittal of the crime of estafa will not necessarily result in his acquittal of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale, and vice versa.

The prosecution must prove   beyond reasonable doubt that  an accused is similarly guilty of estafa under Art. 315 (2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code committed --

By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud:

(a) By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of other similar deceits.

Both elements of the crime must  established in a  case, namely, (a)  accused  defrauded complainant by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit; and (b) complaint suffered damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation as a result.[54]  In most instances, the victim  parted with his money upon the prodding and enticement of the accused  on the false pretense that latter  had the capacity to deploy him for employment abroad. In the end, victims usually  neither are not able to leave for work overseas nor do they  get their  money back, thus causing them  damage and prejudice. Hence,  the  filing of crime of estafa  is proper.