Economic sabotage

To be held liable for illegal recruitment, is it necessary to prove that the recruiter has not secured a license or authority to recruit or deploy workers? This is the question answered in this case of Choy.

Choy and another person whose identity and whereabouts remain unknown were accused of violating Section 6 (l) and (m) of Republic Act 8042 or the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 for representing himself as having the capacity to contract, hire, enlist and transport Filipinos to Taiwan.

His victims were Perry, Grace, Len and the spouses Lino and Arlene from whom he was able to obtain between November 1999 and June 23, 2000, fees totaling P345,000 which are greater than that specified in the schedule of allowable fees prescribed by the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE).

The victims first complained before the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA) when Choy failed to deploy them. The POEA then endorsed the charge to the Philippine Anti Organized Crime Task Force (PAOCTF). In an entrapment operation, PAOCTF caught Choy with marked money amounting to P30,000 handed to him by Perry, Grace, Len and Arlene.

So when Choy was tried in court, the prosecution satisfactorily established that: he was engaged in the act of recruitment and placement of workers for deployment abroad; that the five recruits were never deployed to Taiwan as factory workers; that he received certain amounts from them allegedly to be used to cover the expenses for the document and processing of complainants’ papers; that despite the non-deployment of the five recruits and repeated demands, said amounts were never reimbursed to them.

Choy conceded that all these facts were established by the prosecution but he argued that he cannot be held liable for illegal recruitment because it was not shown that he had not secured a license or authority to recruit or deploy workers. Was Choy correct?

No. It is clearly provided in Section 6 of Republic Act 8042 that any person, whether a non-licensee, licensee, non-holder or holder of authority may be held liable for illegal recruitment for certain acts enumerated in paragraphs (a) to (m) of said section.

In this case it was proven that Choy violated Section 6 (l) and (m) for representing himself to have the capacity to contract, hire, enlist and transport Filipino workers for employment as factory workers in Taiwan, and in consideration thereof he charged and accepted, directly or indirectly, certain amounts for placement and processing fee which are greater than the amount specified in the schedule of allowable fees prescribed by the DOLE. Then he subsequently failed to deploy them or reimburse the fees collected from them despite demands. Hence there is no more need to prove whether he is a licensee or not because this is no longer an element of the crime.

Choy was guilty of illegal recruitment in a large scale because it was committed against three or more persons individually or as a group. Here Choy committed the illegal recruitment against five victims. Hence he should be sentenced to life imprisonment and pay a fine of P500,000 considering that it an offense involving economic sabotage (People vs. Jimmy Ang etc. G.R. 181245, August 6, 2008).

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445.

* * *

E-mail at: [email protected]