The law's protection to OFWs continues to manifest in the form of new laws and labor jurisprudence where illegal recruitment is condemned and penalized with increasing severity. The regulation of recruitment of Filipino workers for deployment abroad is becoming stricter and tighter and the Courts are becoming more and more harsh against illegal recruiters and traffickers. R A 10022, which was approved in 2010, amended substantially amended RA 8042, otherwise known as the MAGNA CARTA FOR FILIPINO MIGRANT WORKERS OF 1995, has added more acts constituting illegal recruitment and increased the penalty for the crime of illegal recruitment.
The Supreme Court has also become very hard on illegal recruitment. In one case, Pp vs Lalli ( GR 195419, 12 Oct 2011 ), the Supreme Court convicted a lady recruiter in Mindanao and sentenced her to LIFE IMPRISONMENT with a fine of two million pesos for the crime of illegal recruitment. The High Court also convicted the same woman of TRAFFICKING IN PERSON, involving the same victim, and sentenced her to another LIFE SENTENCE with another fine of half a million for deploying a young woman to Malaysia and led her to become a prostitute. The victim was also granted Moral and Exemplary Damages in the amount of six hundred thousand pesos to be paid by the convicted recruiter.
The Court held that there was no double jeopardy despite the fact that the recruiter and the victim were the same in both the Illegal Recruitment and the Trafficking cases, because the first crime is a violation of the Labor Code, as amended, and the second was a violation of a special law, R A 9208 or the Anti-Trafficking Law. In the case of Pp vs Ocden (GR 173198, 1 June 2011 ) the court affirmed the conviction of the accused even if the prosecutor did not submit any evidence showing that the accused had no license to recruit. Under the present law, even licensed recruiters may be guilty if they commit any of the acts enumerated in Article 38 of the Labor Code.
Even if the complainant later executed an affidavit of withdrawal and has forgiven the recruiter, the court may still convict her, if the withdrawal is done rather belatedly, after the prosecution has rested its case and after all the witnesses against the accused already testified and all documentary evidence already testified. It was a reiteration of the precedent in Pp vs Romero (GR 10387 to 87, 26 July 1993). The same accused victimizing the same person may be convicted of both illegal recruitment under the Labor Code and also of estafa under the Penal Code, This too was the ruling in Pp vs Yabut ( 373 Phil 575 1999This does not constitute double jeopardy).
In Pp vs Gallo (G R 187730, 29 June 2010), the crime of illegal recruitment becomes of LARGE SCALE if the victims are at least three or more. It is deemed syndicated if the offenders number at least three. Even if the accused is not affiliated with any licensed recruitment agency, conviction can still be imposed if the elements are present. In the case of Pp Benson Ong, (G R 119594, 18 Jan 2000), even if the accused merely suggested where to apply, and which agency to approach, conviction can also be justified even if there is no money involved.
attyjosephusbjimenez@yahoo.com