This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2011-06-01 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| In People v. Hu,[28] we held that a conviction for large scale illegal recruitment must be based on a finding in each case of illegal recruitment of three or more persons, whether individually or as a group. While it is true that the law does not require that at least three victims testify at the trial, nevertheless, it is necessary that there is sufficient evidence proving that the offense was committed against three or more persons. In this case, there is conclusive evidence that Ocden recruited Mana-a, Ferrer, and Golidan's sons, Jeffries and Howard, for purported employment as factory workers in Italy. As aptly observed by the Court of Appeals: Mana-a's testimony, although not completed, sufficiently established that accused-appellant promised Mana-a a job placement in a factory in Italy for a fee with accused-appellant even accompanying her for the required medical examination. Likewise, Julia Golidan's testimony adequately proves that accused-appellant recruited Jeffries and Howard Golidan for a job in Italy, also for a fee. Contrary to the accused-appellant's contention, Julia had personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances surrounding the charges for illegal recruitment and estafa filed by her sons. Julia was not only privy to her sons' recruitment but also directly transacted with accused-appellant, submitting her sons' requirements and paying the placement fees as evidenced by a receipt issued in her name. Even after the placement did not materialize, Julia acted with her sons to secure the partial reimbursement of the placement fees.[29] | |||||
|
2010-12-08 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| We find as well that the CA decision should be modified by adding an award of legal interest with respect to the complainants' civil indemnity. The amounts of civil indemnity represent the amount of placement fees that the complainants paid to Dimayuga and the appellant. The legal interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum shall be imposed, reckoned from the filing of the information until the finality of the judgment, consistent with prevailing jurisprudence.[5] | |||||
|
2009-06-25 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| As to the sentence imposed upon petitioner Ritualo for the crime of simple illegal recruitment, this Court clarifies that the penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals - a sentence of 12 years imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00 - is partly incorrect, as petitioner Ritualo is a non-licensee.[51] Under Sec. 7(a) of Republic Act No. 8042, simple illegal recruitment is punishable by imprisonment of not less than six (6) years and one (1) day but not more than twelve (12) years and a fine of not less than Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00) nor more than Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00). Applying the provisions of Section 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence law, however, the correct penalty that should have been imposed upon petitioner Ritualo is imprisonment for the period of eight (8) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to twelve (12) years, as maximum.[52] The imposition of a fine of P500,000.00 is also in order. | |||||
|
2009-05-21 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The elements of illegal recruitment are (1) the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers; and (2) he undertakes any activity within the meaning of "recruitment and placement" defined under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code.[18] Recruitment and placement is "any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers; and includes referrals, contact 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."[19] | |||||