Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. BULU CHOWDURY

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 168852 2008-09-30	SHARICA MARI L. GO-TAN v. SPS. PERFECTO C. TAN AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In People v. Chowdury,[20] the Court applied suppletorily Articles 17, 18 and 19 of the RPC to define the words "principal," "accomplices" and "accessories" under R.A. No. 8042, otherwise known as the "Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995," because said words were not defined therein, although the special law referred to the same terms in enumerating the persons liable for the crime of illegal recruitment.
	GR NOS. 165510-33 2006-07-28	BENJAMIN T.ROMUALDEZ v. SIMEON V. MARCELO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In the case of People v. Chowdury,[39] the Court applied Articles 17, 18 and 19 of the Revised Penal Code to define the words "principal," "accomplices" and "accessories" under RA No. 8042 or the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 because it was not defined therein although it referred to the same terms in enumerating the persons liable for the crime of illegal recruitment.
	GR No. 148198 2003-10-01	PEOPLE v. ELIZABETH 'BETH' CORPUZ YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
An employee of a company or corporation engaged in illegal recruitment may be held liable as principal, together with his employer, if it is shown that he actively and consciously participated in illegal recruitment. Settled is the rule that the existence of the corporate entity does not shield from prosecution the corporate agent who knowingly and intentionally causes the corporation to commit a crime. The corporation obviously acts, and can act, only by and through its human agents, and it is their conduct which the law must deter. The employee or agent of a corporation engaged in unlawful business naturally aids and abets in the carrying on of such business and will be prosecuted as principal if, with knowledge of the business, its purpose and effect, he consciously contributes his efforts to its conduct and promotion, however slight his contribution may be. The law of agency, as applied in civil cases, has no application in criminal cases, and no man can escape punishment when he participates in the commission of a crime upon the ground that he simply acted as an agent of any party. The culpability of the employee therefore hinges on his knowledge of the offense and his active participation in its commission. Where it is shown that the employee was merely acting under the direction of his superiors and was unaware that his acts constituted a crime, he may not be held criminally liable for an act done for and in behalf of his employer.[19]
	GR No. 119858 2003-04-29	EDWARD C. ONG v. CA CARPIO, J.
x x x. (Emphasis supplied)[25] True, petitioner acted on behalf of ARMAGRI. However, it is a well-settled rule that the law of agency governing civil cases has no application in criminal cases. When a person participates in the commission of a crime, he cannot escape punishment on the ground that he simply acted as an agent of another party.[26] In the instant case, the Bank accepted the trust receipts signed by petitioner based on petitioner's representations. It is the fact of being the signatory to the two trust receipts, and thus a direct participant to the crime, which makes petitioner a person responsible for the offense.
	GR No. 129070 2001-03-16	PEOPLE v. NELLIE CABAIS Y GAMUELA PARDO, J.
Accused-appellant contends that she was not involved in recruitment but was merely an employee of a recruitment agency. An employee of a company or corporation engaged in illegal recruitment may be held liable as principal, together with his employer, if it is shown that he actively and consciously participated in illegal recruitment.[21] Recruitment is "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."[22] In this case, evidence showed that accused-appellant was the one who informed complainants of job prospects in Korea and the requirements for deployment. She also received money from them as placement fees. All of the complainants testified that they personally met accused-appellant and transacted with her regarding the overseas job placement offers. Complainants parted with their money, evidenced by receipts signed by accused Cabais and accused Forneas. Thus, accused-appellant actively participated in the recruitment of the complainants.