Third Division People of The Philippines, G.R. No. 176264: Chairperson

THIRD DIVISION
INFORMATION
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Appellee,
G.R. No. 176264

The
undersigned
Asst.
Present:
Provincial
Prosecutor
accuses Susan Navarro and
CARPIO MORALES
Chairperson Tessie [Teresita] Laogo of
the
crime
of
illegal
BRION
recruitment,
penalized
BERSAMIN,
VILLARAMA, under
JR., andArt. 38 in relation to
Art[s]. 34 and 39 of the
Labor
Code
of
the
Philippines,
as
amended
by
Promulgated:
Presidential
Decree
No.
1412, committed as follows:
January 10, 2011
- versus TERESITA TESSIE LAOGO,

Appellant.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
DECISION
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
This petition assails the July 31, 2006

Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in
CA-G.R.
CR.-H.C.
No.
affirmed the Decision
[2]
01664,
which
of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC), Branch 12, of Malolos,

Bulacan in Criminal Case No. 693-M-2001.
The RTC found appellant Teresita Tessie
Laogo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of illegal recruitment in large
scale.
Appellant Teresita Tessie Laogo was the
proprietor and manager of Laogo Travel
Consultancy, a travel agency firm located
along Padre Faura Street in Manila. On
March 7, 2001, an Information[3] was filed
against appellant and a certain Susan
Navarro
(Susan)
in
Malolos,
Bulacan
charging them of the crime of Illegal

Recruitment
(Large
information reads:
Scale).
The
That in or about and during

the months of May and June
2000, in the municipality of
Bulacan,
province
of
Bulacan, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, knowing
that they are non-licensee
or non-holder of authority
from the Department of
Labor to recruit and/or place
workers
in
employment
either locally or overseas,
conspiring,
confederating
together and helping each
other, did then and there
wi[l]lfully, unlawfully and
feloniously engage in illegal
recruitment, placement or
deployment activities for a
fee, which they received
from complainants Edith
Bonifacio-Ulanday, Rogelio
Enriquez y Buenavidez, Billy
dela Cruz, Jr. y Fernandez,
Dante Lopez y Enriquez,
Teodulo
dela
Cruz
y
Mendoza, Edwin Enriquez y
Panganiban
and
Gary
Bustillos y de Guzman by
recruiting and promising
them job placement abroad,
more particularly in Guam,
which did not materialize,
without first having secured
the required license or
authority
from
the
Department of Labor and
Employment.
That the crime is committed

in a large scale tantamount
to economic sabotage as
the aforementioned seven
persons were [recruited]
individually or as a group.
fee.[6] A receipt bearing the logo and name

of Laogo Travel Consultancy was issued to
him
signed
The charge stemmed from the following

set of facts.
applicants,
went
to
appellants office and to Susans house to

follow up their application, but the two
to be released.[8]
of March 2000, Susan invited several

individuals including six of the seven
complainants namely, Teodulo dela Cruz,
Billy dela Cruz, Jr., Dante Lopez, Edwin
Rogelio
Enriquez,
and
Gary
Bustillos to her house in Bulacan, Bulacan

to celebrate the town fiesta. Appellant was
among the several guests in Susans house
during the said occasion.
during the fiesta, Gary Bustillos introduced

him to Susan as somebody who could help
him find work abroad. Since Susan was
Garys aunt, Teodulo immediately trusted
Susan. Susan told him he can apply as
assistant cook and can work in Guam,
USA. Upon Susans instruction, Teodulo
filled up an application form[4] and gave
her P3,000.00 after the latter promised to
process his application to work abroad.
On May 22, 2000, Susan accompanied
Teodulo to appellants travel agency office

where
Similarly, Billy dela Cruz, Jr. also

met Susan through Gary, who himself was
seeking help from Susan to work in Guam.
At Susans house, Billy saw Dante Lopez,
Edwin Enriquez, and Rogelio Enriquez. Like
him, the three were also seeking Susans
help to work abroad.[9] Susan introduced
Billy to appellant, who promised him that
she will send them abroad within three
According to Teodulo dela Cruz,
Ermita
other
always told them that their visas have yet
Sometime during the second week
in
later,
remained unfulfilled, Teodulo, along with

several
[5]
Susan.[7] Months
when Susans promise to send him abroad
Contrary to law.
Enriquez,
by
he
paid
an
additional P15,000.00 for his placement
months.[10] After the meeting, Billy issued

to Susan two Metrobank checks, dated
March 11 and May 10, 2000, bearing the
amounts P23,000.00
andP44,000.00,
respectively, as partial payment for his

placement fee.[11] On May 19, 2000, Billy
also went to appellants travel agency in
Ermita
and
personally
handed
an
additional cash of P6,000.00 to Susan,

who
thereafter
appellant.
gave
Appellant
the
money
issued
to
a
corresponding receipt[12] for the P6,000.00

cash bearing her signature and the name
and logo of Laogo Travel Consultancy.
After several months, no word was heard
from either Susan or appellant. Sensing
that something was wrong, Billy decided
the
required P6,000.00
to report the matter to the authorities in
[20]
Bulacan, Bulacan and filed the complaint
nothing from either Susan or appellant.
against Susan and appellant.[13]
Apprehensive, Rogelio verified the status
Months
passed
placement
but
Rogelio
fee.
heard
of the Laogo Travel Consultancy with the

Dante Lopez testified that he was also
Philippine
introduced by Gary Bustillos to appellant
Administration (POEA). From the POEA,
and Susan. Susan identified herself as an
Rogelio
employee of appellants travel agency. The
accused nor Laogo Travel was licensed to
two told him that they can send him and
recruit workers for employment abroad.
his companions to Guam within the span
Aggrieved, Rogelio, together with his six
of
three
months.[14] Lopez
paid
both
accused P6,000.00 to process his papers,
Overseas
learned
that
Employment
neither
of
the
companions, filed the complaint against

Susan and appellant.
covered by a receipt dated May 19, 2000

showing
[15]
signature.
Edwin Enriquez also paid P12,000.00 to
Appellants promise, however, turned
Susan as processing fee for his application
sour
appellants
after
three
he
to work in Guam. According to him, Susans
confronted appellant, the latter told him
husband and appellant were present when
that he would be sent to a different
he gave the money to Susan during the
country. Left without a choice, Lopez
town
waited.
dated May 16, 2000 to Edwin. The receipt
Again,
months.
the
When
promise
remained
unfulfilled.[16]
fiesta.[21] Susan
contained
the
logo
issued
of
Laogo
receipt
Travel
Consultancy and was signed by Susan with

According to Rogelio Enriquez, he also met
a description which says Payment was for
appellant during the town fiesta when
Placement Fee.[22]
Susan invited him to cook for her guests.

Susan introduced appellant as someone
Two
who could send him to work abroad. Eager
Bonifacio-Ulanday
about the prospect, Rogelio immediately
Susans nephew, were among the seven
gave his P3,000.00 cash to Susan for the
who filed the complaint against Susan and
processing of his visa and employment
appellant. The two, however, later decided
documents.[17] He saw Susan hand the
to
money
to
appellant.
[18]
week
later,
Rogelio gave an additional P900.00 to

Susan.[19] No receipts were issued on both
payments since Rogelio failed to complete
other
withdraw
persons,
and
their
namely
Gary
Edith
Bustillos,
complaints
after
executing their respective affidavits of

desistance.[23]
On March 15, 2001, warrants of

arrest[24] were issued against Susan and
appellant.
When
arraigned,
appellant
pleaded not guilty.[25] Susan, meanwhile,

remained at large. An alias warrant of
arrest[26] was issued by the trial court
against her but to no avail.
During the trial, appellant denied any
participation
in
the
illegal
activities
undertaken by Susan. She insisted that

Susan was not in any way connected with
her travel agency and that she confronted
the latter when she came to know of
Susans recruitment activities. Appellant
claimed that she even had to rename her
travel agency to Renz Consultancy and
Employment
associated
Services
with
to
Susans
avoid
being
recruitment
activities.[27]
Appellant admitted having met Rogelio at
Susans house during the town fiesta, but
denied knowing the other complainants.
According to appellant, she came to know
Rogelio when Susan specifically identified
him as the one who cooked the dishes
after some guests prodded Susan.[28]
Unsatisfied with appellants explanation,
the
trial
court
promulgated
Laogo y Villamor guilty as

principal beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of illegal
recruitment in large scale,
she is hereby sentenced to
suffer the penalty of life
imprisonment and pay a
fine
of P500,000.00
as
imposed
by
law[;]
to
indemnify
the
private
offended parties x x x actual
damages,
as
follows:
Teodulo
dela
CruzP15,000.00, Billy dela
Cruz P73,000.00,
Dante
Lopez P6,000.00,
Rogelio
Enriquez P3,000.00,
and
Edwin
Enriquez P12,000.00[;] and
to pay the costs of the
proceedings.
In the service of her
sentence the said accused,
a detention prisoner, shall
be credited with the full
time during which she had
undergone
preventive
imprisonment, pursuant to
the provisions of Art. 29 of
the Revised Penal Code.
Pending
the
actual
apprehension of the other
accused Susan Navarro,
[who is] still at-large, on the
strength of the warrant of
arrest earlier issued, let the
record be committed to the
archives subject to recall
and reinstatement, should
circumstances so warrant
for due prosecution against
her of this case.
SO ORDERED.[30]
Decision[29] finding her guilty of large scale
Appellant filed an appeal before this Court,
illegal recruitment. The fallo of the trial
but said appeal was transferred to the CA
courts July 16, 2002 Decision reads:
following our pronouncement in People v.
WHEREFORE, finding herein

accused Teresita (Tessie)
Mateo.[31]
In her Appellants Brief[32] before the
Aggrieved, appellant brought the case to
CA, appellant insisted that she had no
us on appeal, raising the same arguments
hand
she had raised at the CA.
in
the
complainants
recruitment
and
maintains
of
the
that
the
recruitment activities were made solely

upon the initiative
Navarro.
[33]
We affirm appellants conviction.
of accused Susan
her
Recruitment and placement refers to the
of
the
act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting,
that
the
transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring
transactions and the payments were made
workers, and includes referrals, contract
defense
Appellant
on
the
complainants
anchored
testimonies
who
declared
not with her but with Susan.
[34]
Appellant
services,
promising
or
advertising
for
admitted that her consultancy firm was
employment, locally or abroad, whether
merely
of
for profit or not. When a person or entity,
assisting clients in the procurement of
in any manner, offers or promises for a fee
passports and visas, and denied that her
employment to two or more persons, that
agency was involved in any recruitment
person or entity shall be deemed engaged
activity as defined under the Labor Code,
in recruitment and placement.[39]
engaged
in
the
business
as amended.[35]
Article 38(a) of the Labor Code, as
court
On July 31, 2006, the appellate
amended,
rendered
activities undertaken by non-licensees or
the
assailed
decision
specifies
that
recruitment
affirming appellants conviction.[36] The CA
non-holders
noted that although at times, it was Susan
illegal and punishable by law. And when
with whom the complainants transacted,
the
the
against three or more persons, individually
records
nevertheless
bear
that
illegal
as
of
authority
recruitment
group,
then
are
is
it
deemed
committed
appellant had a hand in the recruitment of
or
is
deemed
the complainants. The CA pointed out that
committed in large scale and carries with
appellant, together with Susan, repeatedly
it stiffer penalties as the same is deemed
assured the private complainants that her
a form of economic sabotage.[40]
consultancy firm could deploy them for

overseas
employment,[37] leading
the
But to prove illegal recruitment, it must be
appellate court to conclude that appellant
shown that the accused, without being
consciously and actively participated in
duly authorized by law, gave complainants
the recruitment of the complainants.[38]
the distinct impression that he had the

power or ability to send them abroad for
work, such that the latter were convinced
to part with their money in order to be
Appellants contention that she had to
employed.[41] It is important that there
change the name of her travel agency to
must at least be a promise or offer of an
disassociate
herself
employment from the person posing as a
recruitment
activities
recruiter, whether locally or abroad.
[42]
with
is
too
Susans
lame
to
deserve serious consideration. In light of

the testimonies of the complainants that
Here, both the trial court and the CA found
appellant with her co-accused promised
that
them
all
the
five
complainants
were
employment
abroad,
we
find
promised to be sent abroad by Susan and
appellants act of closing Laogo Travel
herein appellant[43] as cooks and assistant
Consultancy and establishing a new one
cooks. The follow up transactions between
under her husbands name[48] as just an
appellant and her victims were done
afterthought, a belated decision which
inside the said travel agency. Moreover, all
cannot undo the damage suffered by the
four receipts issued to the victims bear the
private offended parties. It could indeed
name
Travel
hardly be construed as a simple reaction
said
of an innocent person, as it in fact smacks
and
logo
Consultancy,[44] with
of
Laogo
two
of
the
receipts personally signed by appellant
of
herself.[45] Indubitably, appellant and her
individual to escape liability or to confuse
co-accused
and dishearten her victims.
acting
complainants
together
believe
that
made
they
desperate
attempt
of
guilty
were
transacting with a legitimate recruitment
WHEREFORE,
the
appeal
agency and that Laogo Travel Consultancy
is DENIED. The Decision dated July 31,
had the authority to recruit them and send
2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
them abroad for work when in truth and in
CR.-H.C. No. 01664 is AFFIRMED in toto.
fact it had none as certified by the POEA.

[46]
Absent any showing that the trial court
With costs against the accused-appellant.
and the CA overlooked or misappreciated

certain
significant
circumstances,
which
facts
if
and
properly
considered, would change the result, we

are bound by said findings.[47]
SO ORDERED.

Third Division People of The Philippines, G.R. No. 176264: Chairperson

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Third Division People of The Philippines, G.R. No. 176264: Chairperson

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Third Division People of The Philippines, G.R. No. 176264: Chairperson

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THIRD DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

G.R. No. 176264

- versus TERESITA TESSIE LAOGO,

This petition assails the July 31, 2006

affirmed the Decision

Trial Court (RTC), Branch 12, of Malolos,

charging them of the crime of Illegal

That in or about and during

That the crime is committed

fee.[6] A receipt bearing the logo and name

The charge stemmed from the following

appellants office and to Susans house to

of March 2000, Susan invited several

Bustillos to her house in Bulacan, Bulacan

during the fiesta, Gary Bustillos introduced

Teodulo to appellants travel agency office

Similarly, Billy dela Cruz, Jr. also

According to Teodulo dela Cruz,

always told them that their visas have yet

Sometime during the second week

remained unfulfilled, Teodulo, along with

when Susans promise to send him abroad

additional P15,000.00 for his placement

months.[10] After the meeting, Billy issued

respectively, as partial payment for his

additional cash of P6,000.00 to Susan,

corresponding receipt[12] for the P6,000.00

that something was wrong, Billy decided

to report the matter to the authorities in

Bulacan, Bulacan and filed the complaint

nothing from either Susan or appellant.

against Susan and appellant.[13]

Apprehensive, Rogelio verified the status

of the Laogo Travel Consultancy with the

introduced by Gary Bustillos to appellant

Administration (POEA). From the POEA,

and Susan. Susan identified herself as an

employee of appellants travel agency. The

accused nor Laogo Travel was licensed to

two told him that they can send him and

recruit workers for employment abroad.

his companions to Guam within the span

Aggrieved, Rogelio, together with his six

accused P6,000.00 to process his papers,

companions, filed the complaint against

covered by a receipt dated May 19, 2000

Edwin Enriquez also paid P12,000.00 to

Appellants promise, however, turned

Susan as processing fee for his application

to work in Guam. According to him, Susans

confronted appellant, the latter told him

husband and appellant were present when

that he would be sent to a different

he gave the money to Susan during the

country. Left without a choice, Lopez

dated May 16, 2000 to Edwin. The receipt

Consultancy and was signed by Susan with