Scribd
Upload
156 views

G.R. No. 113161 Case Digest

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Nelly Agustin for illegal recruitment in large scale. According to testimony, Agustin interviewed applicants, collected payments for recruitment fees and expenses, and handled passports and documents, constituting illegal recruitment. While Agustin claimed she only introduced applicants to licensed recruiters, the court found receipts proved Agustin's involvement in the recruitment process and collection of fees. The Court ruled Agustin's acts fell under the definition of illegal recruitment under the Labor Code and there was sufficient evidence to prove her guilt.

Uploaded by

Neil Chavez
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
156 views

G.R. No. 113161 Case Digest

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Nelly Agustin for illegal recruitment in large scale. According to testimony, Agustin interviewed applicants, collected payments for recruitment fees and expenses, and handled passports and documents, constituting illegal recruitment. While Agustin claimed she only introduced applicants to licensed recruiters, the court found receipts proved Agustin's involvement in the recruitment process and collection of fees. The Court ruled Agustin's acts fell under the definition of illegal recruitment under the Labor Code and there was sufficient evidence to prove her guilt.

Uploaded by

Neil Chavez
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

G.R. No.

113161 Case Digest


G.R. No. 113161, August 29, 1995
People of the Phil., plaintiff-appellee
vs Loma Goce, et. al., accused-appellant
Ponente: Regalado

Facts:
On January 1988, an information for illegal recruitment committed by a
syndicate and in large scale, punishable under Articles 38 and 39 of the
labor code as amended by PD 2018, filed against Dan and Loma Goce
and Nelly Agustin in the RTC of Manila, alleging that in or about during
the period comprised between May 1986 and June 25, 1987, both dates
inclusive in the City of Manila, the accused conspired and represent
themsleves to have the capacity to recruit Filipino workers for
employment abroad.

January 1987, a warrant of arrest was issued against the 3 accused bot
none of them was arrested. Hence, on February 1989, the RTC ordered
the case archived but issued a standing warrant of arrest against the
accused.

Thereafter, knowing the whereabouts of the accused, Rogelio Salado


requested for a copy of the warrant of arrest and eventually Nelly Agustin
was apprehended by the Paranaque Police. Agustin's counsel filed a
motion to revive the case and requested to set a hearing for purpose of
due process and for accused to immediately have her day in court. On the
arraignment, Agustin pleaded not guilty and the trial went on with four
complainants testified for the prosecution and reciepts of the processing
fees they paid.

Agustin for the defense asserted that Goce couple were licensed recruiters
but denied her participation in the recruitment and denied knowledge of
the receipts as well.

On November 1993, trial court rendered judgment finding that Agustin as


a principal in the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale with sentence
of life imprisonment and pay P100,000.00.

Issues:
Agustin appealed witht the follwing arguments: (1) her act of introducing
the complainants to the couple does not fall within the meaning of illegal
recruitment and placement under Article 13 in relation to Article 34 of the
labor code; (2) there is no proof of conspiracy and (3) there is no proof
that appellant offered/promised overseas employment to the
complainants.

Ruling:

The testimonial evidence shows that Agustin indeed further committted


acts constitutive of illegal recruitment because, the complainants had a
previous interview with Agustin (as employee of the Goce couple) about
fees and papers to submit that may constitute as referral. Agustin
collected the payments of the complainants as well as their passports,
trainning fees, medical tests and other expenses.On the issue of proof, the
court held that the receipts exhibited by the claimants are clear enough to
prove the payments and transaction made.

You might also like