FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 129577-80. February 15,
2000]
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BULU CHOWDURY, accused-appellant.
D E C I S I O N
PUNO, J.:
In November 1995, Bulu Chowdury and
Josephine Ong were charged before the Regional Trial Court of Manila with the
crime of illegal recruitment in large scale committed as follows:
"That
sometime between the period from August 1994 to October 1994 in the City of
Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, representing themselves to have the capacity to contract,
enlist and transport workers for employment abroad, conspiring, confederating
and mutually helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously recruit the herein complainants: Estrella B. Calleja, Melvin C.
Miranda and Aser S. Sasis, individually or as a group for employment in Korea
without first obtaining the required license and/or authority from the
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration."[1]
They were likewise charged with three counts
of estafa committed against private complainants.[2] The State Prosecutor, however, later dismissed the
estafa charges against Chowdury[3] and filed an amended information indicting only Ong
for the offense.[4]
Chowdury was arraigned on April 16, 1996
while Ong remained at large. He pleaded "not guilty" to the charge of
illegal recruitment in large scale.[5]
Trial ensued.
The prosecution presented four witnesses:
private complainants Aser Sasis, Estrella Calleja and Melvin Miranda, and Labor
Employment Officer Abbelyn Caguitla.
Sasis testified that he first met Chowdury in August 1994 when he applied
with Craftrade Overseas Developers (Craftrade) for employment as factory worker
in South Korea. Chowdury, a consultant of Craftrade, conducted the interview.
During the interview, Chowdury informed him about the requirements for
employment. He told him to submit his passport, NBI clearance, passport size
picture and medical certificate. He also required him to undergo a seminar. He
advised him that placement would be on a first-come-first-serve basis and urged
him to complete the requirements immediately. Sasis was also charged a
processing fee of P25,000.00. Sasis completed all the requirements in
September 1994. He also paid a total amount of P16,000.00 to Craftrade
as processing fee. All payments were received by Ong for which she issued three
receipts.[6] Chowdury then processed his papers and convinced him
to complete his payment.[7]
Sasis further said that he went to the
office of Craftrade three times to follow up his application but he was always
told to return some other day. In one of his visits to Craftrade’s office, he
was informed that he would no longer be deployed for employment abroad. This
prompted him to withdraw his payment but he could no longer find Chowdury.
After two unsuccessful attempts to contact him, he decided to file with the
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) a case for illegal
recruitment against Chowdury. Upon verification with the POEA, he learned that
Craftrade's license had already expired and has not been renewed and that
Chowdury, in his personal capacity, was not a licensed recruiter.[8]
Calleja testified that in June 1994, she applied with Craftrade for employment
as factory worker in South Korea. She was interviewed by Chowdury. During the
interview, he asked questions regarding her marital status, her age and her
province. Toward the end of the interview, Chowdury told her that she would be
working in a factory in Korea. He required her to submit her passport, NBI
clearance, ID pictures, medical certificate and birth certificate. He also
obliged her to attend a seminar on overseas employment. After she submitted all
the documentary requirements, Chowdury required her to pay P20,000.00 as
placement fee. Calleja made the payment on August 11, 1994 to Ong for which she
was issued a receipt.[9] Chowdury assured her that she would be able to leave
on the first week of September but it proved to be an empty promise. Calleja
was not able to leave despite several follow-ups. Thus, she went to the POEA
where she discovered that Craftrade's license had already expired. She tried to
withdraw her money from Craftrade to no avail. Calleja filed a complaint for
illegal recruitment against Chowdury upon advice of POEA's legal counsel.[10]
Miranda testified that in September 1994, his cousin accompanied him to the
office of Craftrade in Ermita, Manila and introduced him to Chowdury who
presented himself as consultant and interviewer. Chowdury required him to fill
out a bio-data sheet before conducting the interview. Chowdury told Miranda
during the interview that he would send him to Korea for employment as factory
worker. Then he asked him to submit the following documents: passport, passport
size picture, NBI clearance and medical certificate. After he complied with the
requirements, he was advised to wait for his visa and to pay P25,000.00
as processing fee. He paid the amount of P25,000.00 to Ong who issued
receipts therefor.[11] Craftrade, however, failed to deploy him. Hence,
Miranda filed a complaint with the POEA against Chowdury for illegal
recruitment.[12]
Labor Employment Officer Abbelyn Caguitla
of the Licensing Branch of the POEA testified that she prepared a certification
on June 9, 1996 that Chowdury and his co-accused, Ong, were not, in their
personal capacities, licensed recruiters nor were they connected with any
licensed agency. She nonetheless stated that Craftrade was previously licensed
to recruit workers for abroad which expired on December 15, 1993. It applied
for renewal of its license but was only granted a temporary license effective
December 16, 1993 until September 11, 1994. From September 11, 1994, the POEA
granted Craftrade another temporary authority to process the expiring visas of
overseas workers who have already been deployed. The POEA suspended Craftrade's
temporary license on December 6, 1994.[13]
For his defense, Chowdury testified that he worked as interviewer at Craftrade
from 1990 until 1994. His primary duty was to interview job applicants for
abroad. As a mere employee, he only followed the instructions given by his
superiors, Mr. Emmanuel Geslani, the agency’s President and General Manager,
and Mr. Utkal Chowdury, the agency's Managing Director. Chowdury admitted that
he interviewed private complainants on different dates. Their office secretary
handed him their bio-data and thereafter he led them to his room where he
conducted the interviews. During the interviews, he had with him a form
containing the qualifications for the job and he filled out this form based on
the applicant's responses to his questions. He then submitted them to Mr. Utkal
Chowdury who in turn evaluated his findings. He never received money from the
applicants. He resigned from Craftrade on November 12, 1994.[14]
Another defense witness, Emelita
Masangkay who worked at the Accreditation Branch of the POEA presented a
list of the accredited principals of Craftrade Overseas Developers[15] and a list of processed workers of Craftrade
Overseas Developers from 1988 to 1994.[16]
The trial court found Chowdury guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale. It
sentenced him to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P100,000.00. It
further ordered him to pay Aser Sasis the amount of P16,000.00, Estrella
Calleja, P20,000.00 and Melvin Miranda, P25,000.00. The
dispositive portion of the decision reads:
"WHEREFORE,
in view of the foregoing considerations, the prosecution having proved the
guilt of the accused Bulu Chowdury beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Illegal Recruitment in large scale, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the
penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P100,000.00 under Art. 39 (b)
of the New Labor Code of the Philippines. The accused is ordered to pay the
complainants Aser Sasis the amount of P16,000.00; Estrella Calleja the
amount of P20,000.00; Melvin Miranda the amount of P25,000.00."[17]
Chowdury appealed.
The elements of illegal recruitment in large
scale are:
(1) The accused undertook any recruitment
activity defined under Article 13 (b) or any prohibited practice enumerated
under Article 34 of the Labor Code;
(2) He did not have the license or authority
to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers; and
(3) He committed the same against three or
more persons, individually or as a group.[18]
The last paragraph of Section 6 of Republic
Act (RA) 8042[19] states who shall be held liable for the
offense, thus:
"The persons
criminally liable for the above offenses are the principals, accomplices and
accessories. In case of juridical persons, the officers having control,
management or direction of their business shall be liable."
The Revised Penal Code which supplements the
law on illegal recruitment[20] defines who are the principals, accomplices and
accessories. The principals are: (1) those who take a direct part in the
execution of the act; (2) those who directly force or induce others to commit
it; and (3) those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act
without which it would not have been accomplished.[21] The accomplices are those persons who may not be
considered as principal as defined in Section 17 of the Revised Penal Code but
cooperate in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous act.[22] The accessories are those who, having knowledge of
the commission of the crime, and without having participated therein, either as
principals or accomplices, take part subsequent to its commission in any of the
following manner: (1) by profiting themselves or assisting the offenders to
profit by the effects of the crime; (2) by concealing or destroying the body of
the crime, or the effects or instruments thereof, in order to prevent its
discovery; and (3) by harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the
principal of the crime, provided the accessory acts with abuse of his public
functions or whenever the author of the crime is guilty of treason, parricide,
murder, or an attempt at the life of the chief executive, or is known to be
habitually guilty of some other crime.[23]
Citing the second sentence of the last
paragraph of Section 6 of RA 8042, accused-appellant contends that he may not
be held liable for the offense as he was merely an employee of Craftrade and he
only performed the tasks assigned to him by his superiors. He argues that the
ones who should be held liable for the offense are the officers having control,
management and direction of the agency.
As stated in the first sentence of Section 6
of RA 8042, the persons who may be held liable for illegal recruitment are the
principals, accomplices and accessories. An employee of a company or
corporation engaged in illegal recruitment may be held liable as principal, together
with his employer,[24] if it is shown that he actively and consciously
participated in illegal recruitment.[25] It has been held 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.[26] 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.[27] 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.[28]
The fundamental issue in this case,
therefore, is whether accused-appellant knowingly and intentionally
participated in the commission of the crime charged.
We find that he did not.
Evidence shows that accused-appellant
interviewed private complainants in the months of June, August and September in
1994 at Craftrade's office. At that time, he was employed as interviewer of
Craftrade which was then operating under a temporary authority given by the
POEA pending renewal of its license.[29] The temporary license included the authority to
recruit workers.[30] He was convicted based on the fact that he was not
registered with the POEA as employee of Craftrade. Neither was he, in his
personal capacity, licensed to recruit overseas workers. Section 10 Rule II
Book II of the Rules and Regulation Governing Overseas Employment (1991)
requires that every change, termination or appointment of officers,
representatives and personnel of licensed agencies be registered with
the POEA. Agents or representatives appointed by a licensed recruitment agency
whose appointments are not previously approved by the POEA are considered
"non-licensee " or "non-holder of authority" and therefore
not authorized to engage in recruitment activity.[31]
Upon examination of the records, however, we
find that the prosecution failed to prove that accused-appellant was aware of
Craftrade's failure to register his name with the POEA and that he actively
engaged in recruitment despite this knowledge. The obligation to register its
personnel with the POEA belongs to the officers of the agency.[32] A mere employee of the agency cannot be expected to
know the legal requirements for its operation. The evidence at hand shows that
accused-appellant carried out his duties as interviewer of Craftrade believing
that the agency was duly licensed by the POEA and he, in turn, was duly
authorized by his agency to deal with the applicants in its behalf.
Accused-appellant in fact confined his actions to his job description. He
merely interviewed the applicants and informed them of the requirements for
deployment but he never received money from them. Their payments were received
by the agency's cashier, Josephine Ong. Furthermore, he performed his tasks
under the supervision of its president and managing director. Hence, we hold
that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt
accused-appellant's conscious and active participation in the commission of the
crime of illegal recruitment. His conviction, therefore, is without basis.
This is not to say that private complainants
are left with no remedy for the wrong committed against them. The Department of
Justice may still file a complaint against the officers having control,
management or direction of the business of Craftrade Overseas Developers
(Craftrade), so long as the offense has not yet prescribed. Illegal recruitment
is a crime of economic sabotage which need to be curbed by the strong arm of
the law. It is important, however, to stress that the government's action must
be directed to the real offenders, those who perpetrate the crime and benefit
from it.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the assailed decision of the Regional Trial Court
is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant is hereby ACQUITTED. The Director
of the Bureau of Corrections is ordered to RELEASE accused-appellant unless he
is being held for some other cause, and to REPORT to this Court compliance with
this order within ten (10) days from receipt of this decision. Let a copy of
this Decision be furnished the Secretary of the Department of Justice for his
information and appropriate action.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Kapunan,
Pardo, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.
[1] Information, Original Records, p. 2.
[2] Original Records, pp. 16-23.
[3] Resolution dated March 20, 1996, Original Records, pp. 63-69.
[4] Amended Information for Criminal Case No. 146336, Original Records, pp. 61-62; Amended Information for Criminal Case No. 146337, Original Records, pp. 89-90.
[5] Original Records, p. 95.
[6] Exh. "A", "B" and "C".
[7] TSN, May 14, 1996, pp. 5-17.
[8] Id., pp. 19-22.
[9] Exh. "E".
[10] TSN, May 15, 1996, pp. 6-21.
[11] Exh. "L", "M", "N".
[12] TSN, October 23, 1996, pp. 6-19.
[13] TSN, July 2, 1996, pp. 8-32.
[14] TSN, December 17, 1996, pp. 4-30.
[15] Exh. "7".
[16] Exh. "8".
[17] Rollo, p. 24.
[18] People vs. Peralta, 283 SCRA 81 (1997); People vs. Villas, 277 SCRA 391 (1997); People vs. Santos, 276 SCRA 329 (1997); People vs. Garcia, 271 SCRA 621 (1997).
[19] Migrants and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995.
[20] Article 10, Revised Penal Code.
[21] Article 17, supra.
[22] Article 18, supra.
[23] Article 19, supra.
[24] The corporation also incurs criminal liability for the act of its employee or agent if (1) the employee or agent committed the offense while acting within the scope of his employment and (2) the offense was committed with at least some intent to benefit the employer. The liability is imputed to the corporation not because it actively participated in the malice or fraud but because the act is done for the benefit of the corporation while the employee or agent was acting within the scope of his employment in the business of the corporation, and justice requires that the latter shall be held responsible for damages to the individual who suffered by such conduct. [New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Co. vs. US, 212 U.S. 481, 53 L. ed. 613 (1909); US vs. Basic Construction Co., et al., 711 F.2d 570 (1983); US vs. Automated Medical Laboratories, Inc., 770 F.2d 399 (1985)].
[25] See People vs. Goce, 247 SCRA 780 (1995); People vs. Alforte, 219 SCRA 458 1993).
[26] State vs. Placzek, 380 A.2d 1010 (1977); Wainer vs. US, 82 F.2d 305 (1936).
[27] People vs. Mc Cauley, 561 P.2d 335 (1977).
[28] US vs. Gold, 743 F.2d 800 (1984); La Vielle vs. People, 157 P.2d 621 (1945).
[29] Exh. "K", Certification dated July 1, 1996 signed by Ma. Salome S. Mendoza, Manager, Licensing Branch, POEA, Original Records, p. 147.
[30] Testimony of Labor Employment Officer Abbelyn Caguitla, TSN, July 2, 1996, pp. 27-28.
[31] Abaca vs. CA, 290 SCRA 657 (1998).
[32] Supra at 30.