14. People of the Philippines vs. Roger Sagun. G.R. No. 119076. March 25, 2002.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROGER SEGUN and JOSEPHINE CLAM,
accused-appellants.

KAPUNAN, J.:

CASE: APPEAL from a decision of the Regional Trial Court of Iligan City, Br. 4

FACTS:

Appellant Roger Sagun is the liaison officer of Rolmar Employment Services who undertakes
the processing of the papers for the agency’s license. Appellant Josephine Clam, who was residing at
Linamon, Lanao del Norte, used to work as a house helper in Pangasinan and Bulacan for a year and
after which she returned to Linamon. She was known in Linamon as someone who was able to
secure a job in “Manila” (though it was precisely in Pangasinan and Bulacan).

During the months of March and April 1993, while the appellants were staying in Linamon,
several persons residing in their neighborhood went to their house inquiring about how they can
secure a job in Manila. They then accompanied 13 persons from them to go to find jobs in
Cabanatuan.

Appellants were eventually charged before the RTC of Iligan City with the violation of Article 38
of the Labor Code, as amended for violating Art. 38 of the Labor Code, as amended, for illegally
recruiting 13 individuals from their community/neighborhood. The prosecution particularly accused
them of “confederating and mutually helping each other, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously canvass, enlist, contract, transport and recruit for employment 13 persons
without any license and/or authority to engage in recruitment and placement of workers from
the Department of Labor and Employment. They were: 1.Mario Tambacan; 2.Mary Jane Cantil;
3.Richard Arañas; 4.Victoria Collantes; 5.Christine Collantes; 6.Rogelio Collantes;7.Luther
Caban;8.Loreta Caban; 9.Jonard Genemelo; 10.Jhonely Genemelo; 11.Pedro Ozarraga; 12.Pablo
Ozarraga; and 13.Pacifico Villaver.

The prosecution presented 2 certifications proving that the appellants were not authorized to
recruit workers either for local or overseas employment. The 1 st certification was from DOLE and the
2nd one was issued by the Mayor of Linamon, Lanao del Norte, Mayor Alejandro Alfeche. They also
presented 8 witnesses who testified that their relatives Mario Tambacan, Richard Arañas, twins Pedro
and Pablo Ozarraga, Jhonely and Jonard Genemelo, Victoria Collantes together with her 13-year old
daughter and 6-year old son were all “recruited” by the appellants for a good job in Manila with good
wages and free meals. They were also given free fare to Manila up to Cabanatuan. Except for the
children Christine and Rogelio, most of these relatives have not heard of the “recruits” since their
departure via boat in April 1993.

In their defense, the appellants denied as being engaged in recruitment. They presented 5
witnesses who testified that their relatives or family members were given help by the appellants to
secure good paying jobs in Manila. They argued that they just wanted to help their kababayans to find
jobs or better jobs to help their families. Since they were going to depart in April 1993, they opted to
accompany the 13 persons. They initially paid for their fare with a promise of reimbursement once
they are able to secure jobs. They were able to help find jobs for their neighbors by recommending
them to friends who needed helpers and workers. Until they were able to find jobs, the 13 stayed in
Roger’s house in Cabanatuan City.

After trial, the RTC convicted appellants for violating Article 38 of the Labor Code, as amended
for being guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Recruitment in a large scale of the 13 persons
mentioned in the information. They were sentenced to suffer a penalty of life imprisonment for each of
them and to pay a fine of P100,000.00 each.

Article 38 provides that:

Any recruitment activities, including the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of
this Code, to be undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of authority, shall be deemed
illegal and punishable under Article 39 of this Code. The Department of Labor and
Employment or any law enforcement officer may initiate complaints under this Article.

Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall be considered an

Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or
more persons conspiring and/or confederating with one another in carrying out any unlawful or
illegal transaction, enterprise or scheme defined under the first paragraph hereof. Illegal
recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more
persons individually or as a group.

Hence, this appeal.

In this appeal, the appellants maintained that they were not engaged in the recruitment of
persons for employment. It was their neighbors who approached them in the house of Josephine
Clam’s mother and solicited their assistance in their (the neighbors’) desire to go to Manila as they
knew that Josephine Clam had an employment in Luzon and had just returned to Linamon. In
Josephine, the neighbors saw an opportunity to taste economic progress and escape poverty and
stagnation. Appellants took pity on them and helped them find jobs, even defraying their neighbors’
travel expenses. What they did was in pursuit of a lawful and noble endeavor for the benefit of the
less fortunate. They neither collected nor received any consideration for their efforts.

ISSUE: Whether or not accused-appellants Roger Segun and Josephine Clam are guilty of
Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale - NO

HELD: They appellants were only guilty of “simple” illegal recruitment.

The crime of illegal recruitment in large scale is committed when three elements concur.
First, the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable one to lawfully engage in
recruitment and placement of workers. Second, he or she undertakes either any activity within the
meaning of “recruitment and placement” defined under Article 13 (b), or any prohibited practices
enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code. Third, the offender commits said acts against three
or more persons, individually or as a group.
 The first element was substantiated by the certifications presented by the prosecution and by
the appellants themselves in arguing that they were not engaged in recruitment.

The second element was not substantiated by all the witnesses of the prosecution. Some of
them have no personal knowledge of the “recruitment” and merely heard it from their relatives who
were allegedly recruited by the appellants. Most fatal in this case is that testimonies were far from
conclusive that appellants actually recruited them. The witnesses used the term “recruit” which is
a conclusion of law as the prosecution did not elicit from him the specific act constituting the
recruitment. To warrant probative value for conviction, the witness must testify as to the facts
that would prove recruitment. It does not suffice that the witness simply state that the accused
“recruited” the “victim.”

Section 36, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court states that a witness can testify only to those facts
which he knows of his personal knowledge. He is not permitted to testify as to a conclusion of law as
such conclusions of law belong properly to the court. Testimony constituting conclusions of law
has no probative value and is not binding upon the court.

However, the prosecution was able to prove that appellants performed recruitment activities
only in the cases of Victoria Collantes and Loreta Cavan. As the prosecution failed to elicit from many
of its witnesses the specific acts constituting the recruitment of the other alleged victims, the third
element was, therefore, absent in this case.

As such, the SC found that appellants are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of
illegal recruitment, as defined and punished by Article 38 (a) of the Labor Code, in relation to
Articles 13(b) and 39 thereof. They are each sentenced to suffer for each amount
imprisonment of four (4) to five (5) years.