FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 168445. November 11, 2005.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , appellee, vs . CAPT. FLORENCIO O.

GASACAO , appellant.

DECISION

YNARES-SANTIAGO , J : p

This is an appeal from the May 18, 2005 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. CR No. 00800 dismissing the appeal of appellant, Florencio O. Gasacao and
affirming the March 5, 2001 Joint Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon
City, Branch 218, nding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Large Scale Illegal
Recruitment in Crim. Case No. Q-00-94240 and acquitting him of the charge in Crim.
Case No. Q-00-94241.
The factual antecedents are as follows:
Appellant was the Crewing Manager of Great Eastern Shipping Agency Inc., a
licensed local manning agency, while his nephew and co-accused, Jose Gasacao, was
the President. As the crewing manager, appellant's duties included receiving job
applications, interviewing the applicants and informing them of the agency's
requirement of payment of performance or cash bond prior to deployment.
On August 4, 2000, appellant and Jose Gasacao were charged with Large Scale
Illegal Recruitment de ned under Section 6, paragraphs (a), (l) and (m) of Republic Act
(RA) No. 8042 or the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, and
penalized under Section 7 (b) of the same law, before the RTC of Quezon City.
The informations read:
In Criminal Case No. Q-00-94240

That sometime in the months of May to December, 1999 or thereabout, in

Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and
mutually helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
criminally recruit, enlist and promise overseas employment to the private
complainants, namely, Lindy M. Villamor, Dennis Cabangahan, Erencio C. Alaba,
Victorino U. Caderao, Rommel B. Patolen, Joseph A. Demetria and Louie A. Arca,
as overseas seamen/seafarers, the said accused thereby charging, exacting and
collecting from the said private complainants cash bonds and/or performance
bonds in amounts ranging from P10,000.00 to P20,000.00 without any authority
to do so and despite the fact that the same is prohibited by the POEA Rules and
Regulations, which amount is greater than that speci ed in the schedule of
allowable fees prescribed by the Secretary of Labor and Employment, and despite
the payment of the said fees, the said accused failed to actually deploy the
private complainants without valid reasons as determined by the Department of
Labor and Employment and despite the failure of deployment, the said accused
failed to reimburse the expenses incurred by the said private complainants in
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com
 connection with their documentation and processing for the purpose of their
supposed deployment. DCaSHI

CONTRARY TO LAW. 3

In Criminal Case No. Q-00-94241

That sometime in the months of September to November 1999 or

thereabout, in Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and
mutually helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
criminally recruit, enlist and promise overseas employment to the private
complainants, namely, Melvin I. Yadao, Frederick Calambro and Andy Bandiola,
as overseas seamen/seafarers, the said accused thereby charging, exacting and
collecting from the said private complainants cash bonds and/or performance
bonds in amounts ranging from P10,000.00 to P20,000.00 without any authority
to do so and despite the fact that the same is prohibited by the POEA Rules and
Regulations, which amount is greater that speci ed in the schedule of allowable
fees prescribed by the Secretary Labor and Employment, and despite the payment
of said fees, the said accused failed to actually deploy the private complainants
without valid reasons as determined by the Department of Labor and
Employment and despite the failure of deployment, the said accused failed to
reimburse the expenses incurred by the said private complainants in connection
with their documentation and processing for the purpose of their supposed
deployment.

SO ORDERED. 4

Only the appellant was arrested while Jose Gasacao remained at large. When
arraigned, appellant pleaded not guilty to the offense charged. Thereafter, trial on the
merits ensued. On March 5, 2001, the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 218, rendered its
Joint Decision convicting appellant of Large Scale Illegal Recruitment in Crim. Case No.
Q-00-94240 and acquitting him of the charge in Crim. Case No. Q-00-94241. The
dispositive portion of the joint decision reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:

1. In Crim. Case No. Q-00-94240, the prosecution having established the guilt
of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the Court nds Florencio O.
Gasacao GUILTY of Large Scale Illegal Recruitment punishable under
Section 7, (b) of R.A. 8042. He is sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and
a ne of P500,000.00. He shall also indemnify Dennis C. Cabangahan in
the amount of P8,750.00; Lindy M. Villamor for P20,000.00; Victorino U.
Caderao for P20,000.00; Rommel B. Patolen for P20,000.00; and Erencio C.
Alaba for P20,000.00; Complainants Louie A. Arca and Joseph A. Demetria
did not testify.

2. In Crim. Case No. Q-00-94241, complainants Melvin I. Yadao, Frederick

Calambro and Andy Bandiola did not testify. Moreover, the Court believes
all these complainants should have been grouped in just one (1)
information. Hence, for failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt, the Court nds Florencio O. Gasacao
NOT GUILTY of the offense charged.

SO ORDERED. 5

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com

 Conformably with our pronouncement in People v. Mateo , 6 which modi ed
pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court insofar as they provide for direct appeals
from the RTC to the Supreme Court in cases where the penalty imposed is death,
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, as in this case, as well as this Court's
Resolution dated September 19, 1995, we resolved on February 2, 2005 to transfer the
case to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action and disposition. 7
On May 18, 2005, the Court of Appeals promulgated the assailed Decision, the
dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present appeal is hereby
DISMISSED for lack of merit. The appealed Joint Decision dated March 5, 2001 of
the trial court in Criminal Case No. Q-00-94240 is hereby AFFIRMED and UPHELD.

With costs against the accused-appellant.

SO ORDERED. 8

Hence, this appeal.

The core issue for resolution is whether error attended the trial court's ndings,
as a rmed by the Court of Appeals, that appellant was guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the crime of large scale illegal recruitment. ScAaHE

RA No. 8042 defines illegal recruitment as follows:

II. ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT

Sec. 6. DEFINITIONS. — For purposes of this Act, illegal recruitment

shall mean any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing,
hiring, procuring workers and includes referring, contract services, promising or
advertising for employment abroad, whether for pro t or not, when undertaken by
a non-licensee or non-holder of authority contemplated under Article 13(f) of
Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, otherwise known as the Labor Code of
the Philippines: Provided, that such non-licensee or non-holder who, in any
manner, offers or promises for a fee employment abroad to two or more persons
shall be deemed so engaged. It shall likewise include the following acts, whether
committed by any persons, whether a non-licensee, non-holder, licensee or holder
of authority.
(a) To charge or accept directly or indirectly any amount greater than
the speci ed in the schedule of allowable fees prescribed by the Secretary of
Labor and Employment, or to make a worker pay any amount greater than that
actually received by him as a loan or advance;
xxx xxx xxx

(l) Failure to actually deploy without valid reason as determined by the

Department of Labor and Employment; and
(m) Failure to reimburse expenses incurred by the workers in
connection with his documentation and processing for purposes of deployment,
in cases where the deployment does not actually take place without the worker's
fault. Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall be
considered as offense involving economic sabotage.

Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate carried out by a

group of three (3) or more persons conspiring or confederating with one another.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com
 It is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more
persons individually or as a group.

A license is a document issued by the Department of Labor and Employment

(DOLE) authorizing a person or entity to operate a private employment agency, while an
authority is a document issued by the DOLE authorizing a person or association to
engage in recruitment and placement activities as a private recruitment entity. However,
it appears that even licensees or holders of authority can be held liable for illegal
recruitment should they commit any of the above-enumerated acts.
Thus, it is inconsequential that appellant committed large scale illegal
recruitment while Great Eastern Shipping Agency, Inc. was holding a valid authority. We
thus nd that the court below committed no reversible error in not appreciating that the
manning agency was a holder of a valid authority when appellant recruited the private
complainants.
There is no merit in appellant's contention that he could not be held liable for
illegal recruitment since he was a mere employee of the manning agency, pursuant to
Section 6 of RA No. 8042 which provides:
The persons criminally liable for the above offenses are the principals,
accomplices and accessories. In case of juridical persons, the o cers having
control, management or direction of their business shall be liable.

Contrary to appellant's claim, he is not a mere employee of the manning agency

but the crewing manager. As such, he receives job applications, interviews applicants
and informs them of the agency's requirement of payment of performance or cash
bond prior to the applicant's deployment. As the crewing manager, he was at the
forefront of the company's recruitment activities. HAEDIS

Private complainant Lindy Villamor testi ed that it was appellant who informed
him that if he will give a cash bond of P20,000.00, he will be included in the rst batch
of applicants to be deployed. Notwithstanding the payment of the cash bond as
evidenced by a receipt dated December 15, 1999 and issued by the appellant, Villamor
was not deployed overseas. He further testi ed that when he found out that appellant
was no longer connected with Great Eastern Shipping Agency Inc., he confronted Jose
Gasacao and showed to him a photocopy of the receipt. Jose Gasacao gave him the
address of the appellant but he failed to recover the amount from the latter.
Another private complainant, Erencio C. Alaba testi ed that he applied as a
seaman with Great Eastern Shipping Agency Inc. in May 1999 and submitted all the
requirements to appellant. The latter told Alaba that after payment of a cash bond, he
will be deployed within three months. On June 3, 1999, Alaba gave P10,000.00 to the
appellant as evidenced by a cash voucher which was approved and signed by the
appellant in the presence of Alaba.
Afterwards, appellant asked Alaba to have his medical examination. He was also
informed that those who had completed paying the P20,000.00 cash bond will have
priority in deployment. Thus, Alaba gave another P10,000.00 to appellant on August 2,
1999 and was again informed that he will be deployed in a dredging or supply boat
within three months from August 1999. Despite appellant's representations, Alaba was
never deployed and was also unable to recover the amount of the cash bond that he
paid.
Private complainant Dennis Cabangahan testi ed that he applied as a seaman
with Great Eastern Shipping Agency Inc. on July 27, 1999 and paid the cash bond of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com
 P19,000.00 as evidenced by a receipt issued by appellant. The latter informed him that
he will be deployed abroad within three months. As what had happened to the other
complainants, Cabangahan was never deployed overseas nor did he recover his money.
Victoriano Cadirao 9 also testi ed that on August 1, 1999, he applied with the
manning agency for the position of mess man. He submitted his application to
appellant who told him to come back when he has the money to cover the cash bond of
P20,000.00. Appellant told him that the payment of the cash bond is optional, but that
his deployment will be fast-tracked if he pays the cash bond. On August 10, 1999, he
gave P20,000.00 to appellant who issued a receipt. When the promised employment
failed to materialize, the appellant told Cadirao to wait for another dredging vessel. In
December 1999, he found out that appellant was no longer connected with Great
Eastern Shipping Agency Inc. so he went to his residence and demanded the return of
his money. Appellant however refused to return the amount of the cash bond.
On the other hand, Rommel B. Patolen testified that he applied with Great Eastern
Shipping Agency Inc. as an ordinary seaman in May 1999. After complying with the
requirements, appellant told him to report to the agency thrice a week. From May to
December 1999, Patolen reported to the agency as instructed. On December 11, 1999,
he gave P20,000.00 to appellant who acknowledged its receipt. Patolen further
testi ed that he paid the cash bond because appellant told him that his prospective
employer will arrive in December 1999 from Saudi Arabia with a vessel to
accommodate him. He was further advised that he could leave within three months if he
paid the cash bond. However, Patolen was never deployed and when he found out that
appellant was no longer connected with Great Eastern Shipping Agency Inc., he went to
the house of the latter and informed him that he was withdrawing his application.
Appellant asked him to wait for his new agency, Ocean Grandeur, which has no license
yet.
The foregoing testimonies of the private complainants clearly established that
appellant is not a mere employee of Great Eastern Shipping Agency Inc. As the crewing
manager, it was appellant who made representations with the private complainants
that he can secure overseas employment for them upon payment of the cash bond.
It is well settled that to prove illegal recruitment, it must be shown that appellant
gave complainants the distinct impression that he had the power or ability to send
complainants abroad for work such that the latter were convinced to part with their
money in order to be employed. 1 0 Appellant's act of promising the private
complainants that they will be deployed abroad within three months after they have
paid the cash bond clearly shows that he is engaged in illegal recruitment. ETDSAc

The trial court's appreciation of the complainants' testimonies deserves the

highest respect since it was in a better position to assess their credibility.
Even assuming that appellant was a mere employee, such fact is not a shield
against his conviction for large scale illegal recruitment. In the case of People v. Cabais ,
1 1 we have held that 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 the recruitment process. We further
stated that:
In this case, evidence showed that accused-appellant was the one who
informed complainant of job prospects in Korea and the requirements for
deployment. She also received money from them as placement fees. All of the
complainants testi ed that they personally met the accused-appellant and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com
 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. 1 2

Clearly, the acts of appellant vis-à-vis the private complainants, either as the
crewing manager of Great Eastern Shipping Agency Inc. or as a mere employee of the
same, constitute acts of large scale illegal recruitment which should not be
countenanced.
We nd no reason to deviate from the ndings of the trial court that appellant is
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of large scale illegal recruitment. It was established
that he promised overseas employment to ve applicants, herein private complainants.
He interviewed and required them to complete and submit documents purportedly
needed for their employment. Although he informed them that it is optional, he
collected cash bonds and promised their deployment notwithstanding the proscription
against its collection under Section 60 of the Omnibus Rules and Regulations
Implementing R.A. No. 8042 1 3 which state that:
SEC. 60. Prohibition on Bonds and Deposits . — In no case shall an
employment agency require any bond or cash deposit from the worker to
guarantee performance under the contract or his/her repatriation.

We nd as imsy and self serving appellant's assertion that he was unaware of

the prohibition against the collection of bonds or cash deposits from applicants. It is
an established dictum that ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance
therewith. 1 4 The defense of good faith is neither available.
It is also undisputed that appellant failed to deploy the private complainants
without any valid reason, this notwithstanding his promise to them that those who can
pay the cash bond will be deployed within three months from payment of the same.
Such failure to deploy constitutes a violation of Section 6 (l) of RA No. 8042. Worse,
when it became clear that appellant cannot deploy the private complainants without
their fault, he failed to return the amount of the cash bond paid by them.
Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against
three or more persons individually or as a group. In this case, ve complainants
testi ed against appellant's acts of illegal recruitment, thereby rendering his acts
tantamount to economic sabotage. Under Section 7 (b) of RA No. 8042, the penalty of
life imprisonment and a ne of not less than P500,000.00 nor more than P1,000,000.00
shall be imposed if illegal recruitment constitutes economic sabotage. AcTDaH

Verily, the trial court and the Court of Appeals correctly found appellant guilty
beyond reasonable of large scale illegal recruitment.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. May 18, 2005 Decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 00800 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Quisumbing, Carpio and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
Davide, Jr., C.J., is on official leave.

Footnotes

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com

 1. Rollo, pp. 131-143. Penned by Associate Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr. and concurred in
by Associate Justices Regalado E. Maambong and Fernanda Lampas Peralta.
2. Id. at 25-32. Penned by Judge Hilario L. Laqui.
3. Id. at 11-12.
4. Id. at 14-15.
5. Id. at 32.
6. G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 640.
7. Rollo, p. 129.
8. Id. at 142.
9. Spelled as Caderao in other parts of the records.
10. People v. Angeles, 430 Phil. 333, 343 (2002).
11. G.R. No. 129070, March 16, 2001, 354 SCRA 553, 561.
12. Id. at 562.
13. Issued on February 29, 1996.
14. Article 3, Civil Code of the Philippines.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com