View full case

PEOPLE v. CAROL M. DELA PIEDRA

FACTS:

Accused-appellant Carol M. dela Piedra was charged with illegal recruitment in large scale before the Regional Trial Court of Zamboanga City. The information alleged that on January 30, 1994, in Zamboanga City, the accused, without a license or authority from the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA), unlawfully offered employment abroad to Maria Lourdes Modesto, Nancy Araneta, and Jennelyn Baez for a fee.

During the trial, the prosecution presented five witnesses. Erlie Ramos, an Attorney II of the POEA, received a phone call inquiring about the legitimacy of recruitment conducted by the accused. Ramos then contacted a friend, Mayeth Bellotindos, and they went to the reported area where the recruitment was taking place. Bellotindos pretended to be an applicant, while Ramos surveilled the house. Ramos saw about six people inside, including the accused, who talked about the employment opportunities in Singapore and the necessary documents. Bellotindos then came out with a bio-data form.

On February 1, 1994, Ramos met with Capt. Mendoza of the Criminal Investigation Service (CIS) to plan the arrest of the accused. Fermindoza, a member of the CIS, posed as an applicant during the entrapment operation on February 2, 1994. SPO2 Manalopilar conducted a surveillance of the area and confirmed the report of illegal recruitment without entering the house. The raiding team, including Capt. Mendoza, SPO2 Manalopilar, Fermindoza, and Oscar Bucol, arrived at the scene and met with Ramos. Fermindoza entered the house, introduced herself as an applicant, and met the accused and Jasmine. The raiding party then entered the house after Fermindoza signaled them. Permission was granted by the owners of the house, who were a married couple.

The case involves the accused, Carol dela Piedra, who was arrested by the Criminal Investigation Service (CIS) for allegedly engaging in illegal recruitment. On February 2, 1994, a raiding party composed of CIS members, led by Capt. Mendoza, went to the house of Jasmine Alejandro upon receiving information about illegal recruitment activities. Inside the house, they found several individuals, including the accused, Mrs. Carol Figueroa. The CIS asked Figueroa if she had a permit to recruit, to which she denied being engaged in recruitment. Nevertheless, Capt. Mendoza arrested Figueroa and seized the application forms she was holding, as well as other papers on the table.

On February 2, 1994, the accused, Carol dela Piedra, went to the Philippine Airlines office to confirm her flight to Cebu City. Afterward, she went to Jasmine's residence and met a woman who mistook her for someone from Singapore. The accused clarified that she was only there to bid farewell to Jasmine and denied any involvement in recruitment. Moments later, three girls arrived at the house looking for Jasmine, followed by members of the CIS and a POEA official who accused Carol of recruiting. Carol explained that she was only there to collect something Jasmine sent for Laleen Malicay.

The appellant in this case argues that the law defining "recruitment and placement" is void for vagueness and violates due process. The appellant claims that the law does not provide fair notice of what conduct renders someone liable to its penalties. The appellant also argues that she was denied equal protection of the laws. The court must determine whether the law is vague and whether the appellant's constitutional rights were violated.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code, defining "recruitment and placement", is void for vagueness and violates due process.

  2. Whether the accused-appellant was denied equal protection of the laws.

  3. Whether the definition of "recruitment and placement" in Section 13 (b) of the Labor Code is overbroad and vague.

  4. Whether the interpretation adopted by the Court in People v. Panis regarding the number of persons dealt with in the act of recruitment and placement is correct.

  5. Whether or not the definition of "recruitment and placement" under the law is overbroad.

  6. Whether or not the prosecution's decision to charge the appellant and not another person constitutes a violation of the equal protection clause.

  7. Whether the accused is guilty of illegal recruitment.

  8. Whether the accused is guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale.

  9. Whether the testimonies and exhibits presented by the prosecution were admissible for the purpose they were offered.

  10. Whether there is a fatal defect in the information charging the appellant with illegal recruitment in large scale.

  11. Whether the penalty of life imprisonment imposed by the trial court is unduly harsh and unconstitutional.

RULING:

  1. The court ruled that Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code is not void for vagueness and does not violate due process. The court explained that a criminal statute is considered void for vagueness if it fails to provide fair notice to individuals of what conduct will make them liable for penalties. However, in this case, the definition of "recruitment and placement" in the Labor Code provides a sufficiently clear standard for individuals to understand the prohibited conduct. The court also distinguished between a "perfectly vague" act and legislation couched in imprecise language, which can be clarified through proper construction.

  2. The court did not directly address the issue of equal protection of the laws raised by the accused-appellant.

  3. The definition of "recruitment and placement" in Section 13 (b) of the Labor Code is not overbroad and vague. The Court held that the provision is not void for vagueness as an act will only be declared void and inoperative on the ground of vagueness if the courts are unable to determine what the legislature intended. In this case, the Court was able to arrive at a reasonable interpretation of the provision by applying principles in criminal law and drawing from the language and intent of the law itself. Therefore, Section 13 (b) is deemed to be couched in imprecise language that can be salvaged by proper construction.

  4. The interpretation adopted in People v. Panis regarding the number of persons dealt with in the act of recruitment and placement is correct. The Court clarified that the number of persons dealt with is not an essential ingredient of the act of recruitment and placement. Any of the acts mentioned in the basic rule in Article 13(b) will constitute recruitment and placement even if only one prospective worker is involved. The proviso in Article 13(b) merely creates a presumption that an individual or entity is engaged in recruitment and placement when a fee is collected in consideration of a promise or offer of employment to two or more prospective workers.

  5. The definition of "recruitment and placement" under the law is not overbroad. The appellant failed to specify what constitutionally protected freedoms are embraced by the definition of "recruitment and placement" that would render the same constitutionally overbroad. The law does not inhibit the exercise of individual freedoms affirmatively guaranteed by the Constitution.

  6. The prosecution's decision to charge the appellant and not another person does not constitute a violation of the equal protection clause. The discretion of who to prosecute depends on the prosecution's assessment of whether the evidence can justify a reasonable belief that a person has committed an offense. The burden of proof is on the appellant to show clear and intentional discrimination, which she failed to do. The mere allegation of regional discrimination is insufficient to support a conclusion that the prosecution denied appellant equal protection of the laws.

  7. The accused is guilty of illegal recruitment. The first element of illegal recruitment is present as the accused was found to have no valid license or authority to engage in recruitment and placement. The second element is also present as there is evidence that the accused promised employment for a fee. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses corroborated each other on material points and the accused failed to show any improper motive for the witnesses to testify falsely against her. The denials of the accused were not sufficient to overcome the positive declarations of the witnesses.

  8. The accused is not guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale. In order to be convicted of illegal recruitment in large scale, there must be evidence that the accused committed the acts against three or more persons. In this case, only two persons were proven to have been recruited by the accused. The third person named in the complaint was not presented in court to testify. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to prove that the accused committed illegal recruitment in large scale.

  9. The Court held that courts may only consider a piece of evidence for the purpose for which it was offered. In this case, the purpose of the testimonies and exhibits was to prove the recruitment of the witness and the identification of the appellant. The testimonies were not offered to prove recruitment of other applicants, and therefore, cannot be considered for that purpose.

  10. The Court ruled that there is no fatal defect in the information. The evidence presented by the prosecution established that the crime of illegal recruitment was committed on January 30, 1994, which is consistent with the date charged in the information. Even though the arrest was made on February 2, 1994, it does not affect the charge of the crime being committed on January 30, 1994.

  11. The Court held that since the prosecution was only able to prove illegal recruitment against two persons, the appellant cannot be convicted of illegal recruitment in large scale, which requires the recruitment of three or more persons. Thus, the penalty of life imprisonment is reduced. The appellant is convicted of two counts of "simple" illegal recruitment and is sentenced to four to six years of imprisonment and a fine of P30,000.00 for each count.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A criminal statute must be sufficiently explicit to inform individuals of the conduct that will render them liable for penalties.

  • A statute is considered void for vagueness if it lacks comprehensible standards and encourages arbitrary and erratic arrests and convictions.

  • Vagueness in a statute violates due process by denying fair warning to the accused.

  • Legislation couched in imprecise language may be saved by proper construction to clarify the standard it intends to impose.

  • An act will only be declared void for vagueness if the courts are unable to determine what the legislature intended.

  • Legislation should not be held invalid on the ground of uncertainty if it is susceptible to any reasonable construction that will support and give it effect.

  • The interpretation of a law should give more force to the campaign against illegal recruitment and placement, which has victimized many Filipino workers seeking a better life in a foreign land.

  • The absence of records of debates and deliberations in the enactment of a law does not render the law void for vagueness if the Court can arrive at a reasonable interpretation by applying principles in criminal law and drawing from the language and intent of the law itself.

  • Illegal recruitment is committed when there is no valid license or authority and the accused undertakes recruitment and placement activities for a fee.

  • Testimonies of credible witnesses that meet the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt are sufficient to establish guilt in a case of illegal recruitment.

  • Claims of "frame-up" or "concocted defenses" are viewed with disfavor by the court and require strong evidence to support.

  • In a conviction for illegal recruitment in large scale, there must be evidence proving that the offense was committed against three or more persons. Evidence that is hearsay or not affirmed by the person involved has little probative value.

  • Accused have the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them, and cannot be convicted for offenses not included in the information.

  • Courts may only consider a piece of evidence for the purpose for which it was offered.

  • The date charged in the information is not affected if the actual arrest is made at a later date.

  • The penalty for illegal recruitment in large scale requires the recruitment of three or more persons.