The appellant was charged with illegal recruitment in large scale for falsely representing her ability to recruit job applicants for overseas work without proper authority. She was accused of collecting recruitment fees from eight individuals, including Gephre O. Pomar. While the appellant denied the allegations, seven witnesses testified that the appellant went to their town and recruited them by promising jobs in Brunei, collecting fees but failing to reimburse them. It was proven the appellant did not have a license for overseas recruitment. The court found the appellant guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale since it was committed against more than three individuals as required by law.
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0 ratings0% found this document useful (0 votes)
276 views3 pages
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. GILDA ABELLANOSA
The appellant was charged with illegal recruitment in large scale for falsely representing her ability to recruit job applicants for overseas work without proper authority. She was accused of collecting recruitment fees from eight individuals, including Gephre O. Pomar. While the appellant denied the allegations, seven witnesses testified that the appellant went to their town and recruited them by promising jobs in Brunei, collecting fees but failing to reimburse them. It was proven the appellant did not have a license for overseas recruitment. The court found the appellant guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale since it was committed against more than three individuals as required by law.
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.
GILDA ABELLANOSA G.R. No. 214340, July 19, 2017
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
Facts: Appellant was charged with Illegal
Recruitment in large scale in an Information alleging that that accused falsely representing to possess authority to recruit job applicants for employment abroad without first having secured the required authority from the POEA, illegally collect and receive from GEPHRE 0. POMAR the amount of (₱5,500.00), as partial payment of processing and placement fees for overseas employment, which illegal recruitment activities is considered an offense involving economic sabotage, it being committed in large scale under Sec. 6(m) paragraph 2 of Republic Act [No.] 8042, having committed the same not only against Gephre O. Pomar but also against seven (7) others.
Appellant denied meeting any of the private
complainants while she was in Iloilo and maintained that her purpose in going to Iloilo was only to assist Shirley in processing the latter's business license. Appellant likewise denied that she received money from the private complainants; she claimed that it was Shirley who was engaged in recruitment activities.
Issue: Whether or not appellant is guilty of illegal
recruitment in large scale.
Ruling: Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in
large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group.
In this case, private complainants Pomar, Pastolero,
Cathedral, Orias, Suobiron, Bueron, and Pelipog testified that appellant went to Pavia, Iloilo and represented herself as a recruiter who could send them to Brunei for work; that appellant impressed upon them that she had the authority or ability to send them overseas for work by showing them a job order from Brunei and a calling card; and appellant collected processing or placement fees from the private complainants in various amounts ranging from ₱5,000.00 to ₱20,000.00; and that she did not reimburse said amounts despite demands. In addition, it was proved that appellant does not have any license or authority to recruit workers for overseas employment as shown by the certification issued by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration. Finally, appellant recruited seven persons, or more than the minimum of three persons required by law, for illegal recruitment to be considered in large scale.
Ratio Decidendi: Recruitment becomes illegal when
undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of authority.
Gist: This is an appeal from Decision of the CA
which affirmed the Decision of the RTC finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Recruitment in large scale.
UPL Contra Costa County Judge Laurel S. Brady Aiding and Abetting Unauthorized Practice of Law Alleged: Motion for Order, Points & Authorities, Declaration Drafted and Filed by Non-Lawyer Kevin Singer Superior Court Receiver-Receivership Specialists – Whistleblower Leak – California Attorney General Kamala Harris – California State Bar Association Office of Chief Trial Counsel – Jayne Kim Chief Trial Counsel State Bar of California – Judicial Council of California Chair Tani Cantil-Sakauye – Martin Hoshino - Commission on Judicial Performance Director Victoria Henley – CJP Chief Counsel Victoria B. Henley – Supreme Court of California Justice Lenodra Kruger, Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuellar, Justice Goodwin Liu, Justice Carol Corrigan, Justice Ming Chin, Justice Kathryn Werdegar, Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye
Chrisden Cabrera Ditiangkin, Hendrix Masamayor Molines, Harvey Mosquito Juanio, Joselito Castro Verde, and Brian Anthony Cubacub Nabong Vs. Lazada E-Services Philippines, Inc., Allan Ancheto, Richard Delantar and Jade Andrade _ Supreme Court of the Ph