Thursday, August 24, 2023

PEOPLE V. IMPERIO Y ANTONIO [G.R. No. 232623, October 5, 2020]

 CASE DIGEST

PEOPLE V. IMPERIO Y ANTONIO

G.R. No. 232623, October 5, 2020

SECOND DIVISION, HERNANDO J.

 

Illegal Recruitment, RA 8042 

DOCTRINE: Engaging in illegal recruitment activities, particularly in large scale, is considered a serious offense involving economic sabotage. RA 8042 was enacted to protect the rights of migrant workers, safeguarding them against potential harm and exploitation abroad and to prosecute those who engage in illegal recruitment activities.

 

Oliver Imperio was charged with illegal recruitment in large scale for promising employment abroad to several individuals without the necessary license and authority. The prosecution presented witnesses who testified that Imperio collected fees from them for overseas employment but failed to deliver on his promises. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Imperio guilty, and the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision. The CA held that Imperio's denial was uncorroborated, and the prosecution's witnesses positively identified him as the recruiter. The CA also noted that Imperio lacked the required authorization to engage in recruitment activities.

 

Whether the accused is guilty of illegal recruitment under RA 8042.

 

NO. The court found the accused guilty of illegal recruitment in Large Scale under Republic Act No. 8042, as amended by Republic Act No. 10022. The evidence presented by the prosecution sufficiently established that the accused engaged in the illegal recruitment of individuals for overseas employment. The accused promised employment opportunities and collected fees from the victims without the necessary license and authority, which is a clear violation of RA 8042. The court rejected Imperio's denial and alibi, considering the positive identification of the prosecution witnesses. SC decision underscores that the court gives greater weight to the positive identification of the accused by the prosecution witnesses than the accused's denial and explanation.


CLICK TO VIEW FULL TEXT

No comments:

Post a Comment

Easycall Communications Phils., Inc. vs. Edward King, G.R. No. 145901, December 15, 2005

 CASE DIGEST Easycall Communications Phils., Inc. vs. Edward King G.R. No. 145901, December 15, 2005 THIRD DIVISION, CORONA J.     C...