Monday, March 19, 2012

People vs. Chowdury [G.R. No. 129577-80 February 15, 2000]

Facts: Bulu Chowdury was charged with the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale by recruiting Estrella B. Calleja, Melvin C. Miranda and Aser S. Sasis for employment in Korea. Evidence shows that accused –appellant interviewed private complainant in 1994 at Craftrade’s office. At that time, he was an interviewer of Craftrade which was operating under temporary authority given by POEA pending the renewal of license. He was charged based on the fact that he was not registered with the POEA as employee of Craftrade and he is not in his personal capacity, licensed to recruit overseas workers. The complainants also averred that during their applications for employment for abroad, the license of Craftrade was already expired. 

For his defense Chowdury testified that he worked as interviewer at Craftrade from 1990 until 1994. His primary duty was to interview job applicants for abroad. As a mere employee, he only followed the instructions given by his superiors, Mr. Emmanuel Geslani, the agency's President and General Manager, and Mr. UtkalChowdury, the agency's Managing Director. 

Issue: Whether or not accused-appellant knowingly and intentionally participated in the commission of the crime charged. 

Held: No, 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 illegal recruitment. In this case, Chowdury merely performed his tasks under the supervision of its president and managing director. The prosecution failed to show that the accused-appellant is conscious and has an active participation in the commission of the crime of illegal recruitment. Moreover, accused-appellant was not aware of Craftrade's failure to register his name with the POEA and the prosecution failed to prove that he actively engaged in recruitment despite this knowledge. The obligation to register its personnel with the POEA belongs to the officers of the agency. A mere employee of the agency cannot be expected to know the legal requirements for its operation. The accused-appellant carried out his duties as interviewer of Craftrade believing that the agency was duly licensed by the POEA and he, in turn, was duly authorized by his agency to deal with the applicants in its behalf. Accused-appellant in fact confined his actions to his job description. He merely interviewed the applicants and informed them of the requirements for deployment but he never received money from them. Chowdury did not knowingly and intentionally participated in the commission of illegal recruitment being merely performing his task and unaware of illegality of recruitment.

Digg Google Bookmarks reddit Mixx StumbleUpon Technorati Yahoo! Buzz DesignFloat Delicious BlinkList Furl

0 comments: on "People vs. Chowdury [G.R. No. 129577-80 February 15, 2000]"

Post a Comment