Case Digest: NASI-VILLAR v.

PEOPLE

27 OCTOBER 2017FINDING DARA

NASI-VILLAR v. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 176169, 14 November 2008
TINGA, J.:

FACTS:

On or about the month of January 1993, Rosario Nasi-Villar, conspiring together, confederating with
and mutually helping one another through fraudulent representation and deceitful machination, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously recruit Nila Panilag for employment abroad,
demand and receive the amount of PhP6,500.00 as placement fee, the said accused being a non-
licensee or non-holder of authority to engage in the recruitment of workers abroad to the damage and
prejudice of the herein offended party.

On 3 July 2002, After due trial, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) found the evidence presented by the
prosecution to be more credible than that presented by the defense and thus held petitioner liable for
the offense of Illegal Recruitment under the Republic Act No. 8042 (Migrant Workers and
Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995).
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) raising as sole issue the alleged error by the trial
court in finding her guilty of illegal recruitment on the basis of the trial court’s appreciation of the
evidence presented by the prosecution. The appellate court affirmed with modification the decision of
the RTC, declaring that petitioner should have been charged under the Labor Code and not under
R.A. No. 8042.
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration under an Information that erroneously designated the
offense as covered by R.A. No. 8042, but alleged in its body acts which are punishable under the
Labor Code, but was denied by the CA.

ISSUE:

WHETHER OR NOT the CA erred in failing to consider that R.A. No. 8042 cannot be given retroactive
effect and the decision of the RTC constitutes a violation of the constitutional prohibition against ex
post facto law.

RULING:

No. the CA’s conviction of petitioner under the Labor Code is correct. There is no violation of the
prohibition against ex post facto law nor a retroactive application of R.A. No. 8042, as alleged by
petitioner.

Effectivity of Labor Code of the Philippines and R.A. No. 8042, reads:

Article 2. Date of effectivity. — This Code shall take effect six months after its promulgation. (1
November 1974, supplied)
Section 43. Effectivity Clause. — This Act shall take effect after fifteen (15) days from its publication in
the Official Gazette or in at least two (2) national newspapers of general circulation whichever comes
earlier. (15 July 1995, supplied)
In this case, what was applicable in 1993 is the Labor Code, where under Art. 38, in relation to Art.
39, the violation of the Code is penalized with imprisonment of not less than four (4) years nor more
than eight (8) years or a ne of not less than P20,000.00 and not more than P100,000.00 or both. On
the other hand, Sec. 7(c) of R.A. No. 8042 penalizes illegal recruitment with a penalty of imprisonment
of not less than six (6) years and one (1) day but not more than twelve (12) years and a ne not less
than P200,000.00 nor more than P500,000.00.

The basic rule is that a criminal act is punishable under the law in force at the time of its commission.
Since R.A. No. 8042, a special penal law, did not yet exist in January 1993 when the crime was
allegedly committed, the law cannot be used as the basis of fling a criminal action for illegal
recruitment, unless it is in favor of the accused. However, the penalty of imprisonment provided in the
Labor Code was raised or increased by R.A. No. 8042. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that as it
was proven that petitioner had committed the acts she was charged with, she was properly convicted
under the Labor Code, and not under R.A. No. 8042.

TOPIC: Article 366 and Article 22 (Exception) of the Revised Penal Code.