G.R. No. 182232 - People vs. Hu

Accused-appellant Nenita B. Hu filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari challenging the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated 9 October 2007, which had affirmed—with modification—the conviction rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City.
The RTC had found Hu guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal recruitment in large scale under Section 7(b) of Republic Act No. 8042, sentencing her to life imprisonment, imposing a fine, and ordering indemnity payments to private complainants.

The Information charged both Hu and Ethel V. Genoves with illegal recruitment in large scale, claiming that on or about 9 October 2001 in Makati City, the accused conspired to recruit several persons for overseas employment in exchange for placement fees.
The alleged offense involved enticing individuals with promises of overseas employment while collecting placement fees without the proper authority or an active license from the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA).

Hu was the President of Brighturn International Services, Inc., a licensed land-based recruitment agency with POEA authorization to engage in the business from 18 December 1999 up to 17 December 2001.
Ethel V. Genoves, who worked as a consultant and marketing officer for Brighturn (and was also connected with Riverland Consultancy Service), was identified as the person receiving the placement fees.
Testimonies revealed that private complainants—Paul Abril, Joel Panguelo, Eric Orillano, and Evangeline Garcia—paid their placement fees upon being promised employment abroad, yet only some of these applications were made after Brighturn’s license had expired.

Panguelo, Abril, and Orillano complied with pre-employment requirements and made payments to secure employment through Brighturn during a period when the agency’s license was still valid.
Conversely, Garcia’s transaction occurred in April 2002 when Brighturn’s license had already lapsed; she was referred to another agency (Best One International) yet was still required to pay the placement fee—this testimony later served as the basis for proving illegal recruitment without authority.

During trial, only four out of the several complainants testified about their experiences, with documentary evidence consisting of official receipts indicating payments made to Genoves at venues associated with Riverland Consultancy Service.
Hu’s defense asserted that she acted within her capacity as the head of a duly licensed agency and claimed that instructions regarding payment were given with due warnings (e.g., payment only to the cashier).
The conflicting evidence led the trial court to convict Hu of illegal recruitment in large scale, whereas CA modified this conviction by deleting the award of actual damages to one complainant.

Hu contended that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction of illegal recruitment in large scale, particularly due to the failure of the prosecution to prove recruitment against the requisite number of persons.
The record showed that while there were six private complainants, credible testimony indicated that only Garcia’s case met the criteria for illegal recruitment without a valid license, with the other applications reportedly falling within a valid licensing period.

Whether the prosecution established, beyond reasonable doubt, that illegal recruitment was committed against at least three persons individually or as a group—the required threshold for invocation of the “large scale” element.
Whether the testimony and documentary evidence were enough to demonstrate that only Garcia’s recruitment fell outside the authorized period, with the remaining complainants having been served under valid licensing.

Whether the placement fees paid by the complainants, as evidenced by receipts and testimonies, were adequately proven to be collected under false pretenses despite Hu’s argument regarding proper recruitment procedures.
The weight to be given to the absence of certain documentary evidence (receipts) in proving the elements of illegal recruitment.

Whether Hu’s claim that her actions were sanctioned by her status as President of a duly licensed recruitment agency was negated by the lapse of Brighturn’s license, particularly in transactions involving Garcia.
The legal implications of recruiting under an expired license versus during first valid period when the agency was duly authorized.