Case Summary (G.R. No. 122947)
Summary of the operative facts admitted or established at trial
Hu was president of Brighturn, a POEA-licensed land-based recruitment agency authorized to recruit from 18 December 1999 until 17 December 2001. Genoves served as consultant/marketing officer of Brighturn and was connected to Riverland. Private complainants sought placement for work in Taiwan. Abril, Panguelo and Orillano paid placement fees and presented receipts indicating payments connected to Riverland/Genoves in 2001. Garcia applied in April 2002 after Brighturn’s license had lapsed; Hu told Garcia Brighturn’s license was suspended, referred Garcia to Best One, but allegedly collected placement fees and Garcia never departed for employment abroad. None of the private complainants were deployed; victims demanded refunds which were not returned, and criminal complaints were filed with the NBI.
Legal issue presented
Whether the lower courts erred in finding Hu guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal recruitment in large scale.
Elements of illegal recruitment and of the large-scale qualifier
The Court reiterated that illegal recruitment requires: (1) absence of a valid license or authority to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement; and (2) undertaking an activity that falls within the statutory definition of “recruitment and placement” under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code, which includes canvassing, enlisting, referral and promising employment, among others. The offense is qualified as illegal recruitment in large scale when the illegal recruitment is committed against three or more persons, whether individually or as a group.
Burden of proof and significance of the number of victims
The Court emphasized the prosecution’s burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt (Ei incumbit probation qui dicit, non qui negat). For the large-scale offense, the number of victims is an essential element; although the law does not mandate that three victims testify, the prosecution must prove by convincing evidence that at least three persons were victimized. Failure to establish that essential fact defeats the large-scale charge.
Analysis of evidence as to Abril, Panguelo and Orillano
The Court found the prosecution’s evidence insufficient to characterize the recruitment of Abril, Panguelo and Orillano as illegal recruitment because their payments and recruitment-related acts occurred within the period when Brighturn’s POEA license was still valid (through 17 December 2001). Testimony and documentary receipts showed payments to Riverland/Genoves in 2001 (or payments processed in circumstances consistent with an authorized agency). Consequently, the element of absence of authority to recruit and place workers was not established for those complainants; the acts pertaining to them are inconsistent with illegal recruitment after expiration of Brighturn’s authority.
Analysis of evidence as to Garcia and the relevance of lack of receipts
By contrast, Garcia’s case arose in April 2002—after Brighturn’s authority had expired. Garcia testified that Hu (informing her of Brighturn’s suspension) referred her to Best One but continued to collect placement fees. The Court treated the act of referral as falling within the statutory definition of recruitment and held that recruiting after Brighturn’s license had expired established the element of lack of authority. The absence of receipts was deemed not fatal; testimonial and credibility findings by the trial court were upheld, relying on precedent that conviction for illegal recruitment may stand despite lack of receipts when witnesses positively identify the accused’s involvement.
Legal consequences: civil liability and possibility of estafa
The Supreme Court reiterated that an acquittal or reduction of criminal liability on reasonable doubt does not extinguish civil obligations. Where the prosecution proves, by preponderance, that complainants parted with money due to the accused’s representations, civil indemnity may be awarded without a separate civil action. The Court also observed that separate criminal prosecution for estafa remains possible if deceit as an element can be proven.
Disposition: conviction, sentence, fines and indemnities
The Court vacated the RTC’s conviction for illegal recruitment in large scale and entered a c
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 122947)
Procedural History
- Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by accused-appellant Nenita B. Hu (Hu) seeking reversal of the Court of Appeals Decision dated 9 October 2007 in CA-G.R.-CR.-H.C. No. 02243.
- The Court of Appeals had affirmed with modification the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Makati City, Branch 66 Decision dated 4 January 2005 in Criminal Case No. 03-356 (RTC convicted Hu of illegal recruitment in large scale).
- The RTC originally convicted Hu of illegal recruitment in large scale under Section 7(b) of Republic Act No. 8042, sentenced her to life imprisonment, imposed a fine of P500,000.00, and ordered indemnification to private complainants Paul Abril (P44,000.00), Joel Panguelo (P50,000.00) and Evangeline Garcia (P50,000.00).
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but deleted the P50,000.00 award in favor of Evangeline Garcia.
- The sole issue raised in the petition: whether the lower court erred in finding Hu guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal recruitment in large scale.
- The Solicitor General joined the lower courts in finding Hu guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale.
Antecedent Facts
- An Information charged Nenita B. Hu and Ethel V. Genoves with illegal recruitment in large scale under Section 6 (penalized under Section 7(b)) of RA 8042, alleging recruitment, promising employment abroad and collecting fees from multiple named persons without POEA authorization.
- The named persons included Noel P. Delayun, Joey F. Silao, Joel U. Panguelo, Paul C. Abril, Evangeline E. Garcia, and Eric V. Orillano.
- Upon arraignment, Hu pleaded not guilty; Genoves remained at large.
- Only four private complainants testified at trial: Panguelo, Garcia, Abril and Orillano.
Parties and Agency Relationships
- Nenita B. Hu: President of Brighturn International Services, Inc. (Brighturn), a land-based recruitment agency with POEA license to recruit, process and deploy land-based workers for 18 December 1999 to 17 December 2001; principal address No. 1916 San Marcelino St., Malate, Manila.
- Ethel V. Genoves: Worked as consultant and marketing officer of Brighturn; also connected with Riverland Consultancy Service (Riverland) at Room No. 210, LPL Building, Sen. Gil Puyat Avenue, Makati City.
- Best One International (Best One): Another recruitment agency in Malate, Manila, to which Hu referred Garcia when Brighturn’s license was allegedly suspended.
Facts as to Each Private Complainant (Payments, Promises, and Failure of Deployment)
Joel Panguelo:
- Learned Brighturn was hiring for Taiwan (June 2001); interviewed at Brighturn and was promised employment by Hu for P50,000.00.
- Paid the P50,000.00 placement fee to Genoves upon Hu’s instruction; payment evidenced by Official Receipt dated 16 October 2001 bearing Genoves’ signature.
- Waited for three years without deployment; demanded refund which Hu could not return.
- Testified he applied in June 2001 and paid on 16 October 2001.
Paul Abril:
- Applied at Brighturn in September 2001 for a factory worker position in Taiwan; complied with documentary requirements (passport, NBI clearance, ID pictures).
- Paid placement fee of P44,000.00 to Genoves as instructed by Hu; payments evidenced by Official Receipts dated 9 October 2001 and 26 October 2001 signed by Genoves.
- Assured deployment by December 2001 (later reset to April 2002); despite postponements he was not deployed.
Eric (Eric V.) Orillano:
- Came to know Brighturn through Genoves; interviewed by a Taiwanese principal in October 2001.
- Instructed by Hu to submit medical certificate, NBI clearance and passport, and to pay a placement fee of P50,000.00.
- Paid the placement fee to Genoves at Brighturn’s office in Makati; despite payment, was not deployed.
Evangeline E. Garcia:
- Applied in April 2002 as Electronic Operator at Brighturn; Hu informed Garcia Brighturn’s license was suspended and referred her to Best One for processing.
- Hu instructed that the placement fee be paid at Brighturn; Garcia paid P60,000.00 to Hu and Genoves as placement fee.
- Employment abroad did not materialize.
Trial Proceedings and Evidence Presented
- Four complainants (Panguelo, Abril, Orillano, Garcia) testified to their dealings with Brighturn, the promises of employment abroad, the documentary requirements, the payment of placement fees, and the non-deployment.
- Documentary evidence included Official Receipts signed by Genoves for Abril (9 & 26 October 2001) and Panguelo (16 October 2001).
- Testimony established dates of application and payment for Panguelo, Abril and Orillano occurring between June and October 2001; Garcia’s application/payment occurred in April 2002.
- Hu admitted knowledge of private complainants seeking refunds and asserted that receipts they presented showed payments to Riverland and not Brighturn; she denied knowing Genoves.
- Hu’s defense: Brighturn was a duly licensed recruitment agency during the relevant period; Brighturn had foreign principals in Taiwan; applicants were required to pay placement fees only after POEA approval; Brighturn’s license expired on 17 December 2001 and was not renewed due to inability to post the required cash bond; pending applications were referred to Best One; announcements were posted warning applicants to pay only to the cashier.
Charge and Statutory Provisions Invoked
- Offense charged: Violation of Section 6 penalized under Section 7(b) of Republic Act No. 8042 (Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale).
- Statutory framework referenced:
- RA 8042, Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 (Sections relevant to illeg