People v. Buit [January 14, 2025]

By •

G.R. No. 227190 – PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ALBERTO V. BUIT FE a.k.a. ALBERT BUIT and TESSIE GRANADA STA. AGATA-BUIT, accused-appellants.

KHO, JR., J.

Rule Synopsis

To sustain a conviction for illegal recruitment, the following elements must concur: (a) the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable one to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers; and (b) the offender undertakes any of the activities within the meaning of recruitment and placement defined in Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code, or any of the prohibited practices enumerated under Section 6 of RA. 8042. It is the absence of the necessary license or authority to recruit and deploy workers abroad that renders the recruitment activity unlawful. Money is not material to a prosecution for illegal recruitment, as the definition of “recruitment and placement” in the Labor Code includes the phrase, “whether for profit or not.

Facts

In November 2007, Medged Baguio (Baguio), with her friends, went to the office of Genesis Healthcare Professionals Ltd. UK (Genesis) where they met Alberto Buit (Alberto) and Tessie Buit (Tessie) [collectively, accused-appellants].

Alberto told Baguio that Genesis was owned by John Balmoria (Balmoria), who also owned five homecare facilities in London. He assured Baguio that she will be employed in any of Balmoria’s homecare facilities or in a hotel UK and earn PHP500.00 per hour. Baguio was given a breakdown of the placement fee, after which, she gave Tessie PHP5,000.00 as reservation fee. Days later when she returned to attend a supposed seminar, Baguio took PH2,000.00 from said fee. She was issued a receipt on both instances. Baguio also met Balmoria who reiterated the employment opportunities abroad.

Baguio then went to the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA) where she obtained a certification stating that accused-appellants and Genesis were not licensed or authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment. Baguio then filed a complaint for illegal recruitment against accused-appellants with the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). The NBI decided to conduct an entrapment operation on the same day.

Baguio, with NBI agents, met with Alberto and handed him PHP11,000.00 marked money, purportedly as partial payment of her placement fee. Alberto took the money and handed it to Tessie. The latter issued a receipt. NBI then arrested the accused-appellants. They also recovered the money from Tessie’s drawer. When examined, Tessie’s hands revealed the presence of yellow fluorescent powder.

The foregoing led to the filing of an information with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) charging accused-appellants of illegal recruitment. The RTC found the accused-appellants guilty, which the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed.

Hence, the accused-appellants filed the instant ordinary appeal before the Supreme Court.

Issues

Were the accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of simple illegal recruitment under Section 6, in relation to Section 7 (a) of RA 8042, as amended?

Ruling and Discussion

Yes. The accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of simple illegal recruitment.

Note: the accused-appellants a vailed of a wrong mode of appeal by filing a notice of appeal instead of a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court resolved to decide the case on its merits.

To sustain a conviction for illegal recruitment, the following elements must concur: (a) the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable one to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers; and (b) the offender undertakes any of the activities within the meaning of recruitment and placement defined in Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code, or any of the prohibited practices enumerated under Section 6 of RA. 8042. It is the absence of the necessary license or authority to recruit and deploy workers abroad that renders the recruitment activity unlawful. Money is not material to a prosecution for illegal recruitment, as the definition of “recruitment and placement” in the Labor Code includes the phrase, “whether for profit or not.

Here, the prosecution was able to successfully establish the elements of illegal recruitment.

  1. Baguio positively identified accused-appellants as the perpetrators, and likewise narrated how the latter recruited her to work in London;
  2. Baguio paid accused-appellants a reservation fee in the amount of PHP3,000.00 as evinced by the receipt issued by accused-appellants;
  3. Baguio was able to submit all the required documents for her application to work in the UK;
  4. During the entrapment operation, Baguio handed the downpayment of the placement fee in the amount of PHP11,000.00 (marked money) to the accused-appellants, for which they issued a receipt as proof of the partial payment of the placement fee;
  5. The POEA Licensing Branch issued a Certification that accused-appellants or Genesis did not have any authority or license to recruit workers for employment abroad;
  6. The result of the examination of Tessie’s hands revealed the presence of yellow fluorescent powder.

Considering that the Information involved only a lone victim, accused-appellants may only be convicted of simple illegal recruitment.

The penalty to be imposed was still the penalty under Section 7 of RA 8042, and not the amended penalty under RA 10022, as the subject illegal recruitment was committed in November 2007, before the effectivity of the said amendment on March 8, 2010, and the penalty under RA 8042 is more favorable to accused-appellants.

Dispositive

Appeal denied. CA Decision affirmed with modification.

Scroll to Top