People of The Philippines vs. Bayker

People of the Philippines vs.
Marissa Bayker,
G.R. No. 170192, February 10, 2016
FACTS:
The crime for illegal recruitment and estafa was charged against Ms. Bayker. During the
arraignment, she pleaded not guilty for those crimes. When the trial was ensued, the
State presented four witnesses, namely: Caniazares, Dahab, Miparanum and PO3
Bolido.
Caniares testified that the accused represented herself to them as a recruiter for
overseas employment; that Caniares was being promised by the accused that he would
be deployed as a seaman but he had first to pay P6,000.00 to her; that after he had
paid the said sum, he was directed to go to her office in Makati (GNB Marketing
Agency) for appointment, but during the appointment time, no one is in there, and thus
he decided to proceed to the accused’s house where he was informed that his
seaman’s application will not push through; but later on was promised again by the
accused’s manager for a deployment in Hongkong within 2 weeks, however, they again
did not make good their promise; that when he went to the POEA he learned that the
accused, together with two others: Bermudez and Langreo, had not been issued the
license to recruit and place people overseas. The testimony of Caniares was
corroborated by the testimonies of the other witnesses, Dahab and Miparanum, sharing
their same experiences in transacting with the accused.
PO3 Bolido, along with other police, conducted an entrapment operation against the
accused. The team immediately arrested her upon her receiving the marked bills used
in the said entrapment operation. In contrast, the accused pointed to Langreo and
Bermudez, as the perpetrator, being the operators of GNB Marketing Agency.
Accused Bayker presented two witnesses, namely: Castel and dela Cruz. Castel
testified that she had known the accused for almost five years; that being there present
during the meeting between the accused and Caniazares, she did not hear the accused
representing herself as a legitimate recruiter to the latter; and that prior to the
entrapment of the accused, Caniazares had called their house three times to ask the
accused to accompany him to the house of Bermudez.
On her part, dela Cruz attested that she had known the accused because they had
worked together in a handicraft factory; that she did not know if the accused had been a
recruiter; that it was Langreo who had been the recruiter because he had recruited her
own daughter; and that she did not know anything about the transactions between the
accused and the complaining witnesses.
Subsequently, prosecutor’s witness Dahab recanted his testimony, and stated that he
had only requested assistance from the accused regarding his medical examination. He
insisted that he had voluntarily paid P5,000.00 to her, and she had then paid the
amount to the Medical Center for his medical examination.
The RTC convicted the accused beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of estafa and
illegal recruitment which conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE:
Whether or not accused Bayker was properly convicted for illegal recruitment and
estafa.
HELD:
Yes.
Illegal recruitment is committed by a person who:
(a) undertakes any recruitment activity defined under Article l 3(b) or any prohibited
practice enumerated under Article 34 and Article 38 of the Labor Code; and
(b) does not have a license or authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and
placement of workers.
It is committed in large scale when it is committed against three or more persons

individually or as a group.
Bayker was properly convicted for illegal recruitment committed in large scale because
she had committed acts of recruitment against at least three persons (namely:
Canizares, Dahab, and Miparanum) despite her not having been duly licensed or
authorized by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) for that
purpose.
Bakyer’s insistence on her very limited participation in the recruitment of the

complainants did not advance or help her cause because the State established her
having personally promised foreign employment either as hotel porters or seafarers to
the complainants despite her having no license or authority to recruit from the POEA.
The records made it clear enough that her participation was anything but limited, for she
herself had accompanied them to their respective medical examinations at their own
expense. In addition, she herself brought them to GNB Marketing and introduced them
to her co-accused.
Even assuming arguendo that Bayker never received any payment from the
complainants, actual receipt of a fee is not an essential element of the crime of Illegal
Recruitment, but is only one of the modes for the commission thereof.
Besides, all the private complainants positively identified Bayker as the person who
recruited them and exacted money from them. Her bare denials and self-serving
assertions cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of the complainants who had no
ill motive to testify falsely against her.
Bayker’s denial of her participation in the illegal recruitment activities of Bermudez and
Langreo did not gain traction from her charging her co-accused with the sole
responsibility for the illegal recruitment of the complainants.
Based on the testimonial narration of the complainants regarding their recruitment, the
accused was the primary and instrumental role in recruiting them for overseas
placement from the inception. Even the mere employee of a company or corporation
engaged in illegal recruitment could be held liable, along with the employer, as a
principal in illegal recruitment once it was shown that he had actively and consciously
participated in illegal recruitment. This is because recruitment and placement include
any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring
workers, as well as referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for
employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not.
In the same manner, the conviction of the accused-appellant for illegal recruitment
committed in large scale did not preclude her personal liability for estafa under Article
3l5(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code on the ground of subjecting her to double jeopardy.
The elements of estafa as charged are, namely:

(1) the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit; and
(2) the offended party, or a third party suffered damage or prejudice capable of
pecuniary
estimation.
In contrast, the crime of illegal recruitment committed in large scale, as indicated

earlier, requires different elements. Double jeopardy could not result from prosecuting
and convicting Bayer for both crimes considering that they were entirely distinct from
each other not only from their being punished under different statutes but also from their
elements being different.

People of The Philippines vs. Bayker

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People of The Philippines vs. Bayker

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People of the Philippines vs.

Illegal recruitment is committed by a person who:

It is committed in large scale when it is committed against three or more persons

Bakyer’s insistence on her very limited participation in the recruitment of the

The elements of estafa as charged are, namely:

In contrast, the crime of illegal recruitment committed in large scale, as indicated

You might also like