People v. Bayker | G.R. No. 170192 | February 10, 2016| Padilla, J.

FACTS
 An Illegal Recruitment case and an Estafa Case was filed against Marissa Bayker, Nida Bermudez and Lorenz Langreo.
o They illegally recruiting for overseas employment three complainants (Miparanum, Caniazares and Dahab)
who paid them a total of Php67,000 in processing fees, failed to send the complainants abroad on the
departure date and likewise failed to return their money despite demands.
o The three pretended that they had authority from the POEA to recruit and deploy Basilio Miparunan.
Through this fraudulent misrepresentation they were able to induce him to pay them Php52,000.
 The complainants claimed the following:
o Caniazares was promised the following jobs: Hotel porter in Canada -> Seaman -> Job in Hong Kong but was
never deployed despite paying fees.
o Dahab said that he never saw Bayker again after paying him the Php2,500 for the three-day training
program and failing to pay the Php25,000 placement fee.
o Miparanum was promised that he would quickly get deployed as a seaman in Hong Kong if he could
immediately pay Bayker Php46,000 in fees.
 Bayker was immediately arrested after she had received marked bills in an entrapment operation.
 Two witnesses (Adelaida Castel and Edith Dela Cruz) claimed that that they have known the accused for years and
that Langreo was the illegal recruiter, not Bayker. They claimed that Bayker never represented herself as a recruiter
during the meeting between Mapiranum and Bermudez, and that she was only at the entrapment scene because
Caniazares kept calling her to insist that she accompany him to the house of Bermudez. Dahab, on the other hand,
recanted his testimony and said that he voluntarily paid Bayker for his medical exam.
 Bayker claimed that she signed receipts only as a witness to the payments made to Langreo and Bermudez.
 RTC convicted the accused of 1)illegal recruitment in a large scale and 2)estafa. CA affirmed the conviction.

ISSUES
Whether Bayker is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged despite the patent weakness of the
prosecution's defense: YES
 The CA properly affirmed the conviction of the accused- appellant by the RTC for illegal recruitment committed in
large scale because she had committed acts of recruitment against at least three persons (Caniazares, Dahab, and
Miparanum) despite her not having been duly licensed or authorized by the Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration (POEA) for that purpose.
 The State established her having personally promised foreign employment to the complainants despite her having
no authority to recruit from the POEA. 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.
 Furthermore, the conviction of the accused-appellant for illegal recruitment committed in large scale did not
preclude her personal liability for estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the RPC on the ground of subjecting her to double
jeopardy.

Whether the lower court erred in not giving exculpatory weight to the defense interposed by the accused: NO
 Bayker's denials cannot prevail against the positive testimonies of the complainants.
 Based on the complainants' narration, she had a primary and instrumental role in recruiting them for overseas
placement from the inception.
 Bayker's claim of having been only casually associated with GNB Marketing did not preclude her criminal liability for
the crimes charged and proved. 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.
o Why? 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.
Whether the lower court erred in not giving weight and credence to the retractions made by complainant Dahab: NO
 Accused-appellant claims that the RTC and the CA unreasonably disregarded Dahab’s recantation; and that the
recantation would render her liable only for simple illegal recruitment instead of illegal recruitment committed in
large scale.
 The protest of the accused-appellant is untenable. Dahab’s recantation being made after he had lodged his
complaint against her with the PNP-CIDG and after he had testified against her in court directly incriminating her
rendered it immediately suspect. It should not be more weighty than his first testimony against her.

DISPOSITION
 Judgment affirmed with modifications as to penalties.