G.R. No. 227190 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. ALBERTO V. BUIT FE A.K.A. ALBERT BUIT AND TESSIE GRANADA STA. AGATA-BUIT, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly, sentenced them with penalties of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of six years and one day, as minimum, to eight years, as maximum, and a fine of PHP 200,000.00 each. It likewise ordered accused-appellants to pay Baguio the amount of PHP 3,000.00, representing the reservation fee the latter paid to the former, with a legal interest at the rate of 12% per annum from filing of the November 28, 2007 Information until full payment. [9] In so ruling, the RTC held that the acts of accused-appellants, as testified by the prosecution witnesses, constitute illegal recruitment under Section 6 of R.A. No. 8042 as it was established that: (a) they connived with each other in recruiting Baguio; (b) they and Genesis were not licensed or authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment as certified by the POEA; and (c) Tessie received the marked money from Baguio and even tested positive for smudges of yellow fluorescent powder in both hands. Furthermore, it found accused-appellants liable for simple illegal recruitment only as the allegation in the Information stated that it was committed against a lone victim. [10] Dissatisfied, accused-appellants appealed to the CA. The CA Ruling In a Decision dated November 28, 2014, the CA affirmed the RTC ruling in toto . It found that accused-appellants were guilty beyond reasonable doubt of simple illegal recruitment since: (a) they did not have any license to recruit workers for overseas work; and (b) they were engaged in illegal recruitment activities, offering overseas employment for a fee. The CA then held that accused-appellants' unsubstantiated and self-serving defense of denial cannot prevail over the straightforward testimony of Baguio, identifying them as the perpetrators. [11] Aggrieved, accused-appellants moved for reconsideration, which was denied in a Resolution [12] dated January 26, 2016. Hence, this appeal. The Issue Before the Court The core issue before the Court is whether accused-appellants are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of simple illegal recruitment under Section 6, in relation to Section 7(a) of R.A. No. 8042, as amended. The Court's Ruling The appeal is unmeritorious. Prefatorily, the Court notes that accused-appellants elevated the matter before the Court through an ordinary appeal. As a rule, appeals of criminal cases shall be brought to the Court by filing a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. However, and as an exception, an appeal on the CA's decision shall be made by a mere notice of appeal in cases wherein the CA imposed the penalty of death, reclusion perpetua , life imprisonment or where a lesser penalty is imposed but for offenses committed on the same occasion or which arose out of the same occurrence that gave rise to the more serious offense for which the penalty of death, reclusion perpetua , or life imprisonment is imposed." [13] In this case, accused-appellants clearly availed of a wrong mode of appeal by