7/28/25, 2:16 PM People vs.
Hu
Title
People vs. Hu
Case Decision Date
G.R. No. 182232 Oct 6, 2008
Hu, president of Brighturn, convicted of Simple Illegal Recruitment for recruiting Garcia
after license expired; ordered to repay placement fees with interest.
Jur.ph - Case Digest (G.R. No. 182232)
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
The case revolves around accused-appellant Nenita B. Hu, who was found guilty of illegal
recruitment in large scale under Republic Act No. 8042. The complaint was initiated by the
People of the Philippines against Hu, who was charged alongside Ethel V. Genoves. The
complaint specifically pertained to their actions on October 9, 2001, in Makati City, where
they allegedly recruited individuals for overseas employment without the necessary
licenses from the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). The private
complainants included Paul Abril, Joel Panguelo, Evangeline Garcia, and Eric Orillano who
each paid placement fees ranging from P44,000.00 to P60,000.00 for promised job
placements in Taiwan. Despite their full compliance with pre-employment requirements
and the payment of fees, none were deployed for work abroad. When they demanded a
refund, Hu was unable to return the money.
Upon being arraigned, Hu pleaded not guilty, while Genoves remained at large. During the
trial, evidence was presented, which included testimonies from the complainants. Hu was
the president of Brighturn International Services, Inc., a recruitment agency licensed by
POEA at the time the alleged recruitment activities took place. The trial court found Hu
guilty and sentenced her to life imprisonment, a fine of P500,000.00, and ordered her to
indemnify the complainants. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision with a slight
modification regarding one of the damage awards. Hu subsequently filed a petition for
review on certiorari seeking to reverse the appellate court's decision.
Issues:
The primary issue at hand is:
Did the lower court err in finding Hu guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal
recruitment in large scale?
Ruling:
The Supreme Court of the Philippines partially granted Hu's petition. It vacated the
conviction for illegal recruitment in large scale, instead finding her guilty of simple illegal
https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/v/digest/people-v-hu?q=11.%09Pp.+v.+Hu%2C+G.R.+182232%2C+6+Oct.+2008 1/2
7/28/25, 2:16 PM People vs. Hu
recruitment for her actions concerning Evangeline Garcia. Hu was sentenced to an
indeterminate penalty of eight to twelve years of imprisonment, along with a fine of
P500,000.00 and ordered to indemnify various complainants with 12% interest per annum.
Ratio:
The Court articulated that illegal recruitment necessitates the concurrence of two essential
elements:
The recruiter has no valid license or authority to engage in recruitment and placement
activities.
The action must involve recruitment and placement activities within the definition set
forth in the Labor Code.
For large scale illegal recruitment, an additional criterion is that the offense must have
been committed against three or more individuals. The prosecution's failure to prove that
Hu committed illegal recruitment against at least three individuals, as required by law, led
to the determination that the elements for large scale illegal recruitment were not met.
Although the complainants testified, the evidence only substantiated illegal recruitment
against Garcia, as the others were recruited during a time when Brighturn's license was
still valid.
Consequently, Hu was found guilty only of simple illegal recruitment against Garcia, as she
continued collecting fees and made promises for employment despite lacking the requisite
authority after her license expired. The prosecution's evidence demonstrated that Hu
engaged in acts of recruitment, deceiving Garcia into providing payment under false
pretenses of facilitating overseas employment, thus validating the trial court's finding that
Hu had committed illegal recruitment.
Doctrine:
In criminal cases, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish the guilt of the
accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The failure to present sufficient evidence
demonstrating that illegal recruitment was committed against the requisite number of
individuals for a large scale charge is detrimental to the prosecution's case. A conviction in
such instances must rely on compelling evidence of illegal recruitment acts against three
or more persons. This case notably illustrates that a conviction for illegal recruitment
should reflect the nature and extent of the crime as committed, further emphasizing that
even if placed in a position of trust and authority, the absence of a valid license to recruit
would lead to criminal liability under existing Philippine laws.
Note: AI summaries may not capture all details. Please refer to full text for complete accuracy.
https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/v/digest/people-v-hu?q=11.%09Pp.+v.+Hu%2C+G.R.+182232%2C+6+Oct.+2008 2/2
