You are on page 1of 1


---vs--Vevina Buemio
Rule 130 S27 Offer of Compromise not admissible
1. Herein accused Buemio was charged with several information on illegal recruitment and
a. She is charged with illegal recruitment by several people. Her modus is that she
would tell the victims that she can help them place jobs in Japan, earning 10,000
yen per day. She would collect 60k as placement fee, and when the time comes,
they would get a ticket to Korea instead, Buemio claiming that its easier to get
into Japan if they are in Korea.
b. However, this would turn out to be a hoax as the victims would never go to Japan
and would be forced to use their return tickets. Buemio would also fail to return
the money they paid even though she promised to do so.
2. Hence, her victims filed a complaint with the NBI, who later found probable cause.
4. Based on the facts, some of those complainants were never mentioned in the award of
5. SC found that the reason why RTC did not mention the other complainants was due to
an affidavit of desistance they filed.
ISSUE: W/N the complainants affidavits of desistance would be enough to exonerate the
accused of the crime charged
Generally, the court attaches no persuasive value to affidavits of desistance, especially when it is
executed as an afterthought. Some of the complainants may have had a change of heart as the
offense on their person is concerned, but this will not affect the public prosecution of the offense
The right of prosecution and punishment for a crime is one of the attributes that by a natural
law belongs to the sovereign power instantly charged by the common will of the members of
society to look after, guard and defend the interest of the community
The cardinal principle which states that to the State belongs the power to prosecute and punish
crimes should not be overlooked since a criminal offense is an outrage to the sovereign State.