G.R. No. 146468 - People vs. Abellano

Bridget Boneng y Bagawili was indicted and convicted for illegal recruitment under Article 38(a) in relation to Articles 13(b), 16, 34, and 39(b) of Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended by PD 1920.
The conviction originated from criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 12104 before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 6, Baguio City, where the petitioner was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced to imprisonment ranging from four (4) to eight (8) years plus payment of court costs.
The trial court’s decision was based on evidence presented by the prosecution, which included the testimonies of key witnesses (SPO3 Jesus Nevado, SPO3 Romeo Dulay, and Maria Teresa Garcia) and documentary exhibits (designated Exhibits “A” to “G”).

On or about September 24, 1993, the alleged illegal recruitment activities took place in the City of Baguio.
The petitioner was arraigned on December 9, 1993, where she pleaded “NOT GUILTY” and later waived her right to adduce rebuttal evidence by presenting a demurrer to the evidence on April 7, 1994.
On May 5, 1994, the RTC rendered its decision convicting the petitioner of illegal recruitment.
Unhappy with the decision, the petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, arguing that the evidence—including the documentary evidence seized from her office—was tainted, inadmissible, and insufficient to support the conviction.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment on March 31, 1998.

The prosecution’s case relied heavily on the testimony of Ma. Teresa Garcia, who recounted her interactions with the petitioner regarding employment opportunities abroad, including detailed accounts of monetary transactions (such as the partial payment of P2,000.00) and descriptions of recruitment procedures.
Documentary evidence included a certification (Exhibit “C”) from the POEA-REU of Baguio City, which stated that the petitioner was not licensed or authorized to engage in recruitment, thereby satisfying an important element of illegal recruitment.
The petitioner challenged the testimony and the documentary evidence, arguing that:

The testimony of Garcia was perjured, hearsay, and uncorroborated.
The documents were seized in violation of her constitutional rights against illegal search and seizure.
The absence of additional evidence from other recruitment applicants further undermined the prosecution’s case.

The petitioner also questioned the legality of her arrest without a warrant.
It was argued that her arrest was made under the provision of Section 5(b) of Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Court, which permits warrantless arrests when an offense has just been committed and there is personal knowledge of the facts.
The Court of Appeals and the trial court both found that given the factual circumstances—such as the presence of marked money and recruitment documents—the warrantless arrest was justified.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in accepting the documentary evidence seized from the petitioner’s office as valid proof of her engagement in illegal recruitment, given the claim that such seizure violated her constitutional rights against illegal search and seizure.
Whether the evidence, particularly the testimony of Ma. Teresa Garcia, was sufficiently credible despite claims of perjury, hearsay, and material inconsistencies.

Whether the absence of sworn statements or additional testimony from other recruitment applicants undermined the prosecution’s case that the petitioner was engaged in illegal recruitment.
Whether a single credible testimony, when positive and corroborated by documentary evidence, was adequate to support a conviction for illegal recruitment.

Whether the petitioner’s appeal for review should have examined the trial court’s and the Court of Appeals’ findings of fact, given that the Supreme Court traditionally reviews only errors of law rather than errors of fact.
Whether her waiver of further evidence during the trial foreclosed her opportunity to interpose objections based on the credibility of the prosecution’s evidence on appeal.

Whether the warrantless arrest of the petitioner, justified by Section 5(b) of Rule 113, was legally proper under the circumstances when the offense was committed and its effects were still in evidence.