Title
Boneng y Bagawili vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 133563
Decision Date
Mar 4, 1999
Boneng convicted of illegal recruitment for promising overseas employment without POEA license; SC upheld conviction, citing credible witness testimony and lawful warrantless arrest.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 133563)

Key Dates and Procedural Posture

Arraignment and plea: December 9, 1993 (plea of “not guilty”).
Trial: Prosecution presented witnesses and Exhibits A–G, rested; petitioner filed a demurrer to evidence on April 7, 1994 and waived the presentation of defense evidence.
Trial court decision: May 5, 1994 — conviction for illegal recruitment; indeterminate sentence of four (4) years minimum to eight (8) years maximum; costs.
Court of Appeals decision: March 31, 1998 — affirmed the trial court “in toto.”
Supreme Court review: Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, culminating in denial of the petition and affirmation of the CA decision.

Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis

Governing constitution: 1987 Philippine Constitution (applicable because the case decision date is after 1990).
Statutory provisions charged: Presidential Decree No. 442 (Labor Code), as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1920 — specifically Article 38(a) in relation to Articles 13(b), 16, 34 and 39(b)/(c) as cited in the records.
Rules of procedure referenced: Rule 45 (petition for review on certiorari) and Rule 113, Section 5(b) (warrantless arrest) of the Revised Rules of Court.
Precedents invoked by the courts: People v. Benemerito, People v. Diaz, People v. Pabalan, People v. Panis, People v. Trilles, People v. Galimba, and Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals — all relied upon in the courts’ reasoning as stated in the record.

Charge and Elements of the Offense

Offense charged: Illegal recruitment under Article 38(a) read with Articles 13(b), 16, 34 and 39 of PD 442, as amended.
Essential elements (as stated in People v. Benemerito and recited in the decisions): (1) the accused undertook recruitment activities (or any act enumerated in Article 34 / Article 13(b)); and (2) the accused lacked a valid license or authority to recruit or place workers abroad. Article 13(b) defines recruitment and placement to include canvassing, enlisting, contracting, utilizing, hiring, procuring, referrals, contact services, promising or advertising abroad, and provides that offering or promising employment for a fee to two or more persons constitutes recruitment and placement.

Evidence Adduced at Trial

Prosecution evidence: Testimony of Garcia that petitioner promised employment abroad (Hong Kong), quoted a total fee of about P30,000, accepted a P2,000 partial payment without issuing a receipt, and agreed to assist with passport/processing; testimony of CIS agents Nevado and Dulay who executed the arrest and recovered a marked P2,000 and documents; documentary exhibits A–G including Exhibit “C” (POEA-REU certification that petitioner was not licensed).
Procedural posture of evidence: After the prosecution rested, petitioner filed a demurrer to evidence and expressly waived presenting defense proof, thereby submitting the case for decision on the record.

Trial Court Findings and Sentence

The trial court found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal recruitment as charged, applying the indeterminate sentence law to impose imprisonment ranging from four (4) years (minimum) to eight (8) years (maximum), and ordered payment of costs. The conviction was grounded on the testimonies and documentary evidence presented by the prosecution and on petitioner’s concession (via waiver) not to rebut the prosecution’s proof.

Grounds of Appeal and Arguments by Petitioner

On appeal, petitioner contended principally that: (1) the complainant’s testimony was perjured, hearsay, materially inconsistent and uncorroborated; (2) the documents seized from petitioner’s office were obtained in violation of her constitutional right against illegal search and seizure and were therefore inadmissible; and (3) the prosecution should have presented sworn statements from other alleged applicants to substantiate that petitioner was engaged in recruitment activities for others.

Court of Appeals Reasoning and Ruling

The CA affirmed the trial court in toto. Its key determinations, as reflected in the record, were: (1) Exhibit “C” established that petitioner was not licensed to recruit and petitioner’s admission of that fact amounted to a judicial admission; (2) Garcia’s testimony established that petitioner undertook acts constituting recruitment/placement (promise of placement in Hong Kong, acceptance of partial fee), and the amount demanded and accepted supported the recruitment element; (3) the testimony of a single, credible witness (Garcia) can suffice to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt (citing People v. Pabalan); (4) minor inconsistencies in the complainant’s narration were trivial and did not destroy credibility (citing People v. Trilles); and (5) the warrantless arrest was lawful under Rule 113, Section 5(b) because the offense had in fact just been committed and the arresting peace officers had personal knowledge of facts indicating petitioner’s commission of the offense (the marked money and documents were still present, Garcia personally observed the act and relayed it to CIS agents).

Supreme Court Review and Scope of Review

The Supreme Court emphasized its limited role on a Rule 45 petition: it is not a trier of facts and will not reweigh evidence or reevaluate witness credibility where factual findings of the CA are supported by substantial evidence. The Court reiterated settled principles that factual findings by the CA, particularly when they affirm the trial court, are final and binding, and that Rule 45 confines the Court’s review principally to questions of law. The Court also noted that petitioner’s waiver of her right to present defense evidence by demurring to the prosecution’s evidence amounted to a foreclosing of objections to the prosecution’s proofs on appeal.

Supreme Court’s Application of Law to Facts

Applying the legal standards and the evidence on record, the Supreme Court agreed with the lower courts that: (1) the POEA certification (Exhibit “C”) and petitioner’s admission established lack of license; (2) Garcia’s testimony recounted affirmative recruitment acts and payment of a par

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms