G.R. No. 244001 - Marajas vs. People

Case Summary (G.R. No. 244001)

Petitioner

Aquilina M. Marajas was charged with Illegal Recruitment under Section 6 of R.A. No. 8042, as amended by R.A. No. 10022, and with facilitating Trafficking in Persons under Section 5(e) of R.A. No. 9208. She pleaded not guilty and proceeded to trial in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Pasay City, Branch 111.

Respondent

The People of the Philippines, represented before the Supreme Court by the Office of the Solicitor General on appeal.

Key Dates

Alleged offense and events: May 31, 2012. RTC Decision convicting petitioner: April 13, 2015. Court of Appeals Decision: June 6, 2018; CA Resolution denying reconsideration: January 14, 2019. Supreme Court decision denying petition for review: June 23, 2021.

Applicable Law

1987 Philippine Constitution (governing constitutional framework and appellate jurisdiction). Statutory provisions applied: R.A. No. 8042 (Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995), as amended by R.A. No. 10022 (definitions and penalties for illegal recruitment); R.A. No. 9208 (Anti‑Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003), including Section 3(a) (definition of trafficking), Section 5(e) (acts that promote trafficking), and Section 10 (penalties); Rule 45 of the Rules of Court (petition for review on certiorari).

Procedural Posture and Charges

Petitioner and co‑accused Melgarejo were charged under Criminal Case No. R‑PSY‑12‑05571 with Illegal Recruitment for allegedly referring Tag‑at for employment in Beijing and facilitating her departure using falsified travel documents. Petitioner, Pilac and Melgarejo were also charged under Criminal Case No. R‑PSY‑12‑05572 for violation of Section 5(e) of R.A. No. 9208 for assisting the departure of Tag‑at using fake documents and facilitating her exit despite her inability to financially support travel. Petitioner was convicted by the RTC and the conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals with modification of penalties; petitioner sought review before the Supreme Court under Rule 45.

Prosecution Evidence

The prosecution presented testimony from Tag‑at and multiple government agents. The factual narrative established that Tag‑at sought employment at Myron Travel Agency; petitioner met Tag‑at and represented that a sponsor in Beijing would assist Tag‑at’s travel and employment. Petitioner gave Tag‑at a Letter of Invitation and Support (purportedly from “Johnelyn Daquigan”) and copies of documents. On May 31, 2012, petitioner accompanied Tag‑at to NAIA Terminal 3, directed Tag‑at to fall in line at the immigration counter manned by Pilac, and remained with her. IACAT agents overheard petitioner’s instructions and prompted secondary inspection; Immigration Officer Lagman found the supporting documents did not establish a real sponsor relationship and offloaded Tag‑at. Tag‑at later admitted the letter and birth certificate were fake. POEA Representative Aquino identified a POEA Certification confirming petitioner was not licensed or authorized to recruit overseas workers.

Defense Evidence and Theory

Petitioner denied committing illegal recruitment or trafficking. She testified that she was at Myron Travel Agency as an applicant herself, accompanied Tag‑at to the airport at Tag‑at’s request to ascertain whether Tag‑at could depart and to test the agency’s legitimacy, and merely sat on a bench at the terminal. Petitioner denied providing fake documents or instructing Tag‑at to line up at the immigration counter and claimed she left after Tag‑at was subjected to secondary inspection. The defense portrayed Tag‑at’s prior affidavit as coerced and emphasized petitioner’s own status as an applicant.

RTC Ruling

The RTC found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Recruitment (R‑PSY‑12‑05571) and of violating R.A. No. 9208 (R‑PSY‑12‑05572), sentencing her to indeterminate imprisonment terms and fines as set forth in the RTC decision dated April 13, 2015.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s findings of guilt for both offenses but modified the illegal recruitment penalty to conform with the amended statutory range under R.A. No. 10022. The CA imposed an indeterminate penalty of 12 years and 1 day to 20 years and a fine of P1,000,000 for illegal recruitment, and affirmed a 15‑year imprisonment and P500,000 fine for the Section 5(e) trafficking offense. Reconsideration was denied.

Issues on Appeal to the Supreme Court

Petitioner contended that (1) the prosecution failed to prove the first element of illegal recruitment (that she undertook recruitment or placement activities) and (2) the conviction for trafficking under Section 5(e) of R.A. No. 9208 was unsupported, being based on bare, uncorroborated allegations that she assisted Tag‑at’s departure or provided fake documents.

Supreme Court’s Standard of Review and Deference

The Supreme Court reviewed the CA’s decision for legal error and factual findings for sufficient support in the record. The Court acknowledged that, absent a showing of misapprehension of facts or overlooked evidence, factual findings of the trial court—particularly credibility assessments—merit deference.

Analysis — Elements of Illegal Recruitment

The Court restated the elements of illegal recruitment under Section 6 of R.A. No. 8042 (as amended): (1) the offender undertakes any act within the meaning of recruitment/placement as defined in Article 13(b) of the Labor Code or commits prohibited practices under Article 34; and (2) the offender lacks the legally required license or authority to recruit and place workers. The POEA certification established the second element without dispute.

Analysis — Application of Facts to Illegal Recruitment

On the contested first element, the Court found sufficient evidence that petitioner represented she could secure employment for Tag‑at in Beijing and that she gave Tag‑at a Letter of Invitation and Support and related documents, accompanied Tag‑at to the airport, and instructed Tag‑at to fall in line at the immigration counter. Tag‑at’s testimony that petitioner said there would be work in Beijing, coupled with petitioner’s provision of fabricated sponsorship documents and active participation in the airport sequence, satisfied the element of presenting the distinct impression of having the power to send a worker overseas. The Court emphasized that petitioner’s categorical denials were inherently weak compared with the prosecution’s positive and credible testimony.

Analysis — Elements of Trafficking u

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 244001)

Procedural Posture

Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure filed before the Supreme Court, assailing the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated June 6, 2018 and January 14, 2019 in CA-G.R. CR No. 37566.
Case originated in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City, Branch 111, where petitioner was tried and convicted for Illegal Recruitment under R.A. No. 8042, as amended by R.A. No. 10022, and for violation of Section 5(e) of R.A. No. 9208 (Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003).
The Supreme Court, through Associate Justice Delos Santos (writing), rendered a Decision denying the petition and affirming the convictions as affirmed and modified by the CA.

Parties and Counsel (as presented)

Petitioner: Aquilina M. Marajas.
Co-accused: Myrna Melgarejo and Raymond Marquez Pilac (Pilac).
Respondent: People of the Philippines; Respondent’s Comment filed through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) on September 4, 2019.
Appellate judges noted: CA Decision penned by Associate Justice Maria Elisa Sempio Diy with Associate Justices Franchito N. Diamante and Rodil V. Zalameda concurring; Supreme Court concurring: Hernando (Acting Chairperson), Inting, and J. Lopez, JJ.; Leonen, J., on official leave.

Informations / Charges Filed

Criminal Case No. R-PSY-12-05571 (Violation of Section 6 of R.A. No. 8042)
- Allegation (as recited in the Information): Sometime on May 31, 2012 in Pasay City, petitioner and Melgarejo, "non-licensees or non-holders of authority and representing themselves as authorized to deploy Filipino workers for employment abroad," did willfully, unlawfully and knowingly refer Nieves Tag-at for employment in Beijing, China and facilitated her departure through the use of falsified travel documents, to the damage and prejudice of Nieves Tag-at. CONTRARY TO LAW.
Criminal Case No. R-PSY-12-05572-CR (Violation of Section 5[e] of R.A. No. 9208)
- Allegation (as recited in the Information): Sometime on May 31, 2012 in Pasay City, Myrna Melgarejo, owner of Myron Travel Consultancy, did willfully, unlawfully and knowingly direct Aquilina M. Marajas to facilitate the departure of Nieves E. Tag-at for employment in Beijing, China by instructing her to fall in line where Raymond Pilac was stationed, and by handing her a fake letter of support and invitation, and Raymond Pilac immediately cleared Tag-at for departure despite her financial incapability, to the damage and prejudice of Tag-at. CONTRARY TO LAW.

Arraignment, Plea, and Trial

On arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty to the offenses charged.
Trial proceeded with presentation of prosecution witnesses and defense testimony; issues of credibility and documentary evidence were central to the proceedings.

Prosecution Evidence — Factual Narrative

Private complainant: Nieves Tag-at.
- Sometime in May 2012, Tag-at went to Myron Travel Agency (owned by Melgarejo) to seek employment abroad as a domestic helper.
- Melgarejo told Tag-at to wait for petitioner; petitioner arrived and introduced herself; petitioner informed Tag-at that the agency would arrange for a sponsor in Beijing, China who would help Tag-at travel and be engaged as a domestic helper.
- On May 31, 2012, petitioner handed Tag-at a Letter of Invitation and Support dated May 15, 2012 signed by "Johnelyn Daquigan," together with copies of Daquigan’s passport and certificate of live birth.
- That afternoon, petitioner accompanied Tag-at to Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) Terminal 3 and told her to wait for a text message and to fall in line at the Immigration counter manned by a "fat and bald person" later identified as Raymond Pilac.
- Tag-at gave her passport to Pilac; when asked if she had money she showed P1,000.00; Pilac stamped her passport and cleared her for departure. Tag-at was then ordered to proceed to Bureau of Immigration Travel Control and Enforcement Unit (TCEU) for secondary inspection.
- During secondary inspection, Immigration Officer Rhona Ruth Lagman inspected documents (passport, return ticket, boarding pass, Letter of Invitation and Support, birth certificate of Daquigan); offloading occurred after failure to show relationship with Daquigan as alleged sponsor; an Affidavit of Offloading was executed.
- At IACAT Office, Tag-at admitted her real purpose was employment and disclosed petitioner told her she could go as a tourist and later be given a job; she showed the Letter of Invitation and Support and admitted the Letter and Daquigan’s birth certificate were both fake.
Intervening observations and actions by law enforcement:
- Agents Geli, Sarno, and Follosco (IACAT members) were in NAIA Terminal 3 departure area and observed petitioner giving instructions to Tag-at and directing her to the counter manned by Pilac.
- Agents Follosco, Sarno, and Geli brought Tag-at to the IACAT Office where Agent Gennady A. Chiong (Anti-Human Trafficking Supervisor) interviewed her.
- Agent Geli later located petitioner and invited her to the IACAT Office for questioning; after investigation agents concluded petitioner committed violations of R.A. No. 9208 and R.A. No. 8042 and placed her under arrest.
POEA evidence:
- POEA Representative Corazon C. Aquino identified and admitted a POEA Certification dated January 15, 2014 stating petitioner was not licensed or authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment.

Defense Evidence — Petitioner’s Version

Petitioner denied charges of Illegal Recruitment and Trafficking in Persons.
Petitioner’s factual assertions:
- Met Tag-at at Myron Travel Agency as an applicant herself.
- On May 31, 2012, Tag-at told petitioner she was leaving that day and asked petitioner to accompany her to the airport; petitioner agreed to accompany her to ascertain if Tag-at would be allowed to leave and to verify the travel agency’s legitimacy as petitioner was also an applicant.
- At the airport, petitioner sat on a bench while Tag-at lined up at the Travel Tax and Check-in Counters; petitioner denied knowledge of Tag-at’s subsequent transactions or of the offloading.
- Petitioner was later approached by an NBI agent, invited to the IACAT Office, questioned, arrested, and detained.
Petitioner denied assisting Tag-at to leave, denied providing fraudulent documents, and denied tampering with official documents.

Trial Court Ruling (RTC, April 13, 2015)

RTC found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of:
- Illegal Recruitment (Criminal Case No. R-PSY-12-05571): sentenced to the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) years and one (1) day (minimum) to ten (10) years (maximum), and to pay a fine of P200,000.00.
- Violation of R.A. No. 9208 (Criminal Case No. R-PSY-12-05572): petitioner and Raymond Pilac found guilty beyond reasonable doubt and each sentenced to fifteen (15) years imprisonment and each to pay a fine of P500,000.00.
RTC dispositive language provided as recorded in the source.

Court of Appeals Ruling (June 6, 2018) and Reconsideration (Jan 14, 2019)

CA affirmed with modification the RTC rulings:
- Illegal Recruitment conviction affirmed but sentence modified to indeterminate imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day (minimum) to twenty (20) years (maximum), and a fine of P1,000,000.00.
- Trafficking in Person