Wherefore, the Court Finds (sic), accused Bridget Boneng guilty beyond reasonable doubt for
the offense of Violation of Article 38(a) in relation to Article 13(b), 16, 34 and 39(c) of PD 442
as amended by PD 1920 (Illegal Recruitment) and sentences her, applying the indeterminate
sentence law, to an imprisonment ranging from FOUR (4) YEARS as Minimum to EIGHT (8)
YEARS as Maximum and to pay the costs.
Not satisfied with the verdict below, petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, contending that
the testimony of the complainant, Ma. Teresa Garcia, is perjured, hearsay, uncorroborated and
tainted with material inconsistencies and she (petitioner) should have been acquitted because the
documentary evidence taken from her office was seized in violation of her constitutional right
against illegal search and seizure.
On March 31, 1998, the Court of Appeals decided as follows:
In sum appellant was correctly found to be liable for violation of Art. 38(a) in relation to Articles
13(b), 16, 34 and 39 (c) of P.D. 442, as amended.
WHEREFORE, finding the conviction of appellant in conformity with the law and evidence, the
same is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.
Without resorting first to a motion for reconsideration, the petitioner came to this Court via the
present petition, placing reliance practically on the same grounds she invoked and relied upon
before the Court of Appeals.
Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming the judgment convicting petitioner for illegal
recruitment? This is the crucial issue at bar.
Petitioner theorizes that the Court of Appeals erred in not considering the non-existence and nonadmissibility of the documents upon which the trial court based her conviction. According to her,
the prosecution should have established that other than Ma. Teresa Garcia, there were other
applicants for overseas employment in the office of petitioner where she was allegedly
conducting her recruitment business and activities. In the absence of sworn statements from the
other applicants, petitioner maintains that the motive of the prosecution witnesses, whose
testimonies she branded as inconsistent with their affidavits, in carrying out the entrapment, was
to fleece money from her.
Petitioner, in effect, is asking this Court to review the factual findings by the trial court and the
Court of Appeals, to examine subject documents, and evaluate and assign the probative value of
the evidence, the same evidence looked into below, and determine once again the credibility of
the witnesses.
To begin with, this Court is not a trier of facts. It is not its function to examine and determine the
weight of the evidence supporting the assailed decision. In Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. Court of
Appeals,iii[3] the Court held that factual findings of the Court of Appeals which are supported