People vs Buemio : 114011 : December 16, 1996 : J. Kapunan : First D... 5 of 10 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/dec1996/114011.htm [10] for the court to fix the bailbond for the liberty of the accused. The court accordingly held the [11] arraignment of the accused in abeyance pending the result of the reinvestigation. At her arraignment on April 22, 1992, Vevina pleaded not guilty to the charges against her in Crim. [12] The number of complainants, however, diminished when Cases Nos. 92-0129 to 92-0140. some of them executed affidavits of desistance upon the common allegation that Vevina did not [13] promise them employment abroad but merely assisted in the processing of their travel papers. Testifying in her own defense at the trial, Vevina swore that during the first week of October, 1991 when she was in Korea, Principe, Villanueva and Gutierrez went to her residence in Villamor Air Base requesting for assistance in going to Japan. Jennilyn, her friend who ran errands for her, accompanied the three who had learned from a certain Baltazar, Vevinas former client, that Vevina could help them because of her job as the field officer of the Continental Tour and Travel Agency. From the telephone conversation with her husband and Jennilyn, she learned that the three had relatives in Japan who could provide them employment in that country. The day after Vevina arrived from Korea on October 23, 1991, Principe told her by phone that he and his companions would be arriving at her residence at 6:00 p.m. Since she told them that she had an appointment at 10:30 p.m., that day being her husbands birthday, Principe told her that they would be coming to her place instead at 12:00 midnight. The three arrived at the appointed time. It was the first time for her to met them. Principe, who would be shouldering the expenses of Villanueva and Gutierrez, was the spokesman of the group. As the three handed her P90,000.00, she emphasized to them that part of the amount defray the expenses for her own ticket and hotel accommodations as she would be travelling [14] with them. She signed a receipt prepared by the group but she did not read its contents anymore nor did she count the money which she placed inside a drawer, as she was busy attending to her husbands guest. The three having given her their business registration papers, income tax returns and calling cards, Vevina immediately processed their travel documents and passports. She first proposed that the three go to Thailand but the Thai Airline did not issue tickets for them because they had [15] not secured an onward visa. Thus, she next proposed that since entry to Hongkong would not entail securing a visa thereto, the three should take a Hongkong-Japan-Korea route. The three, together with other clients of Vevina, applied for a Korean visa but only Principe was granted said visa. Vevina then gave Principe tickets for the Manila-Hongkong, Hongkong-Japan, Japan-Korea and Korea-Manila trip. Upon her advice, Principe also applied for a visa at the Japanese embassy. Because Villanueva and Gutierrez wanted to be sure first that Principe would be granted a Japanese visa, no tickets were issued to them. However, all three later decided to give up their travel plans and demanded that she gave them back their money. She agreed to return the money as soon as some of the groups gave back the money that they [16] used. She had received P50,000.00 for Principes ticket at Villanuevas residence, and [17] P10,000.00 for their hotel accommodations. On January 26, 1994, the trial court rendered the aforementioned decision convicting appellant of illegal recruitment. Vevina filed a motion for its reconsideration but this was denied [18] by the court on February 3, 1994. Hence, this appeal questioning the trial courts giving weight and credence to the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, and alleging denial of due process to the appellant. On this issue of denial of due process, appellant contends that she was not given the opportunity to present additional witnesses. The records belie such claim. There were three [19] resettings of the hearings of the case where the defense was given an opportunity to present 1/20/2016 5:32 PM