G. R. No. 178337 14 of 21 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/june2009/178337.htm The prosecution is entitled to conduct its own case and to decide what witnesses to call to [48] support its charges. The defense posture that the non-presentation of the wife of Biacora constitutes suppression of evidence favorable to petitioner Ritualo is fallacious. In fact, the same line of reasoning can be used against petitioner Ritualo. If the defense felt that the testimony of Biacoras wife would support her defense, what she could and should have done was to call her (Biacoras wife) to the stand as her own witness. One of the constitutional rights of the accused is "to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf." And, in the same vein, since petitioner Ritualo is setting the cloak of liability on Seraspes shoulder, she (petitioner Ritualo) could and should have had the former subpoenaed as well. As held by this Court, the adverse presumption of suppression of evidence does not, moreover, apply where the evidence suppressed is merely corroborative or cumulative in [49] nature. If presented, Biacoras wife would merely corroborate Biacoras account which, by itself, already detailed what occurred on the day of the parties first meeting at the house of petitioner Ritualo. Hence, the prosecution committed no fatal error in dispensing with the testimony of Biacoras wife. Finally, Biacora, the private complainant in this case, did not harbor any ill motive to testify falsely against petitioner Ritualo. The latter failed to show any animosity or ill feeling on the part of Biacora that could have motivated him to falsely accuse her of the crimes charged. It would be against human nature and experience for strangers to conspire [50] and accuse another stranger of a most serious crime just to mollify their hurt feelings. The totality of the evidence in the case at bar, when scrutinized and taken together, leads to no other conclusion than that petitioner Ritualo engaged in recruiting and promising overseas employment to Felix Biacora under the above-quoted Sec. 6 of Republic Act No. 8042 vis--vis Article 13(b) of the Labor Code. Hence, she cannot now feign ignorance of the consequences of her unlawful acts. As to the sentence imposed upon petitioner Ritualo for the crime of simple illegal recruitment, this Court clarifies that the penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals a sentence of 12 years imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00 - is partly incorrect, as [51] Under Sec. 7(a) of Republic Act No. 8042, simple petitioner Ritualo is a non-licensee. illegal recruitment is punishable by imprisonment of not less than six (6) years and one (1) day but not more than twelve (12) years and a fine of not less than Two Hundred Thousand 1/28/2016 11:03 AM