FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 251047. November 18, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.DIOLITO APOL ALVARADO @ "JUN", accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 18, 2021which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 251047 (People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, v. Diolito Apol Alvarado @ "Jun," accused-appellant).
This Appeal 1 is rooted on six (6) separate informations which were tried jointly. After a careful review of the records, the Court resolves to DISMISS the appeal. The May 7, 2019 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 41147, which upheld the conviction of Diolito Apol Alvarado @ "Jun," (accused-appellant) and Rowena Sironio Redulla (Redulla) for (a) Qualified Trafficking in Persons under Section 4 (a) of Republic Act No. 10364 (R.A. 10364), 3 in relation to Sec. 6 (a) and (c) of Republic Act No. 9208 (R.A. 9208), 4 in Criminal Case Nos. R-QZN-15-06980, R-QZN-15-06981 and R-QZN-15-06982 and (b) violation of Sec. 5 (a) of Republic Act No. 7610 (R.A. 7610), 5 in Criminal Case Nos. R-QZN-15-06983, R-QZN-15-06984 and R-QZN-15-06985, by the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 78 (RTC), is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.
Citing People v. Casio, 6 the Court, in People v. Ramirez, 7 reiterated that the victim's consent is rendered meaningless due to the coercive, abusive, or deceptive means employed by perpetrators of human trafficking. Even without the use of coercive, abusive, or deceptive means, a minor's consent is not given out of his or her own free will.
In this case, the Court cannot give credit to accused-appellant's argument that the element of threat or force, or the taking advantage of the person's vulnerability was lacking. Victims here were minors, as duly proven by the prosecution. As such, their consent is considered as involuntary. Both the RTC and the CA correctly relied on the express provision of R.A. 10364 that the "recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, adoption or receipt of a child for the purpose of exploitation or when the adoption is induced by any form of consideration for exploitative purposes shall also be considered as 'trafficking in persons' even if it does not involve any of the means set forth in the preceding paragraph."
Clearly, the law deems consent of a "child," "one who is below eighteen (18) years of age or one who is over eighteen (18) but is unable to fully take care of or protect himself/herself from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation, or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition," 8 as immaterial as long as it was sufficiently established that the child was recruited for exploitation purposes, as in this case.
Further, accused-appellant was caught inflagrante delicto during a valid entrapment operation. He cannot escape the clear and straightforward testimonies of the minors and Police Chief Inspector Renante P. Lambojo, together with photos and videos, that point to him as the perpetrator of the crime. The witnesses were not shown to have any ill motive against accused-appellant to discredit their testimonies. Accused-appellant's denial cannot prevail over the positive and affirmative testimonies of the prosecution's credible witnesses.
In sum, for a successful prosecution of trafficking in persons, the following elements must be shown: (a) the act of "recruitment, transportation, transfer or harboring, or receipt of persons with or without the victim's consent or knowledge, within or across national borders"; (b) the means used which include "threat or use of force, or other forms of coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or of position, taking advantage of the vulnerability of the person, or, the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another," and (c) the purpose of trafficking is exploitation which includes "exploitation or the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery, servitude or the removal or sale of organs." 9 The prosecution was able to prove these elements beyond reasonable doubt.
Similarly, accused-appellant was proven to have engaged in child prostitution under Sec. 5 (a) of R.A. 7610 by facilitating or offering private complainants as child prostitutes for monetary consideration.
As regards the penalty and fine imposed for the offense of qualified trafficking, the same were proper. Accused-appellant committed qualified trafficking in persons because the trafficked persons were children and in large scale, pursuant to Sec. 6 of R.A. 9208. Following Sec. 10 (c) of the same Act, any person found guilty of qualified trafficking under Sec. 6 shall suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of not less than two million pesos (P2,000,000.00) but not more than five million pesos (P5,000,000.00). the award of moral and exemplary damages was likewise in order for being in accordance with recent jurisprudence on the matter.
However, the Court deems it proper to modify the indeterminate penalty imposed for violation of Sec. 5 (a) of R.A. 7610 for child prostitution. The prescribed penalty under the law is reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua, which has a range of fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to reclusion perpetua. Absent any modifying circumstances, the maximum term shall be within the medium period of the prescribed penalty, which is seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day to twenty (20) years. On the other hand, the minimum term of the indeterminate sentence shall be within the minimum of the penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by law, which is prision mayor in its medium period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period ranging from eight (8) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months. Thus, the proper indeterminate penalty to be imposed shall be fourteen (14) years and eight months of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. As for the award of moral damages, the same was proper.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED. The May 7, 2019 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 41147, which affirmed the judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 78, finding Diolito Apol Alvarado @ "Jun" and Rowena Sironio Redulla guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Qualified Trafficking in Persons under Section 4 (a) of Republic Act No. 10364, in relation to Section 6 (a) and (c) of Republic Act No. 9208, in Criminal Case Nos. R-QZN-15-06980, R-QZN-15-06981, and R-QZN-15-06982, and violation of Section 5 (a) of Republic Act No. 7610, in Criminal Case Nos. R-QZN-15-06983, R-QZN-15-06984, and R-QZN-15-06985, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.
Accused-appellant Diolito Apol Alvarado @ "Jun" and Rowena Sironio Redulla are SENTENCED as follows:
1. In Criminal Case No. R-QZN-15-06980, each of the two (2) accused shall suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and PAY a FINE of P2,000,000.00; and they shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4103 (Indeterminate Sentence Law) in accordance with Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9346.
That as and by way of civil indemnity, each of the two (2) accused is ORDERED to PAY the private offended party AAA 10 the sum of P500,000.00 as moral damages; and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages; plus costs of suit.
2. In Criminal Case No. R-QZN-15-06981, each of the two (2) accused shall suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and PAY a FINE of P2,000,000.00; and they shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4103 (Indeterminate Sentence Law) in accordance with Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9346.
That as and by way of civil indemnity, each of the two (2) accused is ORDERED to PAY the private offended party BBB the sum of P500,000.00 as moral damages; and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages; plus costs of suit.
3. In Criminal Case No. R-QZN-15-06982, each of the two (2) accused shall suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and PAY a FINE of P2,000,000.00; and they shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4103 (Indeterminate Sentence Law) in accordance with Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9346.
That as and by way of civil indemnity, each of the two (2) accused is ORDERED to PAY the private offended party CCC the sum of P500,000.00 as moral damages; and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages; plus costs of suit.
4. In Criminal Case No. R-QZN-15-06983, each of the two (2) accused shall suffer the indeterminate sentence of fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and for each of them to PAY the private offended party AAA the sum of P150,000.00 as and by way of moral damages plus the costs of suit.
5. In Criminal Case No. R-QZN-15-06984, each of the two (2) accused shall suffer the indeterminate sentence of fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and for each of them to PAY the private offended party BBB the sum of P150,000.00 as and by way of moral damages plus the costs of suit.
6. In Criminal Case No. R-QZN-15-06985, each of the two (2) accused shall suffer the indeterminate sentence of fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and for each of them to PAY the private offended party CCC the sum of P150,000.00 as and by way of moral damages plus the costs of suit.
All monetary awards shall earn legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid.
SO ORDERED." Lopez, M., J., on official leave.
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
by:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 20-22.
2.Id. at 3-19; penned by Associate Justice Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas with Associate Justices Marlene Gonzales-Sison and Victoria Isabel A. Paredes, concurring.
3. Expanded Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2012.
4. Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003.
5. Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act.
6. 749 Phil. 458 (2014).
7. G.R. No. 217978, January 30, 2019.
8. Republic Act No. 10364, Sec. 3 (b).
9.People v. Estonilo, G.R. No. 248694, October 14, 2020.
10. The true name of the victim has been replaced with fictitious initials in conformity with Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 dated September 5, 2017 (Subject: Protocols and Procedures in the Promulgation, Publication, and Posting on the Websites of Decisions, Final Resolutions, and Final Orders Using Fictitious Names/Personal Circumstances). The confidentiality of the identity of the victim is mandated by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act); R.A. No. 8505 (Rape Victim Assistance and Protection Act of 1998); R.A. No. 9208 (Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003); R.A. No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004); and R.A. No. 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006).