FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 227404. June 16, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.JOAN ARELLANO y IRUDISTAN A.K.A. "MOMMY JOAN," ET AL., accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated June 16, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 227404 (People of the Philippines v. Joan Arellano y Irudistan a.k.a. "Mommy Joan," et al.). — This appeal assails the Decision 1 dated November 28, 2014 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 06416, which affirmed the conviction of accused-appellants Joan Arellano (Joan), Wilhelmina Arellano (Wilma), Terie Rubio (Terie), Bella Amador (Bel), Violeta Canlas (Jenny), and Maribyl Francesco (Beng) for the crime of qualified trafficking in persons and imposed upon them the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P2,000,000.00. Each of accused-appellants were ordered to pay each of the private complainants, jointly and severally, P500,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages.
Facts of the Case
On August 28, 2012, the prosecution charged accused-appellants (and other John/Jane Does who remain at large), with Qualified Trafficking in Persons under Section 4, in relation to Sections 3 (a), 6 (a) (c) and 10 (c) of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 9208 otherwise known as the "Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003," committed as follows:
That on or about August 22, 2012, and on dates prior thereto, in Quezon City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually aiding one another as a syndicate, for the purpose of sexual exploitation and prostitution, and by taking advantage of the vulnerability of victims BBB, AAA, PATRICIA MONTANO, MAE AVILA, RONA ROSE D. NICDAO, CHLOE ANN L. ESPINO, CCC, FFF, GGG, DDD, JOHONEY GUTIERREZ, EEE and CRISTEL JAM TIQUEZ, did then and there, knowingly, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, receive, provide, maintain, and hire said victims as models/dancers/guest relations officers of Metallica KTV Bar located at Quezon Avenue, Quezon City, in order to make them engage in sexual intercourse, perform lascivious conduct and dance/model in indecent shows, by wearing skimpy clothing and/or in full nudity, in view of arousing sexual desires of the customers for monetary consideration, to the damage and prejudice of the above-named victims.
That the crime was attended by the qualifying circumstance of minority as complainants BBB, AAA, FFF and GGG are all seventeen (17) years old; and that the crime was committed by a syndicate carried out by three (3) or more persons.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 2
During arraignment, accused-appellants pleaded not guilty to the offense charged. Thereafter, pre-trial and trial on the merits ensued. 3
The prosecution presented the testimonies of Investigation Agent Mark Daryl Zacarias (Agent Zacarias) of the National Bureau of Investigation's (NBI) Anti-Human Trafficking Division (AHTRAD); Mariano Turiano (Agent Turiano), administrative officer of the Inter-Agency Council Against Human Trafficking (IACAT); as well as private complainants Mae Avila, AAA, 4 BBB, 5 CCC, 6 DDD, 7 and EEE. 8 The testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution are summarized as follows:
The NBI-AHTRAD received information that human trafficking activities involving minors are allegedly taking place in Metallica KTV Bar (Metallica) located in Quezon Avenue, Quezon City. Thus, in the evening of August 11, 2012, Agents Zacarias and Turiano conducted a surveillance operation on Metallica. Upon entering the Bar, Agents Zacarias and Turiano were met by several floor managers (later on identified as accused-appellants). One of the floor managers, Joan, who introduced herself as Mommy Joan, brought the two upstairs where the Club was located. There, Agents Zacarias and Turiano saw women dancing naked onstage. They also observed the other accused-appellants offering the girls to other customers. Joan asked the agents if they want to be entertained by a guest relations officer (GRO). Joan told them that they can have sex with the GRO for a fee of P3,000.00 inside the VIP room of Metallica. Agents Zacarias and Turiano declined the offer but they promised to return. 9
The members of the NBI-AHTRAD and IACAT planned an entrapment operation originally scheduled on August 15, 2012. However, they received a tip that the minors working in Metallica would not report for work on that day because they were allegedly taking their examinations in school. The operation was eventually conducted in the evening of August 22, 2012. Agents Zacarias, Turiano and Valiant Raganit (Agent Raganit) acted as poseur-customers. Upon entering the Bar, they were asked to pay P200.00 each as entrance fee as it was the Metallica's Big Night. Inside, the agents observed the women performing lustful and sensual dance in full nudity. They saw how accused-appellants Wilma, Terie, Bel, Jenny, and Beng offer women to customers. Accused-appellants ordered the women to line up and they let the customers choose from them. While the agents were having drinks, Joan approached them and offered Jade (later identified as AAA) and Mica to sit with them. Thereafter, Joan told the agents that they can have sex with AAA and Mica for P3,500.00 each. Agent Turiano handed the payment to Joan, who escorted them to the VIP room of Metallica. After about 30 minutes in the VIP room, Agent Zacarias called Atty. Czar Eric Nuque, their ground commander, signaling the consummation of the entrapment operation. The group then entered and raided the Bar which resulted to the rescue of the victim-complainants. 10 EcTCAD
Private complainant AAA testified that she started working in Metallica on August 13, 2012 when she was 17 years old having been born on February 9, 1996. AAA claimed that it was Beng who instructed her not to tell anyone her true age as she was still a minor at that time. AAA narrated that she was hired as a group dancer with a salary of P450.00 per night. On her first night, she was allegedly shocked to see other girls dancing nude onstage. She was also surprised to see a woman on top of a guest. On August 17, 2012, Bel approached her because a customer wanted a virgin. Bel brought her to the VIP room. However, the customer reported to Bel and Joan that AAA refused to have sex with him. Bel got mad at AAA and told her that, "bolabolahin mo lang iyan, tsika-tsikahin mo lang iyan, utu-utuin mo lang iyan." AAA went back to the VIP room but when the customer asked her to perform oral sex on him, she still refused. Hence, Joan and Bel both got angry at her. On August 22, 2012, AAA testified that a customer requested to have sex with her. Joan then escorted them to the VIP room. That was when the NBI agents who posed as customers rescued them. 11
Mae Avila testified that that she was first employed as GRO in November 2010 and it was Beng who employed her as such. Beng told her that her job is to entertain customers and let them embrace and kiss her. The rate of a sex with customer is P1,500.00. According to Mae Avila, it was accused-appellants who were arranging for the sex with a customer. On August 22, 2012, she was in the VIP room with a customer provided by Wilma. Before the rescue operations took place, she saw accused-appellants Joan, Bel, Beng, and Jenny providing GROs to customers. 12
BBB stated that she was 17 years old at the time of the incident having been born on January 2, 1995. She worked in Metallica as a sexy dancer. There were times that she dances topless. On August 22, 2012, she already finished performing her first set when the NBI agents raided the Bar. 13
CCC claimed that she was only 13 years old at the time of the incident, being born on September 29, 1998. According to CCC, it was a certain Sir Ando, whom she knew as the owner of Metallica, who told her not to say her real name and age when someone asks. She worked in Metallica as a sexy dancer and model. CCC said that it was the wife of Sir Ando, Ma'am CJ, who employed her in Metallica. CCC admitted that she had engaged in sexual intercourse with several customers in the past. She named Joan, Beng, Wilma, and Bel who introduced her to the customers. According to CCC, she is earning P1,500.00 for every sex with a customer while Joan, Wilma, and Bel each received P500.00 as commission. 14
DDD said that she was 15 years old at the time of the rescue operations, being born on February 22, 1997. She worked as a GRO and model in Metallica. On August 22, 2012, she was entertaining a customer when the accused-appellants, one by one, kept asking her if she wanted to have sex with customers. However, DDD refused. 15
The last witness for the prosecution is EEE who testified that she was 15 years old at the time of the incident, being born on June 3, 1997. She worked as a dancer, singer, and GRO in Metallica. For every performance, she sings two songs; while singing the first song, she would remove her bra and while singing the second song, she would remove her panty. According to EEE, she earns P1,200.00 as a sexy dancer and P1,500.00 for every sexual intercourse with a customer. She identified Joan, Wilma, and Terie as the floor managers who transacted with customers to whom she had sex with. 16
On the other hand, counsels for accused-appellants manifested that they conferred with their clients who all agreed that they would no longer present evidence on their behalf. The trial court explained to accused-appellants the consequences of their refusal to present their evidence. Accused-appellants affirmed the manifestation of their counsels and reiterated that they understood the consequences thereof. 17 HSAcaE
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
On June 24, 2013, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 94 rendered its Decision 18 convicting accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubt for violation of R.A. 9208 and imposing upon them the penalty of life imprisonment with a fine of P2,000,000.00. Each of accused-appellants were ordered to pay each of the private complainants, jointly and severally, P500,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages. 19
The RTC found that the evidence presented as well as the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses established beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of accused-appellants. The RTC noted that the testimonies of Agents Zacarias and Turiano and the affidavit of Agent Raganit sufficiently proved that they were provided by accused-appellants with GROs. Joan even received money from Agent Turiano in exchange for the sexual services of AAA and Mica. Accused-appellants likewise ordered private complainants to perform lascivious conduct with customers of Metallica. 20
The testimonies of the operatives of NBI-AHTRAD and IACAT were corroborated by the private complainants themselves. The RTC gave credence to the testimonies of private complainants who detailed the activities that they have done for the customers of Metallica prior to and during the entrapment operation. The private complainants likewise pointed to accused-appellants as the ones who directed their performances onstage as well as the ones who offered the sexual services of private complainants to their customers. 21
The RTC held that the crime committed by accused-appellants is qualified by the fact that no less than three of the private complainants are minors at the time of the incident and that the crime was carried out by more than three people, who are the accused-appellants here. 22
Aggrieved, accused-appellants appealed the case to the CA.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
On November 28, 2014, the CA issued its Decision 23 affirming in toto the ruling of the RTC. 24
Before the CA, accused-appellants asserted that their arrest was invalid because the NBI-AHTRAD and IACAT had the time to procure a warrant of arrest prior to the raid but they failed to do so. However, the CA debunked the theory of accused-appellants by explaining that the latter can no longer assail the validity of their arrest for failure to raise it before arraignment. According to the CA, any irregularity in accused-appellants' arrest is cured by their voluntary submission to the RTC's jurisdiction. 25 At any rate, the CA held that accused-appellants were arrested inflagrante delicto, which is one of the grounds for a valid warrantless arrest. 26
The CA concurred with the RTC that the elements of trafficking in persons are present in this case. The CA made it clear that trafficking in persons is not limited only to recruitment or hiring of victims but also includes providing customers with victims for the purpose of prostitution or sexual exploitation. Here, the prosecution sufficiently established that accused-appellants, as floor managers of Metallica, provided customers with GROs for a fee. 27
The CA likewise agreed that the crime was qualified because the private complainants are minors at the time the incident took place, and that the crime was committed by three or more persons and against three or more victims. 28
Unsatisfied with the ruling of the CA, accused-appellants filed a notice of appeal and elevated the case to the Court. 29 HESIcT
In their Supplemental Brief, 30 accused-appellants reiterate the argument that their arrest was invalid because the NBI-AHTRAD and IACAT failed to secure a warrant of arrest despite having the time to do so. 31 Accused-appellants also aver that the prosecution failed to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 32 Lastly, accused-appellants claim that assuming they are guilty of the crime, they should be convicted merely as accomplices and not as principals. 33
In its Supplemental Brief, 34 the People of the Philippines represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) counters that the RTC and the CA did not err in convicting accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubt because all the elements of qualified trafficking in persons are present in this case. 35 The OSG likewise argues that accused-appellants were validly arrested without warrant through a legitimate entrapment operation. 36 The OSG asserts that accused-appellants were correctly convicted as principals and not merely as accomplices; being floor managers of Metallica, they processed private complainants into the sex trade. The testimonies of the NBI agents and the private complainants themselves are replete with details as to how accused-appellants actively offered the victims to potential customers. 37
On February 12, 2019, the counsel for accused-appellants filed a Manifestation that Wilma died while in prison. 38
Ruling of the Court
After a perusal of the records of the case, this Court resolves to dismiss the appeal.
First, accused-appellants cannot belatedly question the validity of their arrest. In Lapi v. People of the Philippines, 39 the Court ruled that the right to question the validity of an arrest may be waived if the accused, assisted by counsel, fails to object to its validity before arraignment. The Court further explained that:
The Court has consistently ruled that any objection involving a warrant of arrest or the procedure for the acquisition by the court of jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be made before he enters his plea; otherwise, the objection is deemed waived. We have also ruled that an accused may be estopped from assailing the illegality of his arrest if he fails to move for the quashing of the information against him before his arraignment. And since the legality of an arrest affects only the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the accused, any defect in the arrest of the accused may be deemed cured when he voluntarily submits to the jurisdiction of the trial court. We have also held in a number of cases that the illegal arrest of an accused is not a sufficient cause for setting aside a valid judgment rendered upon a sufficient complaint after a trial free from error; such arrest does not negate the validity of the conviction of the accused. 40
Here, accused-appellants failed to question the validity of their arrest before arraignment. Accused-appellants actively participated in the case and only raised the alleged illegality of their arrest during appeal. Hence, accused-appellants are already estopped from raising this issue. caITAC
Moreover, as held by the CA, accused-appellants were arrested by virtue of a legitimate entrapment operation. The Court has already established, in a long line of cases, the validity of entrapment operations as a mode of arresting violators inflagrante delicto without need of a warrant.
Secondly, under Section 3 (a) of R.A. 9208, the anti-trafficking law in effect at the time of the incident, defines trafficking in persons as:
Section 3. Definition of Terms. — As used in this Act:
(a) Trafficking in Persons — refers to the recruitment, transportation, transfer or harboring, or receipt of persons with or without the victim's consent or knowledge, within or across national borders by means of 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 persons, or, the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person for the purpose of exploitation which includes at a minimum, the 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.
The recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring or receipt of a child for the purpose of exploitation shall also be considered as "trafficking in persons" even if it does not involve any of the means set forth in the preceding paragraph. (Emphasis supplied)
Likewise, Section 4 (a) of the same law provides that:
Section 4. Acts of Trafficking in Persons. — It shall be unlawful for any person, natural or juridical, to commit any of the following acts:
(a) To recruit, transport, transfer, harbor, provide, or receive a person by any means, including those done under the pretext of domestic or overseas employment or training or apprenticeship, for the purpose of prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage;
xxx xxx xxx (Emphasis supplied)
The elements of the crime of trafficking in persons are the following: (1) 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; (2) 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 (3) 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. 41
In this case, the prosecution amply proved that accused-appellants were offering women, some of them minors, to customers for a fee. Agent Turiano even testified that one of the accused-appellants, Joan, received money from him in exchange for the sexual services of AAA and Mica. The testimonies of Agents Zacarias and Turiano, who acted as poseur-customers at the night of the raid, corroborated by the testimonies of the private complainants, all prove, beyond reasonable doubt, the guilt of accused-appellants.
Section 6 (a) of R.A. 9208 provides that when the trafficked person is a child, the crime becomes qualified. Here, AAA, BBB, CCC, DDD, and EEE are all minors at the time the incident occurred. The crime was also qualified because it was committed by a syndicate and in large scale. Here, accused-appellants (who are more than three persons) carried out the trafficking against more than three private complainants. cDHAES
Third, the Court affirms the conviction of accused-appellants as principals and not merely as accomplices. Section 4-B of R.A. 10364, which amended R.A. 9208 defines an accomplice as:
Section 4-B. Accomplice Liability. — Whoever knowingly aids, abets, cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts defined in this Act shall be punished in accordance with the provisions Section 10(c) of this Act.
Article 18 of the Revised Penal Code defines an accomplice as someone who is not a principal — which means that he should not have taken a direct part in the execution of the act — but only "cooperate in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts." However, in this case, accused-appellants directly participated in offering private complainants to customers for sex.
The specific participation of accused-appellants in the trafficking and sexual exploitation of private complainants are explained through the in-court testimonies and narration of the prosecution witnesses. In their testimonies in Court, Agents Zacarias and Turiano narrated how Joan, Wilma, Terie, Bel, Jenny, and Beng, as floor managers of Metallica, offer private complainants to customers, for sex. Agent Zacarias explained that when they entered the Bar, accused-appellants who were sitting in the sofa, got up, assisted them in going to the table, and offered to them drinks and girls. 42 This observation was reiterated by Agent Turiano during his direct examination and added that accused-appellants as floor managers wore uniform, such as a blazer. Hence, they are not difficult to identify. 43
Private complainants themselves named accused-appellants and positively identified them one by one in Court as floor managers who arranged their sexual services to customers. Specifically, AAA named Bel and Joan as floor managers who arranged her sexual services for customers. Mae Avila specified Beng, Bel, Joan, Wilma, and Jenny as the ones who offered customers for her in exchange of sexual services. CCC, on the other hand, stated that Joan, Wilma, Bel, and Beng offered her sexual services to customers. As for DDD, she testified that all accused-appellants approached her one by one on the day of the rescue operations to offer customers. EEE named Wilma, Joan, and Terie as the ones who transacted with customers with whom she had sexual intercourse.
With the foregoing testimonies, accused-appellants were not mere supporting cast in the sexual exploitation of private complainants. It is undeniable that they themselves facilitated the sexual trade between private complainants and the customers.
Lastly, the Court affirms the order to pay fine as well as the award of moral damages in the amount of P500,000.00 and exemplary damages amounting to P100,000.00 as they conform to latest jurisprudence. 44
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Court ADOPTS the findings of the trial court as affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The assailed Decision dated November 28, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06416 finding accused-appellants Joan Arellano, Terie Rubio, Bella Amador, Violeta Canlas, and Maribyl Francesco guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of qualified trafficking in persons and imposing upon them the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P2,000,000.00 is AFFIRMED. Each of accused-appellants are ORDERED to pay each of private complainants, jointly and severally, P500,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages, with interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid. ASEcHI
In view of Wilhelmina Arellano's death, her criminal liability is extinguished.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan-Castillo, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Amy C. Lazaro-Javier (now a Member of this Court) and Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles; rollo pp. 2-14.
2.Id. at 3.
3.Id.
4. The identity of the victims or any information which could establish or compromise their identities, as well as those of their immediate family or household members, shall be withheld pursuant to Republic Act No. (R.A.) 7610, titled "An Act Providing for Stronger Deterrence and Special Protection Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination, and for Other Purposes," approved on June 17, 1992; R.A. 9262, titled "An Act Defining Violence Against Women and Their Children, Providing for Other Purposes," approved on March 8, 2004; and Section 40 of Administrative Matter No. 04-10-11-SC, otherwise known as the "Rule on Violence against Women and Their Children" (November 15, 2004). See also Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015, titled "Protocols and Procedures in the Promulgation, Publication, and Posting on the Websites of Decisions, Final Resolutions, and Final Orders Using Fictitious Names/Personal Circumstances," dated September 5, 2017.
5.Id.
6.Id.
7.Id.
8.Id.; rollo, p. 3.
9.Rollo, pp. 3-4.
10.Id. at 4-5.
11.Id. at 5.
12.Id.
13.Id. at 6.
14.Id.
15.Id. at 6-7.
16.Id. at 7.
17.Id.
18. CA rollo, pp. 59-70.
19.Id. at 70.
20.Id. at 67.
21.Id. at 67-68.
22.Id. at 68.
23.Supra note 1.
24.Rollo, p. 13.
25.Id. at 8.
26.Id. at 9.
27.Id. at 11.
28.Id. at 12-13.
29.Id. at 15.
30.Id. at 30-37.
31.Id. at 31.
32.Id. at 34.
33.Id. at 35.
34.Id. at 131-141.
35.Id. at 136.
36.Id. at 137-138.
37.Id. at 139.
38.Id. at 61-62.
39. G.R. No. 210731, February 13, 2019.
40.Id.
41.People v. Rodriguez, 818 Phil. 626, 635-636 (2017).
42. TSN dated September 19, 2012, pp. 18-19.
43. TSN dated October 17, 2012, pp. 32-33.
44.People v. Dela Rosa, G.R. No. 227880, November 6, 2019.