People v. Bughao

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 242405. September 15, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.JANETH Y. BUGHAO, GENEVIEVE DAWA BADIANG, AND SHIELA OHAO DEDICATORIA, accused-appellants.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated15 September 2021which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 242405 (People of the Philippines v. Janeth Y. Bughao, Genevieve Dawa Badiang, and Shiela Ohao Dedicatoria). — The instant case seeks a review of the Decision 1 dated September 12, 2017 and the Resolution 2 dated June 14, 2018 by the Court of Appeals (CA) Twentieth Division by way of a Notice of Appeal 3 dated July 11, 2018. The CA affirmed in toto the Decision 4 dated September 22, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City, Branch 17, which found accused-appellants Janeth Y. Bughao (Bughao), Genevieve D. Badiang (Badiang) and Shiela O. Dedicatoria (Dedicatoria) (collectively, accused-appellants) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Qualified Trafficking in Persons as defined and penalized by Section 4 in relation to Section 6 of Republic Act No. 9208, 5 as amended, or the "Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003" (ATPA). 6

I. FACTS

The CA and the RTC are in concert in its findings of facts.

The Investigation

Sometime in June 2012, an investigation was launched by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI)-Central Visayas Regional Office, through NBI Agent Reynaldo Villordon (Agent Villordon), after receiving information from the International Justice Mission (IJM) that Red Lips Bikini Bar (Red Lips) is engaged in the sexual exploitation of minors for a fee. 7

In pursuit of the investigation, Agent Villordon, together with some companions, proceeded to Red Lips where they were welcomed, greeted, and assisted by accused-appellants Bughao, Badiang, and Dedicatoria. 8 Bughao proceeded to summon 10 lady-employees of Red Lips for the purpose of presenting themselves to Agent Villordon and company. Evidently, the ladies "chosen" by Agent Villordon and company will be burdened with accompanying them and entertaining them in their table for the night. Agent Villordon and company chose AAA, BBB, and CCC (collectively, the victims). 9

Not soon after Agent Villordon and company settled in their tables, Bughao, assisted by Badiang, informed the former that should they be inclined to "take-out" the ladies they have selected, they must negotiate the terms thereof directly with the ladies involved, including the fees. 10

Taking-out is generally understood to mean that a lady-employee and the customer will head out of Red Lips for the purpose of engaging in sexual relations for a fee (albeit at times, it can also be for other activities such as bar-hopping, island hopping, dinner dates, and general companionship). 11 Local parlance (specifically, in the place of commission of the offense) calls this practice "lupad."12

Bughao, however, emphasized two (2) caveats: first, that any fees shall be paid directly with the ladies involved, and second, that the ladies must return to Red Lips after their excursion with Agent Villordon to remit a "bar fine" — which is, in essence, the "cut" of Red Lips from the fees of the ladies taken out by customers. 13 Although not explicitly mentioned as a pre-condition for taking a lady-employee out, the floor managers of Red Lips, i.e., accused-appellants, must give their consent to the "take-out" arrangement. 14 As confirmed by BBB and CCC, the caveat given by Bughao had a very specific purpose: to hedge Red Lips against potential liability in case of a police raid. 15

Following the visit of Agent Villordon to Red Lips, he reported his observations and findings to NBI Agent Jedidah Sumingan (Agent Sumingan), the Lead Investigator of the case. This led to the planning of an entrapment operation against Red Lips, and its eventual execution on June 21, 2012. 16

The Entrapment Operation

On June 21, 2012, Agent Sumingan held two (2) separate briefings with NBI operatives in preparation for the conduct of the entrapment operation. The first briefing was with Agent Villordon. He was tasked by Agent Sumingan to transact with the accused-appellants to "take out" a lady-employee of Red Lips. Agent Villordon was provided with marked-money that he will use to serve as proof of a consummated transaction. On the other hand, the second briefing was for the other agents of the NBI which comprised the entrapment team. The entrapment team was further grouped into three (3) sub-teams: the assault team, the search team, and the perimeter security team. SaCIDT

The plan was simple. Once Agent Villordon successfully consummates the illicit transaction with accused-appellants, he will signal the same to Agent Sumingan. Upon receipt of such signal, the whole entrapment team will immediately come down to the premises of Red Lips. Once there, the assault team will lead the entry into Red Lips and ensure the arrest of the perpetrators. Subsequently, the search team will conduct a search of the area while the perimeter security team will ensure that none of the perpetrators escape or, in case of any untoward incidents, provide back-up or assistance to either the assault and/or search teams.

At around 6:00 p.m. on June 21, 2012, the entrapment team positioned themselves at a nearby house of worship — a Redemptionist Church — near Red Lips. 17 On the other hand, Agent Villordon, accompanied by two (2) foreign assets, went to Red Lips at around 9:00 p.m. 18

In much the same way as the investigation, Agent Villordon and company were greeted by Bughao and Badiang and were treated to the familiar process of selecting lady-employees of Red Lips that will be responsible for entertaining them throughout the night. The party of Agent Villordon selected once more AAA, BBB, and CCC, the victims.

After a few minutes of conversation and a couple of bottles/glasses of alcoholic beverages, Agent Villordon was approached by Bughao who inquired whether he and/or his companions would be interested in taking the ladies out. 19 Agent Villordon responded in the affirmative. Thereafter, he was immediately told to negotiate directly with the victims on the matter of fees, to which Agent Villordon complied. The agreed-upon rate was P4,000.00. Agent Villordon then gave the amount to the ladies together with the marked-money. The whole transaction was overseen by Bughao. 20

Thereafter, Dedicatoria asked Agent Villordon to excuse the three (3) ladies since they had to change their attires but assured that once they are ready to leave, they would be waiting outside Red Lips. At around 10:00 p.m., Dedicatoria signaled to Agent Villordon that the three (3) ladies are waiting for them outside Red Lips. Consequently, Agent Villordon executed the pre-arranged signal — a missed or dropped call to Agent Sumingan — which, in turn, prompted the entrapment team to storm the premises of Red Lips.

The operation was like clockwork. The assault team immediately entered the premises and arrested the accused-appellants. The search team immediately followed and searched the place in the presence of two (2) Barangay Officials, as well as the other patrons of Red Lips and members of the Regional Inter-Agency Council Against Trafficking. The entire search was documented through photographs taken by the entrapment team. The search yielded: (1) a dancer's notebook; (2) a penalty collection notebook; (3) a business permit; (4) several condoms and other contraceptives; and (5) the identification cards of Red Lips employees, including those of the accused-appellants. 21 On the other hand, Agent Villordon recovered from the victims that marked-money he had earlier given them.

Aside from the items seized as well as the arrest of accused-appellants, the entire entrapment operation led to the rescue of a total of 26 ladies. These ladies were brought to the offices of the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) Crisis Intervention Unit.

In the DSWD Crisis Intervention Unit, the rescued employees of Red Lips, including the victims, were taken under protective custody, i.e., provided with psychological intervention, food, and shelter to assuage their anxieties following the harrowing experience they have endured. 22 Under the care of the DSWD, they were also interviewed by social workers and lawyers, and those so inclined (specifically the victims) were assisted in the making of their Affidavits. 23 The DSWD took great lengths to ensure that before the respective Affidavits of rescued employees of Red Lips were executed, the affiants clearly understood the contents thereof. 24

The Aftermath of the Entrapment

In view of the arrest of accused-appellants, the Department of Justice caused the filing of an Information dated July 5, 2012 charging the accused-appellants with the crime of qualified trafficking in persons under Sections 4 (a) and 4 (e) in relation to Section 6 (c) of the ATPA, to wit:

That on or about the 21st day of June 2012 at about 10:30 o'clock in the evening, in the city of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, conniving and confederating together with Meldy M. Infante and a certain Kuya Denden who are still at large and who shall be separately prosecuted as soon as procedural requirements are complied with and mutually helping each other, with deliberate intent, did then and there provide, hire and maintain the following persons: [BBB], [CCC], [AAA], for the purpose of prostitution and sexual exploitation by offering/providing, hiring and/or maintaining said persons to customers for sexual intercourse in exchange for money, profit or other consideration, thus in violation of Sec. 4 (a) and (e), in relation to Sec. 6 (c) of R.A. 9208.

That attendant to the commission of the crime is the qualifying circumstances that the same was committed in a large-scale and/or by syndicate.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 25

DDD, one of the rescued lady-employees of Red Lips and a witness for the prosecution, testified to an alarming incident that transpired before trial. 26 Evidently, she, and other rescued employees of Red Lips, were approached by one Kuya Dodo. 27 This Kuya Dodo encouraged, if not coerced, them to recant the Affidavits they had executed with the DSWD. 28 This initial encounter was followed by a visit by several rescued employees, including the victims in the instant case, to Red Lips wherein they were made to showed an Affidavit which recants their previous testimony to the DSWD. 29 They were threatened with imprisonment should they refuse to sign the Affidavit. 30 Out of fear, she signed the same.

However, notwithstanding the desperate attempt of the accused-appellants and the other at-large accused to silence the voices of the rescued employees of Red Lips, the RTC, after trial, found accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged: cHECAS

WHEREFORE, considering the foregoing, the court hereby finds the three (3) accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Qualified Trafficking in Persons. In accordance with the penalty set forth under the said law, the court hereby sentences each of the three accused to LIFE IMPRISONMENT and a fine of TWO MILLION PESOS (P2,000,000.00) EACH.

SO ORDERED. 31

Insistent of their innocence, accused-appellants elevated the case to the CA and sought a reversal of the Decision dated September 22, 2015 of the RTC of Cebu City. The CA, however, rejected their arguments and sustained the trial court, to wit:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant appeal is DENIED. The 22 September 2015 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 17 in Criminal Case No. CBU-96387 is AFFIRMED in toto.

SO ORDERED. 32

Thereafter, accused-appellants moved for a reconsideration of the CA Decision 33 dated September 12, 2017 but was denied in a Resolution 34 dated June 14, 2018.

II. OUR RULING

In their appeal before this Court, the accused-appellants argue that: (1) the Information was defective insofar as it supposedly fails to state the ultimate facts constituting the second (2nd) element of the offense charged; (2) the evidence presented by the prosecution failed to establish their guilt beyond reasonable doubt; and, (3) even if it were to be assumed that all the elements of qualified trafficking in persons are present, the absolutory cause of instigation obliterated any criminal liability.

On the other hand, the plaintiff-appellee People of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, asseverates that the prosecution sufficiently discharged its obligation of showing that accused-appellants are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged. The plaintiff-appellee likewise maintains that the operation conducted by the NBI was a valid entrapment operation.

We find the instant appeal unmeritorious.

A. Sufficiency of the Information and the

The law defines the crime of trafficking in persons in Section 3 (a) of the ATPA as follows:

SEC. 3. Definition of Terms. — As used in this Act:

(a) Trafficking in Persons — refers to the recruitment, obtaining, hiring, providing, offering, transportation, transfer, maintaining, 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 person, 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, 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. 35

Trafficking in persons becomes qualified, i.e., carrying a heavier penalty, 36 when it is committed by a syndicate or in large-scale. 37

In People v. Daguno, 38 this Court had the opportunity to define the elements of the egregious crime of trafficking in persons as follows:

(1) The act of recruitment, transportation, transfer or harbouring, 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. 39

A juxtaposition of the above-enumerated elements and the ultimate facts set forth in the Information makes immediately apparent that the accused-appellants were sufficiently apprised of the nature and cause of the accusation against them. It clearly set forth the "specific allegation[s] of every fact and circumstances necessary to constitute the crime charged." 40 In particular, the Information alleges the following ultimate facts constitutive of the offense charged: AHDacC

(1) That the accused-appellants "provide[d], hire[d] and maintain[ed]"41 persons, i.e., the victims;

(2) That the accused-appellants received "money, profit or other consideration"; 42 and

(3) That the accused-appellants received such money, profit, or other consideration for the "prostitution and sexual exploitation" of the victims.

Accordingly, and contrary to the position of the accused-appellants, it is beyond cavil that the Information subject of the instant case is sufficient in both form and substance. It sufficiently informs them of the "the real nature and cause of the accusation against [the accused-appellants.]" 43 Indeed, a cursory examination of the Information would show that the accused-appellants were given fair notice of the accusations against them and in a manner that would allow them to properly formulate their theory and defense. 44

Equally unavailing is the accused-appellants' contention that plaintiff-appellee failed to establish their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. A judicious study of the records of the case shows that all the elements of the offense charged has been sufficiently proven beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution.

As to the first element, the plaintiff-appellee has convincingly showed that the accused-appellants hired, or maintained, 45 and provided 46 the victims to the customers of Red Lips, including Agent Villordon. It bears to note that in the context of the offense charged, the act of hiring, maintaining, or providing implies a high degree of control over the actions of an individual, or in this case, the victims. The control exercised is of such degree as to dehumanize and reduce to chattel the victims.

This is precisely the level of control that accused-appellants have exercised over the victims. Unmistakably apparent in the testimonies of Agent Villordon and Agent Sumingan, and corroborated by the testimonies of witnesses EEE, DDD, and BBB, that the accused-appellants controlled or "managed" the victims — from lining them up to be chosen by eager customers to pushing for them to be "taken out" of Red Lips. In fact, even during the phase wherein accused-appellants supposedly had no involvement — the negotiation of the fees — it was shown that accused-appellants participated by facilitating the same. 47

Turning to the second element, the evidence on record shows that accused-appellants clearly received payments or benefits in giving their consent to the "taking-out" of the victims. Accused-appellants, however, make much of the fact that it is the victims that transact for the "take out" fee and insists that accused-appellants have "no hold over the girls as to the matter of taking them out[.]" 48

The assertion that accused-appellants exercised "no hold" over the victims is belied by the testimonies of prosecution witnesses that: (1) Agent Villordon was encouraged by Bughao to "take-out" the victims; 49 (2) the accused-appellants likewise encouraged the victims to accede to going out with customers for, generally, sexual encounters; 50 and, (3) any "take out" arrangement must be with the consent of the accused-appellants. 51 It is not difficult to ascertain the reason behind the insistence of accused-appellants in the lupad arrangement: they profit from it through the "bar fine" remitted at the conclusion of the lupad. 52 It is the prospect of receiving the "bar-fine" that consent by the accused-appellants to the "take-out" of any victims, whom they control, is given.

The fact that the "bar-line" is paid to the victims directly and not to the accused-appellants is of no moment. The fact remains that the ultimate recipient of the "bar-fine" is Red Lips, its management, and accused-appellants. Otherwise stated, regardless of who received the "bar-fine" physically, the fact remains that accused-appellants are the ultimate recipients thereof.

With respect to the third element, suffice it to state that the "take-out" or lupad arrangement has as its purpose the sexual exploitation of the lady-employees of Red Lips. This is clear from the testimony of EEE, one of the rescued employees of Red Lips. On cross-examination, she testified that the general expectation of the lady-employees of Red Lips when they were "taken-out" was to have sex with their clients in exchange for a fee. 53 This was a reality depressingly discussed by lady-employees of Red Lips. 54 Damningly, in this case, Agent Villordon testified that in discussing the terms of the lupad with Bughao, the former expressly mentioned that his purpose for taking out the girls is to engage in sexual congress. 55

From the foregoing, therefore, there is not a shadow of doubt in the mind of this Court that all the elements of the offense charged are present. In brief, accused-appellants hired, maintained, and offered the victims to the customers of Red Lips. The offer was for the victims to be "taken-out" for the purpose of having sex in exchange for a fee. Albeit the entire fee is not remitted to the accused-appellants, a part thereof, or the "bar-fine" is nevertheless received by them. The "bar-fine," in turn, represents the "profit" or "benefit" they received for consenting to the "take-out" the lady employees of Red Lips. IDSEAH

B. The Entrapment Operation was

Accused-appellants insist, although sparsely argued, that Agent Villordon instigated the offense charged. They rely on the statement of Agent Villordon in his Affidavit dated June 21, 2012 that he "summoned [Bughao] and told her if the [victims] can be taken out for the night for sex[.]" 56

The distinction between instigation and entrapment has been defined and repeatedly discussed by this Court. In People v. Bartolome, 57 this Court held:

Instigation is the means by which the accused is lured into the commission of the offense charged in order to prosecute him. On the other hand, entrapment is the employment of such ways and means for the purpose of trapping or capturing a lawbreaker. Thus, in instigation, officers of the law or their agents incite, induce, instigate or lure an accused into committing an offense which he or she would otherwise not commit and has no intention of committing. But in entrapment, the criminal intent or design to commit the offense charged originates in the mind of the accused, and law enforcement officials merely facilitate the apprehension of the criminal by employing ruses and schemes; thus, the accused cannot justify his or her conduct. In instigation, where law enforcers act as co-principals, the accused will have to be acquitted. But entrapment cannot bar prosecution and conviction. As has been said, instigation is a "trap for the unwary innocent" while entrapment is a "trap for the unwary criminal."

xxx xxx xxx 58

In People v. Doria, 59 this Court had the opportunity to provide a two-tier test to ascertain the propriety of an entrapment operation conducted by state enforcement agencies, to wit:

Initially, an accused has the burden of providing sufficient evidence that the government induced him to commit the offense. Once established, the burden shifts to the government to show otherwise. When entrapment is raised as a defense, American federal courts and a majority of state courts use the "subjective" or "origin of intent" test laid down in Sorrells v. United States to determine whether entrapment actually occurred. The focus of the inquiry is on the accused's predisposition to commit the offense charged, his state of mind and inclination before his initial exposure to government agents. All relevant facts such as the accused's mental and character traits, his past offenses, activities, his eagerness in committing the crime, his reputation, etc., are considered to assess his state of mind before the crime. The predisposition test emphasizes the accused's propensity to commit the offense rather than the officer's misconduct and reflects an attempt to draw a line between a "trap for the unwary innocent and the trap for the unwary criminal." x x x Some states, however, have adopted the "objective" test. This test was first authoritatively laid down in the case of Grossman v. State rendered by the Supreme Court of Alaska. Several other states have subsequently adopted the test by judicial pronouncement or legislation. Here, the court considers the nature of the police activity involved and the propriety of police conduct. The inquiry is focused on the inducements used by government agents, on police conduct, not on the accused and his predisposition to commit the crime. For the goal of the defense is to deter unlawful police conduct. The test of entrapment is whether the conduct of the law enforcement agent was likely to induce a normally law-abiding person, other than one who is ready and willing to commit the offense; for purposes of this test, it is presumed that a law-abiding person would normally resist the temptation to commit a crime that is presented by the simple opportunity to act unlawfully. x x x 60

Viewed using the lens of the two tests mentioned in the above-quoted, this Court finds that the NBI validly conducted an entrapment operation against Red Lips and the accused-appellants. Agent Villordon, in his investigation, approached accused-appellants to transact for the "take-out" of the victims precisely because she (and Red Lips) were known to be engaged in the sex trade. Relevantly, and as noted by both the trial court and the CA, the NBI investigation was prompted by reports from the IJM that Red Lips is offering their employees to customers for sexual encounters for a fee. 61 Further, it was established during trial that accused-appellants had been offering and/or providing prostituted lady-employees of Red Lips to its customers on a regular basis.

Related to the foregoing, the fact that Agent Villordon had asked Bughao to "take-out" the victims does not necessarily mean that there is instigation. The query posed by Agent Villordon to Bughao could have been met with resistance (if not disgust) by the latter if indeed she were a law-abiding citizen. Instead, Bughao merely said that the fees were to be arranged with victims but stressed a "bar-fine" must be remitted at the conclusion of the lupad. 62 This speak volumes of the predisposition of Bughao to commit the offense charged. Under such circumstances, it is thus patent that there was no instigation to speak of.

C. The Recantation of the Previous

Anent the contention offered by accused-appellants that the testimonies of CCC and AAA, which recants their earlier testimony, should be given more weight and credence, this Court finds that the recantation of their testimony was unreliable and made under suspicious circumstances.

It is elementary that "a recantation does not necessarily cancel an earlier declaration." 63 Like any other testimony, a recantation "is subject to the test of credibility based on the relevant circumstances, including the demeanor of the recanting witness on the stand." 64 Relatedly, "the finding of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight on appeal unless cogent reasons necessitate its re-examination, the reason being that the trial court is in a better position to hear first-hand and observe the deportment, conduct and attitude of the witnesses." 65

In this case, the trial court did not give credence to the recantation of CCC and AAA:

The fact that the two private complainants had turned defense witnesses, claiming that their previous statements against the accused were not true, is not sufficient to destroy the strong evidence already presented by the prosecution. The court notes from the testimony of one of the prosecution witnesses who was a previous worker of Red Lips that they, including the private complainants herein who changed their affidavits and became defense witnesses, were called by the owner of the said establishment and they were threatened into changing their testimonies and they were told that if they will not change their testimonies, they might end up in jail. It now becomes clear to the court that the two private complainants who have now become defense witnesses were under duress when they executed their judicial affidavits stating to the effect that it was not true that the accused were engaged in illegal trafficking. 66

Significantly, the CA also disregarded the recantation and found:

It is a settled rule that factual findings of trial courts, including their assessment of witnesses' credibility, are entitled to great weight and respect. The time tested jurisprudence is that the findings and conclusions of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses enjoy a badge of respect for the reason that trial courts have the advantage of observing the demeanor of witnesses as they testify. Absent any indication or showing that the trial court overlooked some material facts or gravely abused its discretion, as in this case, this Court will not interfere with the trial court's assessment of the witnesses' credibility. Verily, the adverse testimonies of [AAA] and [CCC] are highly suspect in view of [DDD's] testimony revealing the probable cause for their recantation. During her cross-examination, [DDD] testified that she was threatened by accused-appellants' lawyer, Atty. Dungog, to sign an affidavit taking back her statement to the DSWD, otherwise, she will go to jail. Moreover, [DDD] testified that Atty. Dungog and her manager, Kuya Dodo, made her feel guilty if she did not recant her testimony. Assayed from the foregoing disquisition, it is not unlikely that the same tactic was employed against [AAA] and [CCC] so that they would recant on their statements and side with accused-appellants. Thus, the court a quo was justified in giving no probative weight to the testimonies of [AAA] and [CCC] as to strengthen the plea of innocence of accused-appellants. 67

After a judicious review of the records, the Court joins the RTC and the CA in their conclusion that the recantation made by AAA and CCC were unreliable. The testimony of witness DDD that she, and presumably the victims, were coerced into disavowing their previous testimony is not withdrawn from reality especially considering the attendant circumstances. On this point, it bears mentioning that defense witnesses suffer from a potent concoction of precarious financial standing and miserable quality of life. 68 Indeed, apropos is the oft repeated statement of this Court that courts of law must proceed with utmost caution in accepting recantations because of the very real possibility that intimidation or monetary considerations may have caused the recantation. 69

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Decision dated September 12, 2017 and the Resolution dated June 14, 2018 by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB-CR HC No. 02290, which affirms the Decision dated September 22, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 17 in Criminal Case No. CBU-96387 are AFFIRMEDin toto. aCIHcD

SO ORDERED." (Rosario, J., designated additional Member per Special Order No. 2835 dated July 15, 2021.)

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court

By:

(SGD.) MA. CONSOLACION GAMINDE-CRUZADADeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 4-15.

2. CA rollo, pp. 198-201.

3.Rollo, pp. 16-18.

4. Records, pp. 546-591; penned by Judge Marivic Trabajo Daray.

5. Entitled "Expanded Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2012," approved on February 6, 2013.

6. The Decision was promulgated by the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 17 under the hand of Judge Marivic Trabajo Daray.

7.Rollo, p. 5.

8.Id. at 5-6.

9. The real name of the victim, her personal circumstances and other information which tend to establish or compromise her identity, as well as those of her immediate family or household members, shall not be disclosed to protect her privacy and fictitious initials shall, instead, be used, in accordance with People v. Cabalquinto (533 Phil. 703 [2006]), and A.M. No. 04-11-09-SC dated September 19, 2006.

10. CA rollo, p. 47.

11.Id. at 51, 65-67, 71-73.

12.Id.

13.Id.

14.Id.

15.Id.

16.Id.

17.Id.

18.Id.

19.Rollo, pp. 6-7.

20.Id.

21.Id. Note the Identification Cards seized were all issued by the City Health Department of Cebu City.

22. CA rollo, pp. 60-61.

23.Id. at 62.

24.Id.

25.Rollo, p. 2.

26. CA rollo, p. 74.

27.Id.

28.Id.

29.Id.

30.Id.

31.Id. at 87.

32.Rollo, p. 14.

33.Id. at 4-15.

34. CA rollo, pp. 198-201.

35. See REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9208 (2003), Section 3 (a), as amended by Republic Act No. 10364 entitled "Expanded Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2012," approved on February 6, 2013.

36.Id., Section 10 (c).

37.Id., Section 6 (c) (trafficking is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring or confederating with one another. It is deemed committed in large-scale if committed against three (3) or more persons, individually or as a group).

38. G.R. No. 235660, March 4, 2020.

39. See id., citing People v. Casio, 749 Phil. 458, 472-473 (2014).

40.U.S. v. Karelsen, 3 Phil. 226 (1904).

41.Rollo, p. 5.

42.Id.

43.Quimvel v. People, 808 Phil. 889, 913 (2017).

44.People v. Bayabos, 754 Phil. 90, 103-104 (2015); Enrile v. People, 766 Phil. 75, 98 (2015).

45. Black's Law Dictionary (Bryan A. Garner, et al., eds, 10th ed. 2014) defines "maintain" as to "to continue in possession of" or "to care for."

46. Merriam-Webster Dictionary (11th ed. 2020) defines "provide" as to "supply or make available."

47.Rollo, pp. 6-7.

48. CA rollo, p. 36.

49.Id. at 47-48.

50.Id. at 66.

51.Id. at 51, 65-67, 71-73.

52.Id. at 39.

53.Id. at 53 & 62.

54.Id.

55.Id. at 48.

56.Id. at 40.

57. 703 Phil. 148 (2013).

58.Id. at 161, citing People v. Bayani, 577 Phil. 607, 616-617 (2008).

59. 361 Phil. 595 (1999).

60.Id. at 610-612; citations omitted.

61.Rollo, p. 5.

62. CA rollo, pp. 40-41; rollo, p. 6.

63.People v. Davatos, 299 Phil. 691, 696 (1994).

64.People v. Teodoro, 704 Phil. 335, 357 (2013).

65.People v. Bensurto, 802 Phil. 776, 775 (2016).

66. CA rollo, pp. 84-85.

67.Rollo, pp. 13-14.

68. CA rollo, pp. 78-81.

69.People v. Teodoro, supra note 64.