FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 218252. June 17, 2019.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiffs-appellees, vs.ANNABELLE C. CALO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated June 17, 2019 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 218252 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. ANNABELLE C. CALO, Accused-Appellant.) — This appeal is taken by the accused-appellant from the affirmance by the Court of Appeals through its decision promulgated on March 27, 2015 of her conviction for qualified illegal trafficking of person. 1
The factual and procedural antecedents follow.
On September 15, 2010, the accused-appellant was charged in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Butuan City with the crime of Qualified Trafficking in Persons as defined by Section 3 (a) and Section 4 (a) of Republic Act No. 9208 (Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003) and punished by Section 6 thereof under the information docketed as Criminal Case No. 14406, 2 reading as follows:
The undersigned accuses ANNABELLE C. CALO alias Ate Bebing and ALIAS MOMMY EPEN of the crime of Qualified Trafficking in (sic) Person, committed as follows:
That at more or less 11:00 o'clock in the morning of May 27, 2010 and for sometime prior and/or subsequent thereto in Butuan City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another and misrepresenting themselves to have the capacity to contract, recruit, enlist, harbor and transport workers for employment in a manner of large scale syndicate did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously offer, recruit and enlist complainant Ivy Caballo y Magallanes, who is a 14-year-old minor and a certain Mariel and several others to work or harbor as prostitute to prospective customers for a fee of P1,500.00 in a prostitution activities managed by accused Alias Mommy Epen in a manner prejudicial to the psychological and mental development of said minor children and to the damage and prejudice of said Ivy M. Caballo represented herein by her mother and several others and for such amount as maybe proven in Court.
CONTRARY TO LAW: (Violation of Section 4(a) in relation to Section 6(a) and (c) of R.A. 9208 all in relation to R.A. 7610).
The version of the State, as summarized by the Office of the Solicitor General in its appellee's brief filed in the Court of Appeals, was as follows:
Fourteen-year-old IVY CABALLO (Ivy) was a first year high school student of Libertad National High School and a resident of Purok 2, Suatan, Brgy. Ambago, Butuan City, when her neighbor accused-appellant (appellant) Annabelle Calo invited her to work in a carenderia in Cagayan de Oro City. Ivy accepted the invitation. CAIHTE
Appellant then brought Ivy to Cagayan de Oro City, together with appellant's nieces Mariel and Madel. When they reached Cagayan de Oro City, they were required to take a bath. Thereafter, she was brought inside a room where she saw her cousin Jennelyn. Upon seeing her, Jennelyn immediately scolded her. Ivy then asked Jennelyn why she was so angry. Jennelyn told her of the nature of the work she was about to embark on. Jennelyn told Ivy that a customer will come and select among them, and after one is selected, the customer will pay the pimp P1,500.00. After payment, the chosen girl will then be brought to a hotel.
When she learned of the nature of her work that appellant forced her into, she cried and felt so helpless. Afterwards, she was again brought to a house, together with her cousin Jennelyn and Mariel. Customers came, but Ivy was fortunate that night that nobody choose (sic) her because she had her menstruation at that time.
Ivy was again lucky that she found someone who was able to help her get out of the house where she was kept. Her elder brother brought her back to Butuan City.
On the other hand, the version of the accused-appellant as rendered in her appellant's brief read:
The appellant denied the allegations against her. She testified that on May 26, 2010, Ivy went to the house of the appellant and spoke to her niece, Mariel, about a possible job in a carenderia in Cagayan de Oro City. When Ivy decided to go with Mariel, appellant instructed Ivy to ask permission from her mother. The following day, Ivy and Mariel went to Cagayan de Oro City. The appellant remained in Butuan City and had no knowledge of what transpired after Ivy and Mariel left for Cagayan de Oro City.
On December 9, 2012, the RTC rendered judgment 3 finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified trafficking of persons, disposing thusly:
WHEREFORE, after carefully weighing the evidence proffered, the court finds accused Annabelle C. Calo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged. Accordingly, she is sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Two (2) Million Pesos.
She shall serve her sentence at Davao Prison and Penal Farms, Panabo City, Davao del Norte.
In the service of her sentence, she shall be credited with the full time benefit of her preventive imprisonment provided she agree in writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners otherwise if not only 4/5 of her preventive imprisonment shall be credited pursuant Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code as amended.
SO ORDERED. 4
In her appeal to the CA, the accused-appellant assigned the sole error that:
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING (THE) APPELLANT BASED ON MERE SPECULATIONS AND CONJECTURES AND NOT ON PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. 5
As earlier stated, the CA affirmed the conviction.
In this appeal, the accused-appellant reiterates the arguments she submitted to the CA, and waived the filing of supplemental brief.
We AFFIRM, subject to the modification to include damages to be granted to the victim of the crime.
Section 3 (a) of Republic Act No. 9208 defines trafficking in persons thusly:
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 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. x x x
Section 4 of the law enumerates the prohibited acts of trafficking in persons, and includes therein the act —
(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. DETACa
xxx xxx xxx
In dealing with and rejecting the error ascribed to the trial court, the CA correctly observed:
Appellant raises the sole issue of credibility of the complainant. Appellant argues that the testimony of the complainant utterly fails to show that appellant recruited her for the purpose of prostitution.
The argument is bereft of merit.
The well-settled rule is that when the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, the appellate court will generally not disturb the findings of the trial court since the latter is in a better position to decide this issue, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying. We have meticulously examined the records as well as the transcripts of stenographic notes and find no cause to overturn the findings of fact of the trial court. The relevant portions of the complainant's testimony are as follows:
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Do you know the accused in the instance (sic) case, Annabelle Calo?
A: Yes, maam.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Why do you know the accused in this case?
A: She texted me and invited me to work in a carenderia.
Q: But before the time she texted you, you already know her?
A: Yes, maam.
Q: Why?
A: She is a neighbor.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: You mentioned that she was texting you to work in a carenderia, did you agree?
A: Yes, maam.
Q: Because you agreed, what happened next if you can recall?
A: I agreed to since I thought I would be working in a carenderia, then we were brought to Bogo, Cagayan de Oro.
Q: Who brought you to Cagayan de Oro?
A: Ate Bebing.
Q: Is Ate Bebing the same person named Annabelle Calo?
A: Yes, maam.
Q: Who else were with you?
A: Her niece Marielle.
Q: Who else if there was any?
A: Madel and Ate Bebing's two (2) children.
Q: Were you able to reach Cagayan de Oro?
A: Yes, maam.
Q: What happened when you were in Cagayan de Oro?
A: We were asked to take a bath, we ate and we were brought inside a room.
Q: While inside a room, what happened if there was any?
A: I changed my clothes and I saw my cousin Jennelyn.
Q: What did Jennelyn tell you when you saw her, if there was any?
A: She scolded me why I went to that place and she told me the nature of the work I am going to do.
Q: What was the nature of the work you were into?
A: She told me that a customer were to select among us and after he has selected, we will be brought to a hotel but before he could bring us to a hotel, he still has to pay the pimp P1,500.00.
Q: What was your reaction upon knowing that that is the kind of work you are into?
A: I cried much and I could not do anything more so I just agreed to what they wanted.
Q: You mean you were also brought to a place wherein you will be in line to be chosen from?
A: No, maam. aDSIHc
Q: Why is that so?
A: I had my menstruation that time.
Q: So you were not chosen?
A: No, ma'am.
Q: But you were brought to a house where you were together with other girls?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: Who were in the house where there are other young girls to choose from?
A: My companions, my cousin and Marielle.
Q: Who is that person in charge of the place, if you know?
A: I don't know, ma'am.
Q: After that, what did you do?
A: I just stayed there and cried but someone helped me there.
Q: How did that someone help you?
A: Their entrusted person brought me outside of the house and then I saw my elder brother.
Q: What happened after you have seen your elder brother?
A: I went out and I pretended that I have to see something outside and then I went back home to Butuan.
Based on the foregoing, the complainant vividly and unequivocally narrated how she was recruited by the appellant and brought to Cagayan de Oro City for prostitution. In People v. Dela Torre, the Supreme Court ruled that affirmative testimony, when it proceeds from the mouth of a credible witness, as in this case, is far stronger and more trustworthy.
As aptly put by the trial court, to wit:
Private offended party Ivy who died during the pendency of this case has positively asserted that accused recruited her to work in a certain carenderia in Cagayan de Oro City and in fact accused brought her and a certain Marielle with her two children to the Bus terminal at Langihan, Butuan City on May 27, 2010. Ivy was assured by the accused that she will work in a carenderia upon reaching Cagayan de Oro City but to her surprise she learned through her cousin Jennelyn that she was going to be sold as a prostitute with price of P1,500.00. From this (sic) accounts, all that the accused maintained is that she never recruited Ivy. She never was a recruiter and never recruited anyone from Suatan. She maintains that she is a plain house wife and her husband is a security guard. x x x
The court however is inclined to believe the version of the prosecution's witnesses in positively identifying accused as the recruiter carried more evidentiary weight than the negative assertions of defense witnesses.
The crime of Trafficking in Persons is qualified when the trafficked person is a child as provided in Section 6(a) of RA 9208:
Section 6. Qualified Trafficking in Persons. — The following are considered as qualified trafficking:
(a) When the trafficked person is a child;
xxx xxx xxx
"Child" refers to a person below 18 years of age, or one who is over 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. In People v. Fragante, the Supreme Court ruled that "children" refers [to] persons below eighteen (18) years of age or those over but are unable to fully take care of themselves or protect themselves from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition. In People v. Pruna, the Supreme Court held that the best evidence to prove the age of the offended party is an original or certified true copy of the certificate of live birth of such party. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, similar authentic documents such as baptismal certificate and school records which show the date of birth of the victim would suffice to prove age.
In the present case, the complainant was 14 years old, a minor, evidenced by a baptismal certificate, at the time she was recruited by the appellant and brought to Cagayan de Oro City for the purpose of prostitution. Likewise, records show that the prosecution's evidence duly established all the elements of the crime of Qualified Trafficking in Person, to wit: 1) recruitment/transport or transfer by any means; 2) under the pretext of domestic employment; and 3) for the purpose of prostitution.
The accused-appellant would have us undo the affirmance by relying on her denial of the acts imputed to her. Yet it is clear that she did not substantiate her denial by any act that credibly supported or bolstered her credibility. Hence, we cannot accord the denial any credence. We reiterate that denial cannot prevail over positive evidence adduced by the State, especially as the denial did not have competent substantiation. ETHIDa
Nonetheless, we must modify the judgment of the CA because of the omission of the grant of civil damages to the offended party. Such damages are to be granted in qualified trafficking in persons because the victim undoubtedly suffers serious prejudice that entitles her to be assuaged through the grant of civil damages. In People v. Lalli, 6 the Court awarded P500,000.00 as moral damages and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages to the victim of trafficking in persons by virtue of the qualified nature of the offense. This award, which was reiterated in subsequent rulings of the Court, 7 is hereby also made herein, with the amounts thereof to bear interest of 6% per annum from the finality of this resolution until full payment.
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision promulgated by the Court of Appeals on March 27, 2015, subject to the MODIFICATION that the accused-appellant shall pay moral damages of P500,000.00 and exemplary damages of P100,000.00 to the victim Ivy Caballo y Magallanes, with interest of 6% per annum from the finality of this resolution until full payment.
The accused-appellant shall further pay the cost of suit.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-11; penned by Associate Justice Edgardo T. Lloren, with the concurrence of Associate Justice Edward B. Contreras and Associate Justice Rafael Antonio M. Santos.
2.Id. at 4.
3. CA rollo, pp. 50-67.
4.Id. at 67.
5.Rollo, p. 5.
6. G.R. No. 195419, October 12, 2011, 659 SCRA 105.
7. See People v. Hirang, G.R. No. 223528, January 11, 2017, 814 SCRA 315; and People v. Casio, G.R. No. 211465, December 4, 2014, 744 SCRA 113.