SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 218079. February 13, 2019.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.JOEL CASTILLO y PEDRAZA AND ARNEL GARCIA y PEDRAZA, 1accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 13 February 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 218079 — PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, versus JOEL CASTILLO y PEDRAZA and ARNEL GARCIA y PEDRAZA, accused appellants.
On appeal 2 is the Decision 3 dated March 21, 2014 of the Court of Appeals (CA), Special Fifth (5th) Division in CA-G.R. CR. HC-No. 04895. The CA affirmed the Joint Decision 4 dated November 26, 2010 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City, Branch 130 in Criminal Case Nos. C-71247 to C-71251, which found accused-appellants Joel Castillo (Castillo) and Arnel Garcia (Garcia) (collectively, accused-appellants) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Qualified Trafficking in Persons under Section 6 (a) in relation to Section 4 (e) of Republic Act No. (RA) 9208, 5 otherwise known as the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003, and sentenced them accordingly.
The Facts
Accused-appellants, with two other accused who remain at large, were charged before the RTC of Caloocan City, Branch 130 with five (5) counts of Qualified Trafficking in Persons under the following Informations:
Criminal Case No. C-71247
That during the period from May 10, 2004 to August 4, 2004, at Caloocan City and within the [j]urisdiction of this Honorable Court the above-named accused confederating, conspiring, with one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously maintained and hired 16-year old AAA 6 a.k.a. BBB together with four (4) other minor girls (namely, CCC, 7 DDD, 8 EEE, 9 and FFF) 10 and peddled them for monetary consideration to several men on several occasion maintaining their services for prostitution purposes.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 11
Criminal Case No. C-71248
That during the period from July 5, 2004 to August 4, 2004, at Caloocan City and within the [j]urisdiction of this Honorable Court the above-named accused confederating, conspiring, with one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously maintained and hired the said 17-year old CCC together with four (4) other minor girls (namely, AAA a.k.a. BBB, DDD, EEE, and FFF) and peddled them for monetary consideration to several men on several occasion maintaining their services for prostitution purposes. CAIHTE
CONTRARY TO LAW. 12
Criminal Case No. C-71249
That during the period from May 2004 to August 4, 2004, at Caloocan City and within the [j]urisdiction of this Honorable Court the above-named accused confederating, conspiring, with one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously maintained and hired 16-year old DDD together with four (4) other minor girls (namely, AAA a.k.a. BBB, CCC, EEE, and FFF) and peddled them for monetary consideration to several men on several occasion maintaining their services for prostitution purposes.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 13
Criminal Case No. C-71250
That during the period from July 5, 2004 to August 4, 2004, at Caloocan City and within the [j]urisdiction of this Honorable Court the above-named accused confederating, conspiring, with one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously maintained and hired 16-year old EEE together with four (4) other minor girls (namely, AAA a.k.a. BBB, CCC, DDD, and FFF) and peddled them for monetary consideration to several men on several occasion maintaining their services for prostitution purposes.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 14
Criminal Case No. C-71251
That during the period from May 2004 to August 4, 2004, at Caloocan City and within the [j]urisdiction of this Honorable Court the above-named accused confederating, conspiring, with one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously maintained and hired 17-year old FFF together with four (4) other minor girls (namely, AAA a.k.a. BBB, CCC, DDD, and EEE) and peddled them for monetary consideration to several men on several occasion maintaining their services for prostitution purposes.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 15
Upon arraignment, both Castillo and Garcia pleaded not guilty to the charges. 16
Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued and the prosecution presented the five (5) private complainants AAA a.k.a. BBB, CCC, DDD, EEE and FFF (collectively, private complainants), whose testimonies were respectively summarized by the CA as follows:
"AAA" a.k.a. "BBB," first took the witness stand. She claimed to have been recruited by one Aileen Castillo sometime on May 10, 2004 to work as a waitress at the CRC Video Bar but she actually ended up as a "PKG" or short for "pakantot girl." From then on, her pimps (bugaw) whom she identified as Joel Castillo and/or Arnel Garcia, the accused herein, would require her to render sexual services to different customers 2 to 3 times a day. That for every transaction reached, the customer would pay her pimp Php500.00 who, in turn, would give her stub which she kept as proof of her "labour." She and her customer would then proceed at the nearby motel and have sex. At the end of each month, these stubs would be collected and based on the number of stubs surrendered, her salary would be determined. Come August 4, 2004, she together with other young girls were rescued by the operatives of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). They were then brought at the NBI Office where they were made to execute their respective Sworn Statements (Exhibit "C"). On the witness stand, her Baptismal Certificate (Exhibit "A") was presented which was later corroborated by the declaration of her own mother to prove that at the time she was recruited, she is still a minor, 16 years of age.
"FFF" next took the witness stand. She testified that she was only 17 years old at that time having been born on July 20, 1987 as evidenced by her Certificate of Live Birth (Exhibit "F"). That sometime in May 2004, Girlie her previous employer brought her at the CRC Videoke Bar along 6th Avenue, Caloocan City to meet her new employer. There she was introduced to Fidel, Kuya Joel a.k.a. "kuya ensot," Kuya Arnel and Tatay Choi. Thereafter, she was briefed by Tatay Choi on matters relative to medicine, money, stubs and food. She was advised to keep these stubs as this will serve as proof that she had a customer for a particular night and that the same should be surrendered later to "kuya ensot" who will then determine her compensation based on the number of stubs returned. She was likewise told to simply approached (sic) "kuya ensot" if ever she needed medicines or if she wanted to borrow money the payment thereof on salary deduction basis. Her first customer was introduced to her by accused Arnel Garcia and that it was also the latter who received the Php1,000.00 payment right in her presence. Afterwhich, she and the customer went to the nearby Marsman hotel and had sex. Immediately after, she went back to CRC Videoke Bar where she was given a stub by accused Joel Castillo (kuya ensot). Moments later, another customer was introduced to her this time by Joel Castillo himself. That night alone, she had six (6) customers with whom she had sex with. During her three (3) months stay at CRC Videoke Bar, she had to cater sexual services to some 5 to 7 customers per night, earnings (sic) as much as Php3,000.00 for the first time, Php5,000.00 the second time, and Php6,000.00 for the third time. The stubs she collected after every customer she had sex with were all given to Joel Castillo but not all were surrendered to the latter as she and the other young girls were later on rescued by the NBI operatives on August 4, 2004. They were then brought to the NBI office w[h]ere she was made to execute her Sworn Affidavit (Exhibit "H"). DETACa
"CCC" testified that she was 17 years old at that time having been born on December 31, 1986 as evidenced by her Certificate of Live Birth (Exhibit "I"). On the witness stand, she made an in-court identification of the accused Joel Castillo and Arnel Garcia as her employer and p[i]mp. She recalled that she first met the two (2) accused on July 5, 2004 through one "Yaya Lolly" a gay who brought her to Manila from her hometown in Catbalogan, Samar. Together with other young girls, namely: "DDD," "EEE," Lorna and Baby, they were introduced to Joel Castillo as the new and young girls from Samar. That same day, Joel Castillo introduced her to a customer who paid the former Php3,000.00 right in her presence. She and the customer then proceeded to Marsman Hotel where they had sex. Thereafter, she went back at the CRC Videoke Bar and thereat Joel Castillo gave her stub with the latter's signature, her own signature as well as the month, date and year she had a customer. She was told that these stubs are good as cash and that she has to keep it until she is paid. That night alone she was introduced by the other pimps to two (2) more customers with whom she had sex with. During her month's stay at the CRC Videoke Bar, accused Joel Castillo pimped her five (5) times, and in a day she had a minimum of two (2) to a maximum of ten (10) customers. All in all, she was able to keep some 93 stubs until such time when they were rescued by the NBI operatives on August 4, 2004. She too, executed a Sinumpaang Salaysay as regards these cases (Exhibit "J").
Private complainant "EEE" testified that she is merely 17 years old having been born on April 21, 1988 (Exhibit "K"). Corroborating the earlier testimony of her co-complainant "CCC," she too was introduced by "Yaya Lolly Castillano" her town mate from Samar who brought her to Manila and to one Kuya Henry to work as a restaurant waitress. But as it turned out, she ended as a "pakantutin girl" at the CRC Videoke Bar. This Kuya Henry (Henry Chua) later introduced her to Joel Castillo a.k.a. "kuya ensot" the very same person who received payments from their supposed customers and thereafter, issues to them these stubs for every sexual service rendered. On the average, she had sex with 2 to 3 customers per day until such time when they were rescued by the NBI operatives. She also had her own Sinumpaang Salaysay (Exhibit "L").
"DDD" last took the witness stand. She testified that she was still a minor then having been born on March 15, 1988 as indicated in her Certificate of Live Birth (Exhibit "N"). She recalled that she too was brought by "Yaya Lolly." That she likewise experienced the same sexual ordeal her minor co-complainants had gone through in the hands of these two (2) accused Joel Castillo and Arnel Garcia whom she positively identified in open court as their pimp (bugaws). She also executed a Sinumpaang Salaysay in support of her complaint (Exhibit "O"). 17
The prosecution also presented as its rebuttal witness, SI Leodegario U. Del Rosario, Jr., of the Background Investigation Division of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI)-Violence against Women and Children Desk. His detailed account of the rescue operations was as follows:
x x x On August 4, 2004[,] upon request and verification of the report submitted by the International Justice Mission, the National Bureau of Investigation conducted a rescue operation for a case of Qualified Trafficking in Persons. During the briefing, he was designated as one of the would-be customer and was provided with two (2) 500 peso bills bearing Serial Nos. 2857475 and LW768115 (Exhibit "Q") both dusted with florescence powder (sic) (Exhibits "P" and "P-1"). That evening, the group proceeded to Caloocan City for the actual rescue operation. Upon reaching the place, they first coordinated with the local police authorities before finally proceeding to the target area-the Victory Lodge located along M.H. Del Pilar Street. Thereat, he and his companions asked if they could be provided with four (4) girls for sexual pleasure. He was then led to room 17 and minutes later, two (2) male pimps arrived bringing along with them three (3) girls. He handed to one of the pimps the marked 500 peso bill and the latter left to him the girl he had chosen. The remaining girls on the other hand were brought to room 18 where the VAWCD and IJM operatives are assigned. That when the pimp left room 17 after receiving payment, the former was immediately apprehended by his co-operatives. The suspect was later identified as Joel Castillo — the accused in this case. Another suspect identified as Arnel Garcia was likewise arrested within the vicinity of Victory Lodge. The operatives then returned to the restaurant/bar and found two (2) more girls inside. The suspects were then photographed, fingerprinted and booked with proper documentations ("W" and "W-1"). They were later brought to the Department of Justice for inquest while the rescued girls were turned over [to] the DSWD-NCR. Together with other operatives, he executed a Joint Affidavit of Arrest (Exhibits "R", "R-1", and "R-2"). 18
For his part, Castillo denied the accusations against him claiming that he is a mere employee of CRC Videoke Bar 19 and he did not hire or maintain private complainants for prostitution. 20 While he admitted having introduced private complainants to some of their customers in the club, his purpose is simply for private complainants to entertain their customers and not for the purpose of soliciting sexual service. 21 Castillo further claimed that if ever private complainants engaged in sexual activities with their customers, that was their own private transaction and that he had nothing to do with it. 22 Castillo further averred that he is familiar with the system in the bar on the issuance of stubs as he oftentimes acted as the bar's cashier. Per his knowledge, each entertainer is given a stub which is equivalent to P300.00 for every customer they attend to. 23 While Castillo disassociated himself from the private complainants' "sexual" activities, he recalled that on August 4, 2004, he accompanied one of the private complainants to the club wherein he was arrested by the NBI operatives. 24 aDSIHc
Garcia alleged that at the time he was arrested by the NBI agents on August 4, 2004, he was standing outside the canteen of CRC Videoke Bar. He further claimed that like Castillo, he too is a mere employee of CRC Videoke Bar and that he has no hand in the recruitment of the private complainants who are neither his co-employees and whom he knew only by their faces. 25
RTC Ruling
In its Joint Decision 26 dated November 26, 2010, the RTC convicted Castillo and Garcia of the crime of Qualified Trafficking in Persons, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds the accused Joel Castillo and Arnel Garcia GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Qualified Trafficking in Persons defined and penalized under Section 6 (a) in relation to Sec. 4 (e) of Republic Act No. 9208 otherwise known as Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003, and hereby sentences them as follows:
1). In Criminal Case No. C-71247; for each accused to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and for each to pay a fine of Two million pesos (P2,000,000.00);
2). In Criminal Case No. C-71248; for each accused to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and for each to pay a fine of Two million pesos (P2,000,000.00);
3). In Criminal Case No. C-71249; for each accused to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and for each to pay a fine of Two million pesos (P2,000,000.00);
4). In Criminal Case No. C-71250; for each accused to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and for each to pay a fine of Two million pesos (P2,000,000.00); and
5). In Criminal Case No. C-[71251]; for each accused to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and for each to pay a fine of Two million pesos (P2,000,000.00).
SO ORDERED.27
The RTC held that the persons who can be punished under Section 4 (e) of RA 9208 are not limited to owners and managers of the establishment where prostitution takes place; it extends to any person who receives orders for a prostitute's service and then makes the prostitute available to service the customer or client. The RTC gave full faith and credit to the detailed narrations of the private complainants of how they were maintained and peddled by Castillo and Garcia to different men on several occasions for monetary consideration and for the purpose of prostitution, as opposed to Castillo's and Garcia's uncorroborated claim that they were merely accompanying private complainants upon the latter's own request. 28
CA Ruling
On appeal, the CA, in the assailed Decision, 29 affirmed Castillo's and Garcia's conviction. The CA agreed with the RTC that the detailed accounts given by the five (5) minor victims have sufficiently established how they were lured by accused-appellants into prostitution. They were one in testifying that Castillo and Garcia introduced them to clients not only as club entertainers but also to have sexual intercourse with them for a fee. 30
The CA likewise brushed aside accused-appellants' denial finding it inherently weak when pitted against the positive declarations of the prosecution witnesses. 31
Hence, this appeal.
Issue
Whether accused-appellants are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of five (5) counts of Qualified Trafficking in Persons.
The Court's Ruling
The appeal is without merit.
The offense of Trafficking in Persons is defined under Section 3 (a) of RA 9208 as the "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." 32 Said provision further states that "[t]he recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring or receipt of 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." ETHIDa
In this case, accused-appellants were charged and convicted of five (5) counts of Qualified Trafficking in Persons under Section 4 (e) in relation to Section 6 (a) of the law. Section 4 (e) reads:
SEC. 4. Acts of Trafficking in Persons. — It shall be unlawful for any person, natural or juridical, to commit any of the following acts:
xxx xxx xxx
(e) To maintain or hire a person to engage in prostitution or pornography[.]
Prostitution is specifically defined in the law as "any act, transaction, scheme or design involving the use of a person by another, for sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct in exchange for money, profit or any other consideration." 33 Furthermore, under Section 6 (a) the crime of Trafficking in Persons is qualified when the trafficked person is a child.
As correctly ruled by the RTC and affirmed by the CA, the existence of the elements of Qualified Trafficking in Persons was sufficiently established by the straightforward and credible testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. The prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt that: (1) private complainants were all minors when the crimes against them were committed; (2) accused-appellants introduced private complainants to different customers on several occasions to engage in sexual intercourse; (3) accused-appellants received money in exchange for the sexual exploitation of the private complainants; and (4) accused-appellants achieved their criminal design by taking advantage of private complainants' vulnerability as minors and deceiving them into being hired as club entertainers, when the real intention of accused-appellants was to peddle them for prostitution.
Verily, the Court finds no compelling reason to deviate from the factual findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA. The RTC's findings of fact, including its assessment of the credibility of witnesses, probative weight of their testimonies, as well as of the documentary evidence, are accorded great weight and respect, especially when these are affirmed by the CA, as in this case. 34 Hence, the conviction of accused-appellants Castillo and Garcia for Qualified Trafficking in Persons must be upheld.
As regards the penalty and award of damages, the courts a quo correctly sentenced accused-appellants Castillo and Garcia to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P2,000,000.00 for each count. The Court, however, deems it proper to award moral and exemplary damages in favor of each victim, in the amount of P500,000.00 and P100,000.00, respectively. These amounts are in accordance with People v. Lalli, 35 where the Court held that:
The payment of P500,000 as moral damages and P100,000 as exemplary damages for the crime of Trafficking in Persons as a Prostitute finds basis in Article 2219 of the Civil Code, which states:
Art. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases:
(1) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries;
(2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries;
(3) Seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts;
(4) Adultery or concubinage;
(5) Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest;
(6) Illegal search;
(7) Libel, slander or any other form of defamation;
(8) Malicious prosecution;
(9) Acts mentioned in Article 309;
(10) Acts and actions referred to in Articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, and 35.
xxx xxx xxx
The criminal case of Trafficking in Persons as a Prostitute is an analogous case to the crimes of seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts. In fact, it is worse. To be trafficked as a prostitute without one's consent and to be sexually violated four to five times a day by different strangers is horrendous and atrocious. There is no doubt that Lolita experienced physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, and social humiliation when she was trafficked as a prostitute in Malaysia. Since the crime of Trafficking in Persons was aggravated, being committed by a syndicate, the award of exemplary damages is likewise justified. 36
Moreover, accused-appellants Castillo and Garcia are jointly and severally liable to pay the private complainants the moral and exemplary damages specified above, pursuant to Article 110 37 of the Revised Penal Code. 38 All monetary awards due to private complainants shall earn legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum from finality of judgment until full payment. 39 cSEDTC
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court hereby AFFIRMS with MODIFICATIONS the Decision dated March 21, 2014 of the Court of Appeals, Special Fifth (5th) Division in CA-G.R. CR. HC-No. 04895 as follows:
1.) In Criminal Case No. C-71247, accused-appellants Joel Castillo y Pedraza and Arnel Garcia y Pedraza are found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Qualified Trafficking in Persons defined and penalized under Section 4 (e) in relation to Section 6 (a) of Republic Act No. (RA) 9208. Accordingly, they are sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Two Million Pesos (P2,000,000.00). In addition, they are ordered to pay, jointly and severally, the victim, AAA a.k.a. BBB, the amounts of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) as moral damages and One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) as exemplary damages, both with legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum from finality of judgment until fully paid;
2.) In Criminal Case No. C-71248, accused-appellants Joel Castillo y Pedraza and Arnel Garcia y Pedraza are found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Qualified Trafficking in Persons defined and penalized under Section 4 (e) in relation to Section 6 (a) of RA 9208. Accordingly, they are sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Two Million Pesos (P2,000,000.00). In addition, they are ordered to pay, jointly and severally, the victim, CCC, the amounts of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) as moral damages and One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) as exemplary damages, both with legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum from finality of judgment until fully paid;
3.) In Criminal Case No. C-71249, accused-appellants Joel Castillo y Pedraza and Arnel Garcia y Pedraza are found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Qualified Trafficking in Persons defined and penalized under Section 4 (e) in relation to Section 6 (a) of RA 9208. Accordingly, they are sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Two Million Pesos (P2,000,000.00). In addition, they are ordered to pay, jointly and severally, the victim, DDD, the amounts of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) as moral damages and One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) as exemplary damages, both with legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum from finality of judgment until fully paid;
4.) In Criminal Case No. C-71250, accused-appellants Joel Castillo y Pedraza and Arnel Garcia y Pedraza are found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Qualified Trafficking in Persons defined and penalized under Section 4 (e) in relation to Section 6 (a) of RA 9208. Accordingly, they are sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Two Million Pesos (P2,000,000.00). In addition, they are ordered to pay, jointly and severally, the victim, EEE, the amounts of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) as moral damages and One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) as exemplary damages, both with legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum from finality of judgment until fully paid; and
5.) In Criminal Case No. C-71251, accused-appellants Joel Castillo y Pedraza and Arnel Garcia y Pedraza are found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Qualified Trafficking in Persons defined and penalized under Section 4 (e) in relation to Section 6 (a) of RA 9208. Accordingly, they are sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Two Million Pesos (P2,000,000.00). In addition, they are ordered to pay, jointly and severally, the victim, FFF, the amounts of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) as moral damages and One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) as exemplary damages, both with legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum from finality of judgment until fully paid. SDAaTC
SO ORDERED." (HERNANDO, J., designated additional Member per S.O. No. 2630 dated December 18, 2018)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Also spelled as "Pedrazo" in some parts of the records.
2. See Entry of Appearance (with Notice of Appeal); CA rollo, pp. 162-165.
3.Rollo, pp. 2-12. Penned by Associate Justice Edwin D. Sorongon, with Associate Justices Marlene Gonzales-Sison and Michael P. Elbinias concurring.
4. CA rollo, pp. 74-93. Penned by Presiding Judge Raymundo G. Vallega.
5. AN ACT TO INSTITUTE POLICIES TO ELIMINATE TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS ESPECIALLY WOMEN AND CHILDREN, ESTABLISHING THE NECESSARY INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMS FOR THE PROTECTION AND SUPPORT OF TRAFFICKED PERSONS, PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR ITS VIOLATIONS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, May 26, 2003.
6. 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 initial shall, instead, be used, in accordance with People v. Cabalquinto (533 Phil. 703 [2006]) and Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 dated September 5, 2017.
7.Id.
8.Id.
9.Id.
10.Id.
11.Rollo, p. 3.
12.Id.
13.Id. at 4.
14.Id.
15.Id.
16. CA rollo, p. 77.
17.Rollo, pp. 5-7.
18.Id. at 7-8.
19. Also referred to as "CRC Video Bar" and "CFC Videoke and Restaurant" in some parts of the records.
20. CA rollo, p. 79.
21.Id. at 79-80.
22.Id. at 80.
23.Id.
24.Id.
25.Id.; rollo, p. 8.
26.Id. at 74-93.
27.Id. at 93.
28.Id. at 82-A to 92.
29.Rollo, pp. 2-12.
30.Id. at 10.
31.Id.
32. Emphasis supplied.
33. RA 9208, Sec. 3 (c). Emphasis supplied.
34.People v. Aguirre, G.R. No. 219952, November 20, 2017, 845 SCRA 227, 238.
35. 675 Phil. 126 (2011).
36.Id. at 158-159.
37. ART. 110. Several and subsidiary liability of principals, accomplices, and accessories of felony — Preference in payment. — Notwithstanding the provisions of the next preceding article, the principals, accomplices, and accessories, each within their respective class, shall be liable severally (in solidum) among themselves for their quotas, and subsidiarily for those of the other persons liable.
38. See People v. Bandojo, Jr., G.R. No. 234161, October 17, 2018, p. 14.
39. People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016).