SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 224593. February 6, 2019.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.CHERRY ORCULLO y CASTILLO, ROQUE MAKILANG y GANSAN and ROWENA ARCALA1y GODOYO, accused, RENNIE PANDILING y BATUCAN, CHARLESBETH QUE y MENDEZ and BERNARDERICK BARBADO y PLAZA, accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 06 February 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 224593 — PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appelleeversus CHERRY ORCULLO y CASTILLO, ROQUE MAKILANG y GANSAN and ROWENA ARCALA y GODOYO, accused; RENNIE PANDILING y BATUCAN, CHARLESBETH QUE y MENDEZ and BERNARDERICK BARBADO y PLAZA,accused-appellants.
Before the Court is an appeal 2 from the Decision 3 dated October 30, 2015 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01121-MIN which affirmed the Decision 4 dated February 27, 2012 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Butuan City, Branch 1. The CA affirmed the RTC's Decision convicting Cherry C. Orcullo (Orcullo), Roque G. Makilang and Rowena G. Arcala (collectively referred to as the accused) and Rennie B. Pandiling (Pandiling), Charlesbeth M. Que (Que) and Bernarderick P. Barbado (Barbado) (collectively referred to as the accused-appellants), of violation of Republic Act No. (RA) 9208 5 or the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003.
Facts
The Amended Information against accused-appellants reads:
That on October 10, 2007 or for sometime prior thereto, in [ABC], Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating together and mutually helping one another in a manner that is considered large scale and syndicated, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously recruit, enlist, harbor and keep the persons of minors [AAA] 6 (13 years old), [BBB] 7 (13 years old), [CCC] 8 (16 years old) and [DDD] 9 (17 years old) and others, in a manner and for the purpose of prostitution and sexual exploitation, to the damage and prejudice of said complainants in such amount as may be proven in Court.
CONTRARY TO LAW (Violation of Section 4(a) in relation to Sections 6(a) and (c) of R.A. No. 9208.) 10
Accused-appellants pleaded "not guilty" upon arraignment.
The prosecution's and defense's contrasting versions of events, as summarized by the CA, are as follows: CAIHTE
[The Prosecution's Evidence]
xxx xxx xxx
From September 2, 2007, appellants Charlesbeth Que, Rennie Pandiling and Berdarderick (sic) Barbado and accused Rowena Arcala y Godoyo prostituted fourteen (14) years old BBB x x x and thirteen (13) years old AAA x x x to customers at [redacted) for the price of Five Hundred Pesos (P500.00) in exchange for sexual favors. In a night, BBB was given two or three customers, with the money paid to one of her pimps and delivered to accused Orcullo who owns the store where they purchase their daily needs. AAA also had the same arrangement, albeit in one instance, she was asked to do a toro-toro (live show) with appellant Charlesbeth Que as her partner. Accused Roque Makilang on the other hand, closely monitored the minors' activities every night. Appellants warned BBB and AAA that each night that they do not report for work, they would incur a debt of one thousand five hundred (P1,500) as penalty, and any attempt to escape would be met with great harm on their persons.
On October 9, 2007, the mothers of BBB and AAA went to the NBI office to complain that their minor daughters were being prostituted at [redacted]. Immediately, operatives from the NBI, including NBI Investigator Vernon Joel Firmalino, Jingfe Pacultad, Wilfredo Baylan and Gabby Falcon, together with AAA, went to said place to conduct a surveillance to validate the information they gathered. After it was confirmed that women and minors were indeed being prostituted in said area, NBI Investigator Vernon Joel Firmalino applied for a search warrant against accused Cherry Orcullo.
At 4 o'clock in the afternoon the following day, the NBI operatives, armed with a search warrant, went to search the place described in the warrant. NBI photographer Jingfe Pacultad took pictures of the search conducted. At least three (3) minors and a few women, some clad in towels, were rescued from the vicinity. Thereafter, appellants Charlesbeth Que, Rennie Pandiling and Berdarderick (sic) Barbado and accused Cherry Orcullo y Castillo, Roque Makilang y Gansan a.k.a. "King," Rowena Arcala y Godoyo, who were found in the searched house, were arrested.
[The Defense's Evidence]
The version of the defense is as follows:
The accused denied the charge against them. With respect to herein appellants, they offered their respective denials. Essentially, they alleged that they did not engage in trafficking and prostituting of the minors. It just so happened that they were inside the house when the raid incident occurred and yielded to their arbitrary arrest.
Appellant Rennie Pandiling testified that prior to his arrest, he worked as a carpenter. According to him, he was hired to repair the house by a certain Eliza, the caretaker of the house that was raided. When the raid was conducted, he and the other occupants of the house were merely watching television.
Appellant Bernadick (sic) Barbado, on the other hand, said that he was a resident of [redacted]. At the time of the incident, he was merely visiting his girlfriend, a certain Lloren, who was a boarder of the house where the NBI conducted the raid.
For his defense, appellant Charlesbeth Que testified that on 10 October 2007, he visited his girlfriend in [redacted]. His girlfriend was pregnant at that time. At 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon, a group of persons who announced that they were from the NBI barged into the house, pointed guns at the occupants of the house, forcefully accosted them to a vehicle, and thereafter brought them at (sic) the office of the NBI. 11 (Italics omitted)
Ruling of the RTC
The RTC promulgated its Decision on February 27, 2012 convicting the accused and accused-appellants of Qualified Trafficking in Persons under Section 4 (a) in relation to Section 6 (a) of RA 9208 and sentencing them to life imprisonment and to pay a P2,000,000.00 fine. The RTC ruled:
The straightforward and consistent narration of facts by the prosecution witnesses, especially the two minor victims in this case immensely fortifies the conclusion that all the accused are guilty as charge (sic). All the denials and alibi's (sic) proffered by the accused in this case could not sway this court not to believe the version of the minor victims, they have positively identified all the accused in this case and convincingly narrated the details of their ordeal. The victims particularly asserted that accused Roque Makilang, Rowena Alcala, Renie Pandiling, Charlesbeth Que and Bernarderick Barbado were described as pimps and guards while Cherry Orcullo as the owner of the wooden house were (sic) minors were being kept and who received the rest of the money paid by customers who have sex with the minors. These accounts cannot be discarded simply of the slim claim of accused denials and alibi's (sic) which are all self-serving. It is well settled that denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is a negative, self-serving assertion that deserves no weight in law x x x.
xxx xxx xxx
All the elements of the crime has (sic) been fully established by the evidence of the prosecution and beyond any cavil of doubt all the accused by conspiracy have harbored, provided, or received minor victims by taking advantage of their vulnerability and or deceit, including those done under the pretext of domestic employment for the purpose of prostitution. x x x 12
The CA Decision
Only accused-appellants Que, Barbado and Pandiling elevated the case to the CA assailing the factual and legal findings of the RTC. Accused-appellants also questioned for the first time the legality of their arrest. DETACa
In the assailed Decision, the CA affirmed the RTC Decision with modification, by adding an award of moral and exemplary damages of P500,000.00 and P100,000.00, respectively, each for AAA and BBB.
The CA held that the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt, the existence of all the elements of the offense. In its Decision, the CA reasoned:
Evidently from the foregoing, the six (6) accused namely: Orcullo, Makilang, Arcala together with appellants Pandiling, Que and Barbado clearly conspired and confederated with one another to take advantage of the vulnerability of the herein private complainants by Orcullo recruiting them through deception manifested by promises of cellphones and new dresses if they work as prostitute (sic) while accused Makilang, Arcala and appellants Pandiling, Que and Barbado helped by looking or arranging clients for the private complainants and by bringing the latter to their place of work or the lodging houses for a commission. The accused and appellants also conspired by harboring private complainants in the house of Orcullo and forcibly keeping them there by means of threat or coercion all for the ultimate purpose of prostitution or sexual exploitation of the minor victims. 13
On the issue of illegal arrest, the CA held that accused-appellants were already estopped from assailing any irregularity in their arrest as they failed to do so before the arraignment. Any objection to the legality of an arrest must be raised before the accused enters his plea; otherwise, the objection shall be deemed waived. 14
Accused-appellants filed their Notice of Appeal on November 20, 2015. Both accused-appellants and the Office of the Solicitor General filed their respective manifestations 15 informing the Court that they would no longer be filing any supplemental briefs.
Issue
Whether the guilt of accused-appellants was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court's Ruling
The appeal has no merit.
Contrary to the contentions of accused-appellants, the prosecution was able to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The offense of Trafficking in Persons is defined under Section 3 (a) of RA 9208:
SEC. 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 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 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.
Prostitution is also specifically defined in the law itself:
(c) Prostitution — refers to 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. 16
The accused-appellants were convicted for violation of Section 4 (a) in relation to Section 6 of the law:
SEC. 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[.] (Emphasis supplied) aDSIHc
Under Section 6 (a), the crime is qualified when the trafficked person is a child or a minor. Another qualifying circumstance under Section 6 (c) is when the crime is committed by a syndicate as when it is committed by a group of three or more persons conspiring and confederating with one another. There were a total of six persons charged with the offense, making them a syndicate. 17
As correctly ruled by the RTC and affirmed by the CA, the existence of the elements of Trafficking in Persons was sufficiently established by the prosecution witnesses, including the trafficked minors themselves who testified during the trial. In People v. Casio, 18 the Court defined the elements of trafficking in persons:
(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." 19
AAA and BBB positively identified accused-appellants as their pimps. They both positively testified that accused-appellants would procure "customers" to have sexual intercourse with them for the price of P500.00. Accused-appellants also kept AAA and BBB in the house of accused Orcullo and threatened them with physical harm if they tried to escape.
Their testimonies were categorical, straightforward, and corroborative, in their identification of accused-appellants and the latter's exact involvement in the commission of the offense. Meanwhile, accused-appellants merely interposed the defense of denial. The Court has consistently ruled in a number of cases that denial is a weak defense which cannot prevail against positive identification. 20
Thus, 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. 21
On the issue of illegal arrest, the Court agrees with the CA that accused-appellants had waived their right to assail any perceived illegality in their arrest as they failed to do so before arraignment. In Miclat, Jr. v. People, 22 the Court ruled:
x x x An accused is estopped from assailing any irregularity of his arrest if he fails to raise this issue or to move for the quashal of the information against him on this ground before arraignment. Any objection involving a warrant of arrest or the procedure by which the court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be made before he enters his plea; otherwise, the objection is deemed waived. 23
At the time of their arraignment, no objection was raised as to any invalidity in accused-appellants' arrest. They actively participated in the proceedings before the trial court. Thus, they submitted themselves to the court's jurisdiction and waived any objection thereto.
Lastly, on the issue of the penalty and award of damages, the Court likewise affirms the penalty imposed consisting of life imprisonment and a fine of P2,000,000.00 in accordance with Section 10 of RA 9208. The CA also correctly ordered the award to the trafficked minors AAA and BBB of P500,000.00 and P100,000.00 each, as moral and exemplary damages, consistent with the Court's ruling in People v. Lalli, 24 which held:
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. 25
The monetary awards due AAA and BBB shall earn legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum from finality of judgment until full payment. 26 ETHIDa
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated October 30, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01121-MIN is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. (REYES, J., JR., J., on wellness leave; 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 stated as "Alcala" in some parts of the records.
2. See Notice of Appeal dated November 20, 2015; rollo, pp. 18-19.
3.Rollo, pp. 3-17. Penned by Associate Justice Oscar V. Badelles, with Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja and Pablito A. Perez concurring.
4. CA rollo, pp. 49-93. Penned by Judge Eduardo S. Casals.
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. See RTC Decision, CA rollo, p. 49; see also CA Decision, rollo, p. 4.
11.Rollo, pp. 5-6.
12. CA rollo, pp. 90-A to 92.
13.Rollo, p. 13.
14.Id. at 15.
15.Id. at 25-28, 30-37.
16. RA 9248, Sec. 3.
17.Id., SEC. 6. Qualified Trafficking in Persons. — The following are considered as qualified trafficking:
(a) When the trafficked person is a child;
(b) When the adoption is effected through Republic Act No. 8043, otherwise known as the "Inter-Country Adoption Act of 1995" and said adoption is for the purpose of prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage;
(c) When the crime is committed by a syndicate, or in large scale. 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;
(d) When the offender is an ascendant, parent, sibling, guardian or a person who exercises the authority over the trafficked person or when the offense is committed by a public officer or employee;
(e) When the trafficked person is recruited to engage in prostitution with any member of the military or law enforcement agencies;
(f) When the offender is a member of the military or law enforcement agencies; and
(g) When by reason or on occasion of the act of trafficking in persons, the offended party dies, becomes insane, suffers mutilation or is afflicted with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) or the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS).
18. 749 Phil. 458 (2014).
19. Id. at 472-473.
20. People v. Agcanas, 674 Phil. 626, 632 (2011).
21. People v. Aguirre, G.R. No. 219952, November 20, 2017, 845 SCRA 227, 238.
22. 672 Phil. 191 (2011).
23. Id. at 203.
24. 675 Phil. 126 (2011).
25. Id. at 159.
26. See People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 906 (2016).