Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
Manila

SIXTH DIVISION
PEOPLE
OF
THE
PHILIPPINES
Plaintiff-Appellee,
-versusNELIA OGALESCO y TORIO,
Accused-Appellant.

CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 03514

Members:
ENRIQUEZ, JR., J.Q.,
Chairperson
BATO, JR., R.M., and

MACALINO F.S., JJ.

Promulgated:
FEBRUARY 7, 2011

x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

DECISION
MACALINO, J.:
The Case
This is an Appeal assailing the 10 March 2008 Decision1
(assailed Decision) of the Regional Trial Court of Batangas City,
Branch 1 in Criminal Case No. 13907 entitled The People of the
Philippines vs. Nelia Ogalesco y Torio involving a violation of
Section 4(a) in relation to Section 6(a) and Section 10(c) of Republic
Act No. 9208 otherwise known as The Anti-Trafficking in Persons
Act of 2003. The dispositive portion of the assailed Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, finding Accused
Nelia Ogalesco y Torio guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of Violation of Section 4, paragraph a in relation to

Section 6, paragraph a and Section 10, paragraph c of

Republic Act 9208 otherwise known as The AntiTrafficking in Persons Act of 2003 (sic) she is hereby
sentenced to suffer the penalty of Life Imprisonment and
a Fine of Two Million Pesos (P2,000,000.00).
1 Rollo, pp. 46-55.

CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 03514

Page 2 of 14
-DECISIONx---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

Further, the accused is ordered to pay the private

offended party complainants (sic), RA & DP, the amount
of P50,000 (sic) (each) as moral damages and exemplary
damages in the sum of P50,000.00, and to pay the costs.
The preventive imprisonment undergone by the
accused is credited in her favor.
Furthermore, considering the alleged involvement
of Neneng Negra, (as co-conspirator), the City Prosecutor
is hereby directed to conduct further investigation as
regards her participation in the established recruitment
and transportation activities.
SO ORDERED.
Accused-Appellant Nelia Ogalesco y Torio (AccusedAppellant) was charged with violation of Section 4(a) in relation to
Section 6(a) and Section 10(c) of Republic Act No. 9208 in an
Information2 dated 7 March 2005, which reads as follows:
The undersigned Special prosecution (sic) Attorney
hereby accuses Nelias Ogalesco y Torio @ Ate Nelia of
violation of Sec 4, par. A in relation to Section 6, par. 1 (sic)
and Section 1o, par. c of Republic Act 9208, otherwise known
as The Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003, committed as
follows:
That on or about March 3, 2005 at around 8:30 o'clock
in the morning at Terminal 3, Port of Batangas, Brgy. Sta.
Clara, Batangas City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without
authority of law, thru fraud, deception and taking advantage of
vulnerability of the persons, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously recruit, transport, transfer, harbor,
or provide or receive the persons of minors R.A.G., 15-years
old and D.P.C., 16-years old and other five (5) female
individuals, namely: J.E.B., J.V.R., Z.R.A., J.A. and M.M.C.
at Project 8, Quezon City, under the pretext of domestic
employment as waitresses at (sic) Batangas City but discovery
was made that said victims would be brought and employed as
waitresses at Sabang Disco Bar, Sabang, Puerto Galera,
Oriental Mindoro for the purpose of sexual exploitation.
2 Original Records, pp. 1-2.

CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 03514

Page 3 of 14
-DECISIONx---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

That the qualifying circumstance of minority is

attendant in the commission of the offense, victims R.A.G.
and D.P.C. being 15 and
16-years old, respectively.
CONTRARY TO LAW.

During her arraignment on 17 March 2005, Accused-Appellant,

with the assistance of her counsel de oficio, pleaded not guilty to the
charge.3
Accused-Appellant filed a Petition for Bail4 but the same was
denied in an Order5 dated 28 April 2006.
After trial in due course, on 10 March 2008, the trial court
rendered the assailed Decision convicting Accused-Appellant of the
crime charged against her. The trial court ruled that the prosecution
was able to establish the guilt of Accused-Appellant beyond
reasonable doubt. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were
sufficiently conclusive, logical and probable to warrant the conviction
of Accused-Appellant.
Hence, this Appeal.

The Facts of the Case6

Version of the Prosecution
In its Brief, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) presents
the prosecution's version of the facts as follows:7
On 1 March 2005, Private Complainants RA.G., D.P. and their
friend Mi.M. were introduced by another friend, J.E.B. , to the latter's
aunt, Neneng Negra in her house in Muoz, Quezon City.8 Neneng
informed them of job openings as waitresses in Batangas City and
asked them if they wanted to work there.9 Neneng showed Private
Complainants a tube blouse and skimpy shorts that would be their
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

See Id. at p. 13.

Id. at pp. 15-16.
Id. at pp. 94-96.
As culled from the records.
Plaintiff-Appellee's Brief, Rollo, pp. 69-92.
TSN dated 22 August 2002, pp. 5-6; TSN dated 3 October 2005, p. 7.
Id. at p. 7; TSN dated 14 November 2005, pp. 13-14.

CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 03514

Page 4 of 14
-DECISIONx---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

uniform.10 Neneng then went out of the house to look for AccusedAppellant.11 When Accused-Appellant arrived, she asked Private
Complainants and the other girls for their names and ages.12 Although
R.A.G. was only fifteen (15) and D.P.C. sixteen (16) at that time,13
they did not reveal their actual age.14 This prompted AccusedAppellant to comment that they looked young, but nevertheless, there
are ways to make them look older. Accused-Appellant also confirmed
if Private Complainants were virgins because the same was the
preference of foreign clients.15 Accused-Appellant then offered them
jobs as guest relations officers (GROs) in Batangas. As such, they
were expected to entertain, dance and drink with local and foreign
clients. For this work, they may earn as much as P5,000.00 per night,
depending on the quantity of ladies' drink consumed. On occasion,
they would also be asked to go with foreign clients to their hotel
rooms and engage in sexual intercourse and other activities for a fee.16
After the girls agreed to Accused-Appellant's offer, the latter left to
raise money for their fare while the former rested.17
Around 3:00 a.m. of 3 March 2005, Accused-Appellant arrived
at Neneng's house and gave Neneng some money for their tricycle
fare. In order not to arouse suspicion, Accused-Appellant would go
ahead but instructed them to meet her at Mercury Drug Store in
Muoz, Quezon City. Private Complainants, J.E.B., M.M.C. and
Neneng dutifully went to the designated place. There, they met
Accused-Appellant with three (3) other girls whom they later
identified as Zendy Rarugal, sixteen (16) years old, J.V.R., eighteen
(18) years old and Jemelyn America, sixteen (16) years old. They
boarded a bus to Cubao, and from there, they transferred to
another bus bound for Batangas City.18
They arrived at the pier of Batangas City around 6:00 a.m.
While waiting for a boat, a barker approached them. Noting that
Private Complainants looked young, he asked Accused-Appellant
where the girls will be brought. Accused-Appellant replied that they
were bound for Sabang, Puerto Galera. When Private Complainants
and the other girls heard the same, they were surprised and became
fearful because they were made to believe that they were bound for
Batangas City only. When they entered the pier terminal, Joselito
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Id.; Id. at p. 16.

Id. at p. 8.
Id. at p. 9.
Id. at pp. 4-5; TSN dated 14 November 2005, p. 8.
Id. at p. 10; Id. at pp. 12, 55-56; TSN dated 3 October 2005, pp. 14-15.
Id. at p. 10.
Id. at pp. 11, 14; TSN dated 14 November 2005, pp. 18-22; TSN dated 14 August 2006, p. 18.
Id. at p. 15; Id. at p. 23.
Id. at pp. 17-18; TSN dated 3 October 2005, p. 17; TSN dated 14 November 2005, pp. 24-27; TSN
dated 14 August 2006, pp. 16-30.

CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 03514

Page 5 of 14
-DECISIONx---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

Elarina, a security guard, approached them and likewise asked them

their destination. When the girls answered that they were going to
Puerto Galera, the guard asked for identification card. When
Accused-Appellant could not produce any, the guard called the
Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) Police. PPLT Grergorio Laboriante
responded to the call and brought Accused-Appellant, Private
Complainants and the five (5) other girls to the PPA Police Station for
further investigation. PPLT Laboriante then called the Department of
Labor and Employment (DOLE) and the Department of Social
Welfare and Development (DSWD) because the girls were minors.
Afterwards, they were brought to the Bahay Silungan for a meal, and
then to the Visayan Forum Office at the Basilica to rest. Private
Complainants then proceeded to the police station and then gave
their respective statements.19
Version of the Defense
In denying the charge against her, Accused-Appellant states the
facts in the following manner:20
Accused-Appellant and Neneng Negra have known each other
for quite sometime, the latter being her hilot.
One time, Accused-Appellant was planning to see her aunt in
Puerto Galera to collect P3,000.00, in payment for the latter's
indebtedness to the former's mother. When Neneng Negra learned
about this, she talked to Accused-Appellant and introduced her niece,
J.E.B. Escalinas. Neneng Negra requested Accused-Appellant if she
could bring with her, J.E.B. and her companions, to Puerto Galera.
Accused-Appellant unhesitatingly acceded and agreed to meet
Neneng Negra and her niece, as well as her companions at Mercury
Drugstore in Muoz on 3 March 2005.
On the said date, Accused-Appellant did meet with Neneng
Negra and her niece, as well as those who will go with her to Puerto
Galera, at the designated assembly area. Before entrusting her niece
to Accused-Appellant, Neneng Negra gave her niece J.E.B.,
money for their fare. Once Neneng Negra left, Accused-Appellant and
her companions headed to Cubao where they took the bus bound for
Batangas City.
When they arrived at the Batangas City port, a bankero
19 Id. at pp. 19-23; TSN dated 14 November 2005, pp. 27-37; TSN dated 8 December 2005, pp. 7-14; TSN
dated 14 August 2006, pp. 34-38; TSN dated 20 November 2006, pp. 12-21.
20 Accused-Appellant's Brief, Rollo, pp. 29-42.

CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 03514

Page 6 of 14
-DECISIONx---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

approached Accused-Appellant and told her that her companions

looked young. Moments later, a security guard also approached her
and asked where they were heading. After she told them that they
were going to Puerto Galera, the security guard left.
When Accused-Appellant and her companions got inside the
terminal, a PPA police invited her for an interview. Obligingly,
Accused-Appellant went with him to the PPA Headquarters where she
was formally charged with the crime of illegal recruitment.21

The Issue
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED
IN PRONOUNCING THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT
DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PROVE HER GUILT
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

This Court's Ruling

Accused-Appellant contends that the concurrence of the twin
elements of trafficking in persons as set forth in Section 4(a) of R.A.
No. 9208, namely the act and the purpose, is necessary in the
prosecution for the violation of this Act. However, in this case, it is
submitted that more than the Accused-Appellant's act, her primary
purpose for bringing the Private Complainants to Puerto Galera is the
more crucial element which the prosecution must establish. AccusedAppellant testified that she was going to Puerto Galera to collect her
aunt's payment, who was then indebted to her mother. Also, she
accompanied Private Complainants to Puerto Galera to accommodate
Neneng Negra's request and not for any other illicit purpose. In this
case, Accused-Appellant argues that the prosecution simply relied on
bare assertions to prove that Accused-Appellant did encourage the
Private Complainants to work as GROs for the purpose of sexual
exploitation, among others. But other than that, there is nothing else
on records that will support the prosecution's case.
The People on the other hand, maintains that the guilt of the
accused was proven beyond reasonable doubt. All of the elements for
a successful conviction for the crime of trafficking in persons were
proven. Accused-Appellant herself admitted that on 3 March 2005,
she intended to bring Private Complainants and the five (5) other
21 TSN dated 20 November 2006, pp. 4-26.

CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 03514

Page 7 of 14
-DECISIONx---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

girls to Puerto Galera. The second element, that is, coercive means,
need not be proven as there is no dispute that Private Complainants
were below eighteen (18 ) years of age. Lastly, the purpose for which
Private Complainants were recruited, the prosecution witnesses
positively and unequivocally narrated how Accused-Appellant
recruited and transported them for the purposes of prostitution and
sexual exploitation.
The instant Appeal lacks merit.
Republic Act No. 9208, otherwise known as the AntiTrafficking in Persons Act of 2003 defines trafficking in persons as
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 a
child for the purpose of exploitation shall also be considered as
"trafficking in persons" even if it does not involve any of the means
set forth in the preceding paragraph.22
Section 4 (a) of the said Act provides that:
Section 4. Acts of Trafficking in Persons. - It shall be
unlawful for any person, natural or juridical, to commit any of
the following acts:
(a) To recruit, transport, transfer, harbor, provide, or
receive a person by any means, including those done
under the pretext of domestic or overseas employment
or training or apprenticeship, for the purpose of
prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation, forced
labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage;
xxx

xxx

xxx

In a prosecution for violation of Section 4(a) thereof, the

following facts must be proven beyond reasonable doubt: (a) that the
22 Section 3(a) of the said Act.

CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 03514

Page 8 of 14
-DECISIONx---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

accused recruited, transported, transferred, harbored, provided, or

received a person by any means, including those done under the
pretext of domestic or overseas employment or training or
apprenticeship and (b) for the purpose of prostitution, pornography,
sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or
debt bondage.
In the case before us, we rule that Accused-Appellant
committed the charge against her and this was proven by the
prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
Anent the first element, there is no doubt that AccusedAppellant recruited, transported, transferred, harbored, provided, or
received Private Complainants and the other girls.
Private Complainants, minors R.A.G. and D.P.C. were
unequivocal in testifying that it was Accused- Appellant who
recruited them to work at Sabang Disco Bar in Puerto Galera. Zendy
Rarugal also testified that she was recruited by AccusedAppelant to work as a dancer and a GRO. After Zendy Rarugal
met with Accused-Appellant, she was told by the latter to recruit or
look for other girls who can go with them at Sabang Disco Bar.
J.V.R. , Z. s friend, agreed to come with them.
On 3 March 2005, at around 3:00 a.m., Accused-Appellant
arrived at the house of Neneng Negra and gave money to the latter for
their tricycle fare. Accused-Appellant instructed Neneng Negra that
she will just meet them at Mercury Drug Muoz as somebody might
see her. Thus, Private Complainants, J.E.B., M.M.C. and Neneng
Negra went to the said place. There, they met Accused-Appellant
with three (3) other girls whom they came to know later as
Z.R.A, J.A.. From Muoz, Accused-Appellant and the seven (7) girls
boarded a bus going to Cubao. Upon reaching Cubao, they boarded
again a bus bound for Batangas City. When they were already at
the pier of Batangas City, a barker approached them and told
R.A.G. that she looked young. The barker was thus prompted
to ask Accused- Appellant where were they going. AccusedAppelant answered that they were bound to Sabang, Puerto
Galera. Private Complainants were surprised to know that they were
going to Puerto Galera because Accused-Appellant represented to
them that they were only going to Batangas City.
As to the second element, the very purpose for which Private
Complainants and the other girls were recruited by AccusedAppellant, was for prostitution and sexual exploitation.

CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 03514

Page 9 of 14
-DECISIONx---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

R.A.G., one of the Private Complainants, testified as to the

nature of the job which she, together with the other victims, will be
engaged in, to wit:23
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A

What happened next after Ate Ningning called Ate

Nelia?
Ate Ningning was already with Ate Nelia when she
returned to the house, Your Honor.
When Ate Nelia went to the house of Ate Ningning, what
did she do if any?
She asked about our names and our ages, Your Honor.
What was your answer?
I told her my name but I did not reveal my real age,
Your Honor.
xxx

xxx

xxx

Aside from asking your name and age, what did Ate
Nelia ask you if any?
She asked us if we are still virgins, Your Honor.

Q
A

What was your reply, if any?

I told her that I am still a virgin, Your Honor.

Q
A

What was the reply of Ate Nelia, if any?

She said that it's alright if we are still virgin because
foreigners prefer it more, Your Honor.

Aside from the waitress job that was offered to you,

what other job was offered to you if any?
GRO, Your Honor.

A
Q
A

As a GRO, what are you required to do?

To dance and to go to the tables of customers and to go
out with foreigners, Your Honor.

Q
A

Where will you go out with foreigners?

In a motel, your Honor.

Q
A

What will you be doing inside the motel?

It depends on what the foreigners wants us to do, Your
Honor.

After doing what the foreigners wants (sic) you to do,

what would happen next?
That we are to be paid with big or higher amount of

23 TSN dated 22 August 2005, pp. 9-12.

CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 03514

Page 10 of 14
-DECISIONx---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

money, Your Honor.

xxx

xxx

xxx

Court:
Q
You mentioned a while ago that it was Ningning who
offered you a job as a waitress and then she went out to
call for Ate Nelia then Ate Nelia came together with Ate
Ate Ningning. According to you, Ate Nelia asked you if
you were still a virgin and you said yes and you were
asked likewise a while ago what other job if any you
were offered and you said you were offered to be a GRO,
who in particular offered that to you to be a GRO?
A
Ate Nelia, Your Honor.
xxx

xxx

xxx (underscoring supplied)

D.P.C. the other Private Complainant, 16 years old at the time

she was recruited by Accused-Appellant for prostitution and sexual
exploitation, testified that:24
The Court:
Q
Did Ningning Negra tell you what you will do as waitress?
A
We were to serve, Your Honor.
Atty. Ng:
Q
What will you be wearing as waitress according to
Ningning?
A
A short shorts, Your Honor and a tube blouse, Your
Honor.
xxx
Q

xxx

xxx

After Ningning told you about this job offered and outfit,
what happened next?
She went to Ate Nelia, Your Honor.

Q
A

After Ningning went to Ate Nelia, what happened?

Ate Nelia arrived, Your Honor.

Q
A

When Ate Nelia arrived, what happened next?

She asked us if we are really decided in working.

Q
A

What was your answer, if any?

Yes.
xxx

xxx

xxx

24 TSN dated 14 November 2005, pp. 15-22.

CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 03514

Page 11 of 14
-DECISIONx---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

Q
A

So after that, what happened next?

We asked her if we were really to work as waitresses.

Q
A

What was the answer of the accused, if any?

She told us that we were to work as dancers also and the
foreigners can take us out, Your Honor.
xxx

xxx

xxx

The Court:
Q
You said that the accused told you that as a waitress, you
will dance and you can be taken out by foreigner, what
do you mean by you can be take out by foreigner?
A
That we will be brought to a hotel, Your Honor.
The Court:
Q
Was it your understanding of the statement or was it the
explanation of the accused as regards the statement that
you can be taken out by foreigners?
A
She (Nelia) told us that we can be brought to the hotel.
xxx
Q
A

xxx

According to the accused, what will you do in the hotel?

That we will engage in sex, Your Honor.
xxx

xxx

xxx

xxx

According to the accused, what will happen after having

sex with foreigners?
The only thing that she told us is that we will be paid
after having sex, Your Honor.
xxx

xxx

xxx (underscoring supplied)

Zendy Rarugal also testified that she was recruited by AccusedAppellant for the purpose of sexual exploitation:25
Q
A

When you went to the house of the accused, what did

you do there
We talked of the job, your Honor.
xxx xxx xxx

Q
A

Who were you talking to?

Ate Nelia, your Honor.

Q
A

What was this job all about?

Being a dancer and a GRO, Your Honor.

25 TSN dated 14 August 2006, pp. 16-18.

CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 03514

Page 12 of 14
-DECISIONx---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

Q
A

What about being a dancer?

Depending on the attire that we will wear, a tube blouse,
a mini skirt or a short shorts, Your Honor.

Q
A

What about being a GRO, what did the accused say?

Being with the customer on a table, bar out or go to a
hotel to have sex, Your Honor.

Q
A

So where were you going to work?

At Sabang Disco, Your Honor.
xxx

xxx

xxx (underscoring supplied)

From the foregoing, it is crystal clear that Accused-Appellant

committed an act constituting trafficking in persons. However, the
crime committed is qualified trafficking in persons as herein Private
Complainants were minors, at the time when the crime was
committed by Accused-Appellant. Section 6(a) of R.A. No. 9208
provides that:
Section 6. Qualified Trafficking in Persons. - The following
are considered as qualified trafficking:
(a) When the trafficked person is a child26;
xxx

xxx

xxx

In this case, the Private Complainants were both minors.

R.A.G. testified that she was 15 years old at the time of the
commission of the crime, as evidenced by her birth certificate stating
that she was born on 25 September 1989.27 D.P.C. on the other
hand, testified that she was 16 years old then having been born on
28 November 1988. Although she only presented her baptismal
certificate28 to prove her age as there was a negative certification from
the National Statistics Office (NSO) of her birth record,29 her
baptismal certificate is admissible in evidence to prove her age. It is
well-settled that 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.30
26 Under Section 3(b) of R.A. No. 9208, a child refers to a person below eighteen (18) years of age or one
who is over eighteen (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.
27 Original Records, pp. 67-68.
28 Id. at p. 69.
29 Id. at p. 119.
30 People vs. Cea, G.R. Nos. 146462-63 January 14, 2004 citing People vs. Operario, G.R. 146590 July
17, 2003 citing People vs. Invencion, G.R. 131636, March 5, 2003 which cited People vs. Pruna, G.R.
138471 October 10, 2002.

CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 03514

Page 13 of 14
-DECISIONx---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

Accused-Appellant's mere denial of committing qualified

trafficking, reasoning that her only purpose in going to Puerto Galera
was to collect her aunt's indebtedness to her mother in the amount of
P3,000.00, cannot prevail over the straightforward and categorical
testimonies of Private Complainants and as corroborated by Zendy
Rarugal that they were recruited to work by Accused-Appellant for
the purpose of prostitution and sexual exploitation. Jurisprudence is
to the effect that denial, like alibi, is inherently a weak defense and
cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimony of the
prosecution witness that the accused committed the crime.31 As
between a categorical testimony which has a ring of truth, on one
hand, and a bare denial on the other, the former is generally held to
prevail.32 A mere denial constitutes negative evidence which cannot
be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the declaration of
credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.33
By committing qualified trafficking, Accused-Appellant was
properly meted the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of Two
Million Pesos (P2,000,000.00) as expressly provided under Section
10(c)34 of R.A. No. 9208. The fine herein imposed shall accrue to a
Trust Fund administered and managed by the Inter-Agency Council
Against Trafficking Council to be used exclusively for programs that
will prevent acts of trafficking and protect, rehabilitate, reintegrate
trafficked persons into the mainstream of society.35
As regards the award of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00)
each to Private Complainants as moral damages, we reduce the same
to Twenty Five Thousand Pesos (P25,0000.00) each. There is no
doubt that Private Complainants suffered mental anguish, serious
anxiety moral shock and wounded feelings36 by reason of AccusedAppellant's wrongful act of trafficking them for purpose of sexual
exploitation and prostitution. By way of example or correction for the
31 People vs. Supnad, G.R. Nos. 133791-94 August 8, 2001 citing People vs. Bello, 237 SCRA 347
(1994).
32 People vs. Supnad, supra citing People vs. Basao, 310 SCRA 743 (1999).
33 People vs. Supnad, , supra note 31 citing People vs. Cerveto, 315 SCRA 611 (1999).
34 Section 10. Penalties and Sanctions. - The following penalties and sanctions are hereby established for
the offenses enumerated in this Act:
xxx
xxx
xxx
(c) Any person found guilty of qualified trafficking under Section 6 shall suffer the penalty of life
imprisonment and a fine of not less than Two million pesos (P2,000,000.00) but not more than Five
million pesos (P5,000,000.00);
xxx
xxx
xxx
35 Section 15 of R.A. No. 9208 provides that:
Section 15. Trust Fund. - All fines imposed under this Act and the proceeds and properties forfeited
and confiscated pursuant to Section 14 hereof shall accrue to a Trust Fund to be administered and
managed by the Council to be used exclusively for programs that will prevent acts of trafficking and
protect, rehabilitate, reintegrate trafficked persons into the mainstream of society.
36 See Article 2217 of the New Civil Code.

CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 03514

Page 14 of 14
-DECISIONx---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

public good,37 award of exemplary damages is also justified but the

same is reduced to Twenty Five Thousand Pesos (P25,0000.00).38
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Appeal is
DENIED. Accordingly, the 10 March 2008 Decision of the Regional
Trial Court of Batangas City, Branch 1 in Criminal Case No. 13907 is
hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The award of moral
damages is reduced to Twenty Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00)
each and the award of exemplary damages is further reduced to
Twenty Five Thousand Pesos (P25,0000.00).
SO ORDERED.
FLORITO S. MACALINO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
JUAN Q. ENRIQUEZ, JR.

RAMON M. BATO, JR.

Associate Justice

Associate Justice

CE R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it
is hereby certified that the conclusion in the above decision was
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court.

JUAN Q. ENRIQUEZ, JR.

Associate Justice
Chairperson, Sixth Division

37 See Article 2229 of the New Civil Code.

38 R.A. No. 9208 authorizes the award of civil damages arising from the commission of acts constituting
trafficking in persons when it grants exemption from payment of filing fees to trafficked persons who
opt to separately file a civil action for recovery of civil damages, to wit:
Section 13. Exemption from Filing Fees. - When the trafficked person institutes a separate civil action
for the recovery of civil damages, he/she shall be exempt from the payment of filing fees.