People vs. Bandojo, Jr.
(2018) Meanwhile, Section 3, paragraphs (a)
Plaintiff-appellee: PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES
Accused-appellants: LUDIVICO
PATRIMONIO BANDOJO, JR. and KENNY
JOY VILLACORTA ILETO
Ponente: A. REYES, JR. (SECOND
DIVISION)
Topic: Criminal Law
SUMMARY: Accused were charged with
violation of the Anti-Trafficking in Persons
Act of 2003 for prostitution of a 17-year-old
through Facebook.
DOCTRINE: Sections 4(a) and 6(a) of R.A.
No. 9208:
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 prostitution1 pornography,
sexual exploitation, forced labor,
slavery, involuntary servitude or
debt bondage[.] xxxx
Section 6. Qualified Trafficking in
Persons. - The following are considered
as qualified trafficking:
(a) When the trafficked
person is a child[.] (Emphasis
Ours)
and (b) of the same statute define the terms
"trafficking in persons" and "child", viz.:
Section 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 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.
(b) 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. (Emphasis Ours)
FACTS:
Accused are charged with violation of
Section 4(a), in relation to Section 6(a), of
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9208, otherwise
known as "The Anti-Trafficking .. in Persons
Act of 2003."
The private complainant, AAA, was
born on April 9, 1995. At the time the crime
was committed on November 8, 2012, she
was 17 years old.
On March 2, 2012, AAA was about to
graduate from high school when she met
Christian Ileto (Christian), the brother of
accused-appellant Kenny Joy. Sometime in
August 2012, AAA and Christian, together
with their friends, went to Padi 's Point. They
were having drinks thereat when Christian
asked her, "Be, gusto mo ng raket?" Thinking
that "raket" simply means chatting with men,
she agreed and gave her cellular phone
number to him.
The following day, AAA received a
text message from Kenny Joy who
introduced herself to her as "Cherish." Kenny
Joy asked if AAA needed a raket and
because she needed the money, she replied
in the affirmative. She was then asked to
describe herself and was later informed of
the basic rules of the trade. Kenny Joy told
her that the minimum fee is Php 1,500.00,
depending on AAA "if. it is one (1) pop or two
(2) pops." After inquiring on what the terms
mean, she was told she will have sex and
one ( 1) pop is one (1) putok and two (2) pops
are "dalawang beses na putok." With the
information given, AAA did not reply to Kenny
Joy's message.
Unfortunately, due to financial
difficulties and to help her parents, as well as
to buy some gadgets for herself, AAA texted
Kenny Joy on September 4, '2012 and
requested for a raket. The following day, AAA
was booked to a British National. AAA met
with Kenny Joy in a bus terminal in Quezon
City where they proceeded to a
condominium in Makati City. Thereat, the
condominium attendant called the subject
and they eventually proceeded to the unit. In
the condominium unit, the British man had a
short conversation with AAA and
subsequently brought her inside his room
while Kenny Joy waited in the living room.
Inside the room, AAA had sexual intercourse
with the said man and thereafter, she was
paid the amount of Php 5,000.00.
Sometime in the third week of
October, Kenny Joy sent another text
message to AAA, giving her another raket.
Although reluctant, AAA agreed and met
Kenny Joy at a convenience store in Quezon
City. This time, Kenny Joy introduced AAA to
a customer who is also a police officer. After
talking briefly, AAA and the police officer
proceeded to a motel while Kenny Joy waited
at the convenience store. For a fee of Php
3,000.00, AAA had sexual intercourse with
the police officer. From her fee, AAA gave an
amount of Php 500.00 to Kenny Joy.13
Meanwhile, on October 21, 2012, the
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI),
through Arnold Mallari, received information
from Ms. Pinky Webb of ABS-CBN regarding
the account name "Under One Roof' on the
social media networking website Facebook
which allegedly offers sexual services of
minors. To infiltrate the aforementioned
account, Agent Francis Sefiora (Agent
Sefiora) created a Facebook account in the
name of "Prettyvoy Gasgas." Through the
latter account, he conducted technical
surveillance on Under One Roof and came
across the account of one of its members,
Jhanne David (later identified as accused-
appellant Ludivico), whose wall contains,
"SA MGA MY WANT NYO NG WALK SEE
MY ALBUM PILI NA LANG KAYO NG
WANT.NYO GUYS TEXT KAYO PAG MAY
WANT NA KAYO OK." Clicking the account
of Jhanne David revealed photographs of
different ladies and one of them is AAA.
Agent Senora contacted Jhanne
David (Ludivico) through the cellular
numbers posted on the latter's account.
From their text messages, it appears that
Jhanne David (Ludivico) is a male and the
handler of the ladies who provide different
sexual services for a fee which, ranges from
Php 3,000.00 to Php 5,000.00. The terms of
payment include a 50o/o down payment with
the balance to be given to the girl. Later,
Jhanne David (Ludivico) agreed to provide
Agent Sefiora with two girls for sexual
services who will be brought to a hotel in
Manila for the amount of Php 3,000.00 each.
On November 7, 2012, AAA received
another text message from Kenny Joy
wherein she was informed that the latter's
friend needs girls and that she was included
among them. The raket will be in Manila and
the price would be Php 3,000.00 per head.
The 'following day, AAA and Kenny Joy
headed for a mall where they met Ludivico.
From the FX terminal, they proceeded to the
hotel.
The NBI, on the other hand, made the
necessary preparations for the entrapment
operation. Armed with four pieces of Php
500.00 bills dusted with fluorescent powder,
the NBI operatives proceeded to the hotel at
around 3:00 p.m. of November 8, 2012. Not
long after, Ludivico arrived together with AAA
and another woman, BBB. After he received
the down payment from Agent Senora,
Ludivico entrusted the women to the NBI
operatives. As soon as the operatives went
to the rooms, the women asked for their
payments and after the agents acceded, they
introduced themselves as NBI officers
Ludivico and Kenny Joy were
arrested at the coffee shop where the four
pieces of Php 500.00 bills were recovered
from the former. After a Fluorescent Powder
Examination, Ludivico and the peso bills
retrieved in the possession of the accused-
appellants were found to be positive for the
presence of fluorescent powder, while the
examination on Kenny Joy yielded negative
results.
RTC convicted accused of the crime
charged. CA affirmed
ISSUES:
 WoN the prosecution proved that
they were engaged in any activity
which would constitute human
trafficking
o YES. While R.A. No. 9208
has been recently amended
by R.A. No. 10364, the old
law still applies in the instant
case, considering that the
crime was committed on
November 8, 2012 or before
R.A. No. 10364 was approved
on February 6, 2013.
o In People v. Casio, the Court
defined the elements of
trafficking in persons, as
derived from Section 3(a) of
R.A. No. 9208, to wit:
 (1) The act of
"recruitment,
transportation,
transfer or harbouring,
 or receipt of persons Kenny Joy who recruited her
with or without the to engage in prostitution by
victim's consent or offering her rakets where she
knowledge, within or could earn money by having
across national sexual relations with clients
borders." the latter had found. AAA
 (2) The means used further averred that Kenny
which include "threat Joy accompanied her to meet
or use of force, or such clients, waited for her,
other forms of and received money after her
coercion, abduction, relations with the clients
fraud, deception, concluded. Meanwhile, the
abuse of power or of testimony of NBI Agent
position, taking Senora established that
advantage of the Ludivico (under the name
vulnerability of the Jhanne David), provides the
person, or, the giving sexual services of women
or receiving of through a Facebook account.
payments or benefits It was Ludivico, together with
to achieve the consent Kenny Joy, who brought AAA
of a person having to meet Agent Senora during
control over the entrapment operation.
another;["] and The down payment,
 (3) The purpose of consisting of four Php 500.00
trafficking is bills dusted with fluorescent
exploitation which powder, was paid by Agent
includes "exploitation Senora to Ludivico. During
or the prostitution of the latter's arrest, the said
others or other forms entrapment money was
of sexual exploitation, recovered from him as
forced labor or evidenced by the results of
services, slavery, the Fluorescent Powder
servitude or the Examination where Ludivico
removal or sale of and the bills were found
organs." (Emphasis positive for the presence of
Ours and italics in the fluorescent powder.
original) o As to the second element,
o The crime is further qualified while .AAA did not
under Section 6(a) of R.A. No. immediately accede to the
9208 when the trafficked proposition initially made by
person is a child. Kenny Joy, she eventually
o As to the first element and yielded and asked for a raket
thisd elements, the testimony because she needed the
of AAA established that it was money. It is, thus, apparent
 that the accused-appellants
took advantage of AAA's and
her family's abject poverty in
recruiting her to engage in
prostitution.
o Lastly, AAA's Certificate of
Live Birth evidenced the fact
that she was born on April 9,
1995 and was only 17 years
old, a minor, at the time the
crime was committed on
November 8, 2012.
 WoN lack of knowledge of minority of
AAA at the time the offense was
committed renders accused innocent
o NO. Under Section 6(a) of
R.A. No. 9208, Trafficking in
Persons automatically
becomes qualified upon proof
that the trafficked person is a
minor or a person below 18
years of age. Evidently,
knowledge of the accused-
appellants with regard to
AAA's minority is
inconsequential with respect
to qualifying the crime of
Trafficking in Persons.
 WoN there was a conspiracy
between the accused
o YES. Here, testimonial
evidence of the prosecution
established that Agent
Sefiora, after conducting
technical surveillance on
Ludivico's Facebook account,
contacted the latter where
they agreed that sexual
services will be provided by
two ,girls at a hotel on
November 8, 2012 for the
price of Php 3,000.00 each.
Meanwhile, Kenny Joy
contacted AAA regarding the
said transaction. AAA then
met with Kenny Joy and
Ludivico before proceeding to
the hotel where the latter
obtained the down payment
consisting of the entrapment
money. After the NBI agents
identified themselves, both
Ludivico and Kenny Joy were
arrested while they were
waiting for the girls. The
entrapment money was
likewise recovered and the
same, along with Ludivico,
tested positive for the
presence of fluorescent
powder.
o Taken all together, the
foregoing circumstances
reveal a joint purpose, design,
and concerted action in
committing the crime of
qualified trafficking in
persons. Through their
conceited efforts, the
accused-appellants facilitated
the prostitution of AAA, a
minor, where she was made
to render sexual services in
exchange for monetary
consideration.
 WoN the trial court erred in
dismissing the defense of alibi
o NO. A categorical and
consistent positive
identification which is not
accompanied by ill motive on
the part of the eyewitness
prevails over mere denial.
Such denial, if not
substantiated by clear and
convincing evidence, is
negative and self-serving
evidence undeserving of
 weight in law. It cannot be
given a greater evidentiary
value over the testimony of •
credible witnesses who testify
on affirmative matters.
o Here, both the accused-
appellants were positively
identified in open court oy
AAA, with Kenny Joy as the
one who recruited and
accompanied her when she
had to engage in sexual
activities in exchange for
money and Ludivico as the
one who accompanied her
when they proceeded to the
hotel for the same kind of illicit
transaction. They were
likewise identified in open
court by Agent Sefiora, with
Ludivico as the person who
arranged for the prostitution
activity at the hotel. Moreover,
neither Ludivico nor Kenny
Joy could ascribe any ill
motive on the part of AAA or
Agent Senora for testifying
against them. Verily, the
accused-appellants'
unsubstantiated denial over
the positive identification of
the prosecution's witnesses
cannot stand.

NOTES: Appeal DISMISSED.

DE SILVA CRUZ v PEOPLE
Anthony De Silva Cruz Vs. People of the
Philippines
G.R. No. 210266
June 7, 2017
FACTS:
This resolves a Petition for Review on Certiorari
assailing the Decision dated July 4, 2013 and
Resolution dated November 26, 2013 of the Court
of Appeals, which affirmed the conviction of
petitioner Anthony De Silva Cruz (Cruz) by the
Regional Trial Court for violation of Republic Act
No. 8484, otherwise known as the Access
Devices Regulation Act of 1998. Cruz was
charged with violation of Section 9 (a) and (e) of
Republic Act No. 8484, which provide the Section
9.
Prohibited Acts. - The following acts shall
constitute access device fraud and are hereby
declared to be unlawful: (a) producing, using,
trafficking in one or more counterfeit access
devices; and (e) possessing one or more
counterfeit access devices or access devices
fraudulently applied for. He was charged with
Criminal Case No. 06-0479, Criminal Case No.
06-0480 and Criminal Case No. 06-0481. Cruz
was arraigned on October 17, 2006, where he
pleaded not guilty for each charge.
According to the prosecution, on April 18, 2006,
at around 7:30 p.m., Cruz allegedly tried to
purchase two (2) bottles of Calvin Klein perfume
worth US$96.00 from Duty Free Philippines
Fiesta Mall. Danilo Wong (Wong), the cashier at
the Perfume Section, testified that Cruz paid for
the purchase using a Citibank Visa credit card.
The transaction was approved, although Wong
doubted the validity of the credit card since the
number at the back was not aligned. At around
8:00 p.m., Cruz allegedly tried to purchase a pair
of Ferragamo shoes worth US$363.00. Ana
Margarita Lim (Lim), the cashier on duty,
facilitated the sales transaction. Cruz paid for the
purchase using a Citibank Visa credit card
bearing the name "Gerry Santos," with credit card
number 4539 7207 8677 7008. When Lim asked
for Cruz's Duty Free shopping card, Cruz
presented a shopping card with the name of
"Rodolfo Garcia." Lim asked for another
identification card, and Cruz gave her a driver's
license bearing the name "Gerry Santos."
Lim proceeded to the mall's Electronic Section to
swipe the credit card for approval. The card was
approved, but she noticed that the last four (4)
digits of the card were not properly embossed
and its validity date started in November 2006.
She called Citibank to verify the credit card. Upon
verification, Citibank informed Lim that the credit
card was counterfeit and that the real Gerry
Santos was the Head of Citibank's Fraud Risk
Management Division. Lim was advised to
transfer the matter to the Security Department.
Redentor Quejada, Security Supervisor of Duty
Free Philippines, testified that he and two (2)
other guards held Cruz and his companion,
Rodolfo De Silva Cruz, at the security office until
the representative from Citibank arrived.
At around 9:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., Gerardo T.
Santos, Head of Citibank's Fraud Risk
Management Division, arrived with members of
the Philippine National Police - Criminal
Investigation Detective Group, together with a
certain Atty. Abad Santos, who was allegedly
Cruz's lawyer. Before Redentor Quejada could
turn Cruz over to the police, Cruz tried to escape
with the help of Atty. Abad Santos. The security
officers, however, were able to close the mall's
main gate, which prevented their escape. Cruz
and Rodolfo De Silva Cruz were turned over to
the Criminal Investigation Detective Group and
brought to Camp Crame for questioning. Citibank
Visa credit card number 4539 7207 8677 7008
was also turned over to the Criminal Investigation
Detective Group. Gerardo T. Santos testified that
he first heard of Cruz's name in May 2004. Cruz
and his wife Aileen were then managing
Antonely's Fabric Warehouse and were involved
in incidents related to credit card fraud.
Santos did not file a case against them for lack of
basis. He came across Cruz's name again in
2005, with regard to a fraudulent transaction with
a Thai restaurant in Shoemart Megamall. He also
testified that the credit card number was validly
issued to a certain Jessamine Bongat, and that
the counterfeit credit card had been previously
used on several fraudulent occasions.
ISSUE:
Whether the prosecution was able to prove
beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner was
guilty of violating Section 9(a) and (e) of Republic
Act No. 8484. Corollary to this is whether the
counterfeit access device can still be presented
in trial despite not having been presented and
marked during pre-trial.
HELD:
Yes. Petitioner was found in possession of
Citibank Visa credit card number 4539 7207 8677
7008, which bore the name "Gerry Santos."
He used the same credit card to purchase
Ferragamo shoes worth US$363.00 at Duty Free
Fiesta Mall. Citibank Visa credit card number
4539 7207 8677 7008 was later proven to be a
counterfeit access device. Republic Act No. 8484,
otherwise known as the Access Devices
Regulation Act of 1998, defines an access device
as: any card, plate, code, account number,
electronic serial number, personal identification
number, or other telecommunications service,
equipment, or instrumental identifier, or other
means of account access that can be used to
obtain money, good, services, or any other thing
of value or to initiate a transfer of funds (other
than a transfer originated solely by paper
instrurnent). Since a credit card is "any card,
plate, coupon book, or other credit device existing
for the purpose of obtaining money, goods,
property, labor or services or anything of value on
credit," it is considered an access device.
Section 9(a) and (e) make the possession and
use of a counterfeit access device as "access
device fraud" that is punishable by law: SECTION
9. Prohibited Acts. - The following acts shall
constitute access device fraud and are hereby
declared to be unlawful: (a) producing, using,
trafficking in one or more counterfeit access
devices; (e) possessing one or more counterfeit
access devices or access devices fraudulently
applied for. A counterfeit access device is "any
access device that is counterfeit, fictitious,
altered, or forged, or an identifiable component of
an access device or counterfeit access
device."57 Under Section 9(a) and (e) of Republic
Act No. 8484, the possession and use of an
access device is not illegal. Rather, what is
prohibited is the possession and use of a
counterfeit access device.
Therefore, the corpus delicti of the crime is not
merely the access device, but also any evidence
that proves that it is counterfeit. Possession of a
counterfeit access device is punishable by
imprisonment of not less than six (6) years and
not more than 10 years and a fine of ₱l0,000.00
or twice the value obtained by the offense,
whichever is higher. On the other hand, use of a
counterfeit access device is punishable by
imprisonment of not less 10 years but not more
than 12 years and a fine of ₱l0,000.00 or twice
the value obtained by the offense, whichever is
higher.
SECTION 10. Penalties. - Any person committing
any of the acts constituting access device fraud
enumerated in the immediately preceding section
shall be punished with: (a) a fine of Ten thousand
pesos (₱l0,000.00) or twice the value obtained by
the offense, whichever is greater and
imprisonment for not less than six (6) years and
not more than ten (10) years, in the case of an
offense under Section 9 (b )-(e), and (g)-(p) which
does not occur after a conviction for another
offense under Section 9; (b) a fine of Ten
thousand pesos (₱l0,000.00) or twice the value
obtained by the offense, and imprisonment for not
less than ten (10) years and for not more than
twelve (12) years, in the case of an offense under
Section 9 (a), and (f) of the foregoing section,
which does not occur after a conviction for
another offense under Section 9.
Petitioner, having been found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt, was sentenced to suffer the
penalty of imprisonment of 10 years as minimum
to 12 years as maximum and a fine of US$726.00
for violation of Section 9(a) of Republic Act No.
8484. He was also sentenced to suffer the
penalty of imprisonment of six (6) years as
minimum to 10 years as maximum and a fine
ofPl0,000.00 for violation of Section 9(e) of
Republic Act No. 8484.