PEOPLE VS.
EDWIN MORIAL, LEONARDO MORIAL ALIAS  Aguilar did ask Leonardo if he was forced or
"CARDING" NONELITO ABIÑON * ALIAS "NOLY”
Doctrine: Fact that the extra-judicial confession was
subsequently signed in the presence of counsel did
not cure its constitutional defects (i.e. right to counsel)
Facts:
 Two of the three appellants herein were
sentenced to death by the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Southern Leyte for Robbery with
Homicide. The other was sentenced to suffer only
the penalty of reclusion perpetua on account of
minority. The judgment of conviction is now
before this Court on automatic review.
 The above-named accused in conspiracy
entered into the house of Paula Bandibas and
Benjamin Morial and once inside stabbed the
victims Paula Bandibas and Albert Bandibas,
resulting in their death, after which, said accused
took away Cash in the amount P11,000.00
belonging to said Bandibas and Morial.
 Upon arraignment, the three accused pleaded
not guilty.
 The records show that Benjamin disclosed to the
officers his three suspects, the accused in this
case. He advised them, however, to bring only
Leonardo and Edwin Morial into custody and not
to include Nonelito Abiñon, who had many
relatives in Cagnituan.
 The accused, all first-degree cousins, interposed
denial and alibi as their defense.
 The suspects were interrogated after. Edwin was
advised to tell the truth so he would not be killed.
Nevertheless, he refused to admit his alleged
participation in the killings. He was then subjected
to physical torture. Leonardo was also tortured by
the Policemen
 When a policeman attempted to box him again,
Leonardo finally admitted that Nonelito Abiñon
and Edwin Morial were responsible for the death
of Paula Bandibas. Leonardo's interrogation
lasted one and a half to two hours.
 Leonardo's statements were then reduced into
writing. A policeman informed him that they were
going to contact a lawyer to assist him during the
investigation. Leonardo was told that his counsel
would be a certain Atty. Aguilar whose office was
very near the police station. Leonardo
consented.
 Having prepared Leonardo's statement, the
police then told Leonardo to come with them to
Atty. Aguilar's office, There, he saw Atty. Aguilar
for the first time. The lawyer read to him the
document and asked him whether its contents
were true. The police had instructed Leonardo to
answer "yes" if he was asked that question, and
Leonardo heeded the instructions.
intimidated to execute the extra-judicial
confession. Leonardo, however, did not tell his
lawyer about his injuries since a police officer had
warned him that he would be mauled again
should he do so. Leonardo then signed the extra-
judicial confession, after which Atty. Aguilar
affixed his.
 Later in court, Leonardo claimed that he merely
made up all the statements in the document
because he was afraid.
RTC - rendered a decision convicting all the three
accused based on the extra-judicial confession and
the testimony of the eyewitness.
Issue: WON Leonardo’s Morial’s extra-judicial
confession was invalid since he was not duly
accorded with his right to counsel when he made
such confession.
Held: Yes. The Court finds Leonardo Morial's extra-
judicial confession invalid since he was effectively
deprived of his right to counsel during the custodial
investigation.
A custodial investigation is understood to mean as
"any questioning initiated by law enforcement
authorities after a person is taken into custody or
otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any
significant manner." It begins when there is no longer
a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but starts to
focus on a particular person as a suspect,i.e., when
the police investigator starts interrogating or exacting
a confession from the suspect in connection with an
alleged offense.
A person under custodial investigation is guaranteed
certain rights, which attach upon the
commencement thereof. These are the rights (1) to
remain silent, (2) to competent and independent
counsel, preferably of his own choice, and (3) to be
informed of the two other rights. The prosecution must
prove with clear and convincing evidence that the
accused was accorded said rights before he extra-
judicially admitted his guilt to the authorities.
The Court has stressed that an accused under
custodial interrogation must continuously have a
counsel assisting him from the very start
thereof. InPeople vs. Lucero, where the suspect's
counsel left just when the interrogation was starting,
this Court chastised both counsel and the trial court
for their lack of zeal in safeguarding the rights of the
accused.
The Policeman cannot justify Atty. Aguilar's leaving by
claiming that when the lawyer left, he knew very well
that the suspect had already admitted that he
(Leonardo) and his companions committed the
crime Neither can Atty. Aguilar rationalize his
abandoning his client by saying that he left only after
the latter had admitted the "material points," referring
to the three accused's respective participation in the
crime. For even as the person under custodial
investigation enjoys the right to counsel from its
inception, so does he enjoy such right until its
termination — indeed, "in every phase of the
investigation." An effective and vigilant counsel
"necessarily and logically requires that the lawyer be
present and able to advise and assist his client from
the time the confessant answers the first question
asked by the investigating officer until the signing of
the extrajudicial confession."
Furthermore, Section 2(a) of R.A. No. 7438 requires
that "any person arrested, detained or under custodial
investigation shall at all times be assisted by counsel."
The last paragraph of Section 3 of the same law
mandates that "[i]n the absence of any lawyer, no
custodial investigation shall be conducted."
Even granting that appellant consented to Atty.
Aguilar's departure during the investigation and to
answer questions during the lawyer's absence, such
consent was an invalid waiver of his right to counsel
and his right to remain silent. Under Section 12 (3),
Article III of the Constitution, these rights cannot be
waived unless the same is made in writing and in the
presence of counsel. No such written and counseled
waiver of these rights was offered in evidence.
That the extra-judicial confession was subsequently
signed in the presence of counsel did not cure its
constitutional defects.
Thus, as appellant Leonardo Morial was effectively
deprived of his right to counsel during custodial
investigation, his extra-judicial confession is
inadmissible in evidence against him. (The confession
is also inadmissible against his co-accused – principle
of res inter alios acta)
PEOPLE VS DANILO MORADA Y TUMLOD
Facts: Danilo Morada was accused of killing Jonalyn
Navidad. The prosecution presented 5 witnesses, while
the defense presented 2, including the accused
himself.
Prosecution: SPO3 Arsenio Gomez testified that on
April 13, 1995, received a phone call that a certain
Jonalyn Navidad has been hacked. At the scene of
the crime, Gomez and barangay captain Edgardo
Manimbao found a pair of slippers with thumbtacks
embedded in the instep. The slippers were identified
by Alejandro de la Cruz, a bystander, as owned by
Danilo Morada. Gomez and Manimbao went to
Danilo's house. They found a stained t-shirt, and a
stained bolo near the house. When they entered the
house, Danilo, Danilo's wife, and Danilo's brother were
present. Danilo's brother said that the slippers
belonged to Danilo. Gomez then invited Danilo to the
police station for questioning. During oral
investigation, Danilo admitted that he killed Jonalyn,
but this was not taken down because no lawyer was
available to assist Danilo. The shirt and the bolo were
sent to the NBI where it tested positive on the
presence of human blood. Gomez admits that the
shirt and bolo were taken without warrant.
Barangay captain Manimbao said a version of facts
similar to Gomez. He added that Danilo's wife
identified the stained shirt as Danilo's. He also added
that at the jail Danilo wanted to talk to him, and that
Danilo eventually confessed that he owned the
slippers, and that he killed Jonalyn.
Christopher Saliva testified that on April 13, 1995, he
saw Danilo walking away from the scene of the crime
carrying a bolo, and that when Danilo saw him,
Danilo's face turned pale. Saliva knew both Danilo
and Jonalyn as they were childhood friends.
Eric Navidad, the brother of Jonalyn, testified that he
found Jonalyn's body near a creek. He saw a pair of
yellow slippers near the body, which he identified as
Danilo's. He claims that the slippers were worn by
Danilo while playing basketball. He stated that Danilo,
although already married, was courting Jonalyn.
Alejandro de la Cruz testified that on the day of the
accident, he was roused by his wife and was told of
the incident. He went to the scene where he saw a
pair of yellow slippers. He identified the slippers
because of the thumbtacks. He claimed that he
remembered the slippers belonging to Danilo as hid
the slippers when he and some friends played a game
during the wake of his father.
Defense: Danilo claims that at the time of the incident,
he was staying at his house, together with his wife, and
that that they had a visitor, Rosita Cabanero. He
claimed that earlier that day, Jonalyn's mother came
and sought his help because Jonalyn was found
slumped in a creek. He and his brother, Joel, helped
Jonalyn's father to load her into a jeep so that she can
be brought to the hospital. He and his brother went
back to his house. 30 minutes later, Gomez and some
other police went to his house and arrested him. He
claimed that the bolo and the t-shirt were taken
without warrant. He claimed that he was beaten up
at the municipal building to admit to the killing. He
claims that the t-shirt taken from him had no stain at
the time it was taken. He said that the slippers found
in the scene were not his. He admitted being close to
Jonalyn, but he denied having any special feelings for
her. He claims that he is being implicated in the killing
because Jonalyn's family wanted to eject him from
the land.
Rosita Cabanero corroborated Danilo's testimony.
Trial: The RTC of Dasmarinas, Cavite found Danilo
guilty of murder and sentenced him to death. It held
that the circumstances occurring before, during, and
after the hacking of Jonalyn, linked together, leads to
the conclusion that Danilo murdered her. Direct
appeal to the SC.
(Danilo Morada was accused of killing Jonalyn
Navidad. He was alleged to have confessed to the
police and to the barangay captain that he killed
Jonalyn. His shirt and bolo were alleged to be stained
with blood, and these were taken without any
warrant. At the scene of the crime, a pair of slippers
allegedly belonging to Danilo was found. No one
directly saw Jonalyn being hacked.)
Issue: Whether the circumstantial evidence presented
support the conviction beyond reasonable doubt
Held:No. Rule 133, Sec 4 of the Revised Rules on
Evidence state when circumstantial evidence is
sufficient for conviction.
As to the alleged confession:
- The alleged confession cannot be used as
evidence.
- In People vs Andal, the Court held that the
constitutional guarantees during custodial
investigation do not apply to spontaneous
statements not elicited through questioning by
the authorities and given during ordinary
conversation or during media interviews,
whereby the suspect orally admits the
commission of the crime. The ruling in that case
does not, however, authorize the police to
obtain confessions they cannot otherwise
obtain through media reporters who are
acting for the police.
- In this case, it is doubtful whether Danilo's
confession was given divorced from the police
interrogation. SPO3 Gomez himself stated that
they interrogated Danilo, and that it was with
the help of Manimbao that Danilo admitted to
the killing, and that they were not able to
reduce the confession in writing due to the
absence of a lawyer. Manimbao's
conversation with Danilo was part of the then
ongoing police investigation. Since the
confession was given without the safeguards
in Art III Sec 12 of the Constitution, and the
additional ones provided in RA 7438,
particularly the requirement that the
confession be in writing and duly signed by the
suspect in the presence of counsel, Danilo's
confession is inadmissible.
- Moreover, Manibao's testimony as to the
confession is improbable. He testified that
Danilo wanted to talk to him so that he could
get out of jail. If that were the case, it was very
unlikely that Danilo would admit his guilt.
As to the shirt and bolo:
- These cannot be used as evidence
- Danilo admits that the shirt and bolo are his,
but denies that they were bloodstained when
they were taken from him. It is improbable that
these incriminating evidence will be left in
public view: the shirt hanging from a tree, and
the bolo in the yard.
- Even if these items were bloodstained, the
bloodstain must be shown to match that of the
victim's to sustain conviction.
As to other circumstantial evidence:
- Not enough to sustain conviction.
- Saliva gave his statement to the police on April
16, after Gomez and Manibao executed a
joint statement that they had taken the
bloodstained shirt and bolo. Judging by the
delay, it appears that it did not immediately
occur to him that Danilo might have
something to do with the killing.
- Eric Navidad was interviewed by the police in
connection with the killing. It appears that he
never told the police that he recognized the
slippers. He only made this claim when he
testified in court.
- -Alejandro's identification of the slippers is
improbable. Given that he was at his father's
wake, it is unlikely that he was playing with
some friends when he saw the slippers. He must
be very observant to notice something in
otherwise nondescript sandals.
- There may indeed be suspicion that accused-
appellant is the author of the crime. But our
legal culture demands proof beyond
reasonable doubt to be established
according to law before any person may be
deprived of his life, liberty, or even property.
Judgment cannot be rendered on the basis of
mere guesses, surmises, or suspicion. It is not
sufficient for a conviction that the evidence
establishes a strong suspicion or a probability
of guilt
Decision appealed from is reversed. Danilo Morada is
acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt.
PEOPLE VS. BANDOJO, JR.
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:
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.
Section 6. Qualified Trafficking in Persons. - The
following are considered as qualified trafficking:
(a) When the trafficked person is a child.
(Emphasis Ours)
Meanwhile, Section 3, paragraphs (a) 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:
1. WON the prosecution proved that they were
engaged in any activity which would
constitute human trafficking
2. WON lack of knowledge of minority of AAA at
the time the offense was committed renders
accused innocent
3. WON there was a conspiracy between the
accused
4. WON the trial court erred in dismissing the
defense of alibi
HELD:
1. 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 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." (Emphasis
Ours and italics in the original)
 o The crime is further qualified under Section
6(a) of R.A. No. 9208 when the trafficked
person is a child.
o As to the first element and thisd elements, the
testimony of AAA established that it was
Kenny Joy who recruited her to engage in
prostitution by offering her rakets where she
could earn money by having sexual relations
with clients the latter had found. AAA further
averred that Kenny Joy accompanied her to
meet such clients, waited for her, and
received money after her relations with the
clients concluded. Meanwhile, the testimony
of NBI Agent Senora established that Ludivico
(under the name Jhanne David), provides
the sexual services of women through a
Facebook account. It was Ludivico, together
with Kenny Joy, who brought AAA to meet
Agent Senora during the entrapment
operation. The down payment, consisting of
four Php 500.00 bills dusted with fluorescent
powder, was paid by Agent Senora to
Ludivico. During the latter's arrest, the said
entrapment money was recovered from him
as evidenced by the results of the
Fluorescent Powder Examination where
Ludivico and the bills were found positive for
the presence of fluorescent powder.
o As to the second element, while .AAA did not
immediately accede to the proposition
initially made by Kenny Joy, she eventually
yielded and asked for a raket because she
needed the 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.
2. 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.
3.
a. 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.
b. 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.
4.
a. 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 a credible witnesses who
testify on affirmative matters.
b. 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.
PEOPLE VS DIAZ Y INDINO
PEOPLE vs RODRIGUEZ
Facts: The evidence for the prosecution is anchored
solely on the testimony of Police Officer I Escober
alleging that at around 11:00 P.M .PO1 Escober was at
the police station preparing for the police operation
called Oplan Bugaw for the purpose of eliminating
prostitution on Quezon Avenue. PO1 Escober,
designated to pose as customer, was accompanied
by P02 Bereber as his backup, and P/lnsp. Lopez. While
parking their vehicles at the target area, PO1 Escober
was flagged down by Rodriguez who allegedly
offered the sexual services of three (3) pickup girls.
PO1 Escober readily gave Rodriguez the pre-marked
₱500.00 bill as payment. This signaled his backup to
enter the scene and aid in the arrest. PO1 Escober
then retrieved the pre-marked bill. Thereafter, the
officers brought Rodriguez and the three (3) pickup
girls to the police station.
In his defense, Rodriguez denied that he had offered
a girl for sexual purposes to PO1 Escober.
Issue: Whether or not appellant is guilty of qualified
trafficking in persons.
Held: No. Section 3(a)29 provides the elements of
trafficking in persons: (1) the recruitment,
transportation, transfer or harboring, or receipts 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.
In the instant case, only PO1 Escober testified as to the
actual unfolding of circumstances which led him to
believe that Rodriguez was committing human
trafficking. The prosecution did not bother to present
the testimonies of the alleged victims. Their testimonies
that they were sexually exploited against their will
through force, threat or other means of coercion are
material to the cause of the prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: The gravamen of the crime of
human trafficking is not so much the offer of a woman
or child; it is the act of recruiting or using, with or
without consent, a fellow human being for sexual
exploitation.
PEOPLE vs. VILLANUEVA
PEOPLE v. LUISITO GABORNE Y CINCO
Facts: On 2 February 2007 at around 10:30 in the
evening, Rey Perfecto De Luna (De Luna) and Sixto
Elizan (Elizan) entered a videoke bar[8] at Barangay
Mugdo, Hinabangan, Samar. Noli Abayan (Abayan),
appellant and Joselito Bardelas (Bardelas) followed
five minutes thereafter. While Elizan and De Luna were
drinking, singing and merely having fun, four
successive gunshots[11] were fired through the
window. Because of this, Elizan and De Luna were hit
from behind. Later on, De Luna and Marialinisa
Pasana (Pasana) saw appellant, who was then
wearing a black t-shirt and a black cap, holding a gun
aimed at their location. Pasana also saw accused-
appellant and Bardelas escape after the incident.
Elizan and De Luna were brought to St. Paul's Hospital
at Tacloban City. Unfortunately, Elizan was
pronounced dead upon arrival. De Luna, on the other
hand, survived. Appellant steadfastly denied the
accusations. According to him, he and his
companions ordered for bottles of beer. However,
when they tried to order for more bottles, the waitress
refused to give them their order unless they pay for
their previous orders first. While Abayan was explaining
to the father of the owner of the videoke bar,
appellant and Bardelas went out to urinate,[19]
however, the waitress locked the front door. While
standing outside, he heard the waitress utter the
words, "If you will not pay, I [will] have you killed, all of
you, right this moment. He also consistently contend
that it was a man wearing black shirt and camouflage
pants who fired shots to the videoke bar, not him. The
following day, appellant and Bardelas were arrested
and underwent paraffin test.
Issues: We find that the degree of proof required in
criminal cases has been met in the case at bar.
Appellant's defenses of denial and alibi are bereft of
merit.
Held: Elements of Murder and Frustrated Murder were
established. This Court finds that the circumstance of
treachery should be appreciated, qualifying the
crime to Murder.
Thus, the elements of murder are: (1) that a person
was killed; (2) that the accused killed him or her; (3)
that the killing was attended by any of the qualifying
circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of the RPC;
and (4) that the killing is not parricide or infanticide.
Furthermore, there is treachery when the offender
commits any of the crimes against the person,
employing means, methods or forms in the execution
thereof, which tend directly and specially to insure its possession of firearm and the commission of homicide
execution, without risk to himself arising from the or murder with the use of unlicensed firearm as a single
defense which the offended party might make. The offense. In the case at hand, since it was proven that
requisites of treachery are:(1) The employment of accused-appellant was not a licensed firearm holder,
means method, or manner of execution which will and that he was positively identified by the witnesses
ensure the safety of the malefactor from defensive or as the one who fired shots against the victims, the use
retaliating acts on the part of the victim, no of an unlicensed firearm in the commission of the
opportunity being given to the latter to defend himself crimes of Murder and Frustrated Murder should be
or to retaliate; and (2) Deliberate or conscious considered as an aggravating circumstance thereof.
adoption of such means, method, or manner of The presence of such aggravating circumstance
execution. In this case, the hapless victims were would have merited the imposition of the death
merely drinking and singing in-front of the videoke penalty for the crime of Murder. However, in view of
machine when shot by the appellant. The firing was so R.A. No. 9346, we are mandated to impose on
sudden and swift that they had no opportunity to appellant the penalty of reclusion perpetua without
defend themselves or to retaliate. Furthermore, eligibility for parole.
appellant's acts of using a gun and even going out of
the videoke bar evidently show that he consciously
adopted means to ensure the execution of the
crime.In addition, the lower courts appropriately
found appellant liable for the crime of Frustrated
Murder. A felony is frustrated when the offender
performs all the acts of execution which would
produce the felony as a consequence but which,
nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes
independent of the will of the perpetrator.[40]Dr.
Angel Cordero M.D. categorically said that De Luna
could have died because of the wounds if the surgery
was not conducted timely. Hence, appellant
performed all the acts of execution which could have
produced the crime of murder as a consequence, but
nevertheless, did not produce it by reason of a cause
independent of his will, which is, in this case, the timely
and able medical attendance rendered to De Luna.

Illegal Possession of Firearm as an aggravating

circumstance in the crimes of Murder and Frustrated
Murder. The CA appropriately appreciated the use of
an unlicensed firearm as an aggravating
circumstance in the crimes of Murder and Frustrated
Murder. Under R.A. No. 1059, use of loose firearm in the
commission of a crime, like murder, shall be
considered as an aggravating circumstance. In view
of the amendments introduced by R.A. No. 8294 and
R.A. No. 10591, to Presidential Decree No. 1866,
separate prosecutions for homicide and illegal
possession are no longer in order. Instead, illegal
possession of firearm is merely to be taken as an
aggravating circumstance in the crime of murder. It is
clear from the foregoing that where murder results
from the use of an unlicensed firearm, the crime is not
qualified illegal possession but, murder. In such a case,
the use of the unlicensed firearm is not considered as
a separate crime but shall be appreciated as a mere
aggravating circumstance. Thus, where murder was
committed, the penalty for illegal possession of
firearms is no longer imposable since it becomes
merely a special aggravating circumstance. The
intent of Congress is to treat the offense of illegal