Garingarao v People, GR No.

192760

FACTS: AAA was brought to the Virgen Milagrosa Medical Center by her father BBB and mother CCC due to fever and
abdominal pain. In the morning, BBB and CCC left to attend to his office and CCC to the family store. When they
returned AAA said that she wanted to go home; she was permitted by Dr. Morante to be discharged from the hospital
with instructions that she should continue her medications. Upon coming home AAA revealed that Garingao (nurse
on duty that day) sexually abused her.
An Information was filed against Garingarao for acts of lasciviousness in relation to RA 7610. During the trial,
AAA testified that, Garingarao, entered her room to check her medications and if she was still experiencing pains.
Garingarao lifted AAA’s bra and touched her left breast and insisted that he was only examining her. Garingarao also
slid his finger inside AAA’s private part and only stopped when he saw that AAA really had her monthly period. In
his defense, the accused testified that he went inside AAA’s room to administer her medicines and check her vital
signs. Garingarao alleged that the filing of the case was motivated by the argument he had with AAA’s father about
the administering of medicines. He was supported by the testimony of the nursing aide, Tamayo. Garingarao further
alleged that, assuming the charges were correct, there was only one incident when he allegedly touched AAA and as
such, he should have been convicted only of acts of lasciviousness and not of violation of RA 7610. The RTC found
Garingarao guilty as charged and gave credence to the testimony of AAA over Garingarao’s denial. He appealed the
decision, however the CA ruled that Garingao should be convicted under RA 7610 because AAA was 16 years old
when the crime was committed; according to the CA the offender shall be charged with rape or lascivious conduct
under the RPC only if the victim is below 12 years old, otherwise the provisions of RA 7610 shall prevail

ISSUE/S: W/N the accused is liable under RA 7610

RULING: Yes. Garingarao insists that it was physically impossible for him to commit the acts charged against him
because there were many patients and hospital employees around. He further alleges that assuming the charges
were correct, there was only once incident when he allegedly touched AAA and as such, he should have been
convicted only of acts of lasciviousness and not of violation of RA 7610
Court has ruled that in cases of acts of lasciviousness the lone testimony of the offended party, if credible, is
sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. Also, denial and alibi are considered weak defenses against the positive
identification by the victim
Elements of Sexual Abuse under Section 5, Article III of RA 7610:
o Accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct
o Said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; and
o The child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age

Lascivious Conduct (Section 32, Article XIII of the IRR of RA 7610)

o The intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner
thigh, or buttocks, or the introduction of any object into the genitalia, anus or mouth, of any person,
whether of the same or opposite sex, with the intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse
or gratify the sexual desire of any person, bestiality, masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the
genitals or pubic area of a person

Prosecution was able to establish that Garingarao touched AAA’s breasts and inserted his finger into her private part
for his sexual gratification—he used his influence as a nurse by pretending that his actions were part of the physical
examination he was doing. A child is deemed subject to other sexual abuse when the child is the victim of lascivious
conduct under the coercion or influence of any adult—there must be some form of compulsion equivalent to
intimidation which subdues the free exercise of the offended party’s free will. Garingarao coerced AAA into
submitting to his lascivious acts by pretending that he was examining her.
ON THE INCIDENT ONLY HAPPENING ONCE

 Section 3(b) of RA 7610 provides that the abuse may be habitual or not
 o The fact that the offense occurred only once is enough to hold Garingarao liable for acts of
lasciviousness under RA 7610

People vs Lalli, GR 195419, October 12, 2011

Facts: The complainant here was approached by one of the accused asking her if she wanted a job in Malaysia as a
restaurant entertainer. However, she didn’t have a passport and was chided by the accused to use her sister’s
passport instead. One of the accused assured that it will not be a problem as they have a contact in the DFA who will
arrange it. Upon arrival in Malaysia, she and her companions were brought to a restaurant where they found out
from another Filipino worker that it is a prostitution den and that the women there are prostitutes. She eventually
worked as a prostitute there and was subjected to sexual intercourse with different men. One day she was able to
contact her other sister and informed her about her situation. One day her sister’s husband came to the restaurant
and helped her escape.
Issue: W/N the accused are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of illegal recruitment and trafficking in
persons
Ruling: Yes. It is clear that a person or entity engaged in recruitment and placement activities without the requisite
authority from the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), whether for profit or not, is engaged in illegal
recruitment. The Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA), an agency under DOLE created by
Executive Order No. 797 to take over the duties of the Overseas Employment Development Board, issues the
authority to recruit under the Labor Code. The commission of illegal recruitment by three or more persons
conspiring or confederating with one another is deemed committed by a syndicate and constitutes economic
sabotage.
In People v. Gallo, the Court enumerated the elements of syndicated illegal recruitment, to wit:
the offender undertakes either any activity within the meaning of recruitment and placement defined under Article
13(b), or any of the prohibited practices enumerated under Art. 34 of the Labor Code;
he has no valid license or authority required by law to enable one to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement
of workers; and
the illegal recruitment is committed by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring or confederating with one
another.
Aringoy claims and admits that he only referred Lolita to Lalli for job opportunities to Malaysia. Such act of referring,
whether for profit or not, in connivance with someone without a POEA license, is already considered illegal
recruitment, given the broad definition of recruitment and placement in the Labor Code.
In this case, Lolita would not have been able to go to Malaysia if not for the concerted efforts
of Aringoy, Lalli and Relampagos. First, it was Aringoy who knew Lolita, since Aringoy was a neighbor of Lolitas
grandfather. It was Aringoy who referred Lolita to Lalli, a fact clearly admitted by Aringoy. Second, Lolita would not
have been able to go to Malaysia if Lalli had not purchased Lolitas boat ticket to Malaysia.
It is clear that through the concerted efforts of Aringoy, Lalli and Relampagos, Lolita was recruited and deployed to
Malaysia to work as a prostitute. Such conspiracy among Aringoy, Lalli and Relampagos could be deduced from the
manner in which the crime was perpetrated each of the accused played a pivotal role in perpetrating the crime of
illegal recruitment, and evinced a joint common purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest.
The crime of Trafficking in Persons is qualified when committed by a syndicate, as provided in Section 6(c) of RA
9208:
(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.
Trafficking in Persons under Sections 3(a) and 4 of RA 9208 is not only limited to transportation of victims, but also
includes the act of recruitment of victims for trafficking. In this case, since it has been sufficiently proven beyond
reasonable doubt, as discussed in Criminal Case No. 21930, that all the three accused (Aringoy,Lalli and Relampagos)
conspired and confederated with one another to illegally recruit Lolita to become a prostitute in Malaysia, it follows
that they are also guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Qualified Trafficking in Persons committed by a
syndicate under RA 9208 because the crime of recruitment for prostitution also constitutes trafficking.