THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MARLON BORJA Y MILEDA, JUNEI CAZAR Y CARDONA, AND EDELYN PATALINGHOG Y LEQUIGAN ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

People versus Borja

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Marlon Borja, Junei Cazar, and Edelyn Patalinghog for qualified trafficking in persons under the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003. The accused were charged with recruiting and transporting three minor girls from Quezon City to a videoke bar in Maddela, Quirino, where the girls were made to entertain customers and were offered for sexual services. The case matters because it shows how the Supreme Court reads the trafficking law: recruitment alone, done for the purpose of prostitution or sexual exploitation, completes the crime, and the consent or ignorance of the victim does not excuse the trafficker.

Procedural History

The Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 94, after trial, rendered a decision on 2 December 2011 finding all three accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 4, paragraph (a), of Republic Act No. 9208. Each was sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of two million pesos, with costs, and with the period of incarceration credited under Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code. The accused appealed directly to the Supreme Court, assigning a single error: that the trial court gravely erred in convicting them when their guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.

Facts

On 5 October 2010, Edelyn Patalinghog sent a text message to Apple Lambojon, a minor, asking whether she wanted work. Apple met Edelyn at the EDSA Munoz bridge, where Edelyn, Marlon Borja, and Gilbert Palomar offered her a job without telling her what it was, promising five thousand pesos, clothing, food, and shelter. Edelyn told Apple to bring friends. Apple then brought Maria Gloria Silverio, and later Rosemarie Serrador and Mary Cris Gadi joined them, all lured by the same promise of work and money.

The group traveled by bus toward Tuguegarao. At Cordon, Isabela, they met Junei Cazar, who paid their fare, and they rode his van to Maddela, Quirino, arriving at the house of Abet, Cazar's wife. On their second day, the girls began working at Abet's Videoke Bar, first as waitresses, then as entertainers. Customers embraced them, kissed them, touched their private parts, and bought them beer from which the girls earned a fifty-peso commission. Customers sometimes offered to take them out for sex, which they refused. Maria Gloria and Rosemarie were later transferred to Elmar Videoke Bar, doing the same work. They wanted to leave but had no money for fare and did not know which bus to take.

On 18 October 2010, Mary Cris Gadi escaped and returned to Quezon City, where she reported what happened. After being referred from one office to another, she reached the CIDG on 29 October 2010. A rescue operation was mounted, and on 30 October 2010 the police rescued Apple, Rosemarie, and Maria Gloria from the two videoke bars and apprehended Marlon Borja and Junei Cazar. Edelyn Patalinghog was arrested later that evening after Apple, at the police's request, texted her to meet. The accused denied the charges, claiming the girls went to Maddela for a vacation and that they were merely caught up in a rescue operation.

Issues

• Whether or not the guilt of the accused-appellants for violation of Section 4, paragraph (a), of the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003 was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
• Whether or not the acts of recruiting and transporting the minor victims for the purpose of prostitution and sexual exploitation constitute trafficking in persons under the law.
• Whether or not the bare denials of the accused can prevail over the positive testimony of the prosecution witnesses.

Applicable Provisions

Section 3, paragraph (a), of Republic Act No. 9208 defines trafficking in persons:

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.

This definition supplies the elements of the crime and makes clear that the victim's consent or knowledge is immaterial.

Section 4, paragraph (a), of the same law enumerates the prohibited act charged:

(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.

This is the actus reus of the offense for which the accused were convicted.

Section 6, paragraph (c), qualifies the crime when committed by a syndicate or in large scale:

Section 6. Qualified Trafficking in Persons. - The following are considered as qualified trafficking: (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.

This provision raises the offense to qualified trafficking because three or more persons conspired and three or more victims were involved.

Section 10, paragraph (c), fixes the penalty for qualified trafficking:

(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).

This is the basis for the sentence of life imprisonment and a two-million-peso fine imposed on each accused.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court did not err in giving full weight to the candid, positive, and convincing testimony of the minor complainants and of Mary Cris Gadi over the bare denials of the accused. The Court stressed that trafficking under Sections 3 and 4 is not limited to transporting victims; it also includes recruiting them. Here, the minor victims were recruited and transported to another place to work as prostitutes, and they were not told beforehand the nature of the work. They were enticed by the promise of money, clothing, food, and shelter, and only on their second day did they realize they were being employed as prostitutes.

On the second issue, the Court held that the acts of the accused squarely fall within Section 4, paragraph (a). The Court also noted that the crime was qualified, since it was carried out by a group of three or more persons conspiring with one another and against three or more persons. The Court further held that a child, regardless of age, can be a competent witness if he can perceive and make his perception known to others and can relate the facts truthfully, and that the testimony of a child victim, when clear and straightforward, is given full weight and credit.

On the third issue, the Court held that denial is an inherently weak defense that must be supported by strong evidence of non-culpability. The positive declarations of prosecution witnesses prevail over bare denials, which are negative and self-serving and deserve no weight in law.

Doctrine

Trafficking in persons is committed not only by transporting victims but also by recruiting them, by any means, for the purpose of prostitution, pornography, or sexual exploitation. The victim's consent or knowledge is immaterial under Section 3, paragraph (a). The crime is qualified when committed by a syndicate of three or more persons conspiring together, or in large scale against three or more persons, and the penalty is life imprisonment and a fine of not less than two million pesos but not more than five million pesos. A child may be a competent witness if he can perceive, make his perception known, and relate facts truthfully, and his clear and straightforward testimony is given full weight and credit. Bare denial, being inherently weak and self-serving, cannot overcome positive and affirmative testimony.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction of all three accused for qualified trafficking in persons, with life imprisonment and a fine of two million pesos each.

Remember This

Memorize this line: recruitment alone, for the purpose of prostitution or sexual exploitation, completes trafficking in persons, and the victim's consent or ignorance is immaterial. Examiners use this case to test the elements of trafficking under Section 4, paragraph (a), the qualified nature of the crime under Section 6, and the rule that positive testimony prevails over bare denial.