08/02/2017, 4*52 PM

Supreme Court of the Philippines

Batas.org

Please donate to keep Batas.org free.

Go to www.batas.org/donate to donate

G.R. No. 195419

SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 195419, October 12, 2011
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
VS. HADJA JARMA LALLI Y PURIH, RONNIE ARINGOY Y
MASION, AND NESTOR RELAMPAGOS (AT LARGE),
ACCUSED.
HADJA JARMA LALLI Y PURIH AND RONNIE ARINGOY
Y MASION, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.
DECISION
CARPIO, J.:

The Case

file:///Applications/batas%20app/cases/G.R.%20No.%20195419,%20October%2012,%202011.htm Page 1 of 26
 08/02/2017, 4*52 PM

This is a consolidated criminal case filed against the accused-appellants for the
crimes of Illegal Recruitment (Criminal Case No. 21930) and Trafficking in
Persons (Criminal Case No. 21908).

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Zamboanga City, in its Decision dated 29
November 2005 (RTC Decision),[1] found accused-appellants guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crimes of Illegal Recruitment and Trafficking in
Persons committed by a syndicate, and sentenced each of the accused to suffer
the penalty of life imprisonment plus payment of fines and damages. On
appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) in Cagayan de Oro, in its Decision dated 26
February 2010 (CA Decision),[2] affirmed in toto the RTC Decision. The
accused-appellants appealed to this Court by filing a Notice of Appeal[3] in
accordance with Section 3(c), Rule 122 of the Rules of Court.

The Facts

The findings of fact of the RTC, which were affirmed in toto by the CA, are as
follows:

In the evening of June 3, 2005, while Lolita Sagadsad Plando, 23

years old, single, was in Tumaga, Zamboanga City on her way to the
house of her grandfather, she met Ronnie Masion Aringoy and
Rachel Aringoy Caete. Ronnie greeted Lolita, "Oy, it's good you are
here" ("oy, maayo kay dia ka"). Rachel asked Lolita if she is interested
to work in Malaysia. x x x Lolita was interested so she gave her
cellphone number to Ronnie. After their conversation, Lolita
proceeded to her grandfather's house.

xxx

On June 4, 2005, at about 7:00 o'clock in the morning, Lolita received

a text message from Ronnie Aringoy inviting her to go to the latter's
house. At 7:30 in the morning, they met at Tumaga on the road near
the place where they had a conversation the night before. Ronnie
brought Lolita to the house of his sister in Tumaga. Lolita inquired
what job is available in Malaysia. Ronnie told her that she will work as
a restaurant entertainer. All that is needed is a passport. She will be
paid 500 Malaysian ringgits which is equivalent to P7,000.00 pesos in
Philippine currency. Lolita told Ronnie that she does not have a

file:///Applications/batas%20app/cases/G.R.%20No.%20195419,%20October%2012,%202011.htm Page 2 of 26
 08/02/2017, 4*52 PM

passport. Ronnie said that they will look for a passport so she could
leave immediately. Lolita informed him that her younger sister, Marife
Plando, has a passport. Ronnie chided her for not telling him
immediately. He told Lolita that she will leave for Malaysia on June 6,
2005 and they will go to Hadja Jarma Lalli who will bring her to
Malaysia. Ronnie sent a text message to Lalli but the latter replied
that she was not in her house. She was at the city proper.

On June 5, 2005, at about 6:00 o'clock in the evening, Ronnie

Aringoy and Rachel Aringoy Caete arrived on board a tricycle driven
by Ronnie at the house where Lolita was staying at Southcom Village.
Ronnie asked if Lolita already had a passport. Lolita said that she will
borrow her sister's passport. Ronnie, Rachel and Lolita went to
Buenavista where Lolita's other sister, Gina Plando was staying. Her
sister Marife Plando was there at that time. Lolita asked Marife to let
her use Marife's passport. Marife refused but Lolita got the passport.
Marife cried. Ronnie, Rachel and Lolita proceeded to Tumaga.
Ronnie, Rachel and Lolita went to the house of Hadja Jarma Lalli just
two hundred meters away from the house of Ronnie in Tumaga.
Ronnie introduced Lolita to Hadja Jarma, saying "Ji, she is also
interested in going to Malaysia." Lolita handed a passport to Hadja
Jarma telling her that it belongs to her sister Marife Plando. Hadja
Jarma told her it is not a problem because they have a connection
with the DFA (Department of Foreign Affairs) and Marife's picture
in the passport will be substituted with Lolita's picture. Nestor
Relampagos arrived driving an owner-type jeep. Hadja Jarma
introduced Nestor to Lolita as their financier who will accompany
them to Malaysia. x x x Lolita noticed three other women in Hadja
Jarma's house. They were Honey, about 20 years old; Michele, 19
years old, and another woman who is about 28 years old. The women
said that they are from Ipil, Sibugay Province. Ronnie told Lolita that
she will have many companions going to Malaysia to work. They will
leave the next day, June 6, and will meet at the wharf at 2:30 in the
afternoon.

On June 6, 2005, Lolita went to Zamboanga City wharf at 2:00

o'clock in the afternoon bringing a bag containing her make-up and
powder. She met at the wharf Hadja Jarma Lalli, Ronnie Aringoy,
Honey and Michele. Ronnie gave to Lolita her boat ticket for the
vessel M/V Mary Joy bound for Sandakan, Malaysia; a passport in the
name of Marife Plando but with Lolita's picture on it, and P1,000.00
in cash. Hadja Jarma, Lolita, Honey, Michele and two other women

file:///Applications/batas%20app/cases/G.R.%20No.%20195419,%20October%2012,%202011.htm Page 3 of 26
 08/02/2017, 4*52 PM

boarded the boat M/V Mary Joy bound for Sandakan. Ronnie
Aringoy did not go with them. He did not board the boat. x x x After
the boat sailed, Hadja Jarma Lalli and Nestor Relampagos
approached Lolita and her companions. Nestor told them that they
will have a good job in Malaysia as restaurant entertainers. They will
serve food to customers. They will not be harmed.

M/V Mary Joy arrived at the port of Sandakan, Malaysia at 10:00

o'clock in the morning of June 7, 2005. After passing through the
immigration office, Hadja Jarma Lalli, Nestor Relampagos, Lolita,
Honey, Michele and two other women boarded a van for Kota
Kinabalu. x x x At the hotel, Nestor Relampagos introduced to Lolita
and her companions a Chinese Malay called "Boss" as their employer.
After looking at the women, "Boss" brought Lolita, Honey, Diane
and Lorraine to a restaurant near the hotel. Diane and Lorraine were
also on baord M/V Mary Joy when it left the port of Zamboanga for
Sandakan on June 6, 2005. When they were already at the restaurant,
a Filipina woman working there said that the place is a prostitution
den and the women there are used as prostitutes. Lolita and her
companions went back to the hotel. They told Hadja Jarma and
Nestor that they do not like to work as prostitutes. x x x After about
five minutes, another person called "boss" arrived. x x x [T]hey were
fetched by a van at about 7:00 o'clock in the evening and brought to
Pipen Club owned by "Boss Awa", a Malaysian. At the club, they
were told that they owe the club 2,000 ringgits each as payment for
the amount given by the club to Hadja Jarma Lalli and Nestor
Relampagos. They will pay for the said amount by entertaining
customers. The customers will pay 300 ringgits for short time
services of which 50 ringgits will go to the entertainer, and 500
ringgits for over night service of which 100 ringgits will be given to
the entertainer. Pipen Club is a big club in a two-storey building.
There were about 100 women working in the club, many of them
were Filipina women.

Lolita Plando was forced to work as entertainer at Pipen Club. She

started working at 8:30 in the evening of June 14, 2005. She was
given the number 60 which was pinned on her. That night, she had
her first customer who selected her among the other women at the
club. He was a very big man, about 32 years old, a Chinese-Malay
who looked like a wrestler. The man paid for short time service at the
counter. Lolita was given by the cashier a small pink paper. She was
instructed to keep it. A small yellow paper is given to the entertainer

file:///Applications/batas%20app/cases/G.R.%20No.%20195419,%20October%2012,%202011.htm Page 4 of 26
 08/02/2017, 4*52 PM

for overnight services. The customer brought Lolita to a hotel. She

did not like to go with him but a "boss" at the club told her that she
could not do anything. At the hotel, the man poked a gun at Lolita
and instructed her to undress. She refused. The man boxed her on
the side of her body. She could not bear the pain. The man
undressed her and had sexual intercourse with her. He had sexual
intercourse with her every fifteen minutes or four times in one hour.
When the customer went inside the comfort room, Lolita put on her
clothes and left. The customer followed her and wanted to bring her
back to the hotel but Lolita refused. At about 1:00 o'clock in the
morning of June 15, 2005, Lolita was chosen by another customer, a
tall dark man, about 40 years old. The customer paid for an overnight
service at the counter and brought Lolita to Mariner Hotel which is
far from Pipen Club. At the hotel, the man told Lolita to undress.
When she refused, the man brought her to the comfort room and
bumped her head on the wall. Lolita felt dizzy. The man opened the
shower and said that both of them will take a bath. Lolita's clothes
got wet. She was crying. The man undressed her and had sexual
intercourse with her. They stayed at the hotel until 11:00 o'clock in
the morning of June 15, 2005. The customer used Lolita many times.
He had sexual intercourse with her every hour.

Lolita worked at Pipen Club from June 14 to July 8, 2005. Every

night, a customer used her. She had at least one customer or more a
night, and at most, she had around five customers a night. They all
had sexual intercourse with her. On July 9, 2005, Lolita was able to
contact by cellphone at about 10:00 o'clock in the morning her sister
Janet Plando who is staying at Sipangkot Felda x x x. Janet is married
to Said Abubakar, an Indonesian national who is working as a driver
in the factory. x x x Lolita told Janet that she is in Labuan, Malaysia
and beg Janet to save her because she was sold as a prostitute. Janet
told Lolita to wait because her husband will go to Pipen Club to fetch
Lolita at 9:00 o'clock that evening of that day. x x x She told Janet to
instruct her husband to ask for No. 60 at Pipen Club. x x x At 9:00
o'clock in the evening, Lolita was told by Daddy Richard, one of the
bosses at the club, that a customer requested for No. 60. The man
was seated at one of the tables. Lolita approached the man and said,
"good evening." The man asked her is she is the sister of Janet
Plando. Lolita replied that she is, and asked the man if he is the
husband of her sister. He said, "yes." The man had already paid at the
counter. He stood up and left the place. Lolita got her wallet and
followed him. x x x Lolita told her sister about her ordeal. She stayed

file:///Applications/batas%20app/cases/G.R.%20No.%20195419,%20October%2012,%202011.htm Page 5 of 26
 08/02/2017, 4*52 PM

at her sister's house until July 22, 2005. On July 21, 2005 at 7:00
o'clock in the evening, a policeman went to her sisters house and
asked if there is a woman staying in the house without a passport.
Her sister told the policeman that she will send Lolita home on July
22. At dawn on July 22, Lolita and her brother-in-law took a taxi
from Sipangkot Felda to Mananamblas where Lolita will board a
speedboat to Sibuto, Tawi-Tawi. x x x

Upon arrival in Zamboanga City on July 24, 2005, Lolita went

directly to the house of her eldest sister Alejandra Plando Maywila at
Sta. Catalina, Zamboanga City. She left her things at her sister's house
and immediately went to the sister of Ronnie Aringoy in Tumaga.
Ronnie was not there. She asked Russel, niece of Ronnie, to call for
the latter. Ronnie arrived and said to her, "so you are here, you
arrived already." He said he is not involved in what happened to her.
Lolita asked Ronnie to accompany her to the house of Nestor
Relampagos because she has something to get from him. Ronnie
refused. He told Lolita not to let them know that she had already
arrived from Malaysia.

Lolita was advised to file a complaint with the police regarding her
ordeal in Malaysia. On August 2, 2005, at past 9:00 o'clock in the
morning, Lolita Plando went to Zamboanga Police Office at Gov.
Lim Avenue to file her complaint. x x x

In her Counter-Affidavit (Exh. "1"; "1-A"-Lalli), Hadja Jarma Lalli

admitted that she met Lolita Plando on June 6, 2005 on board M/V
Mary Joy while the said vessel was at sea on its way to Sandakan,
Malaysia. The meeting was purely coincidental. By coincidence also,
Hadja Jarma, Nestor Relampagos and Lolita Plando boarded the
same van for Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia. Upon arrival, they parted
ways. They did not see each other anymore at Kota Kinabalu,
Malaysia. She did not know what happened to them. She went to
Kota Kinabalu to visit his son-in-law. She denied having recruited
Lolita Plando for employment abroad (Exh. "1"; "1-A"). x x x

In his Counter-Affidavit (Exh. "1"-Aringoy), Ronnie Aringoy

affirmed that he personally knows Lolita Plando since she was a
teenager and he knows for a fact that her name is Cristine and not
Marife "as she purports it to appear." Sometime in the first week of
June 2005, Lolita borrowed P1,000.00 from Ronnie because she
wanted to go to Malaysia to work as a guest relation officer (GRO).

file:///Applications/batas%20app/cases/G.R.%20No.%20195419,%20October%2012,%202011.htm Page 6 of 26
 08/02/2017, 4*52 PM

Ronnie lent her P1,000.00. He told her that he knows "a certain
Hadja Jarma Lalli, distant neighbor, who frequents to Malaysia and
with whom she can ask pertinent information on job opportunities."
The entries in Philippine Passport No. MM401136 issued to Hadja
Jarma Lalli on January 29, 2004 (Exh. "2"; "2-A" to "2-Q") showed
that she traveled to Malaysia no less than nine (9) times within the
period from March 2004 to June 2005.

xxx

Nora Mae Adling, ticketing clerk of Aleson Shipping Lines, owner of

the vessel M/V Mary Joy 2 plying Zamboanga City to Sandakan,
Malaysia route and of M/V Kristel Jane 3, testified that Hadja Jarma
Lalli bought passenger tickets for her travel to Sandakan, not only for
herself but also for other women passengers.

xxx

Ronnie Aringoy submitted the Affidavit of his witness Rachel Caete

(Exh. "2") and the Joint Affidavits of witnesses Mercedita Salazar
and Estrella Galgan. Rachel Canete declared that Lolita Plando
whom she knows as Cristine Plando worked as a GRO (guest relation
officer) and massage attendant at Magic 2 Videoke and Massage
Parlor, that Lolita Plando has four children sired by different men;
and that she knows for a fact that Lolita Plando has been going to
and from Malaysia to work in bars. When she testified in court,
Rachel did not present other evidence to substantiate her allegations.
Mercedita Salazar and Estrella Galgan declared in their Joint Affidavit
that Lolita Plando who is known to them as Marife Plando was their
co-worker as massage attendant and GRO (guest relation officer) at
Magic 2 Massage Parlor and Karaoke bar where she used the names
Gina Plando and Cristine Plando. She worked in the said
establishment for nine months from February to October 2002. She
has four children from four different men. No other evidence was
submitted in court to prove their assertions.[4]

The Decision of the Trial Court

The Regional Trial Court rendered its Decision on 29 November 2005, with its
dispositive portion declaring:

file:///Applications/batas%20app/cases/G.R.%20No.%20195419,%20October%2012,%202011.htm Page 7 of 26
 08/02/2017, 4*52 PM

WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused HADJA JARMA LALLI y

PURIH and RONNIE ARINGOY y MASION GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. 21908 of the Crime of
Trafficking in Persons defined in Section 3(a) and penalized under
Section 10(c) in relation to Sections 4(a) and 6(c) of Republic Act
No. 9208 known as the "Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003"
and in Criminal Case No. 21930 of the crime of Illegal Recruitment
defined in Section 6 and penalized under Section 7(b) of Republic
Act No. 8042 known as the "Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos
Act of 1995" and SENTENCES each of said accused:

1. In Criminal Case No. 21908, to suffer the penalty of LIFE

IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of P2,000,000.00 pesos;

2. In Criminal Case No. 21930, to suffer the penalty of LIFE

IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of P500,000.00 pesos;

3. To pay the offended party Lolita Plando y Sagadsad, jointly and

severally, the sum of P50,000.00 as moral damages, and
P50,000.00 as exemplary damages; and

4. To pay the costs.

SO ORDERED.[5]

The trial court did not find credible the denials of the accused-appellants over
the candid, positive and convincing testimony of complainant Lolita Plando
(Lolita). The accused, likewise, tried to prove that Lolita was a Guest Relations
Officer (GRO) in the Philippines with four children fathered by four different
men. However, the trial court found these allegations irrelevant and immaterial
to the criminal prosecution. These circumstances, even if true, would not
exempt or mitigate the criminal liability of the accused. The trial court found
that the accused, without a POEA license, conspired in recruiting Lolita and
trafficking her as a prostitute, resulting in crimes committed by a syndicate.[6]
The trial court did not pronounce the liability of accused-at-large Nestor
Relampagos (Relampagos) because jurisdiction was not acquired over his
person.

The Decision of the Court of Appeals

file:///Applications/batas%20app/cases/G.R.%20No.%20195419,%20October%2012,%202011.htm Page 8 of 26
 08/02/2017, 4*52 PM

On 26 February 2010, the Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the RTC Decision
and found accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of
Illegal Recruitment and Trafficking in Persons.

The Issue

The only issue in this case is whether the Court of Appeals committed a
reversible error in affirming in toto the RTC Decision.

The Ruling of this Court

We dismiss the appeal for lack of merit.

We modify and increase the payment of damages in the crime of Trafficking in

Persons from P50,000 to P500,000 for moral damages and P50,000 to P100,000
for exemplary damages.

Grounds for Appeal

In his Appeal Brief,[7] Ronnie Aringoy (Aringoy) admits that he referred Lolita
to a certain Hadja Jarma Lalli (Lalli), Aringoy's neighbor who frequents
Malaysia and from whom Lolita could ask pertinent information on job
opportunities.[8] Aringoy claims that he learned later that Lolita left for
Malaysia.[9] He denies knowing Relampagos to whom Lolita paid P28,000 as
placement fee for finding her work in Malaysia.[10]

Aringoy presented three witnesses: his niece Rachel Aringoy Caete (Rachel),
Mercedita Salazar (Mercedita), and Estrella Galgan (Estrella). In her testimony,
Rachel declared that: (1) Lolita is a GRO and Massage Attendant at Magic 2
Videoke and Massage Parlor; (2) Lolita has four children sired by different men;
and (3) Lolita has been travelling to Malaysia to work in bars. Mercedita and
Estrella, on the other hand, declared in their testimonies that Lolita was their
co-worker as Massage Attendant and GRO in Magic 2 Massage Parlor and
Karaoke Bar from February to October 2002.[11]

Aringoy assailed the credibility of Lolita's testimony because of inconsistencies

with regard to: (1) Lolita's grandfather's status and name; (2) the persons
(Ronnie and Rachel) who approached Lolita to talk about the job opportunity
in Malaysia; (3) certain statements in Lolita's testimony that were not alleged in
her Sworn Statement; (4) payment of placement fee of ?28,000; and (5) names
file:///Applications/batas%20app/cases/G.R.%20No.%20195419,%20October%2012,%202011.htm Page 9 of 26
 08/02/2017, 4*52 PM

of the other female recruits who were with Lolita in the boat going to Sandakan
and Kota Kinabalu.[12] Aringoy likewise claims that he was never included in
the initial complaint filed by Lolita, and Lolita's statements about her meetings
with him, Lalli and Relampagos on 3, 4, 5 and 6 June 2005 were not
corroborated by any witness.[13]

On the other hand, in her Appeal Brief,[14] Lalli claims that she simply met
Lolita on 6 June 2005 on board the ship M/V Mary Joy bound for Sandakan,
Malaysia.[15] Lalli denies having met Lolita prior to their meeting on board
M/V Mary Joy.[16] Lalli claims she was going to Malaysia to visit her daughter
and son-in-law who was a Malaysian national.[17] Lalli further claims that she
only spoke to Lolita aboard the ship for idle conversation to pass away the time.
[18] In this conversation, she learned that Lolita was with a party of girls
accompanied by Relampagos, and the latter was bringing them to Malaysia to
work as sales ladies.[19] Lalli admits that Lolita, Relampagos and the other girls
rode in Lalli's van in Sandakan, driven by a friend of Lalli's son-in-law.[20] They
all rode together because Relampagos talked to the van driver, requesting if he
and his party of girls could board the van and pay their fare when they reach
the city proper of Kota Kinabalu.[21] Lalli boarded the van with Lolita,
Relampagos and their companions.[22] Upon reaching her destination, Lalli got
off the van, leaving Lolita, Relampagos and their other companions to continue
their journey towards the city proper of Kota Kinabalu.[23] After spending
several days in Malaysia with her daughter and son-in-law, Lalli went to Brunei
to visit a cousin on 12 June 2005, and headed back to Malaysia on 14 June 2005.
[24]

Lalli assails the credibility of Lolita due to inconsistencies in her testimony with
regard to: (1) Lolita not being in Southcom Village on 5 June 2005 at 6:00 p.m.,
as she claimed, but in Buenavista Village; and (2) Lolita's claim that Lalli and
Relampagos on 12 June 2005 brought the girls to Labuan, when in fact, Lalli
was already in Brunei on 12 June 2005, as evidenced by the stamp in her
passport.[25]

Credibility of Testimonies

Both Aringoy and Lalli, in their respective Appeal Briefs, assail the testimony of
Lolita due to its alleged inconsistency on immaterial facts, such as the status of
Lolita's grandfather, the name of the village she was in, the date she was

file:///Applications/batas%20app/cases/G.R.%20No.%20195419,%20October%2012,%202011.htm Page 10 of 26
 08/02/2017, 4*52 PM

brought to Labuan, Malaysia, and the like. In a long line of cases, the Court has
ruled that inconsistencies pointed out by the accused in the testimony of
prosecution witnesses relating to minor details do not destroy the credibility of
witnesses.[26] On the contrary, they indicate that the witnesses were telling the
truth and not previously rehearsed.[27]

The clear material inconsistency in this case, however, lies in the testimonies of
accused Aringoy and Lalli. Aringoy admitted that he referred Lolita to a certain
Hadja Jarma Lalli, his neighbor who frequents Malaysia and with whom Lolita
could ask pertinent information on job opportunities.[28] Lalli, on the other
hand, denies having met Lolita prior to their meeting on board M/V Mary Joy
on 6 June 2005,[29] and claims that her meeting with Lolita was purely
coincidental.[30] Lalli admits that, even if she met Relampagos, Lolita and their
companions only on that day on board M/V Mary Joy, she allowed these people
to ride with her in Malaysia using the van driven by the friend of Lalli's son-in-
law.[31] Lastly, Lalli claims that she often goes to Malaysia to visit her daughter
and son-in-law.[32] However, this does not explain why Lalli purchased boat
tickets, not only for herself, but for the other women passengers going to
Malaysia.[33] From March 2004 to June 2005, Lalli traveled to Malaysia no less
than nine (9) times.[34] Nora Mae Adling, ticketing clerk of Aleson Shipping
Lines, owner of the vessel M/V Mary Joy 2 plying Zamboanga City to
Sandakan, Malaysia route and of M/V Kristel Jane 3, testified in open court
that "Hadja Jarma Lalli bought passenger tickets for her travel to Sandakan, not
only for herself but also for other women passengers."[35] Clearly, it is not
Lolita's testimony that is materially inconsistent, but the testimonies of Lalli and
Aringoy.

Aringoy presented his witnesses Rachel, Mercedita and Estrella to impeach the
credibility of Lolita by alleging that Lolita was a Massage Attendant and GRO
in a massage parlor and videoke bar. His witness Rachel further declared that
Lolita, at the young age of 23 years, already had four children sired by four
different men, and had been previously travelling to Malaysia to work in bars.
These bare allegations were not supported by any other evidence. Assuming,
for the sake of argument, that Lolita previously worked in a Karaoke Bar and
Massage Parlor and that she had four children from different men, such facts
cannot constitute exempting or mitigating circumstances to relieve the accused
from their criminal liabilities. It does not change the fact that the accused
recruited Lolita to work in Malaysia without the requisite POEA license, thus
constituting the crime of illegal recruitment. Worse, the accused deceived her

file:///Applications/batas%20app/cases/G.R.%20No.%20195419,%20October%2012,%202011.htm Page 11 of 26
 08/02/2017, 4*52 PM

by saying that her work in Malaysia would be as restaurant entertainer, when in

fact, Lolita would be working as a prostitute, thus, constituting the crime of
trafficking.

The facts found by the trial court, as affirmed in toto by the Court of Appeals,
are, as a general rule, conclusive upon this Court, in the absence of any showing
of grave abuse of discretion.[36] The Court, however, may determine the
factual milieu of cases or controversies under specific circumstances, such as:

(1) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;

(2) when there is a grave abuse of discretion;
when the finding is grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or
(3)
conjectures;
when the judgment of the Court of Appeals is based on
(4)
misapprehension of facts;
(5) when the findings of fact are conflicting;
when the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the
(6) issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both
appellant and appellee;
when the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of
(7)
the trial court;
when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific
(8)
evidence on which they are based;
when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant
(9) facts not disputed by the parties and which, if properly considered,
would justify a different conclusion; and
when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on
(10) the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on
record.[37]

In this case, none of these exceptions to the general rule on conclusiveness of

facts are applicable. The Court gives weight and respect to the trial court's
findings in criminal prosecution because the latter is in a better position to
decide the question, having heard the witnesses in person and observed their
deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.[38] For this reason, the
Court adopts the findings of fact of the trial court, as affirmed in toto by the
Court of Appeals, there being no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
lower courts.

file:///Applications/batas%20app/cases/G.R.%20No.%20195419,%20October%2012,%202011.htm Page 12 of 26
 08/02/2017, 4*52 PM

Criminal Case No. 21930 (Illegal Recruitment)

Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042 (RA 8042) defines illegal recruitment, as
follows:

[I]llegal recruitment shall mean any act of canvassing, enlisting,

contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers and
includes referring, contact services, promising or advertising for
employment abroad, whether for profit or not, when undertaken
by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority contemplated under
Article 13(f) of Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, otherwise
known as the Labor Code of the Philippines.

xxx

Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large scale

shall be considered an offense involving economic sabotage.

xxx

Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out

by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring or confederating
with one another. (Emphasis supplied)

Article 13(f) of Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, otherwise known as

the Labor Code of the Philippines, defines "authority" as follows:

"Authority" means a document issued by the Department of Labor

authorizing a person or association to engage in recruitment and
placement activities as a private recruitment entity.

Section 7 of RA 8042 provides for the penalty of illegal recruitment committed

by a syndicate (which constitutes economic sabotage), as follows:

(b) The penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of not less than Five
hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) nor more than One million
pesos (P1,000,000.00) shall be imposed if illegal recruitment

file:///Applications/batas%20app/cases/G.R.%20No.%20195419,%20October%2012,%202011.htm Page 13 of 26
 08/02/2017, 4*52 PM

constitutes economic sabotage as defined therein.

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.[39] 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,[40] for which the
penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of not less than ?500,000 but not more
than ?1,000,000 shall be imposed.[41]

The penalties in Section 7 of RA 8042 have already been amended by Section 6

of Republic Act No. 10022, and have been increased to a fine of not less than ?
2,000,000 but not more than ?5,000,000. However, since the crime was
committed in 2005, we shall apply the penalties in the old law, RA 8042.

In People v. Gallo,[42] the Court enumerated the elements of syndicated illegal

recruitment, to wit:

(1) 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;

(2) he has no valid license or authority required by law to enable one

to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers; and

(3) the illegal recruitment is committed by a group of three (3) or

more persons conspiring or confederating with one another.[43]

Article 13(b) of the Labor Code of the Philippines defines recruitment and
placement as "any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting,
utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract services,
promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit
or not, provided, that any person or entity which, in any manner, offers or
file:///Applications/batas%20app/cases/G.R.%20No.%20195419,%20October%2012,%202011.htm Page 14 of 26
 08/02/2017, 4*52 PM

promises for a fee, employment to two or more persons shall be deemed

engaged in recruitment and placement."

Clearly, given the broad definition of recruitment and placement, even the mere
act of referring someone for placement abroad can be considered recruitment.
Such act of referral, in connivance with someone without the requisite authority
or POEA license, constitutes illegal recruitment. In its simplest terms, illegal
recruitment is committed by persons who, without authority from the
government, give the impression that they have the power to send workers
abroad for employment purposes.[44]

In this case, the trial court, as affirmed by the appellate court, found Lalli,
Aringoy and Relampagos to have conspired and confederated with one another
to recruit and place Lolita for work in Malaysia, without a POEA license. The
three elements of syndicated illegal recruitment are present in this case, in
particular: (1) the accused have no valid license or authority required by law to
enable them to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers;
(2) the accused engaged in this activity of recruitment and placement by
actually recruiting, deploying and transporting Lolita to Malaysia; and (3) illegal
recruitment was committed by three persons (Aringoy, Lalli and Relampagos),
conspiring and 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.

Lalli, on the other hand, completely denies any involvement in the recruitment
and placement of Lolita to Malaysia, and claims she only met Lolita for the first
time by coincidence on board the ship M/V Mary Joy. Lalli's denial does not
deserve credence because it completely conflicts with the testimony of Aringoy
who claims he referred Lolita to Lalli who had knowledge of the job
opportunities in Malaysia.

The conflicting testimonies of Lalli and Aringoy on material facts give doubt to
the truth and veracity of their stories, and strengthens the credibility of the
testimony of Lolita, despite allegations of irrelevant inconsistencies.

No improper motive could be imputed to Lolita to show that she would falsely
testify against the accused. The absence of evidence as to an improper motive
entitles Lolita's testimony to full faith and credit.[45]
file:///Applications/batas%20app/cases/G.R.%20No.%20195419,%20October%2012,%202011.htm Page 15 of 26
 08/02/2017, 4*52 PM

Aringoy claims that no conspiracy existed in illegal recruitment, as he denies

even knowing Relampagos, who is currently at-large. Lalli denies any
involvement in the illegal recruitment, and claims that she only met Relampagos
through Lolita on board the ship M/V Mary Joy on 6 June 2005, and learned
that Relampagos was bringing Lolita and their other girl companions to
Malaysia to work as sales ladies.

Under Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code, there is conspiracy "when two or
more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony
and decide to commit it."

In People v. Lago,[46] the Court discussed conspiracy in this wise:

The elements of conspiracy are the following: (1) two or more

persons came to an agreement, (2) the agreement concerned the
commission of a felony, and (3) the execution of the felony was
decided upon. Proof of the conspiracy need not be based on direct
evidence, because it may be inferred from the parties' conduct
indicating a common understanding among themselves with respect
to the commission of the crime. Neither is it necessary to show that
two or more persons met together and entered into an explicit
agreement setting out the details of an unlawful scheme or objective
to be carried out. The conspiracy may be deduced from the mode or
manner in which the crime was perpetrated; it may also be inferred
from the acts of the accused evincing a joint or common purpose
and design, concerted action and community of interest. [47]

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 Lolita's 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
Lolita's boat ticket to Malaysia. This fact can be deduced from the testimony of
Nora Mae Adling (Nora), ticketing clerk of Aleson Shipping Lines, owner of
the vessel M/V Mary Joy 2 plying Zamboanga City to Sandakan, Malaysia route
and of M/V Kristel Jane 3. Nora testified in open court that "Hadja Jarma Lalli
bought passenger tickets for her travel to Sandakan, not only for herself but
also for other women passengers." Lalli's claim that she only goes to Malaysia to
visit her daughter and son-in-law does not explain the fact why she bought the
file:///Applications/batas%20app/cases/G.R.%20No.%20195419,%20October%2012,%202011.htm Page 16 of 26
 08/02/2017, 4*52 PM

boat tickets of the other women passengers going to Malaysia. In fact, it

appears strange that Lalli visited Malaysia nine (9) times in a span of one year
and three months (March 2004 to June 2005) just to visit her daughter and son-
in-law. In Malaysia, it was Relampagos who introduced Lolita and her
companions to a Chinese Malay called "Boss" as their first employer. When
Lolita and her companions went back to the hotel to tell Relampagos and Lalli
that they did not want to work as prostitutes, Relampagos brought Lolita and
the girls on board a van to Sangawan China Labuan, where they stayed in a
room for one night. The next day, they were picked up by a van and brought to
Pipen Club, where Lolita and her companions worked as prostitutes. To date,
accused Relampagos is at large and has not been brought under the jurisdiction
of the courts for his crimes.

Flight in criminal law is the evading of the course of justice by voluntarily

withdrawing oneself in order to avoid arrest or detention or the institution or
continuance of criminal proceedings.[48] The unexplained flight of an accused
person may as a general rule be taken into consideration as evidence having a
tendency to establish his guilt.[49] Clearly, in this case, the flight of accused
Relampagos, who is still at-large, shows an indication of guilt in the crimes he
has been charged.

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.

For these reasons, this Court affirms the CA Decision, affirming the RTC
Decision, declaring accused Ronnie Aringoy y Masion and Hadja Jarma Lalli y
Purih guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal recruitment
committed by a syndicate in Criminal Case No. 21930, with a penalty of life
imprisonment and a fine of ?500,000 imposed on each of the accused.

Criminal Case No. 21908 (Trafficking in Persons)

Section 3(a) of Republic Act No. 9208 (RA 9208), otherwise known as the
Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003, defines Trafficking in Persons, as
follows:

Trafficking in Persons - refers to the recruitment, transportation,

file:///Applications/batas%20app/cases/G.R.%20No.%20195419,%20October%2012,%202011.htm Page 17 of 26
 08/02/2017, 4*52 PM

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. x x x (Emphasis
supplied)

Section 4 of RA 9208 enumerates the prohibited acts of Trafficking in Persons,

one of which is:

(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.

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.

Section 10(c) of RA 9208 provides for the penalty of 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).

file:///Applications/batas%20app/cases/G.R.%20No.%20195419,%20October%2012,%202011.htm Page 18 of 26
 08/02/2017, 4*52 PM

The Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act is a new law passed last 26 May 2003,
designed to criminalize the act of trafficking in persons for prostitution, sexual
exploitation, foced labor and slavery, among others.

In this case, Aringoy claims that he cannot be convicted of the crime of

Trafficking in Persons because he was not part of the group that transported
Lolita from the Philippines to Malaysia on board the ship M/V Mary Joy. In
addition, he presented his niece, Rachel, as witness to testify that Lolita had
been travelling to Malaysia to work in bars. On the other hand, Lalli denies any
involvement in the recruitment and trafficking of Lolita, claiming she only met
Lolita for the first time on board M/V Mary Joy going to Malaysia.

The testimony of Aringoy's niece, Rachel, that Lolita had been travelling to
Malaysia to work in bars cannot be given credence. Lolita did not even have a
passport to go to Malaysia and had to use her sister's passport when Aringoy,
Lalli and Relampagos first recruited her. It is questionable how she could have
been travelling to Malaysia previously without a passport, as Rachel claims.
Moreover, even if it is true that Lolita had been travelling to Malaysia to work
in bars, the crime of Trafficking in Persons can exist even with the victim's
consent or knowledge under Section 3(a) of RA 9208.

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.

When an act or acts violate two or more different laws and constitute two
different offenses, a prosecution under one will not bar a prosecution under the
other.[50] The constitutional right against double jeopardy only applies to risk
of punishment twice for the same offense, or for an act punished by a law and
an ordinance.[51] The prohibition on double jeopardy does not apply to an act
or series of acts constituting different offenses.

DAMAGES

Lolita claimed actual damages of P28,000, which she allegedly paid to the
file:///Applications/batas%20app/cases/G.R.%20No.%20195419,%20October%2012,%202011.htm Page 19 of 26
 08/02/2017, 4*52 PM

accused as placement fee for the work of restaurant entertainer in Malaysia.

The trial court did not award this amount to Lolita. We agree and affirm the
trial court's non-award due to Lolita's inconsistent statements on the payment
of placement fee. In her sworn statement, Lolita alleged that she paid P28,000
as placement fee to Lalli.[52] On cross-examination, however, she admitted that
she never paid P28,000 to the accused.[53]

We, however, modify and increase the payment of damages in the crime of
Trafficking in Persons from P50,000 to P500,000 as moral damages and
P50,000 to P100,000 as exemplary damages.

The Civil Code describes moral damages in Article 2217:

Art. 2217. Moral damages include physical suffering, mental anguish,

fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings,
moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury. Though incapable
of pecuniary computation, moral damages may be recovered if they
are the proximate result of the defendant's wrongful act for
omission.

Exemplary damages, on the other hand, are awarded in addition to the payment
of moral damages, by way of example or correction for the public good, as
stated in the Civil Code:

Art. 2229. Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by way of

example or correction for the public good, in addition to the moral,
temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages.

Art. 2230. In criminal offenses, exemplary damages as a part of the

civil liability may be imposed when the crime was committed with
one or more aggravating circumstances. Such damages are separate
and distinct from fines and shall be paid to the offended party.

The payment of P500,000 as moral damages and P100,000 as exemplary

damages for the crime of Trafficking in Persons as a Prostitute finds basis in
Article 2219 of the Civil Code, which states:

Art. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous
file:///Applications/batas%20app/cases/G.R.%20No.%20195419,%20October%2012,%202011.htm Page 20 of 26
 08/02/2017, 4*52 PM

cases:

(1) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries;

(2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries;
(3) Seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts;
(4) Adultery or concubinage;
(5) Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest;
(6) Illegal search;
(7) Libel, slander or any other form of defamation;
(8) Malicious prosecution;
(9) Acts mentioned in Article 309;
(10) Acts and actions referred to in Articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32,
34, and 35.

The parents of the female seduced, abducted, raped, or abused,

referred to in No. 3 of this article, may also recover moral damages.

The spouse, descendants, ascendants, and brothers and sisters may

bring the action mentioned in No. 9 of this article, in the order
named.

The criminal case of Trafficking in Persons as a Prostitute is an analogous case

to the crimes of seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts. In fact, it is
worse. To be trafficked as a prostitute without one's consent and to be sexually
violated four to five times a day by different strangers is horrendous and
atrocious. There is no doubt that Lolita experienced physical suffering, mental
anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral
shock, and social humiliation when she was trafficked as a prostitute in
Malaysia. Since the crime of Trafficking in Persons was aggravated, being
committed by a syndicate, the award of exemplary damages is likewise justified.

WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 26

February 2010, affirming the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of
Zamboanga City dated 29 November 2005, finding accused Lalli and Aringoy
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of Illegal Recruitment and
Trafficking in Persons committed by a syndicate, with the following
MODIFICATIONS:

1. In Criminal Case No. 21908, each of the accused is sentenced to suffer

file:///Applications/batas%20app/cases/G.R.%20No.%20195419,%20October%2012,%202011.htm Page 21 of 26
 08/02/2017, 4*52 PM

the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of P2,000,000;

2. In Criminal Case No. 21930, each of the accused is sentenced to suffer the
penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of P500,000;

3. Each of the accused is ordered to pay the offended party Lolita Plando y
Sagadsad, jointly and severally, the sum of P500,000 as moral damages,
and P100,000 as exemplary damages for the crime of Trafficking in
Persons; and to pay the costs.

The Court cannot pronounce the liability of accused-at-large Nestor

Relampagos as jurisdiction over his person has not been acquired.

SO ORDERED.

Brion, Sereno, Reyes, and Perlas-Bernabe,* JJ., concur.

* Designated Acting Member per Special Order No. 1114 dated 3 October
2011.
[1] CA rollo, pp. 40-58.

[2] Id. at 209-222.

[3] Id. at 224-225, 255-256.

[4] Id. at 42-53.

[5] Id. at 58.

[6] Id. at 53-57.

[7] Id. at 167-179.

[8] Id. at 171.

file:///Applications/batas%20app/cases/G.R.%20No.%20195419,%20October%2012,%202011.htm Page 22 of 26
 08/02/2017, 4*52 PM

[9] Id. at 172.

[10] Id.

[11] Id.

[12] Id. at 173-174.

[13] Id. at 175.

[14] Id. at 64-85.

[15] Id. at 77.

[16] Id.

[17] Id.

[18] Id. at 78.

[19] Id.

[20] Id. at 79.

[21] Id.

[22] Id.

[23] Id.

[24] Id.

[25] Id. at 80-83.

[26] People v. Martinada, G.R. Nos. 66401-03, 13 February 1991, 194 SCRA 36,
44.

file:///Applications/batas%20app/cases/G.R.%20No.%20195419,%20October%2012,%202011.htm Page 23 of 26
 08/02/2017, 4*52 PM

[27] Id.

[28] CA rollo, p. 171.

[29] Id. at 77.

[30] Id. at 78.

[31] Id. at 79.

[32] Id. at 77.

[33] Id. at 52.

[34] Id. at 51.

[35] Id. at 52.

[36] Cosmos Bottling Corporation v. Nagrama, Jr., G.R. No. 164403, 4 March 2008,
547 SCRA 571, 584, citing The Philippine American Life and General Insurance Co. v.
Gramaje, 484 Phil. 880 (2004).
[37] Reyes v. Court of Appeals (Ninth Division), 328 Phil. 171, 180 (1996) citing Floro
v. Llenado, 314 Phil. 715 (1995).
[38] Supra note 26 at 41.

[39] Section 6, Republic Act No. 8042.

[40] Id.

[41] Section 7, Republic Act No. 10022.

[42] G.R. No. 187730, 29 June 2010, 622 SCRA 439.

[43] Id. at 451, citing People v. Soliven, 418 Phil. 777 (2001) and People v. Buli-e, 452
Phil. 129 (2003).

file:///Applications/batas%20app/cases/G.R.%20No.%20195419,%20October%2012,%202011.htm Page 24 of 26
 08/02/2017, 4*52 PM

[44] People v. Lapis, 439 Phil. 729, 740 (2002).

[45] People v. Bodozo, G.R. No. 96621, 21 October 1992, 215 SCRA 33, 37, citing
Araneta, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-43527, 3 July 1990, 187 SCRA 123.
[46] 411 Phil. 52 (2001).

[47] Id. at 59, citing People v. Fegidiro, 392 Phil. 36 (2000) and People v. Francisco,
388 Phil. 94 (2000).
[48] United States v. Alegado, 25 Phil. 510, 511 (1913).

[49] Id.

[50] People v. Tac-an, 261 Phil. 728, 746 (1990).

[51] Section 21, Article III, 1987 Philippine Constitution.

[52] CA rollo, p. 174.

[53] Id.

Copyright 2016 - Batas.org

file:///Applications/batas%20app/cases/G.R.%20No.%20195419,%20October%2012,%202011.htm Page 25 of 26
 08/02/2017, 4*52 PM

G.C.A.

file:///Applications/batas%20app/cases/G.R.%20No.%20195419,%20October%2012,%202011.htm Page 26 of 26