G.R. No.
234161, October 17, 2018
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LUDIVICO PATRIMONIO
BANDOJO, JR. AND KENNY JOY VILLACORTA ILETO, Accused-Appellants.
DECISION
(ABOUT THIS CASE: Sa facts kadtong nakakuha ug information gikan sa ABS-
CBN ang NBI. Naa diri ang na set ang elements of trafficking in persons. Also
pointed by the Court that trafficking in persons may be committed with or
without the victim's consent or knowledge.)
This is an appeal1 from the Decision2 dated May 15, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA)
in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08276, which affirmed the conviction of Ludivico Patrimonio
Bandojo, Jr. (Ludivico) and Kenny Joy Villacorta Ileto (Kenny Joy) (collectively referred
to as the accused-appellants) for 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."
Factual Antecedents
The accused-appellants were charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila,
Branch 29 in two separate Informations with the crimes of Qualified Trafficking in
Persons3 and Trafficking in Persons4 docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 12-293693 and
12-293694. The accusatory portions of the said Informations state:
In Criminal Case No. 12-293693:
That on or about and sometime prior to November 8, 2012, in the City of Manila,
Philippines, the said accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually
helping each another [sic], did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly,
recruit and hire [AAA],5 a 17[-]year[-]old minor to engage in sexual intercourse
with a police officer and other male clients for monetary consideration, by
means of taking advantage of her vulnerability and for the purpose of
prostitution and sexual exploitation.
Contrary to law.6
In Criminal Case No. 12-293694:
That on or about and sometime prior to November 8, 2012, in the City of Manila,
Philippines, the said accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually
helping each another [sic], did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly,
recruit and hire [BBB] to engage in sexual intercourse with male clients for monetary
consideration, by means of taking advantage of her vulnerability and for the purpose of
prostitution and sexual exploitation.
Contrary to law.7
Upon arraignment, both accused-appellants pleaded not guilty to the crimes charged. A
pre-trial conference was subsequently conducted and concluded. Thereafter, trial on the
merits ensued.8
FACTS:
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. She is the second
child among four children and since her father has no regular income while her
mother earns only Php 200.00 per day tending to their store, her parent's
income is not sufficient to meet their family's daily sustenance.9
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.10
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.11
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 5,000.00.12
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 Se�ora (Agent Se�ora) 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.14
Agent Se�ora 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 50% down payment with the balance to be given to
the girl. Later, Jhanne David (Ludivico) agreed to provide Agent Se�ora with
two girls for sexual services who will be brought to a hotel in Manila for the
amount of Php 3,000.00 each.15
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.16
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
Se�ora, 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. (NBI now entering
the scene)
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.18
During trial, the accused-appellants denied the accusation against them. They denied
knowing BBB prior to their arrest and claimed they only came to know her at the NBI.
They have not seen BBB after their arrest nor did she appear in court to testify. They
also denied knowing each other prior to the incident.19
Ruling of the RTC
On April 26, 2016, the RTC rendered its Joint Decision,25 convicting the accused-
appellants for violation of Section 4(a), in relation to Section 6(a), of R.A. No. 9208 in
Criminal Case No. 12-293693. However, the RTC acquitted them in Criminal Case
No. 12-293694 for failure of the prosecution to establish their guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. The dispositive portion of the said decision provides:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds [the accused-appellants] guilty
beyond reasonable doubt, for the crime of Violation of Section 4 (a) in relation to
Section 6 (a) of R.A. 9208 in Criminal Case 12-293693 and hereby imposes a penalty of
life imprisonment without the benefit of parole and to pay a fine of Two Million Pesos
(P2,000,000.00).
Aggrieved, the accused-appellants elevated the case before the CA through a Joint
Notice of Appeal27 dated May 4, 2016.
Ruling of the CA
In the assailed Decision28 dated May 15, 2017, the CA denied the accused-appellants'
appeal and affirmed the decision of the RTC with modifications, to wit:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED.
Hence, this appeal.
The Issues
Based on the parties' averments before the CA, the issues raised for resolution before
this Court are: (1) whether the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt
the guilt of the accused-appellants for the crime of human trafficking; (2) whether the
RTC erred in finding the presence of conspiracy; and (3) whether the RTC erred in
disregarding the accused-appellants' defense of denial.
The plaintiff-appellee, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), maintains that,
as established during trial, Kenny Joy recruited and hired AAA, a 17-year-old girl, to
prostitute herself to paying customers, taking advantage of the latter's minority, lack of
discernment, and financial hardships. Thus, the prosecution was able to prove beyond
reasonable doubt the existence of all the elements constituting a violation of Section
4(a), in relation to Section 10(a), of R.A. No. 9208.30 The plaintiff-appellee further
submits that the allegation that AAA was not recruited as it was the latter who asked
for a raket is of no moment, as consent of the victim is not a defense when the
vulnerability of the trafficked person is taken advantage of. Maintaining that the crime
was committed with conspiracy, the plaintiff-appellee argues that there was
overwhelming proof presented during the trial to show accused-appellants' concerted
action for a common end. Lastly, the plaintiff-appellee contends that the trial court
properly rejected the accused-appellants' denial as the same cannot prevail over the
positive testimony of a witness.31
On the other hand, the accused-appellants argue that the prosecution failed to prove
that they were engaged in any activity which would constitute human trafficking. They
maintain that it was AAA who asked Kenny Joy for a raket. The trial court also failed to
consider the statement made by AAA to Kenny Joy when the latter was arrested as well
as her act of visiting said accused-appellant while she was detained at the MCJ. Such a
revelation only proves that AAA was not recruited, much less threatened, forced, or
coerced by the accused-appellants to engage in prostitution. Arguing against the
existence of conspiracy between the two of them, the accused-appellants submit that
there was no proof showing that they came to an agreement to commit human
trafficking. Furthermore, accused�-appellants contend that while it was proved during
the trial that AAA was only 17 years old at the time she was allegedly rescued, the
prosecution failed to prove that they had full knowledge of the same. Lastly,
considering the weakness of the prosecution's evidence, accused-appellants argue that
the trial court erred in dismissing their defense of denial.32
Ruling of the Court
The Court affirms the accused-appellants' conviction.
The elements of the crime charged
Pertinent to this case are Sections 4(a) and 6(a) of R.A. No. 9208, to wit:
Section 4. Acts of Trafficking in Persons. - It shall be unlawful for any person, natural
or juridical, to commit any of the following acts:
(a) To recruit, transport, transfer; harbor, provide, or receive a person by any
means, including those done under the pretext of domestic or overseas employment or
training or apprenticeship, for the purpose of Prostitution, pornography, sexual
exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage[.]
xxxx
Section 6. Qualified Trafficking in Persons. - The following are considered as qualified
trafficking:
(a) When the trafficked person is a child[.] (Emphasis Ours)
x--------------------------------------------------------------x
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)
While R.A. No. 9208 has been recently amended by R.A. No. 10364,33 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.
In People v. Casio,34 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."35 (Emphasis Ours and italics in the
original)
The crime is further qualified under Section 6(a) of R.A. No. 9208 when the trafficked
person is a child.
IN THIS CASE:
In the instant case, the prosecution was able to establish the presence of all the
elements of the crime by testimonial and documentary evidence.
As to the first element and third 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.36 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.37 Meanwhile, the testimony of NBI Agent Se�ora 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 Se�ora during the entrapment operation. The down payment,
consisting of four Php 500.00 bills dusted with fluorescent powder, was paid by Agent
Se�ora to Ludivico.38 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.39
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.
Lastly, AAA's Certificate of Live Birth evidenced the fact that she was born on April 9,
199540 and was only 17 years old, a minor, at the time the crime was committed on
November 8, 2012.
Consent of the minor is not a defense under R.A. No. 9208
Contrary to the accused-appellants' submission, the fact that AAA had asked Kenny Joy
for a raket and that she visited the said accused-appellant in prison does not negate
their criminal liability.
As previously cited, Section 3(a) of R.A. No. 9208 clearly states that trafficking
in persons may be committed with or without the victim's consent or
knowledge.
Furthermore, in Casio,41 the Court ruled that the victim's consent is rendered
meaningless due to the coercive, abusive, or deceptive means employed by
perpetrators of human trafficking. Even without the use of coercive, abusive, or
deceptive means, a minor's consent is not given out of his or her own free will. 42
Knowledge of private complainant's minority is immaterial
Accused-appellants likewise argue that the prosecution failed to prove their knowledge
of AAA's minority at the time the crime was committed.
As observed by the CA, 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.
Accordingly, the Court finds that all elements of the crime of Violation of Section 4(a),
in relation to Section 6(a), of R.A. No. 9208 were duly established by the prosecution.
Proof of the conspiracy need not be based on direct evidence; it may be inferred from the
conduct of the parties
Anent the second issue, the accused-appellants contend that the prosecution's evidence
was bereft of any proof showing that they came to an agreement to commit human
trafficking. They maintain that they met each other only on the day they were arrested.
Therefore, they could not have conspired together to supposedly recruit AAA since they
were practically strangers to each other prior to their arrest.
The Court disagrees.
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.43 (Citation omitted)
Here, testimonial evidence of the prosecution established that Agent Se�ora, 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.
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 concerted efforts, the accused-appellants facilitated the prostitution of AAA, a
minor, where she was made to render sexual services in exchange for monetary
consideration.
Positive identification of the accused-appellants prevails over denial
Anent the third issue, the accused-appellants aver that the RTC erred in simply
dismissing their defense of denial despite what they consider as weaknesses in the
prosecution's evidence. They contend that not all denials are fabricated, and if an
accused is truly innocent, he can have no other defense other than denial.
The Court is unconvinced.
A categorical and consistent positive identification which is not accompanied by ill
motive on the part of the eyewitness prevails over mere denial. Such denial, if not
substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is negative and self-serving evidence
undeserving of weight in law. It cannot be given a greater evidentiary value over the
testimony of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.44 (Citation omitted)
Here, both the accused-appellants were positively identified in open court by
AAA,45 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 Se�ora,46 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.
All told, the Court finds that the prosecution was able to establish the accused-
appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Qualified Trafficking in
Persons under Section 4(a), in relation to Section 6(a), of R.A. 9208. Thus, the Court
finds no reason to overturn the judgment of conviction rendered by the RTC.
The penalty for the crime charged
The penalty for Qualified Trafficking in Persons is set forth in Section 10(c) of R.A. No.
9208, which reads:
Section 10. Penalties and Sanctions. - The following penalties and sanctions are
hereby established for the offenses enumerated in this Act:
xxxx
(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)[.] (Emphasis
Ours)
Notably, the CA affirmed the joint decision of the RTC, imposing the penalty of life
imprisonment without the benefit of parole upon the accused-appellants, but modified
the fine in as much as each of them should pay the fine of Php 2,000,000.00. In light of
the above-quoted provision, the penalty and the fine imposed are proper.
However, pursuant to Administrative Matter No. 15-08-02-SC,47 the Court deletes the
phrase "without eligibility for parole," as in cases where the death penalty is not
warranted, the phrase "without eligibility for parole" does not need to describe and be
affixed to the penalty; it is understood that convicted persons penalized with an
indivisible penalty are not eligible for parole.
The Court, likewise agrees that the award of moral damages in the amount of Php
500,000.00 and the reduction of exemplary damages to Php 100,000.00, with interest
at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum until finality of this Decision, is proper as the
same is consistent with prevailing jurisprudence. 48
Lastly, the CA also correctly ruled that the accused-appellants are jointly and severally
liable to pay AAA the moral and exemplary damages, as specified above, pursuant to
Article 11049 of the Revised Penal Code.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of
merit. The Decision dated May 15, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No.
08276, convicting accused-appellants Ludivico Patrimonio Bandojo, Jr. and Kenny Joy
Villacorta Ileto of the crime of Qualified Human Trafficking, as defined and penalized
under Section 4(a), in relation to Section 6(a), of Republic Act No. 9208, is
hereby AFFIRMED.
Accordingly, the Court hereby imposes upon accused-appellants Ludivico Patrimonio
Bandojo, Jr. and Kenny Joy Villacorta Ileto the following:
1. To suffer the penalty of life imprisonment;
2. To each pay a fine of Php 2,000,000.00;
3. To jointly and severally pay the victim Php500,000.00 as moral damages and
Php100,000.00 as exemplary damages; and
4. All monetary awards shall earn interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per
annum from the date of finality of this Decision until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.
