Case Digest (G.R. No. 234161)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 234161)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Ludivico Patrimonio Bandojo, Jr. and Kenny Joy Villacorta Ileto, G.R. No. 234161 (October 17, 2018), promulgated July 15, 2019, Supreme Court Second Division, Reyes, J., writing for the Court. The plaintiff-appellee is the People of the Philippines; the accused-appellants are Ludivico Patrimonio Bandojo, Jr. (Ludivico) and Kenny Joy Villacorta Ileto (Kenny Joy). They were charged in two separate informations before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 29: Criminal Case No. 12-293693 for Qualified Trafficking in Persons (violation of Section 4(a) in relation to Section 6(a) of R.A. No. 9208) and Criminal Case No. 12-293694 for Trafficking in Persons.The factual narrative at trial was that AAA, born April 9, 1995, was a 17‑year‑old minor in financial distress. She met Christian Ileto (brother of Kenny Joy) in March 2012 and later, in August 2012 at Padi’s Point, gave her number after being asked if she wanted a "raket" (work). Kenny Joy contacted AAA using the name “Cherish,” described the terms of the trade and later arranged engagements (rakets) in which AAA had sexual intercourse with paying clients (including a British national and a police officer) for fees ranging from Php 3,000 to Php 5,000; AAA gave portions of her earnings to Kenny Joy.
Concurrently, National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Agent Francis Senora conducted online surveillance of a Facebook account linked to Jhanne David (later identified as Ludivico), which advertised women for sexual services. Agent Senora posed undercover and arranged with Ludivico to procure two women for a hotel rendezvous on November 8, 2012. On that date an NBI entrapment was conducted using four Php 500 bills dusted with fluorescent powder as down payment. Ludivico arrived with AAA and another woman (BBB) and received the down payment; both Ludivico and the entrapment bills tested positive for fluorescent powder and were recovered on arrest. Kenny Joy was also arrested at the scene. AAA testified identifying Kenny Joy as the recruiter and accompanist and Ludivico as the handler who arranged the hotel transaction.
At trial the accused denied the charges: Kenny Joy said she was a food vendor and AAA was a customer who asked her to accompany her; Ludivico claimed he was a freelance graphic artist who had merely returned a bag for AAA and that an unknown ex‑boyfriend paid him surreptitiously. The RTC, however, found the accused guilty in Criminal Case No. 12-293693 (qualified trafficking) and acquitted them in Criminal Case No. 12-293694 for failure of proof; it sentenced them to life imprisonment without benefit of parole, fined them Php 2,000,000 and ordered indemnities and damages (Decision dated April 26, 2016). The accused filed a Joint Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA).
In CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08276 the Court of Appeals, in a Decision dated May 15, 2017, affirmed the RTC’s conviction in Criminal Case No. 12-293693 with modifications: it maintained life imprisonment, imposed a fine of Php 2,000,000 on each accused, and ordered joint and several payment of moral and exemplary damages (modified exemplary damages reduced to Php 100,000) with statutory interest. The accused-appellants then brought the case to the Supreme Court, which affirmed the CA decision in the present appeal.
Issues:
- Was the prosecution able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused-appellants for the crime of human trafficking (qualified trafficking)?
- Did the RTC err in finding the presence of conspiracy between the accused-appellants?
- Did the RTC err in rejecting the accused-appellants’ defense of denial?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)