Case Digest (G.R. No. 241247)
Facts:
This is The People of the Philippines v. Reynold Monsanto y Familaran/Pamilaran, G.R. No. 241247, March 20, 2019, the Supreme Court Second Division, J. Reyes, Jr., writing for the Court. The plaintiff-appellee is the People of the Philippines; the accused-appellant is Reynold Monsanto y Familaran/Pamilaran; the private complainant and victim is identified as AAA (a minor).Accused-appellant was charged in three separate informations: Criminal Case No. 14-304088 (violation of Section 5(a-1) of R.A. No. 7610), Criminal Case No. 15-314082 (violation of Section 4(a) & (e) in relation to Section 6(a) of R.A. No. 9208, as amended by R.A. No. 10364), and Criminal Case No. 15-314083 (violation of Section 5(a) of R.A. No. 7610). On April 17, 2015 the three cases were consolidated and the proceedings in Crim. Case No. 14-304088 were adopted in the other two cases.
The factual narrative at trial was that AAA met accused-appellant in December 2012, entered a romantic relationship, and in February 2013 moved into his rented room in Pandacan, Manila after being enticed by promises that he would send her to school. AAA, then a minor, alleged that accused-appellant taught and directed her to solicit and accept foreign clients at Robinsons Mall, accompanied or observed her approach clients, and required that she turn over monies received; AAA described repeated sexual intercourse with foreign clients and payments given to accused-appellant. In February–March 2014 a violent quarrel culminated in barangay intervention on March 4, 2014, after which AAA disclosed she was sixteen and identified accused-appellant as her live-in partner and pimp; they were brought to the police station. A medico-legal exam on March 5, 2014 recorded healed ano-genital laceration and absence of hymenal tissue in parts, and a dental age examination ordered by the court (reported Sept. 23, 2014) indicated AAA was at least sixteen years old.
Accused-appellant denied direct participation in AAA’s prostitution and claimed she went to the mall on her own; he admitted knowing her age when they met. The Regional Trial Court (Manila, Branch 5) by decision dated November 15, 2016 acquitted him of the R.A. No. 7610 charges but convicted him for violation of Section 4(a) in relation to Section 6(a) of R.A. No. 9208 (Crim. Case No. 15-314082), sentencing him to life imprisonment, a P2,000,000 f...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant is guilty of child trafficking under Section 4(a) in relation to Section 6(a) of R.A. No. 9208, as amended by R.A. ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)