Case Digest (G.R. No. 210798)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Beverly Villanueva y Manalili @ Bebang, G.R. No. 210798, September 14, 2016, Supreme Court Third Division, Perez, J., writing for the Court. The accused-appellant is Beverly Villanueva y Manalili (hereafter “accused-appellant”); the prosecution is the People of the Philippines. An Information for violation of Section 6 of R.A. No. 9208 (Qualified Trafficking) was filed on May 18, 2007 charging that sometime between April 25, 2007 and May 17, 2007 accused-appellant, as owner/manager of On Tap Videoke, recruited and hired “AAA,” a 13‑year‑old minor, to work as a Guest Relations Officer (GRO), thereby exploiting her vulnerability as a child.The factual background leading to the filing: AAA had run away from home on April 25, 2007; friends reported she was staying at On Tap Videoke. The private complainant (AAA’s mother) enlisted a television program and together with police participated in an operation that resulted in AAA being taken to the Southern Police District (SPD) headquarters, together with accused-appellant and five other employees who lacked Mayor’s/Health permits. AAA was endorsed to the DSWD Social Development Center; accused-appellant and the employees underwent booking, investigation and medical examination. A task force was formed and the Office of the City Prosecutor charged accused-appellant with human trafficking under R.A. 9208 rather than under R.A. 7610.
At arraignment accused-appellant pleaded not guilty and was granted bail after a petition alleging lack of strong evidence; the prosecutor announced it would adopt the testimony presented at the bail hearing in the main case and present additional witnesses. During trial the prosecution presented police witnesses (PO2 Abas and P/Chief Insp. Jerome Balbontin) and the private complainant; AAA ultimately absconded from DSWD custody and did not testify. The defense presented testimony from a waiter (Wilfred Aquino), accused-appellant’s brother and manager (Rosito Villanueva, Jr.), and accused-appellant, all of whom denied that accused-appellant recruited or knew of AAA’s stay, claiming AAA was allowed temporary refuge by the father/manager and that accused-appellant merely provided capital.
The Regional Trial Court (Las Piñas City, Branch 254) found the defense testimonies unavailing and convicted accused-appellant of Qualified Trafficking on January 28, 2011, imposing life imprisonment, a P3,000,000 fine and cancellation of the videoke bar’s permit. The Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 05027 affirmed that conviction in a decision dated May 10, 2013. The CA noted several circumstantial facts (presence of AAA during the rescue, her attire, other employees without permits, and evidence she did some kitchen work) and held the affidavit of desistance by the private complainant did not mandate acquittal. The CA later gave due course to accused-appellant’s Notice of Appeal to...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt the elements of Qualified Trafficking under Section 6 of R.A. No. 9208 as to warrant conviction of accused-appellant?
- Did the trial court properly rely on evidence presented at the bail hearing (and the RTC’s earlier finding that the evidence of guilt was not strong) when convicting ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)