G.R. No. 234161 - People vs. Bandojo, Jr.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 234161)

Factual Background

The prosecution charged Ludivico Patrimonio Bandojo, Jr. and Kenny Joy Villacorta Ileto with qualified trafficking for recruiting and providing a seventeen-year-old female, identified as AAA, to render sexual services for money. AAA, born April 9, 1995, testified that she met Christian Ileto and later received solicitations from Kenny Joy by text under the name "Cherish," who explained the terms, fees, and rules for providing sexual services. AAA initially resisted but later sought work because of her family’s poverty. She engaged in sexual transactions arranged by Kenny Joy in September and October 2012, including one with a British national and one with a police officer, for which she paid a portion to Kenny Joy. Technical surveillance by the NBI revealed a Facebook account linked to Ludivico offering female sexual services. NBI Agent Francis Senora conducted an entrapment operation on November 8, 2012. During the operation, Agent Senora paid down payments dusted with fluorescent powder to Ludivico. Both accused were arrested at a coffee shop; the entrapment bills and Ludivico tested positive for fluorescent powder. AAA identified both accused in court as persons who recruited, accompanied, and received payments in connection with her prostitution.

Trial Court Proceedings

The RTC of Manila, Branch 29, rendered a Joint Decision dated April 26, 2016. The RTC convicted 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, imposing life imprisonment without the benefit of parole, a fine of Two Million Pesos (P2,000,000.00) each, and ordering indemnity to AAA of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) as moral damages and Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00) as exemplary damages. The RTC acquitted the accused in Criminal Case No. 12-293694 for failure of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

In its Decision dated May 15, 2017, the Court of Appeals denied the accused-appellants’ appeal, affirmed the RTC’s conviction in Criminal Case No. 12-293693, and modified certain penalties. The CA imposed life imprisonment without eligibility for parole, required each accused to pay a fine of Php 2,000,000.00, ordered joint and several payment of Php500,000.00 as moral damages, and reduced exemplary damages to Php100,000.00 with interest at six percent per annum from finality.

Issues Presented

The appeal to the Supreme Court raised three principal issues: whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused-appellants for human trafficking; whether the RTC erred in finding a conspiracy between the accused-appellants; and whether the RTC erred in disregarding the accused-appellants’ denial defense.

Parties’ Contentions

The plaintiff-appellee, through the Office of the Solicitor General, argued that the evidence established that Kenny Joy recruited and accompanied AAA, a minor, to provide sexual services and that Ludivico facilitated prostitution by posting offerings on Facebook and receiving entrapment money, thus proving all elements of Section 4(a) in relation to Section 6(a). The prosecution maintained that AAA’s consent is immaterial where the trafficked person’s vulnerability is exploited and that conspiracy was shown by concerted acts. The accused-appellants contended that AAA initiated the transactions, that her visits and statements to Kenny Joy after arrest negated recruitment, that there was no proof of prior agreement between them to establish conspiracy, and that the prosecution failed to prove their knowledge of AAA’s minority and failed to overcome their categorical denials.

Elements of the Offense and Proof

The Supreme Court analyzed the elements derived from Section 3(a) of R.A. No. 9208 and the qualification under Section 6(a). The Court reiterated the tripartite elements: the prohibited act of recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, or receipt; the means employed, including taking advantage of vulnerability; and the purpose of exploitation, including prostitution. The Court found these elements established by AAA’s testimony that Kenny Joy recruited and accompanied her, by Agent Senora’s testimony that Ludivico arranged prostitution via Facebook and received the down payment, and by documentary proof of the entrapment operation and fluorescent powder examination linking the entrapment money to Ludivico. AAA’s Certificate of Live Birth established that she was a minor on the date of the operation, satisfying the qualification under Section 6(a).

Consent and Minor’s Age

The Court held that the victim’s apparent consent did not absolve the accused. It relied on Section 3(a) of R.A. No. 9208, which makes trafficking actionable with or without the victim’s consent, and on precedent, notably People v. Casio, ruling that a minor’s consent is legally ineffectual because it cannot be freely given under circumstances of coercion, abuse, or exploitation. The Court therefore rejected the accused-appellants’ argument that AAA’s solicitation and later visitations negated recruitment or vitiated criminal liability.

Knowledge of Minority

The Court addressed the accused-appellants’ contention that the prosecution failed to prove they knew AAA was a minor. It stated that under Section 6(a) the offense is qualified by the victim’s status as a child and that the accused’s knowledge of minority is legally immaterial to the qualification. Consequently, proof that AAA was below eighteen years established the qualified character of the offense without requiring proof of the accused-appellants’ awareness of her age.

Conspiracy

On conspiracy, the Court set forth the elements required and emphasized that proof need not be by direct evidence and may be inferred from conduct demonstrating common purpose and concerted action. The Court found that the communications uncovered by Agent Senora, the coordination between Ludivico and Kenny Joy in bringing AAA to the hotel, the receipt of the entrapment down payment, the recovery of those bills from Ludivico, and the sequence of events during the entrapment collectively evidenced a concerted scheme to facilitate prostitution of a minor. The Court therefore upheld the RTC’s finding of conspiracy.

Credibility and Denial

The Court applied the established principle that a categorical and consistent positive identification by credible witnesses outweighs a mere denial by the accused. It noted that AAA and Agent Senora positively identified both accused in open court and that the accused-appellants failed to show ill motive or to provide corroborative evidence to support their denials. The Court found the accused-appellants’ denials to be unsubstantiated and therefore insufficie

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 234161)

Parties and Procedural Posture

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES was the plaintiff-appellee who filed Informations in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 29 charging LUDIVICO PATRIMONIO BANDOJO, JR. and KENNY JOY VILLACORTA ILETO, the accused-appellants, with Qualified Trafficking in Persons and Trafficking in Persons in two separate criminal cases docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 12-293693 and 12-293694.
The accused-appellants pleaded not guilty, were tried on the merits, and the RTC rendered a Joint Decision convicting them in Criminal Case No. 12-293693 and acquitting them in Criminal Case No. 12-293694.
The accused-appellants appealed to the Court of Appeals which affirmed with modifications on May 15, 2017, and the appellee and appellants further elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

Key Factual Allegations

AAA was born on April 9, 1995 and was seventeen years old on November 8, 2012 when the events underlying the charges occurred.
KENNY JOY VILLACORTA ILETO allegedly recruited AAA by texting offers of a "raket", instructed her on the terms of sexual services, accompanied her to meet clients, and received portions of the fees.
AAA testified that she rendered paid sexual services in September and October 2012, including one encounter for Php 5,000 and another for Php 3,000 from which she remitted Php 500 to KENNY JOY VILLACORTA ILETO.
The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) conducted technical surveillance of a Facebook group and an undercover account called "Prettyvoy Gasgas", which connected Agent Senora to an account identified as "Jhanne David", later identified as LUDIVICO PATRIMONIO BANDOJO, JR., who advertised female sexual services.
On November 8, 2012 the NBI executed an entrapment operation at a hotel using four Php 500 bills dusted with fluorescent powder as down payment, after which LUDIVICO PATRIMONIO BANDOJO, JR. received payment and the operatives arrested the parties.
The entrapment money was recovered from LUDIVICO PATRIMONIO BANDOJO, JR. and the Fluorescent Powder Examination tested positive for him and the bills, while the examination on KENNY JOY VILLACORTA ILETO yielded negative results.
Both accused-appellants denied the charges at trial, denied prior acquaintance with the other alleged victim BBB, and offered alternative explanations and alibis.

Statutory Framework

R.A. No. 9208 criminalizes the acts enumerated under Section 4(a) which include recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, providing, or receipt of a person for purposes of prostitution and other forms of exploitation.
Section 6(a) of R.A. No. 9208 classifies trafficking as qualified when the trafficked person is a child.
Section 3(a) of R.A. No. 9208 defines "trafficking in persons" to include the specified acts committed by means such as coercion, deception, or by taking advantage of the victim's vulnerability, and further provides that recruitment of a child for exploitation is trafficking even without the listed means.
Section 10(c) of R.A. No. 9208 prescribes the penalty for qualified trafficking as life imprisonment and a fine of not less than Php 2,000,000.00.
R.A. No. 10364 amended R.A. No. 9208 but the pre-amendment provisions applied because the crimes occurred on November 8, 2012.

Issues Presented

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused-appellants committed trafficking in persons under Section 4(a) in relation to Section 6(a) of R.A. No. 9208.
Whether the RTC erred in finding the existence of a conspiracy between the accused-appellants.
Whether the RTC erred in rejecting the accused-appellants' defense of denial.

Parties' Contentions

The PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES maintained that KENNY JOY VILLACORTA ILETO recruited the minor AAA, that the accused-appellants took advantage of her vulnerability and poverty, and that consent of the victim is immaterial under R.