G.R. No. L-154 - People vs. Nuevas

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-154)

Factual Background

The prosecution evidence established that, about three or four months before September 22, 1945, Jesus Nuevas contracted the services of four women of ill repute and brought them to, and maintained them in, a house in the barrio of Alangilang, Batangas, Batangas, for the purpose of prostitution. He furnished them with food and lodging and received one-half of their earnings from their illicit traffic involving colored soldiers.

On September 22, 1945, the police raided the bawdy-house. Jesus Nuevas and the four women were brought to the police station for investigation. The case was filed as a consequence of that raid. The prosecution testimony came from Emilia de la Cruz and Juanita Fernandez, two of the women of ill repute, and from the sergeant of the military police, Angelo Murano, who made the arrest. Jesus Nuevas was the only witness for the defense. He claimed that he went to the house on September 22, 1945 merely “to collect a debt from people who owes me money.” He asserted that the owner of the house was an old widow and that the lessee was a certain Moises Santos, whom he said owed him P150.

Trial Court Proceedings

The Court of First Instance of Batangas convicted Jesus Nuevas of violation of article 341 of the Revised Penal Code. The trial court disbelieved the accused’s testimony because it was uncorroborated. It gave credence instead to the narration of Sergeant Angelo Murano and the testimony of Emilia de la Cruz and Juanita Fernandez.

Sergeant Murano testified that his duties included picking up girls of ill fame, vagrants, and prostitutes. He stated that around 2 p. m. of September 22, 1945, after receiving a tip that the house was a brothel, he and his companions raided it and found thirteen colored soldiers, with three soldiers in three different rooms, each with a girl. He testified that Jesus Nuevas was present in the house and, when questioned, stated that he was not the owner but that the owner had left him in charge. Murano further testified that the women told him they were splitting their earnings with the accused. He also recounted that the colored soldiers stated they paid the girls P10 for each intercourse.

Emilia de la Cruz testified that she was twenty-one years old, single, and that Jesus Nuevas was “our manager.” She stated that she split her earnings fifty-fifty with him and that her charge was P10 per coition. Juanita Fernandez likewise testified that she was twenty-one years old, single, and that she knew Jesus Nuevas because he was “our manager.” She stated that, four months earlier, Jesus Nuevas contracted her to serve as a prostitute in the Alangilang house, that the house was rented by the accused from an owner she did not know, and that the accused paid for her meals. She testified that she received P10 from customers per coition and paid one-half of this amount to Jesus Nuevas.

The Parties’ Contentions

On appeal, the appellant made a single assignment of error: he asserted that the trial court erred in convicting him because the prosecution allegedly failed to satisfy what he characterized as the elements under article 341. He argued that the prosecution must: (a) identify the alleged house of ill fame; (b) prove that it was truly a house of ill fame; and (c) prove that the accused was either the owner or the lessee of the house.

The Court’s Assessment of the Evidence and the Statutory Elements

The Court rejected the appellant’s theory. It held that the appellant’s arguments were untenable because article 341 penalizes three distinct acts: (a) engaging in the business of prostitution; (b) profiting by prostitution; or (c) enlisting the services of women for the purpose of prostitution. The Court emphasized that any person who commits any one of these acts falls within the coverage of the provision.

The Court found that the prosecution proofs showed beyond reasonable doubt that Jesus Nuevas (a) enlisted the services of women for the purpose of prostitution and (b) profited thereby. It reasoned that even assuming arguendo that the appellant was not the lessee or owner of any particular house, he could not escape liability for the immoral and illicit trade in which he engaged.

The Court further explained that, as a matter of law, once the prosecution proved that the accused enlisted the services of women for the purpose of prostitution, he became criminally liable even if there were no proof that he shared in the profits. It also stated that even if the evidence were deemed insufficient to show enlistment, the accused would still be criminally liable because there was indubitable proof that he shared in the income of the prostitutes.

Disposition and Final Ruling

Finding the appellant guilty of the offense charged beyond reasonable doubt, the Court affirmed the sentence appealed from. The Court ordered a modification of the penalty: the maximum of the penalty imposed was reduced to three (3) years, six (6) months, and twenty-one (21) days of prision correctional, and it maintained the imposition of costs against the appellant.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The controlling basis of the decision was the statutory construction of article 341 of the Revised Penal Code. The Court treated the offense not as dependent on the identification or characterization of a specific “house of ill fame” or on whether the accused was the owner or lessee, but as dependent on the accused’s commissio

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-154)

Parties and Procedural Posture

The People of the Philippines prosecuted Jesus Nuevas for violation of article 341 of the Revised Penal Code.
The Court of First Instance of Batangas convicted the accused of white slave trade.
The accused appealed, and the conviction was reviewed upon the single assigned error that the evidence was insufficient to sustain guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction with a modification of the penalty.

Statutory Framework

Article 341 of the Revised Penal Code penalizes white slave trade.
The provision authorizes the penalty of prision correctional in its medium and maximum periods for any person who, in any manner or under any pretext, engages in the business of prostitution, profits by prostitution, or enlists the services of women for the purpose of prostitution.
The Court treated article 341 as covering three distinct acts that independently bring an accused within its purview: (a) engaging in prostitution, (b) profiting by prostitution, and (c) enlisting women for prostitution.
The Court held that proof establishing the accused’s commission of any one of the statutory acts was sufficient for criminal liability under article 341.

Key Factual Allegations

The evidence showed that approximately three or four months before September 22, 1945, the accused contracted the services of four women of ill repute.
The accused brought and maintained the women in a house in the barrio of Alangilang, Batangas, to engage in prostitution.
The accused furnished the women food and lodging.
In return, the accused received one-half of the women’s earnings from their illicit prostitution involving colored soldiers.
On September 22, 1945, police raided the bawdy-house.
The raid resulted in the presence of four women and the accused at the house, and it led to the filing of the criminal case after investigation.
Two of the women, Emilia de la Cruz and Juanita Fernandez, testified for the prosecution about the accused’s role as their manager and the sharing of earnings.
Sergeant Angelo Murano of the military police testified about the raid, the presence of colored soldiers, and statements made during the investigation.

Prosecution Evidence

Sergeant Murano testified that he received a tip that the house was a brothel and that he and his companions raided it at about 2 p. m. on September 22, 1945.
He testified that he found thirteen colored soldiers in the house, with three different rooms each containing a colored soldier and a girl.
He testified that he found the accused in the house and that, when questioned, the accused declared he was not the owner and that the owner had left him in charge.
He testified that the women told him that they were splitting their earnings with the accused.
He testified that the colored soldiers stated they paid P10 for each intercourse.
Emilia de la Cruz testified that she recognized the accused as their “manager” and that she split her earnings fifty-fifty with him as a prostitute.
She affirmed that her charge was P10 a coition.
Juanita Fernandez testified that she knew the accused as their “manager”.
She testified that the accuse