G.R. No. 246306 - Marian Rebutay Sedano vs. People

Case Summary (G.R. No. 246306)

Factual Background

Petitioner, Marian Rebuta y Sedano, was the registered owner and proprietor of the Apple Bar Disco Pub with two branches and of a lodge where employees resided. Jayflor Delgado y Gabayan served as floor manager. The Inter-Agency Council Against Trafficking alerted the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) of xxxxxxxxxxx City that the establishments employed minors as entertainers and guest relations officers (GRO). NBI agents conducted surveillance and, on January 24, 2014, entered the establishment under the guise of customers, observed some entertainers appearing to be minors, and executed an operation.

Arrests and Identification of Minors

During the operation NBI agents apprehended the persons entertaining customers and arrested petitioner and Delgado when petitioner arrived after being summoned by an employee. A social worker and a dentist accompanied the agents. Persons rounded up were brought to the NBI for initial investigation, minors were segregated and subjected to dental examinations, and five girls were ultimately identified as minors: AAA (15), BBB (16), CCC (17), DDD (17), and EEE (15).

Complaints, Additional Allegations, and Informations

The identified minors filed complaints against petitioner and Delgado. Initial Informations were filed in Criminal Case Nos. 19762 to 19769 charging, among others, qualified trafficking under Section 6(a) in relation to Section 4(a) of RA 9208, and violations of Section 12-D(4)(b) of RA 7610, as amended. A subsequent set of complaints by EEE resulted in additional Informations against petitioner alone, docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 20112 and 20113, alleging employment of a 14-year-old as a pole dancer and sexual exploitation.

Charges and Nature of Allegations

The accusatory pleadings alleged that the minors were hired, received, and harbored for purposes of sexual exploitation; that they were required to perform pole and sexy dances wearing scant clothing or naked; that patrons were allowed to touch private parts and participate in degrading exhibitions; and that such employment constituted the worst forms of child labor and sexual exploitation punishable under RA 9208, RA 10364, and RA 7610, as amended.

Trial and Pleas

Upon arraignment both petitioner and Delgado pleaded not guilty and the case proceeded to a full trial where both the prosecution and the defense presented documentary and testimonial evidence.

RTC Findings and Acquittal

In a Joint Decision dated October 30, 2015, the RTC acquitted petitioner and Delgado of all charges for lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The RTC found no evidence that petitioner or Delgado used threat, force, coercion, abduction, fraud, or deception to compel the private complainants to work as GROs. The court concluded that the private complainants voluntarily applied for employment and had misrepresented their ages, and the RTC further considered the applicability of the statutory provisions on child employment under RA 7610 and its amendment by RA 9231 in reaching its determination.

Petition for Certiorari by the People (OSG)

The People, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 in the CA, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the RTC in acquitting petitioner and Delgado. The OSG framed the elements of trafficking under RA 9208 as act, means, and purpose, and argued that the acts and the purpose of sexual exploitation were established. The OSG further relied on the provision that recruitment or receipt of a child for exploitation constitutes trafficking even without proof of the enumerated means, and relied on birth certificates to establish minority. The OSG also argued that the conduct violated Section 12-D of RA 7610, irrespective of work hours. The petition did not expressly specify the reliefs sought.

Court of Appeals Decision and Conviction

The Court of Appeals granted the petition for certiorari, found the RTC to have committed grave abuse of discretion, reversed and set aside the RTC Joint Decision, and convicted petitioner of five counts of violation of Section 4(a), qualified by Section 6(a) of RA 9208, as expanded under RA 10364, in relation to Section 12-D(2), Article VIII of RA 7610, as amended by RA 9231. The CA sentenced petitioner to life imprisonment and a fine of P2,000,000.00 for each count, and awarded moral and exemplary damages to the victims. The CA affirmed the acquittal of Delgado.

Grounds and Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

Petitioner filed a petition for review under Rule 45 challenging the CA decision. The principal contention was that the CA’s reversal of the RTC acquittal violated the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy under Art. III, Sec. 21, 1987 Constitution. Petitioner further argued that the CA erred because the OSG’s petition for certiorari was filed out of time, failed to pray for specific reliefs, and that the warrantless search and arrest and the evidence obtained thereby were unlawful.

Supreme Court Disposition

The Supreme Court granted the petition. The Court reversed and set aside the CA Decision dated September 26, 2018 and its Resolution of March 4, 2019, and reinstated the RTC Joint Decision dated October 30, 2015 acquitting petitioner and Delgado of the charged offenses. The Court ordered immediate entry of judgment in favor of the acquitted parties.

Finality of Acquittal and Double Jeopardy Analysis

The Court reaffirmed the finality-of-acquittal doctrine and the constitutional guarantee that no person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. It explained that a judgment of acquittal, whether by trial or appellate court, is final, unappealable, and immediately executory, and that reexamination of the merits of an acquittal ordinarily places the accused in unconstitutional second jeopardy. The Court recited the narrow exceptions permitting a Rule 65 petition to assail an acquittal only when the lower court acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, or where the prosecution was denied due process such that the first jeopardy was not validly terminated.

Application of the Exception and Rationale for Reversal

The Court found that the OSG had not alleged or proven that the prosecution was denied due process, that the trial was a sham, or that there had been a mistrial. The Court observed that the RTC’s acquittal rested on factual findings and legal reasoning concerning voluntariness and misrepresentation of age by the private complainants, and that such findings and legal conclusions constituted errors of judgment subject to ordinary appellate review but not to correction by certiorari. The Court held that certiorari corrects jurisdictional defects, not disagreements over evidence appreciation or legal application that do not rise to the level of arbitrary or despotic action. Accordingly, the CA’s reversal of the acquittal on the basis of its different view of the evidence and law violated the finality-of-acquittal rule and the constitutional bar against double jeopardy.

Procedural Defects in the OSG Petition

The Court further identified two procedural defects in the OSG’s Rule 65 petition that independently warranted denial: untimeliness and failure to specify relief. The Court held that the petition was filed beyond the sixty-day period prescribed in Section 4, Rule 65, and that the OSG’s motion for extension was filed after the period had lapsed without exceptional circumstances warranting relaxation. The Court also stressed that the petition did not specify the reliefs prayed for, which deprived the opposing party of fair notice and the ability to prepare a defense on the precise relief sought.

Treatment of Other Issues and Prudential Considerations

Because the Court concluded that the CA erred in disturbi

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 246306)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Petitioner Marian Rebuta y Sedano was the registered owner and proprietor of the Apple Bar Disco Pub and owner of Apple Lodge where employees resided.
Respondent People of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, assailed the acquittal by petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals and later invoked review before the Supreme Court under Rule 45.
Co-accused Jayflor Delgado y Gabayan was the floor manager at the Apple Bar and was acquitted by the Court of Appeals and by the trial court.
The trial court rendered a Joint Decision dated October 30, 2015 acquitting petitioner and Delgado in Criminal Case Nos. 19762, 19763, 19764, 19765, 19766, 19767, 19768, 19769, 20112, and 20113.
The Court of Appeals in a Decision dated September 26, 2018 reversed the trial court and convicted petitioner of five counts, which decision was the subject of the present petition for review on certiorari.

Key Factual Allegations

The National Bureau of Investigation conducted a surveillance and raid of the Apple Bar after an Inter-Agency Council Against Trafficking report alleged that the establishments employed minors as entertainers and guest relations officers.
The NBI agents rounded up entertainers during the operation and took custody of those who appeared to be minors, with a social worker and dentist assisting during initial screening.
The NBI identified five minors as victims named AAA (then fifteen years old), BBB (then sixteen years old), CCC (then seventeen years old), DDD (then seventeen years old), and EEE (then fifteen years old).
The private complainants alleged pornographic performances, wearing skimpy clothes, sitting with and entertaining male customers, public bathing while patrons applied soap to private parts, and prostitution for money.

Charges

The informations charged petitioner and Delgado with violations of Section 4(a) qualified by Section 6(a) of Republic Act No. 9208, as amended by RA 10364, for trafficking in persons with child victims.
Petitioner and Delgado were likewise charged with violations of Section 12-D(4)(b) of RA 7610, as amended by RA 9231, alleging employment of minors in a worst form of child labor.
Additional informations against petitioner alone were docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 20112 and 20113 alleging EEE was fourteen to fifteen years old and was hired for sexual exploitation and pole dancing.

Trial Court Ruling

The Regional Trial Court, in its Joint Decision dated October 30, 2015, acquitted petitioner and Delgado for lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The trial court found that no threat, force, coercion, abduction, fraud, or deception was exercised by the accused to compel the private complainants to work as GROs and that the complainants voluntarily applied and lied about their ages.
The trial court observed that most complainants, except EEE, were over fifteen years of age and that the Apple Bar’s night-hour nature and the absence of proof of physical or psychological trauma militated against finding a worst form of child labor.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The Court of Appeals granted the petition for certiorari filed by the People, reversed and set aside the trial court’s Joint Decision, and convicted petitioner of five counts of Section 4(a), qualified by Section 6(a) of RA 9208, as expanded by RA 10364, in relation to Section 12-D(2), Articl