G.R. No.
240692, July 15, 2020
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. IMELDA GARCIA Y
TORDEDO AND NOEL E. OLEDAN, ACCUSED,
NOEL E. OLEDAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
DECISION
(ABOUT SA CASE: Gi recruit ang minor na 15 years old pa para ma bar fine sa
customers)
Before the Court is an ordinary appeal1 filed by Noel E. Oledan (Oledan) assailing the
Decision2 dated August 31, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No.
07688 which affirmed with modifications the Decision 3 dated August 29, 2014 of Branch
11, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Laoag City convicting Oledan, in Criminal Case No.
14370, of Qualified Trafficking in Persons defined and penalized under Section 4(e) 4 in
relation to Section 6(a)5 of Republic Act No. (RA) 9208, as amended,6 otherwise know
as the "Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003."
The accusatory portion of the Information7 dated January 27, 2010 charging Oledan, in
Criminal Case No. 14370, of the offense of Qualified Trafficking in Persons, reads;
That on or about the 12th day of December 2009 in the City of Laoag, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named accused, NOEL E.
OLEDAN alias "Tita Welcome" and by means of fraud, deception, taking advantage of
the vulnerability of the private complainants, and the giving of payments or benefits to
maintain or hire a person to engage in prostitution or pornography, did then and there,
Willfully, unlawfully and feloniously and knowingly recruit and hired [AAA] 8 , and
thereafter, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously received monetary
consideration and transacting and employing scheme and designed to engage [AAA],
for sexual intercourse and prostitution, and in fact engaged in prostitution, in return for
money and profit.
That the crime was attended by tire qualifying circumstances of minority - private
complainants [AAA] was only seventeen years old during the commission of the crime.
CONTRARY TO LAW.9 cralawlawlibrary
The prosecution established the following:
AAA was born on March 3, 1994. On September 16, 2009, one alias Tita Butz a
neighbor of then 15-year-old AAA in Pasay City, introduced AAA to Oledan.
Oledan offered AAA a work at Saigon Disco located in Laoag City where she
would drink liquor and be "bar fined" by customers, Oledan explained to AAA
that "bar fine" meant that she would have sexual intercourse with the bar
customers, AAA felt nervous, but accepted the offer because she wanted to help
her mother. Oledan also told AAA that her earnings would depend on how many
liquors she could consume and the number of times that she would be "bar
fined," Knowing that AAA was only 15 years old, Oledan asked if she knew any
person of legal age who has a Certificate of Live Birth which they could use. As
instructed, AAA furnished Oledan with the Certificate of Live Birth of one Darlene
B. Fernandez. (Gi offeran na si AAA ug trabaho as bar fined)
At around 7 p.m. of the same day, without the consent and permission of her
mother, BBB, AAA met Oledan outside a drug store in Pasay City. She and
Oledan went to a bus station in Cubao, Quezon City.
AAA started to work at Saigon Disco on September 17, 2009 at around 6 p.m.
That night, AAA was "tabled she had to drink liquor and entertain customers.
She was also "bar fined". The customer paid her P2,500.00 for the bar fine,
which was given to either Oledan or Garcia. (Nag trabaho na diri na part si AAA)
AAA continued working at Saigon Disco almost daily for three months. Some of
her co-workers were also minors. In that period: AAA was managed by Oledan,
Garcia, and one Tita Grace; AAA was "bar fined" eight times by customers
provided by either Oledan or Garcia; Oledan, ordered AAA to dance Wearing
shorts and bra, with a Warning that she would incur a penalty of P500.00 if she
refused; AAA was not allowed to leave Saigon Disco; and AAA was not given a
regular salary except for advanced payments that she asked from the owners of
Saigon Disco.14
On September 19, 2009, BBB, who was greatly worried about her daughter's
absence, went to the house of one of AAA's friends; BBB inquired of the
whereabouts of AAA. Tita Butz, who overheard the conversation between BBB
and her daughter, told BBB that Oledan brought AAA to Laoag City to work
as a servant in a restaurant. Tita Butz then gave the contact number of
Oledan. BBB called the number and was able to talk to AAA. AAA assured BBB
that she was just working in a restaurant in Laoag City. AAA informed BBB that
Oledan was also from their neighborhood in Pasay City. 15
Sometime in November 2009, BBB received a phone call from AAA, who was
crying and begging BBB to fetch her from Saigon Disco in Laoag City. She told
BBB that she could not go home by herself as she had many debts. With this
predicament, BBB then inquired in her neighborhood about Oledan's identity.
She later found out that Oledan was a bar manager. One of AAA's friends
suggested to BBB that AAA was possibly being held by a syndicate. This
information impelled BBB to file a report with the Violence Against Women and
Children Division of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) on December 1,
2009. She also sought the help of the International Justice Mission (IJM). BBB
revealed that IJM helped her in the past when AAA was once sexually molested
by a neighbor. (Gi report na sa mama ang panghitabo)
When the IJM-Manila Office obtained the relevant information from BBB, it sent
its investigator Randy Ramos (Ramos) to Laoag City on December 9, 2009.
Ramos conducted an initial surveillance of Saigon Disco. He confirmed that he
saw AAA at Saigon Disco on the aforesaid date working as a Guest Relations
Officer (GRO); and that Oledan and Garcia were the floor managers at Saigon
Disco who asked customers to "table" the GROs. The following day, Ramos went
to NBI-Laoag Office to endorse BBB's report. NBI Executive Officer Hilario C.
Manding (Agent Manding) was tasked to handle the case. (Nakita sa
surveillance nga gihimo og GRO si AAA.)
Ruling of the RTC
In the Decision dated August 29, 2014, the RTC convicted Oledan of Qualified
Trafficking in Persons. The RTC ruled that Oledan. through fraud and deception,
taking advantage of AAA's vulnerability who was then a minor, and giving her payments
to get her to engage in prostitution, recruited, maintained, and harbored her in
exchange for money and profit.
The fallo of the RTC Decision reads: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
1. In Criminal Case No. 14314, accused IMELDA GARCIA alias "SALVE" is hereby
declared GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of the crime charged against her. She
is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and a fine of TWO
MILLION (P2,000,000.00) PESOS. Further, she is hereby ordered to pay minor
complainant [AAA] the amount of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) as
moral-damages;
2. In Criminal Case No. 14315, accused IMELDA GARCIA alias "SALVE" is hereby
ACQUITTED of the crime charged against her;
3. In Criminal Case No. 14369, accused NOEL E. OLEDAN alias "TITA WELCOME" is
hereby ACQUITTED of the crime charged against him; and
4. In Criminal Case No. 14370, accused NOEL E. OLEDAN alias "TITA WELCOME" is
hereby declared GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of the crime charged against
him. He is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and a fine of
TWO MILLION (P2,000,000.00) PESOS. Further, he is hereby ordered to pay minor
complainant [AAA] the amount of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100.000.00) as
moral damages.
SO ORDERED.22 cralawlawlibrary
Oledan filed an appeal to the CA. He argued that the prosecution failed to prove the
elements of the offense charged beyond reasonable doubt.
Ruling of the CA
In the assailed Decision,23 the CA affirmed the RTC with modifications. Notably, the CA
sustained Oledan's conviction albeit under Section 4(a) 24 of RA 9208, as amended. It
held that Oledan performed all the elements in the commission of the offense of
Qualified Trafficking of Persons as provided under RA 9208, as amended. It did not give
merit to the alleged contradictory and irreconcilable statements of the prosecution
witnesses, declaring that they merely refer to minor details and do not deal with the
elements of the offense charged. It also upheld the validity of the entrapment
operation, emphasizing the rule that "in entrapment, the criminal intent or design to
commit the offense charged originates in the mind of the accused, and law enforcement
officials merely facilitate the apprehension of the criminal by employing ruses and
schemes; thus, the accused cannot justify his or her conduct"25 The CA pointed out
that:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
xxx [I]t was established during trial that appellant Oledan had been recruiting and
deploying young girls for customers in sex trade. Trapped in Saigon Disco, no less than
the victim, [AAA] asked the help of her own mother [BBB], who in turn, sought the aid
of the IJM and the NBI-Manila. Ramos, IJM's investigator, went to Saigon Disco and
placed it under surveillance, precisely becausc of these reported illicit activities. When
Ramos confirmed that JJJ was indeed being "bar fined" thereat, he coordinated with the
NBI-Laoag and personally endorsed [BBB's] report. Another surveillance was conducted
by Ramos together with Agent Villanueva and again confirmed the earlier report. On the
day of the entrapment operation, appellant Garcia actually offered girls to the poseur-
customers and she brought out [AAA] to them after the latter danced on stage. Clearly,
there was a valid entrapment operation in this case and there could be no instigation by
officers, as barred by law, to speak of.26
cralawlawlibrary
The CA disposed of the case in this wise: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Appeals are DISMISSED. The August 29, 2014
Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Laoag City, Branch 11, convicting accused-
appellants Imelda Garcia y Tordedo also known as Salve" and Noel B. Oledan also
known as "Tita Welcome" of Qualified Trafficking in Persons in Criminal Case Nos.
14314 and 14370 is AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS: (1) the amount of
moral damages is hereby increased from P100,000.00 to P500,000.00; and (2)
exemplary damages is hereby awarded in the amount of P100,000,00. Said moral and
exemplary damages are subject to interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per
annum from the finality of this decision until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.27 cralawlawlibrary
Hence, this appeal.
The sole issue ill the present case is whether Oledan's guilt was proven beyond
reasonable doubt.
The Courts Ruling
The appeal is without merit.
Section 3(a) of RA 9208, as amended, defines "Trafficking in Persons" as follows: '[it]
refers to the recruitment, obtaining, hiring, providing, transportation, transfer,
maintaining, harboring, or receipt of persons with or without the victim's consent or
knowledge, within or across national borders by means of threat or use of force, or
other forms of coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or of position,
taking advantage of the vulnerability of the persons, or, the giving or receiving of
payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another
person for the purpose of exploitation which includes at a minimum, the exploitation or
the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or services,
slavery, servitude or the removal or sale of organs.
In the present case, Oledan was charged and convicted by the RTC of Qualified
Trafficking in Persons under Section 4(e) of RA 9208, as amended; while the CA
convicted him under Section 4(a) of the same law, both in relation to Section 6(a) of RA
9208, as amended. Section 4(a) and (e) of RA 9208, as amended, reads: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
SEC. 4. Acts of Trafficking in Persons. � It shall be unlawful for any person, natural or
juridical, to commit any of the following acts:
(a) To recruit, obtain, hire, provide, offer, transport, transfer, maintain, harbor, or
receive a person by any means, including those done under the pretext of domestic or
overseas employment or training or apprenticeship, for the purpose of prostitution,
pornography, or sexual exploitation;
xxxx
(e) To maintain or hire a person to engage in prostitution or pornography;
xxxx
This, notwithstanding, Oledan's conviction must be sustained as the prosecution was
able to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt under Section 4(a) of RA 9208.
ARGUMENT:
Oledan mainly contends that he had nothing to do with AAA's recruitment as the latter
was just introduced to him by Tita Butz.
RULING:
However, as correctly ruled by the courts a quo, Oledan is guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of Qualified Trafficking in Persons since the prosecution, through the
consistent, direct, unequivocal, and thus, credible testimonies of its witnesses,
had clearly established the existence of the elements thereof as evinced by the
following:
(a) Oledan was able to recruit AAA, a minor;
(b) Oledan was even the one who transported AAA to Laoag City and brought her to
Saigon Disco;
(c) Oledan recruited AAA for the purpose of engaging her to perform illicit work, i.e., as
a GRO at Saigon Disco and perform lewd acts thereat and with customers even outside
the establishment; and
(d) AAA worked as a GRO at Saigon Disco for about three months.
The Court further concurs with the following findings of the CA that show that Oledan
did maintain AAA to engage in prostitution; thus: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
With respect to appellant Oledan, it was duly established by proof beyond
reasonable doubt that he recruited, transported, and provided [AAA] to numerous
customers on different occasions at Saigon Disco in exchange for money under the
pretext of a "bar fine," by taking advantage of her vulnerability, sometime in
September until December of 2009; With respect to appellant Garcia, while she
may not have anything to do with [AAA's] recruitment, it was equally proved that
she maintained, provided and hired her to engage in prostitution activities at
Saigon Disco. It was indubitably established that both appellants managed all the
GROs at Saigon Disco, provided for their customers and received the "bar fine" for the
services rendered by the; said GROs including those of [AAA],
It must be emphasized that [AAA's] testimony with regard to the payment of a "bar
fine" particularly in the amount of P2,500.00, which necessarily included the rendering
of sexual services to customers, was evidently established and confirmed in the
entrapment operation conducted by the NBI with the assistance of the IJM on
December 12, 2009. x x x.28 cralawlawlibrary
It must be added that even without the use of coercive, abusive, or deceptive
means, a minor's consent is not given out of his or her own free will.29 The
trafficked victim's testimony that she had been sexually exploited is material to the
cause of the prosecution.30 In this case, AAA's testimony was corroborated by the
testimonies of the persons who were part of the entrapment operation.
The rule that is applicable in the present case is that the trial court's assignment of
probative value to witnesses' testimonies will not be disturbed except when significant
matters were overlooked, because it has the opportunity to observe the demeanor of
the witness on the stand.31 The trial courts findings acquire even greater weight once
affirmed on appeal.32
In light of the foregoing, the Court finds no reason to depart from the factual findings of
the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, as there is no indication that it overlooked,
misunderstood or misapplied the surrounding facts and circumstances of the case. As
aforesaid the RTC was in the best position to assess and determine the credibility of the
witnesses. Thus, due deference should be accorded to it. Hence, Oledan's conviction for
Qualified Trafficking in Persons under Section 4(a) of RA 9208 in relation to Section
6(a) of the same law must be upheld.
Anent the proper penalty to be imposed, Section 10(g) of RA 9208, as amended, states
that any person found guilty of qualified trafficking under Section 6 shall suffer the
penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of not less than P2,000,000.00 but not more
than P5,000,000.00. Thus, the CA correctly sentenced Oledan to suffer the penalty of
life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P2,000,000.00. The damages awarded by the CA
are likewise upheld for being consistent with the prevailing jurisprudence. 33
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated August 11, 2017 of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 07688 is AFFIRMED. As such, accused-
appellant Noel E. Oledan is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Qualified
Trafficking in Persons defined and penalized under Section 4(a) in relation to Section
6(a) of Republic Act No. 9208, as amended, and accordingly, sentenced to suffer the
penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine in the amount of P2,000,000.00. He is
likewise ordered to pay the victim, AAA, the amounts of P500,000.00 as moral damages
and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages, both with legal interest at the rate of 6% per
annum from the finality of this Decision until full payment.
SO ORDERED.
