Marajas v. People, G.R. No.
244001, June 23, 2021
Facts: Sometime in
May 2012, private
complainant Tag-at
went to Myron Travel
Agency,
owned by Melgarejo,
to seek employment
abroad as a domestic
helper. Melgarejo then
told
private complainant to
wait for petitioner.
When petitioner
arrived, private
complainant
introduced herself and
told petitioner of her
desire to seek
employment abroad.
Petitioner replied
that the agency would
just arrange for a
sponsor in Beijing,
China who would help
the private
complainant travel to
Beijing, China where
she would be engaged
as a domestic helper.
In the same afternoon,
private complainant,
accompanied by
petitioner, went to the
Ninoy
Aquino International
Airport (NAIA)
Terminal 3 after being
told that she would be
departing for
Beijing, China later
that afternoon. After
paying private
complainant's travel
tax, petitioner told
her to wait for a text
message from
somebody and to fall
in line at the
Immigration counter
being
manned by a fat and
bald person who later
turned out to be Pilac.
Private complainant
then gave her
passport to Pilac upon
reaching the counter.
Pilac asked her
where she was going
and she answered,
"Beijing, sir." When
asked if she had
money, private
complainant replied in
the affirmative
showing One
Thousand Pesos
(P1,000.00). Pilac then
cleared private
complainant for
departure by putting a
stamp on her
passport. Private
complainant then
proceeded to the next
line.10
Agents Follosco,
Sarno, and Geli then
proceeded to the
Immigration counter
and ordered private
complainant to
proceed to the Bureau
of Immigration Travel
Control and
Enforcement Unit
(TCEU) for secondary
inspection of her
travel documents. IO
Lagman then checked
private
complainant's
documents such as
her passport, return
ticket, boarding pass,
Letter of Invitation
and Support, and the
birth certificate of
Daquigan. IO Lagman
also interviewed her in
the
process. It was at this
point that IO Lagman
decided to offload her
after she failed to
show her
relationship with
Daquigan as her
alleged sponsor. An
Affidavit of Offloading
was executed by
IO Lagman afterwards.
Issue: Whether the CA
gravely erred in
finding petitioner
guilty of acts that
promote Trafficking
in Persons under
Section 5(e) of R.A.
No. 9208.
Ruling: No. Section 5
of R.A. No. 9208
provides for the acts
that promote
trafficking of persons,
such as:
(e) To facilitate, assist
or help in the exit and
entry of persons
from/to the country at
international
and local airports,
territorial boundaries
and seaports who are
in possession of
unissued,
tampered or
fraudulent travel
documents for the
purpose of promoting
trafficking in
persons[.]
In this case, the courts
a quo correctly found
— through the
consistent, direct,
unequivocal, and
thus, credible
testimony of private
complainant and the
other witnesses —
that the prosecution
had clearly
established the
existence of the
elements of violation
of Section 5(e) of R.A.
No.
9208, as evinced by
the fact that petitioner
facilitated and
assisted the private
complainant in her
foiled attempt to
depart from the
country through NAIA
Terminal 3, after
providing her with
fraudulent travel
documents for the
purpose of her
employment in
Beijing, China
