View full case

PEOPLE v. HADJA JARMA LALLI Y PURIH

FACTS:

Lolita Plando, together with Hadja Jarma Lalli and Nestor Relampagos, boarded the same van for Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia. However, upon arrival, they parted ways and did not see each other again. Lolita was forced to work as an entertainer at Pipen Club, wherein she was told that she owed the club 2,000 ringgits for the amount given to Hadja Jarma and Nestor. The customers at the club would pay for the services, with a portion going to the entertainers. Lolita experienced sexual assault and exploitation by the customers at Pipen Club during her employment there. She was able to contact her sister and was eventually rescued from the club. Lolita filed a complaint with the police regarding her ordeal in Malaysia. Hadja Jarma admitted to meeting Lolita on the vessel but claimed that they did not see each other again in Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia.

The accused, Hadja Jarma Lalli and Ronnie Aringoy, were charged with the crimes of Trafficking in Persons and Illegal Recruitment. The complainant, Lolita Plando, testified that she met Lalli and Aringoy at a mall in Zamboanga City. Lalli offered her a job in Malaysia and arranged for her travel and accommodations. Plando paid Lalli P28,000 as a placement fee and was introduced to Aringoy as Lalli's friend. Plando and Lalli then traveled to Malaysia together. However, upon their arrival, they parted ways and Plando did not see them again. Plando denied recruiting Plando for employment abroad. Aringoy, in his counter-affidavit, claimed that he lent Plando P1,000 to go to Malaysia and provided her with information on job opportunities through Lalli. He presented witnesses who testified that Plando worked as a GRO and massage attendant in the Philippines and had four children from different men. The trial court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision. The only issue in this case is whether the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error.

The case involves Aringoy and Lalli, who were accused of illegally recruiting and transporting women to work in Malaysia. The prosecution presented Lolita as their main witness, who testified that she was recruited by Aringoy and Lalli to work as a massage attendant and GRO in a massage parlor. Lolita claimed that she paid a placement fee of ?28,000 and was brought to Malaysia by Aringoy, Lalli, and their companions.

Aringoy argued that Lolita's testimony lacked credibility due to inconsistencies in her statements regarding her grandfather's status and name, the persons who approached her about the job opportunity in Malaysia, certain statements not mentioned in her sworn statement, and the names of the other female recruits. Aringoy also claimed that he was not included in the initial complaint filed by Lolita, and her statements about their meetings were not corroborated by any witness.

Lalli, on the other hand, claimed that she only met Lolita on board a ship bound for Malaysia and denied any involvement in recruiting or transporting her. Lalli stated that she was visiting her daughter and son-in-law in Malaysia and only had a casual conversation with Lolita on the ship. Lalli admitted that she shared a van with Lolita, Aringoy, and their companions in Malaysia, but she left them to continue their journey towards Kota Kinabalu. Lalli also disputed Lolita's testimony, pointing out inconsistencies in her statements regarding her whereabouts and the date of their alleged trip to Labuan.

Both Aringoy and Lalli challenged the credibility of Lolita's testimony and highlighted the inconsistencies and lack of corroboration from other witnesses.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the inconsistencies in the testimony of Lolita affect her credibility.

  2. Whether the inconsistencies in the testimony of Lalli and Aringoy affect their credibility.

  3. Whether the allegations about Lolita's previous employment and personal life affect her credibility.

  4. Whether the trial court's findings of fact should be given weight and respect.

  5. Whether the accused are guilty of syndicated illegal recruitment.

  6. Whether the accused committed syndicated illegal recruitment.

  7. Whether there was a conspiracy among the accused in the illegal recruitment.

  8. Whether the accused can be convicted of the crime of Trafficking in Persons even if they were not part of the group that transported the victim from the Philippines to Malaysia.

  9. Whether the testimony of the accused's niece, claiming that the victim had been traveling to Malaysia to work in bars, should be given credence.

  10. Is the award of moral damages and exemplary damages proper in the crime of Trafficking in Persons as a Prostitute?

  11. Is the award of moral damages and exemplary damages proper in this case?

RULING:

  1. The Court ruled that minor inconsistencies in the testimony of Lolita do not necessarily affect her credibility. Inconsistencies in minor details are not enough to destroy the credibility of witnesses. Instead, they indicate that the witnesses were telling the truth and not previously rehearsed.

  2. The Court found material inconsistencies in the testimonies of Lalli and Aringoy. Aringoy admitted referring Lolita to Lalli, while Lalli denied knowing Lolita prior to their meeting on board the ship. Lalli also admitted allowing Lolita and her companions to ride in her van in Malaysia, contradicting her claim of a coincidental meeting. Moreover, Lalli's frequent travel to Malaysia does not explain why she purchased boat tickets for Lolita and the other women passengers.

  3. The allegations about Lolita's previous employment and personal life were unsupported by any other evidence and did not affect her credibility. Even if Lolita had worked in a karaoke bar and massage parlor and had children from different men, these facts do not exempt or mitigate the accused's criminal liabilities for illegal recruitment and trafficking.

  4. The Court gives weight and respect to the trial court's findings in criminal prosecution because the latter is in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses in person and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial. The findings of fact of the trial court, as affirmed in toto by the Court of Appeals, are adopted by the Court.

  5. The accused are guilty of syndicated illegal recruitment. The trial court found that the accused conspired and confederated with one another to recruit and place the victim for work in Malaysia, without a POEA license. Syndicated illegal recruitment requires the commission of illegal recruitment by a group of three or more persons conspiring or confederating with one another.

  6. The court held that the accused committed syndicated illegal recruitment. The three elements of syndicated illegal recruitment were present, namely: (a) the accused had no valid license or authority required by law to engage in recruitment and placement of workers; (b) the accused engaged in recruitment and placement by actually recruiting, deploying, and transporting the victim to Malaysia; and (c) illegal recruitment was committed by three persons, conspiring and confederating with one another.

  7. The court found that there was a conspiracy among the accused in the illegal recruitment. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons agree concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. The court explained that conspiracy does not require explicit agreement but may be inferred from the parties' conduct indicating a common understanding among themselves. In this case, the court found that Lolita would not have been able to go to Malaysia without the concerted efforts of Aringoy, Lalli, and Relampagos. Aringoy referred Lolita to Lalli, Lalli purchased the boat ticket for Lolita, and Relampagos introduced Lolita and her companions to their first employer in Malaysia.

  8. Yes, the accused can be convicted of the crime of Trafficking in Persons even if they were not part of the group that transported the victim. The crime of Trafficking in Persons includes not only the transportation of victims but also the act of recruitment for trafficking. In this case, it has been proven that all the accused conspired and confederated to illegally recruit the victim to become a prostitute in Malaysia, which constitutes trafficking. Therefore, they are guilty of the crime of Qualified Trafficking in Persons committed by a syndicate under Republic Act No. 9208.

  9. No, the testimony of the accused's niece claiming that the victim had been traveling to Malaysia to work in bars should not be given credence. The victim did not even have a passport to go to Malaysia and had to use her sister's passport when she was recruited by the accused. It is questionable how she could have been traveling to Malaysia previously without a passport. Moreover, even if it is true that the victim had been traveling to Malaysia to work in bars, the crime of Trafficking in Persons can exist even with the victim's consent or knowledge.

  10. Yes, the award of moral damages and exemplary damages is proper in the crime of Trafficking in Persons as a Prostitute. Article 2219 of the Civil Code provides that moral damages may be recovered in criminal offenses resulting in physical injuries, quasi-delicts causing physical injuries, seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts, among others. The criminal case of Trafficking in Persons as a Prostitute is considered an analogous case to the crimes of seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts. Therefore, the award of moral damages is justified.

  11. Yes, the award of moral damages and exemplary damages is proper in this case. The victim, Lolita, experienced physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, and social humiliation when she was trafficked as a prostitute in Malaysia. The crime of Trafficking in Persons was aggravated, being committed by a syndicate. Hence, the award of moral damages and exemplary damages is justified in this case.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Inconsistencies in minor details do not necessarily affect the credibility of witnesses.

  • Material inconsistencies in the testimonies of the accused can affect their credibility.

  • Past employment and personal details of a witness may not necessarily affect their credibility, especially if unsupported by evidence.

  • The findings of fact of the trial court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are given weight and respect by the Supreme Court.

  • Illegal recruitment refers to any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers, whether for profit or not, undertaken by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority from the Department of Labor and Employment.

  • Syndicated illegal recruitment is committed when illegal recruitment is carried out by a group of three or more persons conspiring or confederating with one another.

  • The penalties for syndicated illegal recruitment, as defined under Republic Act No. 8042, include life imprisonment and a fine of not less than ?500,000 but not more than ?1,000,000, or as amended by Republic Act No. 10022, a fine of not less than ?2,000,000 but not more than ?5,000,000.

  • The elements of conspiracy are (a) two or more persons coming to an agreement, (b) the agreement concerning the commission of a felony, and (c) the execution of the felony being decided upon. Proof of conspiracy need not be based on direct evidence but may be inferred from the parties' conduct indicating a common understanding among themselves.

  • Flight in criminal law, which is the voluntary withdrawal of the accused to avoid arrest or detention, may be considered as evidence of guilt. The unexplained flight of an accused can be taken into consideration in establishing guilt.

  • Trafficking in Persons under Sections 3(a) and 4 of Republic Act No. 9208 includes not only transportation of victims but also the act of recruitment of victims for trafficking.

  • The constitutional right against double jeopardy only applies to risk of punishment twice for the same offense or for an act punished by a law and an ordinance. It does not apply to an act or series of acts constituting different offenses.

  • Moral damages under the Civil Code include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury.

  • Moral damages may be recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendant's wrongful act or omission.

  • Exemplary damages are awarded in addition to moral damages, by way of example or correction for the public good.

  • Exemplary damages in criminal offenses may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances.