View full case

PEOPLE v. LUDIVICO PATRIMONIO BANDOJO

FACTS:

The accused-appellants in this case were charged with Qualified Trafficking in Persons and Trafficking in Persons. They allegedly recruited and hired a 17-year-old minor to engage in sexual activities with clients for monetary consideration. The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) received information about a Facebook account offering sexual services of minors, which led them to Ludivico, the handler of the ladies providing such services. The terms of payment were discussed through text messages. An entrapment operation was set up, during which Ludivico received the down payment and entrusted the minor to NBI operatives. Ludivico and the other accused-appellant were arrested. During the trial, the accused-appellants denied the accusations and presented their own versions of events. The RTC convicted them and imposed life imprisonment without parole, fines, and damages to the private complainant. The accused-appellants appealed the decision to the CA, raising issues of sufficiency of evidence, conspiracy, and denial as defense. The plaintiff-appellee argued that one of the accused recruited and hired the victim for prostitution.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused-appellants for the crime of human trafficking.

  2. Whether the RTC erred in finding the presence of conspiracy.

  3. Whether the RTC erred in disregarding the accused-appellants' defense of denial.

  4. Whether the elements of trafficking in persons were established by the prosecution.

  5. Whether the prosecution was able to prove the conspiracy between the accused-appellants.

  6. Whether there was sufficient evidence to prove the accused-appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of Qualified Trafficking in Persons.

  7. Whether the accused-appellants' defense of denial should be given weight despite being positively identified by the prosecution's witnesses.

  8. Whether or not the CA correctly ruled that the municipal trial court (MTC) had jurisdiction over the case.

  9. Whether or not the CA correctly held that the basic principle of jurisdiction in ejectment cases is that the action should be filed in the place where the subject property is located.

RULING:

  1. The Court affirms the accused-appellants' conviction.

  2. The Court held that all the elements of the crime of violation of Section 4(a), in relation to Section 6(a), of R.A. No. 9208 (Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act) were duly established by the prosecution. The first element was proven through the testimony of the victim and a National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) agent. The second element was proven by showing that the accused-appellants took advantage of the victim's vulnerability and abject poverty. The third element was proven through the victim's birth certificate, which showed that she was a minor at the time of the crime. The Court ruled that consent of the minor is not a defense under R.A. No. 9208.

  3. The Court ruled that the prosecution was able to prove the conspiracy between the accused-appellants. It held that proof of conspiracy need not be based on direct evidence and may be inferred from the parties' conduct indicating a common understanding among themselves with respect to the commission of the crime. In this case, testimonial evidence established that the accused-appellants had communicated and coordinated with each other in recruiting the victim for prostitution.

  4. The Court finds that the prosecution was able to establish the accused-appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Qualified Trafficking in Persons under Section 4(a), in relation to Section 6(a), of R.A. 9208. The accused-appellants' joint purpose and concerted action in facilitating the prostitution of a minor were proven through positive identification and other pieces of evidence.

  5. The Court rules that a categorical and consistent positive identification prevails over mere denial. The accused-appellants' unsubstantiated denial does not hold weight against the testimonies of credible witnesses. Therefore, the defense of denial was rightly dismissed by the trial court.

  6. Yes, the CA correctly ruled that the MTC had jurisdiction over the case. The jurisdiction of MTCs in ejectment cases is determined by the amount of monthly rental or the value of the property sought to be recovered. Since the complaint in this case sought to recover the possession of a lot with an assessed value of Php 230,000 and a market value of Php 480,000, it falls within the jurisdiction of the MTC.

  7. Yes, the CA correctly held that the basic principle of jurisdiction in ejectment cases is that the action should be filed in the place where the subject property is located. In this case, the property subject of the dispute is located within the territorial jurisdiction of the MTC, and it is where the MTC has jurisdiction and can best determine the nature and character of the land.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Consent of the victim is not a defense when the vulnerability of the trafficked person is taken advantage of.

  • Denial cannot prevail over the positive testimony of a witness.

  • The prosecution must prove the elements of the crime charged beyond reasonable doubt.

  • The existence of conspiracy may be proved through the concerted action of the accused for a common end.

  • The age of the victim is an element of qualified trafficking in persons.

  • Elements of trafficking in persons under R.A. No. 9208: (a) act of recruitment, transportation, transfer, or harboring of persons; (b) use of force, coercion, deception, or abuse of power or vulnerability; (c) purpose of exploitation (prostitution, forced labor, etc.).

  • Consent of the victim is rendered meaningless in cases of human trafficking due to the coercive, abusive, or deceptive means employed.

  • Knowledge of the accused regarding the victim's minority is immaterial for qualifying the crime of trafficking in persons when the victim is a minor.

  • Conspiracy may be proven through circumstantial evidence and can be inferred from the conduct, actions, and common purpose of the accused.

  • Positive identification prevails over denial.

  • A categorical and consistent positive identification, not accompanied by ill motive on the part of the witness, is given more weight than mere denial.

  • Unsubstantiated denial is negative and self-serving evidence deserving little evidentiary value.

  • The penalty for Qualified Trafficking in Persons is life imprisonment and a fine of not less than Php 2,000,000.00 but not more than Php 5,000,000.00.

  • The phrase "without eligibility for parole" does not need to be affixed to the penalty when the death penalty is not warranted.

  • The accused-appellants are jointly and severally liable to pay the victim moral and exemplary damages under Article 110 of the Revised Penal Code.

  • Jurisdiction over ejectment cases is determined based on the amount of monthly rental or the value of the property sought to be recovered.

  • The basic principle of jurisdiction in ejectment cases is that the action should be filed in the place where the subject property is located.