G.R. No.

211465, December 03, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SHIRLEY A.

CASIO, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS:

The case is about the Republic Act No. 9208 known as the Anti-Trafficking in Persons
Act of 2003. The accused charged under this law is Shirley A. Casio. On May 5, 2008 at
1:00am in Cebu, Philippines with deliberate intent, with intent to gain, did then and there
hire and/or recruit AAA, a minor, 17 years old and BBB for the purpose of prostitution
and sexual exploitation, by acting as their procurer for different customers, for money,
profit or any other consideration, in Violation of Sec. 4, Par. (a), Qualified by Sec. 6, Par.
( a), of R.A. 9208 (Qualified Trafficking in Persons).

On the same month of the year the International Justice Mission (IJM), a non-
governmental organization, coordinated with the police in order to entrap persons
engaged in human trafficking in Cebu. They also provided the marked money for team
that will be used for entrapment.

The team went to Queensland Motel and rented Rooms 24 and 25. These rooms were
adjacent to each other. Room 24 was designated for the transaction while Room 25 was
for the rest of the police team.

They were able to entrap Casio who offered the police the two girls, AAA and BBB.
Casio received the marked money from there Casio was arrested and the two girls were
rescude. They were placed under the custody of the representatives from IJM and
DSWD.

During trial, AAA testified that she was born on January 27, 1991 as supported by her
birth certificate. She worked before as a house helper in Mandaue City. However, when
she stopped working as a house helper, she transferred to Cebu City. In Cebu she met
Gee Ann who offered her to worked in a disco club. She agreed since she needed money
for his father. Eventually, Gee Ann brought her to Barangay Kamagayan, telling her that
there were more customers in that area. There she was able to meet Casio who gave her
customers and was paid Php 400 for every customers who choose her.

Contraryu, Casio testified that she worked as a laundrywoman. On May 2008, went to
buy supper. While walking, she was stopped by two men on board a blue car. The two
men asked her if she knew someone named Bingbing. She replied that she only knew
Gingging but not Bingbing. The men informed her that they were actually looking for
Gingging, gave her a piece of paper with a number written on it, and told her to tell
Gingging to bring companions. When accused arrived home, she contacted Gingging.
Gingging convinced her to come because allegedly, she would be given money by the
two males.

ISSUE:

(1) Whether the entrapment operation conducted by the police was valid, considering
that there was no prior surveillance and the police did not know the subject of the
operation;
(2) Whether the prosecution was able to prove accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt
even though there was no evidence presented to show that accused has a history of
engaging in human trafficking; and
(3) Whether accused was properly convicted of trafficking in persons, considering that
AAA admitted that she works as a prostitute.

RULING:

In regards to the background of the RA No. 9208, the United Nations Convention against
Transnational Organized Crime (UN CTOC) was “adopted and opened for signature,
ratification and accession”54 on November 15, 2000.

The UN CTOC is supplemented by three protocols: (1) the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress
and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children; (2) the Protocol
against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air; and, (3) the Protocol against the
Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, their Parts and Components and
Ammunition.

On December 14, 2000, the Philippines signed the United Nations “Protocol to Prevent,
Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children”
(Trafficking Protocol).This was ratified by the Philippine Senate on September 30, 2001.

At this time we've also signed the following: the Convention on the Elimination of all
Forms of Discrimination Against Women; the 1995 Convention on the Rights of the
Child; the United Nations Convention on the Protection of Migrant Workers and their
Families; and the United Nations’ Resolution on Trafficking in Women and Girls, among
others. As well as expressed our support for the United Nations’ Convention Against
Organized Crime, including the Trafficking Protocol in October last year.

Republic Act No. 9208 was enacted in order to fully address the issue of human
trafficking.

In regards to the issues raised in the case at bar, the knowledge or the consent of the
minor is not a defense in the RA No. 9208. As defined under Section 3(a) of Republic
Act No. 9208, trafficking in persons can still be committed even if the victim gives
consent. The prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused
committed the offense of trafficking in persons, qualified by the fact that one of the
victims was a child.

The accused also argued the validity of the entrapment operation, all relevant facts such
as the accused's mental and character traits, his past offenses, activities, his eagerness in
committing the crime, his reputation, etc., are considered to assess his state of mind
before the crime.

When accused was arrested, she was informed of her constitutional rights. The marked
money retrieved from her was recorded in the police blotter prior to the entrapment
operation and was presented in court as evidence. With regard to the lack of prior
surveillance, prior surveillance is not a condition for an entrapment operation’s validity.

With regards to the imposition of the fine and award of damages, the Court of Appeals
imposed the amount of P2,000,000.00. However it was modified into:

(1) P500,000.00 as moral damages; and

(2) P100,000.00 as exemplary damages.

People of the Philippines vs. Ramon Bolanos
G.R. No. 101808 03 July 1992

Facts:
On 23 June 1990, Patrolmen Rolando Alcantara and Francisco Dayao proceeded to Marble
Supply, Balagtas, Bulacan where they saw the deceased Oscar Pagdalian lying on an
improvised bed full of blood with stab wounds. After inquiring about the incident, they were
informed that Pagdalian was with two (2) companions the previous night. One of them was the
accused Ramon Bolanos who had a drinking spree with the victim and the other one was
Claudio Magtibay who was with the victim until the wee hours of the following morning.

Dayao testified that they boarded Bolanos and Magtibay on the police vehicle and brought them
to the police station. While inside the vehicle, Bolanos accordingly admitted that he killed
Pagdalian because he was abusive.

The trial court considered Bolanos’ confession as admissible in evidence because it was given
freely and before the investigation. The trial court thereafter convicted Bolanos of the crime of
murder.

The Office of the Solicitor General filed a Manifestation contending that the lower court erred in
admitting in evidence the extrajudicial confession of Bolanos because this was done in violation
of his Constitutional rights to be informed, to remain silent, and to have a counsel of his choice
while already under police custody.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the admission of Bolanos’ extrajudicial confession violated his Constitutional
rights as an accused.

HELD:
Yes. The trial court’s admission of Bolanos’ extrajudicial confession violated his Constitutional
right to be informed, to remain silent, and to have a counsel of his choice while under police
custody. These Constitutional rights are provided for under Article III, Section 12 (1) (3) of the
1987 Constitution, to wit:

(1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to
remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own
choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with
one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.

xxx

(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be
inadmissible in evidence against him.

The Supreme Court ruled that said Constitutional rights of the accused were violated; hence, his
extrajudicial confession should be inadmissible in evidence. It thereafter reversed the trial
court’s ruling and acquitted Bolanos.
People vs. Basay

G.R. No. 86941

Christian Paul V. Quadra

Facts: Teodoro Basay and Jaime Ramirez were charged with Multiple Murder with Arson in a criminal
complaint filed on 24 March 1986 with the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) in the Province of
Negros Oriental for having allegedly killed the spouses Zosimo and Beatrice Toting and their six-year old
daughter, Bombie, and for having burned the said spouses' house to conceal the crime; as a consequence
of such fire, the spouses' other daughter, Manolita, was burned to death.

The prosecution has proven the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of Multiple
Murder, Frustrated Murder With Arson against accused Jaime Ramirez.

Jaime Ramirez Appealed Stating that his sworn statement was obtained in violation of his Constitutional
Rights

ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE APPELLANT GUILTY
AS CHARGED ON THE BASIS OF EXHIBIT "F" (AFFIDAVIT) WHICH WAS EXECUTED IN
VIOLATION OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND ON THE BASIS OF HEARSAY
EVIDENCE AND ON THE PRESUMPTION OF GUILT.

Held:Yes, the affodavot was executed in violation of the accused’s constitutional rights.

SECTION 12(1).Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to
be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his
own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These
rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.

(3)Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in
evidence against him."

A close scrutiny of the questioned extra-judicial confession in the case at bar reveals all possible
violations of the appellant's right to remain silent, to counsel and to be informed of such rights, and of the
safeguards prescribed by this Court for the holding of custodial interrogations.

(a) The interrogation was the conducted and the confession was written in English a language the
appellant, a farmer in a remote barangay of Pamplona, cannot speak and does not understand; he only
finished Grade II. There is no evidence to show that the interrogator, who was not even presented as a
witness and remains unidentified, translated the questions and the answers into a dialect known and fairly
understood by the appellant.
(b) Appellant was not told that he could retain a counsel of choice and that if he cannot afford to do
so, he could be provided with one.

(c) He did not sign any waiver of his right to remain silent and to counsel.

(d) He was not assisted by any counsel during the investigation.

Therefore the accused is acquitted because his constitutional rights were violated.
Filipinas S. Silva-Astrero

[G.R. No. L-59318. May 16, 1983.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ROGELIO RAMOS y GAERLAN

This is an automatic review of the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila
finding the accused Rogelio Ramos y Gaerlan in Criminal Case No. 61029 guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 4, Article II, in relation to Section 2(i),
Article I of the Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by P.D. No. 44 and further
amended by P.D. No. 1675, and imposing upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

Facts:
While Police officers were on routine patrol along Taft Avenue, they had seen
and observed one MALCON OLEVERE y NAPA (Olevere), acting suspiciously near the
corner of Estrada Street. The police officers, after identifying themselves, stopped and
frisked the suspect and found in his possession dried marijuana leaves. The police
officers thereafter placed Olevere under arrest. Upon investigation, suspect Olevere
declared that he bought the recovered marijuana leaves from one ROGELIO RAMOS y
GAERLAN (Ramos), alias "Balanchoy". The following day, police team with suspect
Napa proceeded to the residence of appellant Ramos in 2366 Singalong, Malate,
Manila and arrested him. The police operatives immediately brought appellant to the
Drugs Enforcement Section Western Police Department Headquarters for
investigation.
During the custodial investigation, suspect Olevere executed a written sworn
statement implicating the accused-appellant Ramos as the source of the marijuana
leaves. The accused, after having been duly apprised of his constitutional rights,
verbally admitted before the police officers of the offense charged. He likewise admitted
that he sold to Olevere the marijuana leaves for P10.00.
Upon arraignment, Ramos pleaded not guilty, and during the trial, prosecution
presented 3 witnesses; one who took the statement of Olevere, the arresting officers
based on the statement of Olevere.
After the trial, the Court of First Instance of Manila (now the RTC) found the
accused-appellant Ramos guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged in view
of the verbal admission given by the appellant himself and the evidence offered and
admitted in court.

Issue: Whether or not the constitutional rights of the accused, more particularly the
right to meet the witness against him face to face and to cross-examine him has been
violated.

Ruling:
Yes. The lower court erred in admitting as evidence the written sworn affidavit
of Olevere. It can be gleaned from the records that Olevere executed the written sworn
statement declaring that appellant Ramos sold to him the marijuana leaves for
P10.00. This piece of evidence is a mere scrap of paper because Olevere was not
produced in court for cross examination. An affidavit being taken ex-parte is often
incomplete and inaccurate. (People vs. Rodulfo Sabio, 102 SCRA 232) such kind of
evidence is considered hearsay. (People vs. Kusain Saik, L-1760, May 30, 1963) The
constitutional right to meet witnesses face to face in order not to deprive persons of
their lives and properties without due process of law is well-protected in the Court's
jurisprudence.