Date © MIRANDA VS. ARIZONA FACTS : te Supreme court's decision in this case addressed four different cse5_jmvolving custodial interrogations . Tn each of these_aase5 , the defendant Was questioned oy police officers, detectives, or a proseawting attorney in a room, in. which he was cut off from tne ovtsde world. 3h none oF these cases was the defendant given _a fil ond effective naming of his rights at tne outset OF the interrogation process . Tn all the cases, the questioning elicited oral_admision and , in thee of them, signed statements hat were admitted at tial. Miranda v- Arizona: Mironda was avested at his tome ond taken if eustody 40.2 police station where he was identified by the complaining witness. He was then intenogated by Zpoiice officers for Zhs, which resulted in a signed, writen confession: Attvial, the oral and written confessions were presented to thejury. Miranda was found guilty of Kidnapping ard rape and was serterced to 20-20 yrs. imprisonmert_on cach court. On appeal, the Supreme Curt of Arizona Weld thot Mirandas _constijvtioral_ rights were not _yicloted_in dotaining the confession. NVignera v. New Tork : Vignera_wos picked up Wy NY police in connection with tne robbery of a dres.shop that hod curred % days prior. He wos fiet token 4o the ih Detective Squad Readquorters, He was then taren to the Guth Detective Souod, wirere he orcily admitted the wobery and wos pled under foimal_avrest. He wos tren taken to the Oth Preuinct fir detertion, where he wos questioned ay an_OSistant district attorney in the presence of a hearing reporter who wransbed the questions ord answers. Atrial, the a! confestion and the sanscrot were preset to Anejpry. Vignera was faunal _guitty of fist degree robbery and sentenced to 2060. YES imprisonment. The conviction was affimmed Yovt opinion toy the Appctate Divéion und the Cam of Appeals - Westover u5.US i Westover was ovrerted ly local police in Kansas cityas a sugpect in 2 Kansas City rooheries and tatento a loalpaice station A report was dbo received from the FEI 4rat Westover was wantecl on a felony chage in California Westover wos interrogated the nignt of -he arrest andthe next mon bbylocal police. Tren, FBI agents continued the interrogation . FFter 2 42 ham of instewegation oy the FA, uietovey signed ceparate confessions which had been KorcunnssDate = —PRPAKEA by one of the agents doring 4he intermgation to each of the 2 robberies In california. Mese statements were intaduerd at twial. Westover was worvictea of Ane a California wbboevies ord sentenced 40 Syn’ imprisonment on each cant. The conviction wos Oftmea by the cA fr the oh Gewit. California v. Stewart: Jn the couse of investigating a series of puse-* snatch robloevies_in which one of the victims died of injuvies inflictecl by her assailant , Stewart wat identified as the endorser of checks stolon inone of the roiobevies . Stewart was arrested athis home. Police also anested Stewarts wife ond ee 3 otfer people who were visiting him. stewart was ploced in ace, and over the ne. xt_B doys, wos interrogated on A diferent” accasior. Diving the tn interraashion SeBion, Stewort stated that he had roktrd the deceased tut hod not meant 4 hurt her. A that time , police reteated tne four other people for tack of evidence 10 connect them with the aime. At trial, Stewarts statements vere lntveduced Stewart was com Victed of robbery ard fist degree muder ard sentenced te dean. “Ihe SC of calif nica ceversed , holding trast Stewort shoul have been OdisRd of his right to remain sent £ tocoo- scl. AssUE Whether statements obtained fom an individval who is subjected 4 wstectiol peice interagation are admissiole against him in a anminal tral ard whether proce- doves which asure tra! the individual is accorded his pnvilege under th fifla amencl- ment to the constitution not te be. wompelled fo incriminate himself are near) * WELD : The court hela that there can be no dott that the FIA amendment privilege is arailable ovts{de of criminal court proceedings andl senes to prteck persons in all scHings. in Wle their freedom of action is wyrtailed in any significant nay from being compelled to ‘incriminate themsdves. As such, the prseuution may not use ctotements, whether exw!= patory of inwipatory, Stemming from custodial imterragation ef the defendant onless it demonstrates the use of prcedural sufiquards effachie to swrethe privilege against Kel incwimination. By wstodial imevogation, wemean questioning initiated by law en- facement officers_after a pegon hasbem taken into cstedy or otherwise deprived his fieedom of action in any significant way: ‘The court forther held thot "without proper safeguatds the pices of In-astocy internpation of peters supeted or oust of crime cortins chert Bs cunniesDat competing, pressures wich work te ondermine tne individual's wil to resist ond 42 compel him te speak where he wovidl athewise do sofreely: Therefore, a de- Fendgat "must be warned prioe te any questioning hat he has tre_rigltt te remain silent, Anat anything he says can oe used against him, inaceutt of faut that he has 4he vight 4o the present of an aitomey, and thatif he connct dford an attorney one will b&_appointect for him prior 4o ony aWestioningy if he Socesices « The Supreme Court reversed tne judgement of the Sopreme court oF Arizona in Miranda , Cewersed the jpdgement of the New Tork Coott of Appeals in Vigne na, reversed the Judgement of the Court of Appeals for the ath Grouih in Westover, ond afRirmed the jvdgement of 4h Sopreme Curt of Caifernia in Stewart.eect oe reece ete Mitre reece ce Ee: EE eee Date PeoPLE us. DeLA cRv2 ER no. UEGU=GB , Sept. FLAT Facts : Accused - appellant Rodolfo dela Cn ,aliay Raddfo Domingo _or "mpg! im@vons his vonviction for multiple murder. Be archos his entecty fr the versal hereof mainly on the ground that he was not fully ond apprupriately apprised fof allowed 40 exercise hig constitutional rigs prior to ond while undergoing, 2s fodial investigation . The Weles body of Tedorico M. Laroya,Jr. ond nis children, (year Old Karen Verona 0: Lareya and W-Yex old schn lester _D.Laroya were diswered in_4heir residence m Cointa, Rizal by their horified neighbors - The star- crossed4nio were all_bjoodied comequert Te numerous stale woundsy andl each of them hac a knife still embedded in and prutrucing trom their hadies when bond - Karen Verona alco hore external signs of sexual assault. Two neighbars ‘teshiffed in Court ,nomely harold Jim Falocating and Anita Pangan. The former merely cecurted how, while paying table tennis in front of the Lawya residence, he and his friends stumbled upon ‘he dead bodies of the Viclims. Pita Pangon on the other hand ,cecalled nat ot arwund APM of Sune 731902, oppellant, who was a brother-in law of Teodorico Lareya jy _When_ presented as the lone witness for himsel¥’, appellant impediment in his speech (nge79°). He is unable fo ead and write, although he can sign his name - He bluntly repudiated the version of SPOI Atanacio, Jr. and insisted that he was never assisted by am counsel his choice , much \3 met said AHy lorena Bernardino Vikanveva when he was interegated of the police head quarters in Cor 4a sRizal and signed his supposed extrajudicial confession. Ne forther claims thd he wag instead tortured ly the police avinorities info signiry +hesame and not that he did so volontarity- While he admits having been at the residence of the vickms on the night thot hey were murdered? he flatly denied having biked dhem os he left the to well and dive that same night when he preceecled tohis brother's place in fort Ponafaio- Kaunr r 7 Date r Sec. 12 ,par.\, Article Ill of the Constitution States that * — ny person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right tole informed of his right to remain « silent_and +o have independent counsel preferably of his own choice. Jf the person cannot afford she services of counsel, he must toe provided with one. Corollary thereto, par. thereof declares that any confession or ad- fission obtained in_violation of Ane same _shallbe inadmissible in evidence against the _confessant, ISSUE: Whether o net the police were unable fo infoum the appellont of its rights. HELD: Yes, the police were ondtole, tvinform the appellant ofits rights. : : 2 = 2 2 2 2 = 3 3 2 An accused person must be informed ofhis rights set ovtin said pas = ragragh of Sec12_vpon being held as a suspect ond mode to undergo austo- = ____diol investigation by the police authorities. The officer has the duty to eptain = hose rights: fo the axmyged nel oie Seah home eet correspondingly be meaning | commenication to and understanding thereof by the accused - A = mere perfunctory reading vy the constable of such rights fe the acused = woud not gpffice. = — = = = = = = = = Tn the present case , SPO! Aranacio admited in his testimony before the lower court tot the agpellont was questioned without counsel. Tirther, while SPO! Ahanatio Informed appellant in Tagalog of his right fo remain silent, that any statement he made culd be used Sr or agoinst him in any curt, and that he wuld have aunsel prefercily of his own choice, he nonetheless failed to tell appellant that if the latter ouldnot afford the services of counsel, he could be provided with one. The dcjective of dhe Bicanda Fights %40 prohibit ‘incommonicade "ine - veggtien of individuals in a plice-dominated ctmaspnete, rite in st rind statement withost foil warring of eonsiturional rights. = BYocrunoresDate OPOBA VS. FACRAN, GR. No. 191083, Suky 30, !9AD FACTS : “he complaint wos institute as a taxpayer’ class suit and allegestat Ane paints » minor who oe cepremnted by theie parentd, are alll citteens of the Republic of the Philippines taxpayers: ard ented 4o the full benefit se and _eripymert of the ratwal recurce *veosv'e tat 5 the county's virgin tropical forests". The minors firther acerbate that they "represent their gere- Fahion as well as generations yet unborn They prayed trut the defendant ard his agents cancel _all existina, timber license agreements in the coumtny ard that they cease and desist from receiviroy, acceptin, processing renewire) OF agp revire, New timber license agreements . They contend that the continved doe OF the ratvral resources of the country are cousin, voriax environmenta! Haoedies ond such violate People’s right te a healthful enviroament. Secretary Factoran filed a Motion te Dismiss teased on two grounds : fist , the _ploirtif have no aause of action agginst him and second, the _issve raised by the plint# is 2 political question which properly pertains to the legislative or exewtive lvanches of the Covemment. The RIC _ige isved _an order granting, the aforementioned maton ty dismiss. The jude fur- 4her_ruled thot the _ granting of the relief prayed for wwld result in the impair ment of contracts which is prohibited by the Tindumental law af’ the land, Ploint #5 thus filed the instant pedal avil_acton +o certiorari onder Mle GF on the ground that the dee eavely abused his discretion in dismising the action. [sve : Whether or act the petitioners have a couse of action to‘prevent the misappropriation or impaiment " of Philippine rainforest and “awet the unoloated hemorthage of the countrys vital life sport eystems and mped Mother EarthsDate HELO + Ye) they cons for themeelves, for others of their generation and for the Sreceedinn generations, file a class suit. Their pecronality 1 se in behalf & Whe _sxceedinay generations con only be bared on the concept of Intergenerationa) Fesponsibility insofar as the right te o balanced ond healthful ecokegy is voncerned, Every generation haa tiponsibitity tothe next to preserve the rhythm ond harmony, of rate for the fill enjoyment of a balanctd and healthfil ew- logy. ‘The minors’ assertion of their right fo a scund enyironment conshivtes ,at jhe same time, the performance of their doligation to ensure the protection of thot righ ‘forthe generations 40 come. Io_oddition, white the. right 40.4 balanced ond healthful ecology 15 tebe fand under the Dedaration of Pinuiples and state Policies ond not under the Bill of Rights , it does not follow that it is lessimportant than any of the Civil_ond political rights enumerated in the latter.Date LAGNA LAKE DeveLOPMENT AuTORITY ¥. CA 221 SRA 242 Facts + A letter-complaint ovas fied with the Laguna LaKe Deelgament Athoriny CULOA) _seeking, 4 step the operation of the open garbage aumpite in_ the Tak Estate ia_Caloccan , due 10 its horet¥l effects on jhe health ofthe residents and the Possivility of pollution of the water cartempt of the currvundina area+ It Was discovered rat the open dumpiite did not haw an ECC from the Envi - roamental Mat - Puveav of the DEAR, as requied under Presidential Decree ISG AMAA clearance fom the LLOA a, required under RAYB50. The LDA then Conducted an on site investigation, monitvring and test sampling of the lea- chate that seeps from the said _cumpsite tothe nearly creek which js or sriovtary of the Marlao river. The leachate tetiny revegled the Peience of. Bacteria AS _aresit, sre WpAissved a Cease ard Desist Onder ordering shat the. Gumping gf any Form or Kind of garbage and other wast mone” at the wa- leoman dumpsite be completey stopped. when folks on the dumpsite Siled to settle the prodem, the dumpsite was opened again, prompting whe WDA to issue another ©25e ord Desist Omer hereatter, the LUDA, with dre aasistare of the PNP, enforced tre Order lay Prohibiting He entry Pell garage dump trucks inte the Coleocan _dumpsite . The Gty Gortrament of Caloocan then fled with the RTC of Gloowon Cty anocton Prthe decloration of aullity of the Ceoge and Desist Onder, ond soush tobe dedored os the cde avihoritY empo- weed to promde the health and safety, and enluve the right of +e peple in calocan Cry + ebaalanced ecology within _ ts temtorial jurisdiction, \SSUE : Does He. LLDA have tne authority qv entertain the Compain gopinst Ane dUMpIN of garloane inthe 20 dumpsite in CUoscan outhonre) by its City Gowrement Ye is alleged endangering the health, Safety, and welfare tthe etridents Ahertid Und the capitation and guality of He water in the area bevy abot ey exqpusve 4 poiunon canted by sh oem goriage campsite? Kame JDate HELD: Yes . The LDA'S jurisdiction us walidly -imaced onthe basis ofthe allegation that the open ckmpsite of the City Government of Caloscan was undertaken without a clearance from He LUDA as required by RA 4850. AS a general wie , the adjvdication of pollution cases generally Pertaing to the Billvtion Adjudication Board , except in cases where the Spedal law provides fir another forum. Tt must toe recognizect that inthis "egard that #n€ LUDA oy virtve of its Speuia) chorter, obviously has the resporsibility to protect the inhavitants of the Loguna Lake Region from the delegation deleterious effects of pollutants emanating from the discharges of wastes fiom the currouding ares Jn_carsying out the rational policy of promoting and acelerating the development and balanced growth of the Laguna lake area and ie Sunourdina, provieces of Rizal and Laguna and the cities of San Fable, Monila , Pasay, Gveron ard Caloccan with dve regard ond adequite v0- visiong for environmentah management andl contwo|, preservation of she quality of human life ard ewlogical cystems, and the prevention of undue ecologica) disturloances , deterioration, and Pelletion, the LUDA 'S mandated, among others, 1 pass yen and approve or disapprore alll plans pregroms , and projects proposed by local government offiuy /agencies within tre (ion, Public corporctions and private \Pemony or enienpnses whee such Plans, Programs, and/or projecty are related to those of the LLDA Br the development of the cegion -Date CARINO VS. CHR GR,Wo. A0vBl,_O8e-241941 Facts ; Petitioners were public school teacher who were holding mass demon __shationg 4 urge tne Deped Secretary foy failure to act upon ther grievances. While they were widing mass demonstrations , tne teachers were served ame- morandum ordering them fo work, otherwise they will be dismised. Ps a result, petitioners were preventively suspended for do dag, Petitioners filed a case before the PTC for violations of their right fo dve PreceS- Meanwhile, they also svomited sworn statements to the CHR to complain abovt their sudden replacemen+ without due prevess for the rea son thet they participated in peaceful masy actions. 2 ‘he CAR _strereafter issved an Order enjpining the Deped Sec.to _appear ini a CHR proceeding, otherwise the GAR will resove the complain based on complainant’ evidence- Seeretaryy Carifto filed a motion fo dismiss arguing, that the cHR has No jurisdiction over the moter gs itis not a quasi-judicial bedy and has no authority 4o hear and deude cases. Issue + Whether or not the CHR has the power to adjudicate cases - HELD. No. The CHR has no power 40 adjudicate cases. The Gort declares the CHR 4o have no sich power 3 and that it was nok meant by the fun- damental [aw te be another court oF quasi-judicial agency in this com. try, or duplicate much less take over the finchony of the latter, The most that may be conceded te the Commission inthe way of adjwicative power is that it moy Investigate, i,¢.. receive evidence make findings of fact as regards claimed human righty violations in- volving vil _and political rights. fevt fact finding ic net adjudication and cannot be likened 4o the jodicial function of a court of justice, or even a avast ~ pdidal agency or offiual. ne fonction of receiving evi- dence_and _ascertainin therefrom the facty of q conimetrsy Is nota EecunouxsWWW Date _jvaicial_ fonction, properly Speaking. Tole considered such, the fawity SF eeceiviny eviderce and making eda conclusions in a controversy must be cccompanied by the authority of applying, the law te those acho) condusions 40 the encl that the contortysy may be deuded or detr- mined authoritatively , finally and definitively subject te such appeals oF _medes of review ay may be provided by law. This fimction. to repeat: the commission oes not have- ~ Kiecunr r r r [ : : ; i : ; ; ; ; Date i are done without of io exces tute of pridiction. Moreover, jt Connot be impressed Mot the new oy re-appriatment of Bovtista was An Ad interim appinked brcause ad intevim appointments do not Spl + apportments solely for the President to maxe. Fetition Dranikd . Bavticia is declared +e, os che 141 the duly appam Jed Chairman. KdronnesDate. © SIMON VS. COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS 229 scea 4 FACTS : A demolition wotice was cent hy the office of the Quezon Gity Mayor to Ahe_officers and members of the orth EDA Vendors Asseriction (NEVA) , Which gene *he latter 9 days to vacate “heir stalls in order te (ve way 40 4h€ “Rhoplet Park Te NEVA sled ©Y the President Reave Ferme, filed a ker Complaint wih the cHR asking that a eter be adoressed to then Mayor Brigido Simen.ir. of Guezon Gty 40 stop the denotition of their stally, savissori store, ancl carindenia GON®) EDSA + The CHR alisenently issves an Oreravectiny the @C officerr to Cksist fom _clemolishirey the stale ard shorties at North EDsA pending Yesoluion of the Vendors complaint Wefore the commission Notuithstareiing aid Order, the GC _oPicers carried ovt “he demolition of The stall, cari-sori S465 ord qaiinderia, prompting the CH 40 onder the ditburse- ment of fironcial assistance of rot more than P 200.0310 jn Favor +o she vendors 4o_puchase light haxing materials ard tad order the CHR's xpervition and again directed the QC Officers to desist fon ether demolition , with the worming) thet Wielerors violations of said Order woudl leadto a citation fr contempt and anest, Tre GC_officers filed a motion 40 dismiss , quetioning the CHR's jurisdiction -Sub- sequently, the CHR cited the Gc Officers in contempt fr carrying wt Lirher ckmoition on the stale, sari-sori stores, anc _carinderia_demite the order 10 Gesist, and imposed_a tine of 7500 00 exh of them. Issues* ‘Whether or not the CHR has jurisdiction to investigate the viclaion of the rights Of those vendors whose stally Were démcished \y the GC Officers at tne instance and authority given by the Mayor of Qc. 2. Whether or not the CHR has jurisdiction +o impose ane of PauO on each of the GC oficers - HELD {No Phe omer for the demotion of the stalls, sorixsavi store ond ca~ rindevia of the vendors dos not ‘ll within the compartment of Shuman rights violations involving civil ard _politial rights intended by the constitution ~ Klioms.VA ee eee eee Date 2. ho. Although the CHR is constitution ally avirorized 40 adopt ite Operational guidelines ond rules of procedore, and cite fer coniempt for violations thereon _acordont with athe Rules of Gurt, and axordingly, the. CAR _a cted within its authority in provding in its revised cules ik powerte Gte_or hold any person in direct ancl indirect contempt, andto impose re Oppropriate penalties in accordance with the procedure and sanctions provickd erin the Rules of Cart, the power te cite n contempt should be _understod 40 apply only +e violation, of its adopted operational quvidelines ond mle & procedure essential 40 cony avt ity imectigatonal powers. The ower 10 desist is_not_investiadtoral iq character tal prestinds fiom an adjudizotion paver that it dow not posesr. - . Krome dPBWwwWwWwwwvuevuvwuUdbugwguwuecuwursegeeugtgeeweaeenwtnrtreelae ee” Date © EPRA vs. CHR GR. No. WoId3u , ApIlIY, 1442. FACTS = EP2A purchase a parcel of land from Filoil Refinery Corporation and bef Petitioner covtct take pasession of the area, several individuals hod entered he premins nd _plonted_agriceltural products “herein withovt pemission from E BZA or its pre- decessorg, Floil. P21 paid_a Plo.cep Rrondal asistance 7 those who ae accepted the same ard signed _quitelaims « Among them nere_pnieste respondents Tewsita Valley & Loreto Aledia- Ten years later, respondent Teresita , Loreto _arcl Pedro, filedin the respondent CHR @ joint omplaint preying, for" justice nd ofner relie& Gnd _femedies :" Alleged in jneit complaint wos the inter — mation that EP2A buildozed the avea with acts in violation of their human. rights. CHR jcsued an Order of injunction wmmonding PTA to desist frum Committing, xch_ ace . Two weeks later, EP2A again duldeed the area. They allegedly handcuffed private respondent Tererita Valles, pointed their Fears of the other respondents, ond fired a shot in the air. CHR Chokmon Mary Gonap. ion Bowista, issved anotrer injunction order reiterating her fret ocler and expanded it to inchde Ane Secretary of Riolic Norks and Highways , the won — tractors and their _ahoordinates . EPZA filed in the CHR @ mation tp lif the Order of Injunction for lack of authority +o issve_injunchve writs ara temporary restraining orders, lovt the ome _was _cenied by the CHR. Hence , EP2A , fied in SC _4his spewal wil action of certiorari ana Prohibition with o prayer fer the issuance of a reshaining omer andlor _pre- liminary injunction , alleging, Jrat the CHR acted Inexctss of ity jpnsdiction ‘and with grove abuse of discretion . A TRO ues isved erdering thecHR 40 cease and desist from enforciray | implementra the questioned inyretion orders. Issue: Whether or not CHR have jyrisdiction 4b issue a writ of injunction on restrainieg order against Supposed wclators of human rignts , tv Lompe| them te cease ard OssisT from wontinving the ace complained of. : KhoDate HED: No 10 tre case of Carifio_vs- CHR sitwas held shat CHRis not a court 2F justice gor even _@_quasi-jvdiéol oody “The mow that may be _corendecl 40 the commision in theuay of PCAN Pour is that it may westigate , if. ceceive evidence and mate fin Aires F Bet as reps daimed hwman Fights violations involving uvil ond poli Sool rants - vt foct-Fincine i, not odjudlcahion, ond eomet be keene tone \eticial fonction of a wart of jxme, of even a Qexi ~jvaival agenoy or oA, The fonction of receiving evidence ond axertaining, sherefom she-fcte a Keniveiersy is rot a judiuial_finchion | property sptoting .10 bE considered. ach, the fowlty of receiving eviderce ond matin ficial Gmdviions 40He-enct Not the. vontroversy ray be deuided of determined auinontatively fraly Gnd definitely, DUeyect 4 such appeals or modes of review as may be provided ‘oy law. This fincion , to repeat, the Commission does net have." The _conttiivioral provision directing the GiR'to ‘provide Lr ore- ventwe measures and legpl aid services +o tne urderpyivileqech whose_human rights rave been _viclated o need protection" moy nol be corctwed to coir juidic- tion_on +he Canmission to issue @ rectraining, order of writ of -\njynction ty, if that nere the intention, ne _Conshtution waild hove. expressly coi so, “Jurisdiction is conferred oniy by the. Constitution or by law". Ht is never derived loy_impiication - Tht "preventive measures and kegal aid services’ mentioned in the Constitvtion refer to extrajuditiall ard \ydicial remedies which the CHR ra: seek from she proper courts on behalf of the vickm of tyman right tol tion - Not herga court of Justice, the CHR itgelf hos nojunedicion ty seve tre_writ_, for i roy only be issumd by “the judge ef any court in whicn Are acon _is pending -Date PEOPLE VS. AADIA JARMA WALL Y PURI GR- 195 Hig Oct. 12, 2011 On June 9 12005 in she City of Zamboanga , Lolita Pando who wa on her way to the hase of her grandfather , met Ronnie Pringsy And Rechel Camete .On the doy Hey met, Romie Proposed te Lolita Gr work in Malaysia . Sne as interes kd Ord so che gare her mobile mumber, On the next day, wlio ard Ronnie met againte diaws, Liver he job he was offering in Molaygia - dhe was tld that she will work a5 F staurant entertainer anc! wil be paid 1 Moloysian ringgit. She only need to have Passport act she’s qua! 7 90 on June, 2005. On he Af. clay Romie ichoduced Loita to Hoda Lalli, the peton Who willbe helping her ard other gid 7D go Habayscr fowork- On Jone G,2065, they went on board 4 towlled to Malaya. Upon amvirg, the girls were introawtd to a chinese Moloy who will be their boss - When they Qrrived ai the Figen club, they were infrmed ‘hat they willbe working a5 eniersalners. Lolita wos fred: She hoa wstomerg night after night who used her arc forced ner te have _conval interccurse ome even pnysically abved her. One aight, iter was ailde 4o_wontact her deter who is in Moloysia and asked for help - lola nat able te escape - She wos vegcued ond was able 49 a0 bock to Zambunga Gity : lolita was advised + file a complaint against Hadia Lalli ard Ronnie Arngoy with the pole reggrdiro het ordeal in Mplaysia Whether or not tne aceused ate guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the cima of Nagal_recritment ond tefficcir in persons for tneir_act- The Gort oF Aprealy ond FIC fur occied guilty beyond reatorable dovot fh Ane crimes oF illegal eewitment orc “voRicving in percons. Sec. & oF RA SOH2 defines Mega cecritment as -fotouis: Meopl cecnitment shall mean any act of @masting ,enistog, convact ing), transporting, yiilizing, hii or Prewring wor ks ond incluctes cofnirg Lontoct services , promising, or everbting, fer employ men obra » whether fir profit or not, when urdertaten VY a ron -license or non-rober oF avinonty contemplated under Art.8(F) ef D442 1a amended, ctherwitt Edcrinoues wown aS Labor (oleDate: cin this case, the Wal wurt,ay affinned toy the appellate Lourt fund —Latti, Airey ond Relam pagos tehave conspired CRA con@deretted with one oncther. torewvit ord plac lolita r work in Malaysia, without 4 PEA license . The > Clements ef syndicoted _ieopl recwitment ore present in this cast » in partcolar ©) the actused hove no valid leense er authovity required by law to erable them 42 lawfully erpp9e inane recnitment and_placement of workers 9 (2) the awuced engpged in Wis _octivitY of reciitment ard pocement wos commited b 2 Peron ; conspiring, ond wonfederctingy with one onother, BacomnesSeer eres erent eee eee eee eee eee eae eae ea Date PECPLE + CASIO GR:No. TN4UF, DEC.09,204 Facts : Aaused Shirley A- Casio was charged for the violation of RA 4208 Sec. 4C4) , qualified oy Section (4) . he said acwsed , with dehiverate intent. with intent 40 gain, did then and there ire _andjor hb recuit AAA, A minor, B yeor old and BAB fir the [AMEE of proctivtion and sexual Sxploitation \ by actira as their Prowrer fir different customers for money —___prfit wary other _considleestion « Pror 4 the arrest, on Moy 2, 2008, Jrternatonal justice Mision (13M) A_cengovwern mental _organiiation , uaordinated with tne police in order to ertlop Persons engaged inhuman iroficvina, in Cebu iy - Rlicemen were designated 25 dewoys » pretrendire, tobe four guides looting ‘ir girl te entertain sneic quests. LIM provided them with marked money which wot Ceordecl in the police blotter, The team went 49 _Sveenclard Motel_and ented advacen+ Rooms 24% 25. Ram 24 wos oRsignated for she transaction vile Room 25 wes for the cett of the poke team . Pol Wardo ard Pol Veloso proceeded 40 D .slatoca levn Sthyt in Bray - Kamagayan . Ceoy Citys ced light dicrich where the accused noticed oem _and cated their aitlertion - Hegobahion ocaxred and upon she signal , he_acwsed were onestecl ard she 2 minory were talan into wistody by the _DswD eal - The acwused argued , among others, that she shwid not be hele abe oecawse +e victirn admitted Yat che worked as a prostitvle . Thus, it mas her _arusion to deplay herself to schist cattomers . \SSOE : Whether or not he accasec jg liable for human trafficking, HELD * Yes - He acussed ic \icble for human ‘trafficking - Acwused cloimécl that “AAA admitted engagira, in prostintion even before May 2,208. PE voncluded thatMA wor predisosecl to having sex with ‘wstomers" for money: Ter licbility onder ow low thie argument is Irrelevant - As defined under se. 2(a) of RA M08, traffitiry in persons aan EcrnncesDate She _committecd even if ne victim gives consent. Posed on ne definition of toficking in person and the erumerahn of ack of taFiouiney persons, acwsed performed alldne elements in the Commision of He offense when she Peddlecd AAA ond BPI and offered their sewices to the pice decoys in exchorge formoney “The dense wor ako AAIIReA becovse thE HofKctec PeroNs were minors « Regardiess of the willingness of AAA and BBB, sherebre to be WraRexed se Court affirmect the text and spirit ofvor lows. Minors thald spend dei adolercenc. moulding, eie_charocder in environment. Fee _of wre viles+ motives and the wrie of other human beings - Karcunnees