THE UNITED STATES v.

JAIME FILART and HILARIO SINGSON

G.R. No. 10263 March 13, 1915

The judgment of conviction and the sentence imposed thereunder are affirmed, with the exception of that portion confiscating
the automobile and the money obtained from the sale of the numbers thereon, and as to such portion it is reversed. So ordered.

FACTS: In the municipality of Vigan, Province of Ilocos Sur

Jaime Filart and Hilario Singson illegally played, exploited, and took part in a lottery or raffle of an automobile, which was then
and there the property of the said Jaime Filart, with the intention then and there to dispose of said automobile by chance for
the sum derived from the sale of 450 tickets or numbers which the said accused distributed and sold in various municipalities of
the Province of Ilocos Sur at the rate of P5 for each ticket or number

The appellants entered into an agreement whereby they would jointly sell to the public 450 tickets successively numbered from
one up, each number representing a chance on an automobile which was to be drawn by lot as a prize as soon as the tickets so
numbered were sold. Of the 450 numbers 370 were sold for P5 each and the remaining 80 for P3 each.

The drawing for the prize took place on the evening of the 31st of May, 1914. The winner was determined in the following
manner:
The numbers composing the 450
each written on a separate piece of paper, were placed together in a box and thoroughly mixed.
A boy was selected who placed his hand in the box and drew out a number.
This he delivered to a person placed there for the purpose, who unfolded the paper and read the number in a loud voice while
the appellant Jaime Filart, with a list of the 450 numbers referred to, struck from the list the number corresponding to that
drawn from the box.
This was repeated until all of the numbers were drawn from the box and stricken from the list.
It was agreed that the last number drawn from the box should be the winning number and that the owner of that number
should win the automobile.

The last number drawn had been bought by Lucas Siping, who was duly and publicly proclaimed by Jaime Filart as the winner of
the automobile. During the drawing of the numbers both of the appellants were present, as were about 40 other individuals.

ISSUE: Whether Jaime Filart and Hilario are guilty of violating Act No. 1757, known as the Gambling Law

RULING: Section 7 of Act No. 1757 provides, so far as material to the present case, as follows: "The playing at and the conducting
of any game of monte, jueteng, or any form of lottery or policy * * * is hereby prohibited, and any person taking any part therein
* * * shall be punished as provided in section 3 hereof. * * * This section also provides that: "It shall be no defense to any
criminal action under this section that the defendant acted as the agent of another or that he had no interest in the result."

The facts of record place this case within the definition generally given of a lottery.

LOTERRY DEFINED: 1. "a species of gaming, which may be defined as a scheme for the distribution of prizes by chance among
persons who have paid, or agreed to pay, a valuable consideration for the chance to obtain a prize."

2. It is also defined as "a scheme for the distribution of prizes by chance;"

3. "a scheme by which a result is reached by some action or means taken, and in which result man's choice or will has no part,
nor can human reason, foresight, sagacity, or design enable him to know or determine such result until the same has been
accomplished."

It has also been stated that "where a pecuniary consideration is paid, and it is determined by lot or chance, according to some
scheme held out to the public, what the party who pays the money is to have for it * * * it is a lottery."

It has also been held that the word lottery "embraces the elements of procuring through lot or chance, by the investment of a
sum of money or something of value, some greater amount of money or thing of greater value;" and that "where small amounts
are hazarded to gain large amounts, and the result of winning or losing is determined by chance, in which neither choice nor
skill can operate to influence the result, there is gambling by lot, or a prohibited lottery;" and "any scheme whereby one, on
paying money or other valuable thing to another, becomes entitled to receive from him such a return in value, or nothing, as
some formula of chance may determine" is a lottery.
The three elements enter into a lottery scheme: (1) A consideration; (2) chance; (3) a prize, or some advantage or inequality in
amount or value which is in the nature of a prize.

The facts of record place this case within the definition generally given of a lottery.

We are satisfied that the judgment should be affirmed so far as the criminal penalty is concerned but must be reversed as to
the confiscation of the automobile and the money obtained from the sale of the tickets on the same. Section 1 of Act 2212
adds a section (13) to Act No. 1757, which is as follows:

"The court convicting a person of the violation of any of the provisions of this Act shall order the confiscation of the money,
articles, instruments, appliances, and devices used in gambling. Articles, instruments, appliances, and devices capable only of
being used for gambling shall be destroyed under the order of the court. Money and the proceeds of the sale of confiscated
articles which are capable of being used otherwise than for gambling purposes shall be accounted for, accredited and disposed
of in the same manner as the proceeds of fines imposed by the court. The provisions of this section shall be applicable in cases
of conviction of the violation of municipal ordinances prohibiting gambling."

In the case bef ore us neither the automobile nor the money obtained from the sale of tickets was in the possession of or before
the court, or in the possession of any party to the action at any time during the trial or at the time the judgment of conviction
and confiscation was rendered. We are of the opinion that, in cases where the court is authorized to confiscate property, the
property to be confiscated must be before the court in such manner that it can be said to be within its jurisdiction. As we have
said, neither the automobile nor the money was in the possession of or before the court, or in the possession of any of the
parties to the action at the time the order of confiscation was made. Rather, the automobile, as well as the money, was in the
possession of persons claiming to own or have an interest therein and who were not parties to the action and over whom the
court had no jurisdiction at the time.

THE UNITED STATES vs. WALTER E. OLSEN and BILLY MARKER

36 Phil. 395, No. 11602 March 6, 1917

The judgment appealed from is reversed and the accused acquitted. So ordered.

FACTS: The appellants in this case were convicted of operating a lottery.

Walter E. Olsen and Co., dealers in tobacco, and especially cigars and cigarettes, desiring to introduce to the Philippine trade a
brand of cigarettes known as the "Omar" brand, conceived and put into execution a scheme by which it was hoped to place in
the hands of a larger number of persons packages of the cigarette named.

Purely as a method of advertising and of introducing the cigarette to the trade, the appellants enclosed a certain coupon inside
of one of the packages of Omar cigarettes and then placed the package among about five hundred similar packages in such
manner that it could not be distinguished from them.

Thereafter, they advertised that the 500 packages of cigarettes would be sold to the public at the regular price, and that the
person who was fortunate enough to buy the package containing the coupon would be entitled to receive from the company a
gold watch described in the advertisement. The 500 packages were to be sold at 30 cents a package, which was the regular
market price of the cigarette at that time. Nothing in addition to the market price was required to be paid by a purchaser of any
one of the 500 packages.

Every person who bought one of the packages received the full value of his money in cigarettes and, accordingly, lost nothing by
the purchase. On the other hand, the company gained nothing by the sale of any one of the 500 packages, and necessarily lost
the value of the watch in case all of the packages were sold. The situation presented, therefore, was such that a person
becoming a party to the scheme by purchasing a package of cigarettes could lose nothing while the company from which the
cigarettes were purchased could gain nothing, except the profit normally obtained by the sale of any other package of
cigarettes.
In other words, a purchaser of a package of cigarettes paid absolutely nothing for the naked chance to win the watch; while the
company did not take and could not possibly take anything from the purchaser in return for the chance which it gave him to win
the watch. In other words, the player could lose nothing and the operator could gain nothing by the venture.

ISSUE: Whether by act of including the coupon would render Walter Olsen guilty of maintaining and operating a lottery in
violation of Act No. 1757.

section 7, the one under which the appellants were charged and convicted, punishes "the playing at and the conducting of any
game of monte, jueteng, or any form of lottery or policy or any banking or percentage game." The other sections and parts of
some of the section deal with the rights of persons who have lost money or other valuable thing while playing prohibited
games, and with the punishment of officers charged with the suppression of gambling who fail to perform their duties. As will
be seen from these observations and references, the Act is essentially and solely a gambling Act. It deals exclusively with
gambling games or operations. It prohibits only those games or operations in which the player stakes his money or property, or
some part thereof, upon a naked chance—those in which for the money or property or some part thereof which he invests he
receives no consideration and can receive no consideration. It prohibits that class of games or operations in which the operator
obtains something for which he has given nothing except a naked chance.

RULING: The Court held that the word "lottery" is found in the statute in conjunction with monte, jueteng, policy and banking or
percentage games.

Those in which the player pays something for a naked chance to win. They do not refer to schemes, such as the one presented
by this case, in which the player obtains full value for his money; and in which the opportunity to obtain more than his money's
worth is a mere incident. The player loses nothing by virtue of his failure to win the prize; while the playing of the scheme does
not result in giving the operator an opportunity to obtain the player's money without giving therefor a consideration which
law and justice recognize not only as valuable but as adequate also.

The player (purchaser) lost nothing and could not possibly lose anything as a result of his playing. He might gain but he could
not lose. On the other hand, the operator could not gain anything as a direct result of the element of chance. On the contrary,
he was certain to lose the value of the watch.

Thus, in this case the element of chance did not enter either as to the operator or the player as it enters in the gambling
transactions.

We are of the opinion that Act No. 1757 does not cover the case in hand. We are not concerned with the question whether the
scheme or system involved in this case is or is not subject to criticism from the standpoint of business or society or whether, if
pushed to extremes, it would produce pernicious results. Those are matters for the Legislature to consider. We are concerned
solely with the question whether it was the intention of the Legislature, when it passed Act No. 1757, to include in its
prohibition operations like the one before us and whether, in carrying out that intention, such language was used as could
properly be held to cover them. In holding that the prohibition of the Act does not include the acts charged in the information,
we have been governed by the principle, universally accepted, that an act will not be held to be a criminal act unless the
statute clearly and unmistakably makes it so.

"EL DEBATE," INC., petitioner, vs. JOSE TOPACIO, Director of Posts, respondent.
G.R. No. 19982. December 29, 1922

Meeting, therefore, the issues in the case, we rule that the Director of Posts acted advisedly in refusing the use of the mails
for the issue of El Debate which contained the announcement of its guessing contest, and that said contest is lottery, or gift
enterprise depending in part upon lot or chance, within the meaning of the Postal Law. The demurrer interposed by the
Attorney-General is sustained, and unless the petitioner shall, within five days, so amend the complaint as to state a cause of
action, the case shall be dismissed, with costs. So ordered.

The court ordered the petitioner (El Debate) to amend their complaint within five days or the case would be dismissed with
costs.
FACTS:

ISSUE: Whether the guessing contest of El Debate a "lottery, gift enterprise, or similar scheme depending in whole or in part
upon lot or chance" within the meaning of the law

RULING: The purpose of the law is to prevent the pernicious tendencies of lotteries and the encouragement of the gambling
spirit in society.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. EMMA LEOCADIO “Tiya Babing” y SALAZAR and SHERRYL “ate Carla” LEOCADIO y SALAZAR
943 SCRA 566, G.R. No. 237697 July 15, 2020

The instant appeal is DISMISSED.

Decision of the Court of Appeals hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS.
Accused-appellants Emma Leocadio y Salazar and Sherryl Leocadio y Salazar are found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
Qualified Trafficking in Persons under Section 6(a) and (c), in relation to Sections 4(a) and 3, and penalized under Section 10(a)
and (c) of Republic Act No. 9208, otherwise known as the “Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003.”
Accused-appellants are sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment, and each of them is ordered to pay a fine of Two
Million Pesos (P2,000,000.00).

Parole is extended only to those convicted of divisible penalties

FACTS: A group of girls were invited to work in an internet café in Angeles, Pampanga.
The group was composed of twelve (12) girls who were all minors except for one, BBB, who was eighteen (18) years old.
These minors were from Jagoliao and Nasingin, separate island barangays of the Municipality of Getafe, Bohol. Four (4) of the
victims were presented as witnesses for the prosecution, namely: CCC, DDD, AAA and BBB.

In the case of CCC, it was Sherryl who told her that, “I will bring you to Manila and work in an internet café to dance strip
wearing only bra and panty.” Thereafter, Emma talked to her mother about the work and gave her mother the amount of Two
Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00) to be deducted from CCC’s salary.

In the case of DDD and AAA, they were approached by Ella Leocadio and a certain woman, inviting them to work and to go to
the house of Annabel to list their names there. They met Emma who then looked at them from head to foot

At the time they were already in Cebu, Emma told them over lunch about their work in the internet café: they should abide with
what the foreigner instructed them to do. Should the foreigner ask them to undress, they should follow without worrying
because the foreigner was just in the internet and in another country.

With regard to BBB, (dati ng nagtrabaho sa internet café owned by Richard Leocadio) she was approached by Sherryl who
recruited her to work in Pampanga. At first, she did not agree to Sherryl’s offer but in a few days, she made known her intention
to go back to Pampanga. Her decision was prompted by the loan obtained from Emma, and charged to her, which was used for
the expenses of Ella and her grandmother in fetching her in Lapu-Lapu City from Bohol and back.

At first, DDD understood that the work being offered to her was to look after an internet café. It was only later on, when they
were in Cebu City, that she found out about their real job in Pampanga which was to strip dance in front of a foreigner and abide
if asked to undress.

DDD and AAA – from Cebu, noticed that the tix stated they were all of legal ages, well in fact, they are not
When they tried boarding the ship, they were denied entry and prevented from proceeding by the person to whom they gave
their tickets. On that day PO2 Carel received a telephone call from the security guard

The security guard was asking for their assistance. He then informed his team and they immediately went to the Supercat
Terminal. There, the security guard informed them about two (2) women who were herding minors inside the terminal.

When PO2 Carel looked around, he saw a group of girls, about fifteen (15) minors, who looked suspicious and innocent. Upon
seeing them, the police officers approached accused and identified themselves as members of the Maritime Police. They asked
accused-appellants whether they have in their possession documents required in the travel of the minors, i.e., parent’s consent
or authority from the Department of Labor and Employment. Accused-appellants were not able to present them. For that
reason, they were placed under arrest for violation of R.A. No. 9208. Immediately thereafter, the police authorities read the
Miranda Rights to them and were subsequently brought to the police station, together with the minors. At the police station,
the police officers asked the girls for their tickets for documentation and noticed that there were erasures on the tickets,
particularly regarding their ages. Further, as a standard operating procedure, the incident was entered in the blotter report.

Issue: Whether EMMA LEOCADIO and SHERRYL LEOCADIO are guilty of the crime of qualified trafficking in persons in violation of
Section 4 in relation to Section 6 of Republic Act No. 9208

Ruling:

RTC - EMMA LEOCADIO and SHERRYL LEOCADIO GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of qualified trafficking in persons
in violation of Section 4 in relation to Section 6 of Republic Act No. 9208

CA - affirmed the RTC’s Decision with modifications. The CA agreed with the findings of the trial court that accused-appellants
committed qualified trafficking, considering that the trafficked persons were children, done in large scale as the trafficking was
committed against three or more persons.

The appellate court was of the opinion that even if the parents gave their consent for accused-appellants to bring their
daughters to Pampanga to work in an internet café for cybersex, it does not negate the offense. Trafficking is still committed by
means of taking advantage of the vulnerability of the trafficked person. In this case, poverty rendered the minors vulnerable to
trafficking.

SC – found prosecution successfully established all the elements of trafficking in persons.

Elements:

(1) The act of “recruitment, transportation, transfer or [harboring], or receipt of persons with or without the victim’s consent
or knowledge, within or across national borders”;

(2) The means used which include “threat or use of force, or other forms of coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of
power or of position, taking advantage of the vulnerability of the person, or, the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to
achieve the consent of a person having control over another”; and

(3) The purpose of trafficking is exploitation which includes “exploitation or the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual
exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery, servitude or the removal or sale of organs.”

Based from the said declarations of the witnesses, they were recruited by accused-appellants to perform lewd acts, indecent
shows and pornography in the internet.

In sum, accused-appellants recruited the victims to work in Angeles, Pampanga. They used the means of taking advantage of the
vulnerability of the victims, although this is not material as the victims were all minors, except for BBB. Lastly, their purpose for
trafficking was prostitution or sexual exploitation. Based on the definition of trafficking in persons and the enumeration of acts
of trafficking in persons, accused-appellants performed all the elements in the commission of the offense.

Section 6. Qualified Trafficking in Persons.—The following are considered as qualified trafficking:

(a) When the trafficked person is a child;
(c) When the crime is committed by a syndicate, or in large scale. Trafficking is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out
by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring or confederating with one another. It is deemed committed in large scale if
committed against three (3) or more persons, individually or as a group.
VINSON** D. YOUNG a.k.a. BENZON ONG and BENNY YOUNG a.k.a. BENNY ONG, petitioners, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
as represented by the OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, respondent.
783 SCRA 286, G.R. No. 213910 February 3, 2016

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision and the Resolution of the Court of Appeals are hereby AFFIRMED.

FACTS:

Members of the Regional Anti-Human Trafficking Task Force (RAHTTF) of the Philippine National Police (PNP), conducted
surveillance operations at Jaguar KTV Bar (Jaguar) in Cebu City, and observed that its customers paid P6,000.00 in exchange for
sexual intercourse with guest relations officers (GROs), or P10,000.00 as “bar fine” if they were taken out of the establishment.

In the course of their surveillance, they learned that: (a) petitioners were the owners of Jaguar; (b) a certain “Tico” acted as
overall manager; and (c) a certain “Ann” welcomed customers and offered them GROs.

In the course of an entrapment operation, PO2 Arsua, PO2 Talingting, Jr., and PO1 Jef Nemenzo (PO1 Nemenzo), acting as
poseur-customers, handed P15,000.00 worth of marked money to the “mamasang”/manager of Jaguar in exchange for sexual
service.

The rest of the task for members raided Jaguar resulting to multiple arrests, seizure of sexual paraphernalia, recovery of the
marked money from one Jocelyn Balili (Balili), and the rescue of 146 women and minor children.

Later, six (6) of these women — who all worked at Jaguar as GROs, namely, AAA, BBB, CCC, DDD, EEE, and FFF12 (AAA Group) —
executed affidavits identifying petitioners, Tico, and Ann as Jaguar’s owners. Accordingly, a criminal complaint for violation of
Sections 4(a) and (e) in relation to Sections 6(a) and (c) of RA 9208 was filed against them, before the Office of the City
Prosecutor, Cebu City (OCP)

In defense, Vinson denied ownership of Jaguar and asserted that he had sold his rights and interests therein to one Charles
Theodore Rivera pursuant to a Deed of Assignment dated December 14, 2009 (December 14, 2009 Deed of Assignment).

Not being the manager nor owner of Jaguar, therefore, he had no control and supervision over the AAA Group, with whom he
denied acquaintance. Similarly, Benny claimed that he was neither the owner nor manager of Jaguar and was not even present
during the raid. He raised “mistake in identity” as defense, stressing that he was not the same person identified by the AAA
Group in their respective affidavits.

During the pendency of the preliminary investigation, or on May 31, 2011, the AAA Group submitted affidavits stating that their
previous affidavits were vitiated and not of their own free will and voluntary deed, effectively recanting the same.

Issue: Whether Vinson is guilty of the violation of RA 9208 or “Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003.”

Ruling:
OCP - the OCP found probable cause and ordered the indictment of petitioners, Tico, and Ann for violation of Sections 4(a) and
(e) in relation to Sections 6(a) and (c) of RA 9208. It found that the receipt and subsequent recovery of the marked money from
Balili constituted prima facie evidence that there was a transaction to engage in sexual service for a fee.20 It also held that the
documentary evidence pertaining to Jaguar’s business operations, as well as the positive identification made by the AAA Group,
sufficiently established petitioners as its owners.

RTC – dismissed the case for lack of probable cause. It ruled that the affidavits of the RAHTTF members and the AAA Group
failed to show that petitioners had knowledge or participated in the recruitment of the 146 women and minors who were
rescued at Jaguar as sex workers. It also found that the recantations of the AAA Group were fatal to the prosecution’s case, since
it effectively cleared petitioners of any knowledge in Jaguar’s operations.

CA - the CA found that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the case for lack of probable cause. It
therefore ordered the reinstatement of the information and remanded the case to the RTC for further proceedings.

The CA primarily reasoned out that the court a quo failed to consider the other evidence proffered by the prosecution to
support its finding of probable cause, and that it delved on evidentiary issues in evaluating the affidavits submitted by the
prosecution which are matters better ventilated during the trial proper than at the preliminary investigation level.
SC - Determination of probable cause is either executive or judicial in nature.
Executive - pertains to the duty of the public prosecutor during preliminary investigation for the purpose of filing an
information in court. At this juncture, the investigating prosecutor evaluates if the facts are sufficient to engender a well-
founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof.

Judicial - refers to the prerogative of the judge to ascertain if a warrant of arrest should be issued against the accused. At this
stage, the judge makes a preliminary examination of the evidence submitted, and on the strength thereof, and independent
from the findings of the public prosecutor, determines the necessity of placing the accused under immediate custody in order
not to frustrate the ends of justice.

In this case, the prosecution was able to establish a prima facie case against petitioners for violation of Sections 4(a) and (e) in
relation to Sections 6(a) and (c) of RA 9208. As it appears from the records, petitioners recruited and hired the AAA Group and,
consequently, maintained them under their employ in Jaguar for the purpose of engaging in prostitution. In view of this,
probable cause exists to issue warrants for their arrest.

Significantly, the present case involves public interest as it imputes violations of RA 9208, or the “Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act
of 2003,” a crime so abhorrent and reprehensible that is characterized by sexual violence and slavery. Accordingly, direct resort
to a certiorari petition sans a motion for reconsideration is clearly sanctioned in this case.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. JEHLSON AGUIRRE y ARIDIDON, MICHAEL ARABIT y PACAMARA, JEFFERSON
PARALEJAS y PIGTAIN and JEFFREY ROXAS y ARAGONCILLO,
845 SCRA 227, G.R. No. 219952 November 20, 2017

WHEREFORE, the Court of Appeals’ Decision is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that: (a) the imposition of subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency is deleted; and (b) moral damages and exemplary damages are increased to P500,000 and
P100,000, respectively.

Under Section 6(a) of Republic Act (RA) No. 9208, the crime of trafficking in persons is qualified “when the trafficked person is a
child.”

FACTS:

Accused-appellants and accused Jeffrey Roxas y Aragoncillo (Roxas) were charged with Qualified Trafficking in Persons under
Sections 3(a), 4(a) and 6 of Republic Act No. (RA) 9208, or the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003, in relation to violation of
RA 7610, known as the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act, for recruiting,
transporting, harboring, providing or receiving, in conspiracy with one another, ten girls, including seven minors, for purposes of
prostitution and sexual exploitation.

Of the ten girls, four testified in Court against accused-appellants private complainants AAA, BBB, CCC and DDD.
That they were convinced by accused-appellants to go swimming and drinking, and to have sex, with foreigners in exchange for
money and/or shabu.

Arabit and Aguirre convinced AAA to go swimming and drinking with foreigners for which she would get paid. As on a previous
occasion, accused-appellants induced BBB to have sex with a man in exchange for money and shabu. CCC, who had been invited
by her classmate and Arabit’s cousin, EEE, to go drinking with their high school friends, went with EEE to Arabit’s house where
accused-appellants told them that they would go drinking with some foreigners in Quezon City in exchange for money. DDD
initially declined Aguirre’s proposition to introduce her to a foreigner who would give them money and shabu for sex with her.

She relented after hearing that aside from money, they would also have one “bulto” of shabu for their personal use.

Private complainants and six other girls (EEE, FFF, GGG, HHH, III and JJJ) were later assembled at Arabit’s house where accused-
appellants told them to primp themselves as they had to look good for the foreigners.

On the way, Aguirre told the girls that they would be meeting some foreigners who would take them abroad.
At 7:00 p.m., they reached a two-storey apartment in Quezon City, where they would rest after which they would proceed to a
hotel to meet the foreigners. Inside the apartment, the girls, as instructed by accused-appellants, fixed their clothes and make-
up to look pleasing to the foreigners. Arabit and Paralejas also instructed the girls not to leave the house. Arabit and Aguirre
then offered to the girls what appeared to be shabu, which was payment for sex with the foreigners in addition to money. Six of
the girls accepted and they were separated from the rest. They were looking for aluminum foil for the shabu when there was
suddenly a commotion. Several people, who came running down from the second floor of the apartment, identified themselves
as the police and told the girls to sit together. The police officers arrested accused-appellants and Roxas.

The police officers were members of the Criminal Investigation Division Group-Women and Children Protection Division (CIDG-
WCPD) who acted on information from a civilian informant of “Tutok-Tulfo,” a television program aired over TV Channel 5, that a
certain “Booba” and his cohorts would be bringing at least ten women to said informant in an unoccupied apartment in Quezon
City, to be distributed in clubs and videoke bars around Metro Manila as prostitutes/entertainers.

Police team leader SPO1 Robert Eblahan testified that they had positioned themselves on the second floor of the apartment
when they heard a group enter. Shortly thereafter, a male voice said, “Kuya, asan na ang komisyon ko?” Another male voice
answered “O, ayan, kumpleto na yan!” The first male voice replied, “Ay, salamat kuya!” Upon receiving the prearranged signal
from the civilian informant through their mobile phone, the police went down from the second floor and effected the arrest of
accused-appellants, all known homosexuals, and Roxas, and referred the ten girls to the social workers.

ISSUE: Whether the appellants are guilty of Qualified Trafficking in Persons under Sections 3(a), 4(a) and 6 of Republic Act No.
(RA) 9208, or the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003, in relation to violation of RA 7610, known as the Special Protection of
Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act

RULING:

RTC - convicted accused-appellants of the crime of Qualified Trafficking in Persons and sentenced each of them to suffer the
penalty of life imprisonment and to pay the fine of P2 million, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. The RTC also
ordered each of the accused-appellants to pay AAA, BBB, CCC and DDD P100,000 each as moral damages and P50,000 each as
exemplary damages, and to pay the costs of suit.

According to the RTC, while CCC and DDD were minors at the time of the commission of the crime, the Information alleged that
DDD was already of legal age. It nonetheless considered CCC’s minority as a qualifying circumstance but not that the crime was
committed by a syndicate (involving three or more conspirators) and in large scale (involving three or more victims) as the same
was not alleged in the Information.

The RTC did not convict accused-appellants under RA 7610, holding that such a conviction would violate accused-appellants’
constitutional right as the Information did not state the particular provision of said law — whether it is “Child Prostitution and
Other Sexual Abuse” under Section 5 or “Child Trafficking” under Section 7 — that was violated.

The RTC acquitted Roxas, finding doubt in his participation in the crime after private complainants denied knowing him and
testified to only seeing him inside the white van that brought them to Quezon City.

Accused-appellants appealed the RTC’s Judgment to the CA on the sole ground that their guilt was not proven beyond
reasonable doubt. They argued that the evidence used by the prosecution to prove the purpose for which the girls were
“recruited and transported” to the apartment was based on hearsay, and that there was no evidence that said apartment was a
brothel or a prostitution den.

CA - the CA rendered the assailed Decision affirming the RTC’s Judgment, subject to the modification that: (a) accused-
appellants are jointly and severally liable to pay each of the private complainants the sums of P100,000 as moral damages and
P50,000 as exemplary damages, and (b) interest at six percent (6%) per annum is imposed on the total monetary award from
the finality of the decision until full payment

SC - The Court finds no reason to overturn the CA’s findings and conclusion as to the guilt of accused-appellants. The
prosecution has satisfactorily established the elements of trafficking in persons.

Based on Section 3(a) of RA 9208,24 the elements of trafficking in persons are:

(1) The act of “recruitment, transportation, transfer or harbouring, or receipt of persons with or without the victim’s consent
or knowledge, within or across national borders”;

(2) The means used which include “threat or use of force, or other forms of coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of
power or of position, taking advantage of the vulnerability of the person, or, the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to
achieve the consent of a person having control over another”; and

(3) The purpose of trafficking is exploitation which includes at a minimum “exploitation or the prostitution of others or other
forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery, servitude or the removal or sale of organs.”

Accused-appellants’ actions clearly indicate their intention to exploit private complainants. They establish beyond reasonable
doubt that accused--appellants recruited and transported private complainants for purposes of prostitution and sexual
exploitation.

The recruitment and transportation punished under Section 3(a) of RA 9208 may be “with or without the victim’s consent or
knowledge.”

The Court cannot accept accused-appellants’ argument that they cannot be convicted of trafficking in persons because the
prosecution had not shown that the apartment in Quezon City was a brothel or that the foreigners were therein present,
waiting to have “drug orgy and sex” with private complainants.

The presence of the trafficker’s clients is not an element of the crime of recruitment or transportation of victims under Sections
3(a) and 4(a) of RA 9208.

The law does not require that the victims be transported to or be found in a brothel or a prostitution den for such crime of
recruitment or transportation to be committed. In fact, it has been held that the act of sexual intercourse need not have been
consummated for recruitment to be said to have taken place. It is sufficient that the accused has lured, enticed or engaged its
victims or transported them for the established purpose of exploitation, which includes prostitution, sexual exploitation,
forced labor, slavery, and the removal or sale of organs. In this case, the prosecution has satisfactorily established accused-
appellants’ recruitment and transportation of private complainants for purposes of prostitution and sexual exploitation.

The crime of trafficking in persons is qualified “when the trafficked person is a child.” BBB, CCC and DDD were minors or
“children” at the time of the commission of the offense. As the RTC noted, however, the Information alleged DDD to be 18 years
of age, thus, her minority cannot be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance.
 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. NURFRASIR HASHIM y SARABAN a.k.a “FRANZ/FRANS,” MAKDUL JAMAD y BUKIN (AL)
a.k.a. “MACKY,” a certain “TAS,” and a certain “JUN,” accused, BERNADETTE PANSACALA a.k.a. “Neneng Awid
672 SCRA 549, G.R. No. 194255 June 13, 2012

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. Accused-
appellant Bernadette Pansacala a.k.a. “Neneng Awid” is ORDERED to pay AAA and BBB the sum of P500,000 each as moral
damages and P100,000 each as exemplary damages and to pay the costs.

FACTS: Bernadette Pansacala a.k.a. “Neneng Awid” approached AAA, who was then doing her job as a waitress at a stall in
Paseo de Zamboanga, to encourage AAA to work in Malaysia, as Neneng Awisa knew certain persons who would soon be leaving
for that country.

On the next day, private complainant BBB was at her house in Talon-talon Loop, Zamboanga City, when accused-appellant paid
her a visit and invited her to work as a saleslady in Brunei. After being assured that the prospective employment was above
board and that she would be well compensated, BBB accepted the invitation.

BBB, Macky and Jun met as planned. They proceeded to Shop-O-Rama, where they met with co-accused Nurfrasir Hashim, a.k.a.
“Franz” (Franz), who assured BBB that she would be easily hired because of her beauty and height. They then agreed to meet at
the same day at Paseo de Zamboanga.

At Paseo de Zamboanga, BBB, accused-appellant, Macky, and Jun met with AAA, a certain CCC (allegedly another recruit) and
Arlene (allegedly AAA’s employer). Then at 7:00 p.m. of that same day, they all proceeded to the wharf, where they met accused
Franz and a certain Cristy, who was also allegedly invited by accused-appellant to work in Malaysia.

At first, private complainants were not aware of the circumstances surrounding their employment at the Golden Lotus. It was
only after they agreed to stay there for employment that they were forced to become sex workers to earn money and pay off
the debts they incurred from their travel from Zamboanga City to Labuan, Malaysia.

AAA and BBB worked as prostituted women. Each of the girls would be booked to a customer for the whole night for 300 Ringgit
at a certain hotel near the Golden Lotus. Meanwhile, during the day, they would be hired by customers for a “short time” for
150 Ringgit in one of the rooms of the Golden Lotus. The girls were told that they would be made to pay a fine of 150 Ringgit if
they refused to have sexual intercourse with the customers.

BBB had a customer who was a law enforcer at Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia. She sought his help for her return to the Philippines,
and he agreed.

The following day, on 13 July 2003, the Golden Lotus was raided by the Immigration Officers of Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia, and the
prostituted Filipino women, including AAA and BBB, were detained at the Balay Polis (Police Department) in Labuan until all the
women were deported to the Philippines.

Issue: Whether Hashin and Pansacala are guilty of illegal recruitment committed by a syndicate.

Ruling:

RTC - Court finds both accused NURFRASIR HASHIM y SARABAN a.k.a “FRANZ/FRAS” and BERNADETTE PANSACALA a.k.a
“NENENG AWID” GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of the crime of ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT defined under Section 6 and
penalized under Section 7(b) of Republic Act No. 8042 otherwise known as the “Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of
1995. The trial court considered that, in the course of the trial, the prosecution and the defense had entered into a stipulation
that neither accused-appellant Bernadette nor Franz had a license or an authority to recruit or deploy workers for overseas
employment.

CA - affirmed the findings of fact of the trial court in the former’s assailed Decision, but modified the award of damages

Elements of Illegal Recruitment:

1. The accused have no valid license or authority required by law to enable them to lawfully engage in the recruitment and
placement of workers. - accused-appellant admitted that she did not have a valid license to recruit persons for overseas
employment, consistent with her defense that she did not engage in the recruitment of persons for employment.

2. The accused engaged in this activity of recruitment and placement by actually recruiting, deploying and transporting. - both
victims, AAA and BBB, narrated in great detail how they were induced by accused-appellant to accept an employment
opportunity, and how they were successfully transported from Zamboanga City to Malaysia where they eventually worked as
prostituted women.

3. Illegal recruitment was committed by three persons conspiring and confederating with one another. - On the third element,
accused-appellant assumed that the prosecution failed to prove that there were more than two persons involved in the
alleged crime of illegal recruitment, since the trial court held only two of the accused liable for the crime. The prosecution,
she alleges, failed to establish that the other accused Macky, Jun, and Tas also had no license or authority to recruit workers
for overseas employment.

SC – Affirmed with modification

GAUDENCIO E. FERNANDO and RUDY ESTORNINOS vs. COURT OF APPEALS

510 SCRA 351, G.R. No. 159751 December 6, 2006

WHEREFORE, the Decision and the Resolution of the Court of Appeals affirming the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of
Manila, Branch 21 are hereby AFFIRMED.

The court defined obscenity as something which is offensive to chastity, decency or delicacy.

FACTS: officers of the Philippine National Police Criminal Investigation and Detection Group in the National Capital Region (PNP-
CIDG NCR) conducted police surveillance on the store bearing the name of Gaudencio E. Fernando Music Fair (Music Fair).

Judge Perfecto Laguio of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 19, issued Search Warrant No. 99-1216 for violation of
Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code against petitioner Gaudencio E. Fernando and a certain Warren Tingchuy. The warrant
ordered the search of Gaudencio E. Fernando Music Fair at 564 Quezon Blvd., corner Zigay Street, Quiapo, Manila, and the
seizure of the following items: a.Copies of New Rave Magazines with nude obscene pictures;
b.Copies of IOU Penthouse Magazine with nude obscene pictures;
c. Copies of Hustler International Magazine with nude obscene pictures; and
d. Copies of VHS tapes containing pornographic shows.”

On the same day, police officers of the PNP-CIDG NCR served the warrant on Rudy Estorninos, who, according to the
prosecution, introduced himself as the store attendant of Music Fair. The police searched the premises and confiscated twenty-
five (25) VHS tapes and ten (10) different magazines, which they deemed pornographic.

Petitioners contend that the prosecution failed to prove that at the time of the search, they were selling pornographic materials.
Fernando contends that since he was not charged as the owner of an establishment selling obscene materials, the prosecution
must prove that he was present during the raid and that he was selling the said materials. Moreover, he contends that the
appellate court’s reason for convicting him, on a presumption of continuing ownership shown by an expired mayor’s permit, has
no sufficient basis since the prosecution failed to prove his ownership of the establishment. Estorninos, on the other hand,
insists that he was not an attendant in Music Fair, nor did he introduce himself so.

ISSUE: Whether Fernando and Estornino participated in the distribution and exhibition of obscene materials

RTC - Court finds accused GAUDENCIO FERNANDO and RUDY ESTORNINOS GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
charged. For failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused WARREN TINGCHUY beyond reasonable doubt, he is hereby
ACQUITTED of the crime charged. The VHS tapes and the nine (9) magazines utilized as evidence in this case are hereby
confiscated in favor of the government.
CA – Affirmed

SC – The Court ruled that as obscenity is an unprotected speech which the State has the right to regulate, the State in pursuing
its mandate to protect, as parens patriae, the public from obscene, immoral and indecent materials must justify the regulation
or limitation. One such regulation is Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code. To be held liable, the prosecution must prove that (a)
the materials, publication, picture or literature are obscene; and (b) the offender sold, exhibited, published or gave away such
materials. Necessarily, that the confiscated materials are obscene must be proved.

The Court emphasize that mere possession of obscene materials, without intention to sell, exhibit, or give them away, is not
punishable under Article 201, considering the purpose of the law is to prohibit the dissemination of obscene materials to the
public. The offense in any of the forms under Article 201 is committed only when there is publicity. The law does not require
that a person be caught in the act of selling, giving away or exhibiting obscene materials to be liable, for as long as the said
materials are offered for sale, displayed or exhibited to the public. In the present case, we find that petitioners are engaged in
selling and exhibiting obscene materials.

Petitioner Estorninos is likewise liable as the store attendant actively engaged in selling and exhibiting the obscene materials.

EVEN DEMATA y GARZON, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

G.R. No. 228583. September 15, 2021.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision and the Resolution are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner Even
Demata y Garzon is hereby ACQUITTED of violating Article 201 (3) of the Revised Penal Code and Section 10 (a) of Republic Act
No. 7610.

Publisher- baby antiporda

FACTS: Upon the complaint of minor AAA's father, filed two criminal informations against Demata before the RTC of Manila

1. Violation of Art. 201 - being then the Editor-in-Chief of Bagong Toro Tabloid, sell and circulate, or caused to be sold
and circulated to the public a BAGONG TORO Tabloid containing a photo of one AAA, a 17-year old minor, under the
article "facebook sexy and beauties" together with pictures showing nude and semi-naked women in
uncompromising, scandalous, and sexually enticing poses and illustrated stories and depicting, describing, presenting,
and showing indecent and immoral scenes of naked and half-naked female persons showing their private parts, which
literature or publication serves no other purpose but to satisfy the market for lust or pornography and, therefore, are
grossly and seriously offensive to morals.
2. Violation of Section 10 (a) of R.A. 7610 – accused commit psychological injury to AAA, a 17-year old minor, assisted by
her father, CCC, by posting her picture and circulate or caused to be posted and circulated in a Bagong Toro Tabloid
Vol. 1 without her consent which caused severe anxiety, depression, withdrawal or outward aggressive behaviour or a
combination of said behaviours thereby causing harm to her intellectual and psychological functioning which is
prejudicial to said child's development.

Private complainant AAA was a student of Accounting Technology at the University of the East (UE). Only 17 years old at the
time the June 21, 2012 issue of Bagong Toro was published.

One time, AAA's brother, BBB, went to a barbershop in Quezon City. He browsed through the tabloids available in the shop and
was surprised to see a picture of AAA in the June 21, 2012 issue of Bagong Toro, under a column entitled "facebook sexy and
beauties." AAA's name was not published. In the picture, she can be seen in a seated position and fully clothed, wearing shorts
and a t-shirt. Beside her picture were photos of other women wearing revealing swimwear.

BBB called up his father, CCC, and told the latter about AAA's picture. CCC was very angry upon seeing the newspaper. He and
his wife, DDD, confronted AAA about her photograph. Upon seeing the photograph, AAA cried and told her parents that she had
no idea how her picture reached the tabloid. However, she told them that she had lost her cellphone sometime in February
2012. She had been using the cellphone to access her Facebook account which she could no longer access after losing the
phone and because CCC had forbidden her from using Facebook. AAA recalled that she and two of her cousins were originally in
the photo, which was taken some time in late May 2012 on the rooftop of the condominium occupied by AAA's aunt. Her
cousins, however, had been cropped out. DDD later testified that it was her who took the photograph. AAA cried the whole
night and could not study for the calculus exam she was supposed to take the following day.

AAA is the youngest and the only girl among her siblings. She was raised in a conservative Muslim community.

When her relatives came to know of the publication, many of them were furious. Her uncle, who had been financing her
studies, withdrew his support, constraining CCC to take on credit so that AAA could continue her studies. AAA became the target
of bullying in her school.

One professor even spread false rumors of her being involved in a sex scandal. All these things caused anxiety, sleeplessness,
and paranoia to AAA and affected her studies and relations with other people.

Eventually, Dr. Bascos diagnosed AAA as suffering from Chronic Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and prescribed her to take
anti-depressants and to continue with the psychosocial processing and counseling.

Only Demata took to the witness stand for his defense. He argues that the publication is not obscene. He emphasized that
AAA's photo alone cannot be considered as obscene, pornographic, or lascivious as she was fully clothed, and her pose was not
sexually provocative.

ISSUE: Whether the other photographs of women and erotic stories contained in the tabloid may be considered obscene under
Article 201 of the RPC; and whether Demata is guilty of creating conditions prejudicial to development of AAA, in violation of
Section 10 (a) of R.A. 7610.

RULING:

RTC - found Demata guilty. The RTC conceded that while AAA's photo is not obscene, but taken in its entirety, the newspaper is
obscene. The RTC further ruled that the placing of "AAA's photo in a pornographic tabloid without her consent certainly
constitutes child abuse. Its psychological effect on her cannot be doubted and in this case has been duly established."

CA - denied Demata's appeal. The CA echoed the RTC in ruling that the Bagong Toro issue did not pass the various obscenity
tests.

The test of obscenity. The test is whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscene, is to deprave or
corrupt those whose minds are open such immoral influences and into whose hands such a publication may fall and also
whether or not such publication or act shocks the ordinary and common sense of men as an indecency. Indecency is an act
against the good behavior and a just delicacy.

In the proceedings before the RTC, Demata was represented by the Public Attorney's Office.

He argues that paragraph 3 of Article 201 does not specifically mention the liability of an editor and that he had no hand in the
"selling, giving away, or exhibiting" as his responsibility was to edit the articles in the newspaper. Fourth, as to his conviction
under Section 10 (a) of R.A. 7610, Demata argues, citing Bongalon v. People, that he may only be punished under said provision
if it is proven that he intended to debase, degrade, or demean the intrinsic worth of dignity of AAA as a human being through
an act of abuse, cruelty, or exploitation.

SC – the Court do not think that the offense of "selling or giving away" obscene materials is necessarily included in the act of
"publishing" or vice versa. These are two completely different acts as indicated by the fact that P.D. No. 969 classified them
under two different paragraphs. The two acts are not necessarily proven by the same evidence. There is no disputing that
Demata was the editor of Bagong Toro but there is no evidence at all proving that he actually sold or circulated the subject
Bagong Toro issue.

Thus, the CA erred in affirming the RTC's judgment convicting Demata under Article 201 (3) of the RPC. Therefore, although the
prosecution was successful in proving that Demata was the editor of Bagong Toro in question, it would be a leap of logic to
conclude that to infer that he also committed the act of selling or giving away the newspaper. In fact, there is uncontroverted
testimony that Bagong Toro has a Circulation Department, headed by a circulation manager, which controls the circulation and
sale of the newspaper and over which Demata has no control.
Despite having the nominal title of editor-in-chief, Demata does not have unfettered control over the final contents of any given
issue of Bagong Toro. Moreover, the June 12, 2021 issue was already printed by the press when it was submitted to him for
review.

Furthermore, the mere fact that Demata was the "editor-in-chief" of the newspaper is too remote a cause to ascribe criminal
liability under R.A. 7610. This Court has previously applied the concept of remote cause vis- -vis proximate cause in such
criminal cases where the Court acquitted the accused of the crime charged because the harm was not the direct, natural, and
logical consequence of the accused's actions.

ANTONIO PLANTERAS, JR., vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

882 SCRA 236, G.R. No. 238889 October 3, 2018

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari of petitioner Antonio Planteras, Jr. is DENIED for lack of merit. Consequently,
the Decision and the Resolution of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that petitioner is ORDERED to
PAY AAA the amounts of P100,000.00 as moral damages and P50,000.00 as exemplary damages.

FACTS: