G.R. No. 278327 - OLIVER PILORIN, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly, sentenced each of them to suffer the penalties of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of 10 years of prision mayor, as minimum, to 16 years, five months, and 10 days of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and a fine of PHP 20,000.00; and ordered each of them to pay AAA278327 the amounts of PHP 20,000.00 as civil indemnity, PHP 20,000.00 as moral damages, and PHP 20,000.00 as exemplary damages. On the other hand, Pilorin was acquitted. Second, in Criminal Case No. 80- 2007FC, the RTC found Pilorin and Griffm guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified trafficking in persons, and accordingly, sentenced each of them to suffer the penalties of life imprisonment and a fine of PHP 2,000,000.00. [16] In so ruling, the RTC found that Pilorin, Griffin, and Dumangas clearly acted in concert with one another, considering that: (a) Pilorin made AAA278327 et al. job offers as waitstaff, brought them to xxxxxxxxxxx Bar despite knowing that they were minors, and introduced them to Griffin; (b) despite AAA278327 et al. being unable to prove their claim that they were already of age, Griffin made AAA278327 dress up, wear make-up, dance on the resto- bar's stage, sit with customers, then allowed such customers to bring her out of the resto-bar and into hotel rooms where she was sexually abused; and (c) Dumangas managed xxxxxxxxxxx Bar and would get upset whenever AAA278327 refused to dance on stage. Given the foregoing circumstances, the RTC made the following conclusions: First, in Criminal Case No. 46-2007FC, Griffin and Dumangas, as the owner and the manager of xxxxxxxxxxx Bar, respectively, violated Section 5(c) of Republic Act No. 7610 and must be held criminally liable therefor; on the other hand, since Pilorin is neither the owner nor the manager of xxxxxxxxxxx Bar, he could not be said to have violated such legal provision. Second, in Criminal Case No. 80-2007FC, since only Griffin and Pilorin were charged with qualified trafficking in persons, then they are the only ones who could be convicted of such crime. [17] Griffin and Dumangas jointly filed a Motion for Reconsideration, while Pilorin separately filed his own Motion for Reconsideration, with both Motions assailing their respective convictions. On the other hand, the prosecution moved for partial reconsideration seeking monetary awards in AAA278327's favor in Criminal Case No. 80-2007FC. In an Order [18] dated September 28, 2020, the RTC denied the Motions of Pilorin, Griffin, and Dumangas, while it granted the prosecution's Motion. Accordingly, the RTC ordered Pilorin and Griffin to jointly and severally pay AAA278327 the amounts of PHP 500,000.00 as moral damages and PHP 100,000.00 as exemplary damages, both with legal interest at the rate of 6% per annum from finality of the ruling until full payment. [19] Aggrieved, Pilorin, Griffin, and Dumangas all appealed to the CA. The CA Ruling In a Decision [20] dated June 27, 2023, the CA: (a) upheld the RTC ruling in toto insofar as Crimina