G.R. No. 210798 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. BEVERLY VILLANUEVA Y MANALILI @ BEBANG, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, finding accused BEVERLY VILLANUEVA y MANALILI @ "BEBANG" GUILTY of Qualified Trafficking in Persons under Section 6 of Republic Act 9208, the Court hereby sentences her to suffer the penalty of Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of 3 Million pesos. Her license/permit to operate the ON TAP VIDEOKE BAR is ordered cancelled. [32] Ruling of the Court of Appeals Accused-appellant challenged the RTC decision on appeal, alleging that the lower court relied on the weakness of the defense rather than on the strength of the evidence for the prosecution. Accused-appellant argued that the same set of evidence, which was the basis for granting the petition for bail, was merely adopted in the main case. Thus, accused-appellant contends that there can be no conclusion other than that the prosecution failed to substantiate the allegations in the Information. Moreover, accused-appellant insisted that the lower court erred in not giving the private complainant's Affidavit of Desistance due weight and consideration. The appellate court found the appeal bereft of merit. Enumerating the different circumstantial evidence presented, the CA ruled that the conviction was warranted. The appellate court held that the "[affidavit of desistance is] not the sole consideration that can result to an acquittal" [33] hence, in view of the lack of circumstances to support the Affidavit of Desistance, acquittal was not warranted. The pertinent and dispositive portions of the decision read: Thus, the trial court did not err in imposing upon accused-appellant the penalty of life imprisonment and fine of P3,000,000.00. The order for the cancellation of her permit to operate the ON TAP VIDEOKE BAR is also correct, x x x x x x x WHEREFORE, the trial court's Decision dated January 28, 2011 is AFFIRMED. [34] In a Resolution [35] dated 3 October 2013, the Court of Appeals gave due course to accused-appellant's Notice of Appeal. On 19 February 2014, [36] we required the parties to submit their respective supplemental briefs. Accused-appellant filed a supplemental brief; [37] whereas the Office of the Solicitor General adopted all the arguments raised in its brief, in lieu of filing a supplemental brief. Our Ruling The crux of the controversy is whether the circumstantial pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution inexorably lead to the conclusion that accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Qualified Trafficking. After a thorough review of the facts and evidence on record, we rule for accused-appellant's acquittal. Qualified Trafficking The elements of trafficking in persons, derived from the expanded definition found in Section 3(a) of R.A. No. 9208 as amended by R.A. No. 10364, are as follows: (1) The act of "recruitment, obtaining, hiring, providing, offering, transportation, transfer, maintaining, harboring, or receipt of persons with or without the victim's consent or knowledge, within or across national borders;" (2) The means used include