Case Title: People v Villanueva GR Number / Year: 210798/2016

Topic: Trafficking in persons, defined (Sec. 3, a)

Petitioner: People Respondent: Beverly Villanueva
Emergency Recit:
AAA ran away from home. Her mom was informed that she was staying at a videoke bar.
Accompanied by a TV crew and police, a rescue ensued to retrieve AAA which was
successful. Villanueva claimed that she only sheltered AAA as she was a run-away and was
not engaged in vices whatsoever including an allegation that AAA was made to be a GRO.
This was corroborated by an Affidavit of Desistance done by AAA and her mother saying that
AAA was not exploited and was only sheltered out of Villanueva’s benevolence.
Nevertheless, the lower courts convicted her. On appeal, SC acquitted Villanueva as there
was no proof that AAA was exploited. AAA’s mere presence and lack of other acts that may
constitute exploitation were absent. Villanueva’s status as the registered owner of the bar
does not make her criminally liable. Prosecution could not prove other acts that Villanueva did
in fact exploited AAA. Further, despite police surveillance, prosecution failed to prove that
AAA’s work constituted as exploitation. In sum, there were no overt acts imputed against
Villanueva that she was guilty of human trafficking. Her mere ownership of the establishment
does not make her criminally liable for human trafficking.
Doctrine:
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. Such acts performed may done by person whether they are owners or not of the
establishment thus being the owner does not make her liable of the trafficking
committed in the establishment. The prosecution should have proven the act of
trafficking by other means and not the mere showing that accused was the owner of
the establishment.
Facts:
1. AAA (13) ran away from home after finding she was adopted and scolded by her mom
(private complainant). AAA’s friends informed her that AAA was staying at “On Tap
Videoke Bar” working as a GRO. She sought help from ABSCBN show “XXX” to
regain custody of AAA.
2. Accompanied by the TV crew, she filed a complaint and a rescue was planned. AAA
was rescued and Villanueva and 4 others were charged with human trafficking under
RA 9208 (and not under RA 7610 as AAA was a minor).
3. Villanueva filed for bail but was opposed by the prosecution. Meanwhile, an Affidavit of
Desistance was executed by AAA’s mom as after talking to AAA, she averred that she
was only allowed to “stay” in said bar after running away from home.
4. P02 Abas narrated that he only acted based on the said complaint and was unaware
that AAA was in the Bar and his job was to secure the GRO. AAA’s mom averred she
never visited the bar before the rescue and that when she saw AAA, she did neither
seem to be engaged in vices nor was hired as a GRO thus her reluctance to pursue
the case. AAA was unable to testify as she escaped DSWD’s custody. Further, the
police could not obtain the TV footage for some reason. Villanueva’s bail was granted.
5. Villanueva claimed, via Aquino (waiter/defense witness), that 2 men went inside the
bar and asked for AAA. They were able to talk to her and 5 mins. later a rescue
ensued. Aquino was unaware of AAA’s stay in the bar as Rosito Villanueva (accused’s
father/manager) allowed her stay. AAA was there for 2 weeks and was helping in the
kitchen. This was corroborated by other witnesses. Villanueva claimed she not present
 when the rescue happened and denied that she employed AAA as a GRO.
6. RTC and CA convicted Villanueva due to the circumstantial evidence present
Issue/s: Whether accused should be acquitted
Held: YES
QUALIFIED TRAFFICKING
1. Elements of Qualified Trafficking under Sec. 3(a) of RA 10364
a. (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 "by means of 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 person;" and
(3) The purpose of trafficking includes "the 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
2. The recruitment/transfer/harboring a child for exploitation purposes is considered
human trafficking even if it does not involve any means set for in Sec. 3(a).
Prosecution’s argument that by being the owner of the bar, she necessarily committed
the acts stated in Sec. 3a(1), but SC held that such acts may be performed may done
by person whether they are owners or not of the establishment thus being the owner
does not make her liable of the trafficking committed in the bar. The prosecution
should have proven the act of trafficking by other means and not the mere showing
that Villanueva was the bar owner.
3. The 3rd element was absent as AAA was seen the day before the rescue per the
conducted police surveillance. Her exploitation was unproven by just her mere
presence in the bar during the rescue. Prosecution should have presented proof of
AAA’s nature of work. They could have just asked customers what AAA was doing
there in the first place.
NOTES: (OTHER RULINGS)
LACK OF DIRECT EVIDENCE
1. Since AAA was unable to testify, prosecution was unable to offer direct evidence to
show that Villanueva recruited AAA. AAA’s mom had a month after her Desistance to
deny the complaint but she confirmed the allegation’s therein.
2. AAA’s mom did not validate the alleged “recruitment” from her “friends” who she could
not identify before the rescue. The policemen who participated in the entrapment
operation were incompetent as to the actual operation. Prosecution even failed to
produce the actual conversation between the undercover agents and AAA.
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE INSUFFICIENT
1. Circumstantial evidence is deemed sufficient for conviction only if:
a. (1) there is more than one circumstance;
b. (2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
c. (3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction
beyond reasonable doubt.
2. It is essential that the circumstantial evidence presented is an unbroken chain which
leads to a fair and reasonable conclusion that the accused is guilty. In this case,
AAA’s mere presence does not prove Villanueva was harboring her to exploit AAA.
Nowhere in RA 9208 does it state that mere presence in such an establishment can it
be considered a crime. In fact, as evidence by the Desistance, AAA was there as she
needed shelter. Though she may wear skimpy clothes, it does not mean she is
exploited as she may have borrowed from the employees considering she ran away
from home and a showing her gratitude, she voluntarily offered to wash the dishes.