G.R. No. 253287 , July 06, 2022
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Kenneth John Graham and Jocelyn Ordinaryo, Accused; Rosario Craste y Solayao, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Rosario Craste, along with co-accused Kenneth Graham and Jocelyn Ordinaryo, was charged with eight counts of Qualified Trafficking in Persons under RA 9208. The charges stemmed from operations at a bar and hotel in Puerto Princesa City. Private complainants, including minors, alleged they were recruited to work at the bar, forced to dance in underwear, and compelled to engage in prostitution for a “bar fine.” Rosario acted as a “mamasang” or pimp, managing the women and facilitating transactions with customers. Following a complaint, a police team conducted surveillance and an entrapment operation on March 31, 2012. An undercover officer, with foreign assets posing as customers, negotiated with Rosario (“Mommy Rose”) for the sexual services of a dancer. After Rosario accepted marked money as payment for the bar fine, she was arrested. The simultaneous operation led to the rescue of 17 victims.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Rosario. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, finding all elements of qualified trafficking present. Rosario appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the prosecution failed to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt, specifically contesting the credibility of the entrapment, the admissibility of some victim testimonies, and alleging a violation of her right against double jeopardy.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Rosario Craste’s conviction for eight counts of Qualified Trafficking in Persons.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The ruling methodically addressed each of Rosario’s arguments. On the sufficiency of evidence, the Court held that the prosecution successfully established all elements of the crime under RA 9208: (1) the act of recruiting, transporting, or maintaining a person; (2) through means such as abuse of vulnerability; (3) for the purpose of exploitation, which includes prostitution. Rosario’s direct participation as the floor manager who negotiated the bar fine with the police asset was conclusively proven by the credible entrapment operation. Her actions constituted “maintaining” victims for sexual exploitation.
Regarding procedural objections, the Court found no violation of the right against double jeopardy. Her claim referred to a separate case for violation of the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act involving a different victim and distinct acts, which does not constitute the same offense as trafficking. On the admissibility of some victim affidavits, the Court clarified that while the “hearsay exception in child abuse cases” requires the proponent to notify the adverse party, the failure to do so was not fatal here. The conviction did not rest solely on these affidavits but was firmly supported by the direct evidence from the entrapment operation and the testimonies of other witnesses, including the police officer and rescued victims. The trial court’s assessment of witness credibility was accorded high respect. Thus, her guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.