GR 238889; (October, 2018) (Digest)
G.R. No. 238889. October 03, 2018.
ANTONIO PLANTERAS, JR., PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
FACTS
Petitioner Antonio Planteras, Jr., co-owner of a lodge, was convicted for violating Section 5(a) of R.A. 9208 (Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act) for allowing his establishment to be used to promote trafficking. Police surveillance and an entrapment operation on April 28, 2009, established that pimps Marichu Tawi and Marlyn Buhisan were openly offering girls, including a 17-year-old minor (AAA), for sexual services at the lodge’s entrance. During the entrapment, poseur-customers negotiated with the pimps inside the lodge, selected girls, and paid marked money. Petitioner was present at the reception counter during these transactions, quoted room rates to the officers, and appeared to be listening to the negotiations. The prosecution presented testimonies from police officers and AAA, who detailed how Buhisan recruited her and how the lodge was routinely used for prostitution.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner is guilty of promoting trafficking in persons under R.A. 9208 by knowingly allowing his lodge to be used for that purpose.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court emphasized that the crime under Section 5(a) of R.A. 9208 is committed by any person who “knowingly or by negligence” allows an establishment to be used for trafficking. The prosecution successfully proved petitioner’s knowledge and deliberate allowance. His active presence at the reception counter during multiple transactions, his provision of room rates to facilitate the illicit acts, and the open, repetitive nature of the pimping activities at the lodge’s entrance collectively constitute circumstantial evidence leading to the inescapable conclusion that he was aware of and consented to the use of his property for trafficking. The law does not require proof of direct participation in the acts of recruitment or exploitation; mere tolerance or permission, when established by credible evidence, suffices. Petitioner’s defense of denial could not prevail over the positive and corroborated testimonies of the police officers and the victim, AAA. The totality of evidence met the required moral certainty for conviction.