People vs. Bawalan, 984 SCRA 390, May 12, 2021
Uploaded by
Rizchelle Sampang-ManaogPeople vs. Bawalan, 984 SCRA 390, May 12, 2021
Uploaded by
Rizchelle Sampang-ManaogPeople vs.
Bawalan, 984 SCRA 390, May 12, 2021
Topic: Testimonial evidence
Facts: AAA testified that in January 2009, she was residing with her mother,
BBB, and the latter’s live-in partner, CCC. She also explained that she calls
CCC as her “Papa CCC.” She has five siblings — two sisters and three
brothers. AAA identified BBB, CCC, accused Zuraida Samud (Samud), and
Nanay Lita (later on identified as Bawalan) in open court.
The victim narrated that BBB and CCC would pimp her every time their
family had nothing to eat. On the night of the said incident on January 29,
2009 at about 11:00 p.m., she was at the park in front of the store of
Bawalan when a man suddenly arrived and approached the latter. AAA saw
the man handing money to Bawalan. Upon receipt of the money, Bawalan
instructed AAA to go with the client. Meanwhile, BBB, CCC and Samud were
also in the area, about six meters away from AAA and Bawalan.
When AAA and the man were about to board a tricycle, the police officers
arrived and arrested Bawalan, BBB, CCC and Samud. Thereafter, AAA and all
the accused were taken to the police station, where AAA executed her Sworn
Statement.
The victim further testified that prior to the subject incident, there had been
more than five instances in the past when she was pimped by accused-
appellants. In some of those instances, she was taken to a motel to engage
in sexual intercourse with customers. Although she could no longer recall
their names, she stated that they were young, about 17 to 19 years old.
On another occasion, Bawalan instructed AAA to go with a customer. They
boarded a tricycle and proceeded to the cemetery. Upon arrival thereat, the
said customer sent a text to police authorities. AAA narrated that she
removed her clothes while the customer took a video of her naked. When the
police authorities arrived, they also took a video of her. Thereafter, the
customer, whom AAA later learned to be a police asset, gave her clothes to
put back on. However, she decided not to file a case against the said police
asset.
In its March 4, 2014 Decision, the RTC found accused-appellants guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Qualified Trafficking in Persons. It
held that the
prosecution was able to establish all the elements of the crime charged. It
gave credence to AAA’s testimony that Bawalan instructed her to go with the
poseur-customer from whom Bawalan earlier received a sum of money. In its
assailed August 31, 2016 Decision, the CA affirmed the RTC’s ruling.
Issue: Whether or not the supposed discrepancy of the testimony of the
victim warrants acquittal.
Ruling: No.
With respect to the circumstances which qualify the offense, we affirm the
pronouncements of the courts below. It is undisputed that BBB is the mother
of AAA, and CCC” is her fatherly figure whom she calls “Papa CCC. Taking
into consideration the circumstances on how AAA was sexually exploited, all
three accused-appellants conspired and acted together in perpetrating the
crime.
While the prosecution failed to prove the victim’s minority due to the
absence of her birth certificate, it however established that the crime was
committed by a group of three persons, and by an ascendant and a person
exercising authority over the victim. Consequently, the crime still falls under
Qualified Trafficking in Persons under Sections 6(c) and (d) of RA 9208.
The supposed discrepancy in her testimony as to the number of times that
she was pimped by accused- appellants is just as irrelevant in the
prosecution of this
case.
Petition is dismissed.
Doctrine: The Supreme Court (SC) finds no reason to deviate from the
factual findings of the trial court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA),
absent any indication that the lower courts overlooked, misunderstood, or
misapplied the surrounding facts and circumstances of the case. As the trial
court was in the best position to assess and determine the credibility of the
witnesses, having had the opportunity to observe the witnesses’ demeanor
on the witness stand, its findings must be respected.
