People of the Philippines vs. Jonathan Westlie Kelley, et al.

Bare denials cannot prevail against unequivocal proof of participation in a conspiracy to traffic persons; once participation in the conspiracy is shown beyond reasonable doubt, each conspirator is criminally accountable and liable for damages to each victim. The Court also reaffirmed that objections to a search warrant's issuance are governed by the omnibus motion rule and that confidentiality and leakage concerns are compelling reasons under Rule 126, Section 2(b).

Republic Act No. 9208, as amended by Republic Act No. 10364, penalizes trafficking in persons, including maintaining or hiring a person to engage in prostitution, and classifies the offense as qualified when committed by a syndicate or on a large scale. The accused—Jonathan Westlie Kelley, Carlota Cerera Dela Rosa, Cherrie Nudas Datu, Rey Kelley, and Glenda L. Jimenez—were charged in connection with the operation of an establishment in Angeles City, Pampanga. Rey Kelley and Jimenez remained at large, while Westlie, Dela Rosa, and Datu stood trial.

On May 22, 2013, and prior dates, an Information charged Jonathan Westlie Kelley, Carlota Cerera Dela Rosa, Cherrie Nudas Datu, Rey Kelley, and Glenda L. Jimenez with qualified trafficking in persons under Republic Act No. 9208, as amended by Republic Act No. 10364. The Information alleged that they conspired, confederated, and mutually aided one another, and for profit and through deceit, procured and employed 16 women—AAA through PPP—to work as dancers or entertainers at an establishment in Angeles City for purposes of engaging customers in sexual intercourse and lascivious conduct in exchange for money. The Information further alleged that the crime was committed by a syndicate and on a large scale against three or more persons, and against PPP, then a 17-year-old minor. Rey and Jimenez remained at large; Westlie, Dela Rosa, and Datu were arraigned and pleaded not guilty. They also faced a simultaneous charge under Republic Act No. 7610 for engaging PPP.

The prosecution presented OOO, P/Supt. Jaqueline Puapo, and PO3 Aisha Pagumpaton. OOO testified that she saw a sign recruiting waitresses and applied for the job. Datu, a mamasang in that establishment, told her that she could not be a waitress unless she accompanied another applicant who would be a dancer. Faced with the prospect of not being able to work, she agreed to be a dancer herself and started working in April 2013. Dancers like her were subject to customers' option to pay a P2,000 bar fine so that they could be taken out for sexual intercourse; of this amount, P1,200 went to the establishment and P800 to the dancer. OOO recalled having been bar fined 10 times and tabled more times, during which customers fondled her genitals. She identified Dela Rosa as another mamasang and Westlie as the tagapuna, or the monitor who admonished dancers when they were not doing anything.

P/Supt. Puapo and PO3 Pagumpaton testified on the entrapment operation. On May 8, 2013, a representative of the National Intelligence Coordination Agency accompanied PPP's sister to report that an establishment had been prostituting girls for P2,000 each. PPP's sister recalled that PPP was recruited by a "Cherrie Datu" to be a Guest Relations Officer. On May 17, 2013, a surveillance operation revealed that Rey, a foreigner, owned the establishment; Westlie was the floor manager; and PPP, a 17-year-old minor, worked at the establishment offering sexual services. On May 21, 2013, they obtained a search warrant from the Malolos, Bulacan Regional Trial Court. On May 22, 2013, the surveillance team, other police officers, and two assets conducted an entrapment operation. In the bar, Datu and Carlota presented four scantily clad girls to the assets and offered that they could have sex with them upon payment of the bar fine. The assets agreed and handed P8,000 in marked money, then called the team, which proceeded to enforce the search warrant. The operation led to the arrest of Westlie, Carlota, and Datu and the rescue of 16 victims: AAA, BBB, CCC, DDD, EEE, FFF, GGG, HHH, III, JJJ, KKK, LLL, MMM, NNN, OOO, and PPP.

Westlie, Carlota, and Datu denied participating in any prostitution operation. Westlie claimed that he was merely in the establishment as a patron. Carlota and Datu alleged that they were merely working as checker and purchaser, respectively. The Regional Trial Court did not give weight to their denials as against the clear accounts of the prosecution witnesses. It found OOO sincere, straightforward, and honest; she was crying and emotional while testifying about what she experienced while working as a dancer. The Regional Trial Court convicted them of qualified trafficking in persons but acquitted them of the Republic Act No. 7610 charge because no witness was presented to testify that PPP was a minor at the time of the incident and that they induced or employed a minor for prostitution. The Court of Appeals affirmed with modification, and the Supreme Court affirmed with modification on damages.

• Denial of Participation: Westlie claimed that he was merely in the establishment as a patron; Carlota and Datu alleged that they were merely working as checker and purchaser, respectively; all denied participating in any prostitution operation.
• Search Warrant Issuance: They assailed the issuance by the Malolos Regional Trial Court of a search warrant to be conducted in Angeles City.
• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: They appealed the conviction, maintaining that they were not guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified trafficking in persons.

• Compelling Reasons for Search Warrant Venue: The prosecution noted that the confidential nature of the operation being hatched and P/Supt. Puapo's desire to avoid leakage were compelling reasons under Rule 126, Section 2(b) for filing the search warrant application in the Malolos Regional Trial Court.

• Guilt for Qualified Trafficking: Whether accused-appellants Jonathan Westlie Kelley, Carlota Cerera Dela Rosa, and Cherrie Nudas Datu are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified trafficking in persons.
• Validity of Search Warrant: Whether the search warrant issued by the Malolos City Regional Trial Court for enforcement in Angeles City was validly issued.
• Liability for Moral Damages: Whether moral damages should be awarded only to OOO or to each of the 16 victims rescued on May 22, 2013.

• Guilt for Qualified Trafficking: Yes. The conviction was affirmed; the evidence established conspiracy and qualified trafficking under Republic Act No. 9208, as amended.
• Validity of Search Warrant: Valid. The objection was waived for being belatedly asserted; in any case, compelling reasons justified venue under Rule 126, Section 2(b).
• Liability for Moral Damages: Yes, to all 16 victims. Each accused-appellant is liable to each victim for P100,000 moral damages.

• Guilt for Qualified Trafficking: The Court applied the general rule that factual findings of the trial court, especially its evaluation of witness credibility, are entitled to great respect and are not disturbed on appeal unless the trial court overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied facts or circumstances of weight and substance. No such exception appeared. OOO's testimony was found sincere, straightforward, and honest; she detailed her recruitment by Datu, the P2,000 bar fine arrangement with P800 to the dancer and P1,200 to the establishment, 10 instances of being bar fined, and 20 instances of being tabled and fondled. Dela Rosa was identified as a mamasang, and Westlie as the tagapuna or monitor. The entrapment operation, surveillance, search warrant, marked money, arrest, and rescue of 16 victims corroborated the trafficking operation. The denials of Westlie, Carlota, and Datu were self-serving and could not overcome the positive testimonies. Because the offense was committed by a syndicate of three or more persons conspiring and on a large scale against three or more persons, qualified trafficking was established.
• Validity of Search Warrant: The omnibus motion rule under Section 8, Rule 15, in relation to Section 1, Rule 9, requires all available objections to be included in a party's motion, otherwise they are deemed waived; the rule applies to motions to quash search warrants. The accused failed to timely assail the search warrant before the Regional Trial Court and raised the objection only before the Court of Appeals. Even if considered, Rule 126, Section 2(b) allows an application for a search warrant to be filed with any court within the judicial region where the crime was committed, if the place is known, or where the warrant shall be enforced, for compelling reasons stated in the application. Confidentiality of the operation and the desire to avoid leakage are compelling reasons, as recognized in People vs. Chiu and Petron Gasul LPG Dealers Association vs. Lao. The Malolos Regional Trial Court's issuance of the warrant was therefore not fatal.
• Liability for Moral Damages: The offense was committed not only against OOO but against the 15 other women rescued on May 22, 2013. Even if only OOO personally testified, her testimony, along with those of P/Supt. Puapo and PO3 Pagumpaton and the entire corpus of evidence, showed the manifold operation of the accused, whose object was by no means OOO alone. AAA, BBB, CCC, DDD, EEE, FFF, GGG, HHH, III, JJJ, KKK, LLL, MMM, NNN, and PPP were equally victims. Each accused contributed to realizing the objectives of the operation; their contributions may have been varied, but they were necessarily connected. Their culpability as knowing individuals enabling and assisting the scheme made each liable for damages to each victim. The Court thus awarded P100,000 moral damages to each of the 16 victims, subject to 6% interest per annum from finality until fully paid, consistent with Nacar vs. Gallery Frames.

• Credibility and factual findings — The factual findings of a trial court, along with its evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies, are entitled to great respect and are not to be disturbed on appeal unless it is shown that the trial court overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied facts or circumstances of weight and substance. The Court found no reason to reverse the lower courts' findings.
• Bare denials — Bare denials by the accused cannot prevail against unequivocal proof of their participation in the complex operations of a syndicate trafficking persons. The accused's claims of being a mere patron, checker, or purchaser failed against the positive testimonies of OOO and the police officers.
• Conspiracy and qualified trafficking — When participation in a conspiracy is shown beyond reasonable doubt, each conspirator is accountable. Trafficking in persons is qualified when committed by a syndicate—a group of three or more persons conspiring or confederating—or on a large scale—against three or more persons. The Court applied this because the accused operated as a group of three or more and against 16 victims.
• Omnibus motion rule and search warrants — The omnibus motion rule embodied in Section 8, Rule 15, in relation to Section 1, Rule 9, demands that all available objections be included in a party's motion, otherwise they are deemed waived; the rule applies to motions to quash search warrants. The accused's belated objection to the search warrant was disregarded.
• Compelling reasons for search warrant venue — Under Rule 126, Section 2(b), for compelling reasons stated in the application, an application for a search warrant may be filed with any court within the judicial region where the crime was committed, if the place is known, or where the warrant shall be enforced. Confidentiality of operations and the need to foreclose leakage are compelling reasons. The Malolos Regional Trial Court's warrant was upheld.
• Moral damages for each trafficking victim — Each victim of qualified trafficking is entitled to moral damages, and each conspirator is liable to each victim. The Court awarded P100,000 moral damages to each of the 16 rescued victims.
• Interest on damages — Damages awarded are subject to 6% interest per annum from finality until fully paid. The Court applied Nacar vs. Gallery Frames.

• "The factual findings of a trial court, along with its evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are entitled to great respect. These are not to be disturbed on appeal, unless it can be shown that the trial court 'overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied' facts or circumstances of weight and substance." — This states the standard of review and explains why the lower courts' factual and credibility findings were sustained.
• "Bare denials by the accused cannot prevail against unequivocal proof of their participation in the complex operations of a syndicate trafficking persons. When their participation in a conspiracy is shown beyond reasonable doubt, each of them is accountable. Each of them is therefore liable for damages to each of their victims in addition to criminal penalties." — This is the core ratio on conspiracy, criminal accountability, and damages in qualified trafficking.
• "The omnibus motion rule embodied in Section 8, Rule 15, in relation to Section 1, Rule 9, demands that all available objections be included in a party's motion, otherwise, said objections shall be deemed waived; and, the only grounds the court could take cognizance of, even if not pleaded in said motion are: (a) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter; (b) existence of another action pending between the same parties for the same cause; and (c) bar by prior judgment or by statute of limitations." — This defines the omnibus motion rule and supports the waiver of the belated search warrant objection.
• "Accused-appellants were found guilty of operating as a syndicate to commit qualified trafficking in persons. Their offense was committed as much against the 15 other women rescued on May 22, 2013 as it was against OOO." — This explains why moral damages were extended to all 16 victims, not only to the testifying victim.

• People vs. De Jesus, 695 Phil. 114 (2012) — Cited for the rule that factual findings of the trial court, especially on credibility, are entitled to great respect and are not disturbed unless overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied.
• Ditche vs. Court of Appeals, 384 Phil. 35 (2000) — Cited for the trial court's unique opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor, conduct, and attitude on the witness stand.
• People of the Philippines vs. Montinola, 567 Phil. 387 (2008) — Cited for the exception to deference when the lower courts overlooked or misconstrued substantial facts that could have affected the outcome.
• Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corp. vs. Romars International Gases Corp., 753 Phil. 707 (2015) — Cited for the rule that the omnibus motion rule applies to motions to quash search warrants.
• People vs. Chiu, 468 Phil. 183 (2004) — Cited for the holding that confidentiality of operations and the possibility of leakage are compelling reasons under Rule 126, Section 2(b).
• Petron Gasul LPG Dealers Association vs. Lao, 790 Phil. 216 (2016) — Cited for the same rule that confidentiality and the need to foreclose leakage are compelling reasons for search warrant venue.
• Nacar vs. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267 (2013) — Cited for the imposition of 6% interest per annum on damages from finality until fully paid.
• People vs. Feliciano, Jr., 734 Phil. 499 (2014) — Cited for the general rule that findings of fact by the trial court, when affirmed by the appellate court, are given great weight and credence on review.

• Section 4(e), Republic Act No. 9208 as amended by Republic Act No. 10364 — Declares it unlawful to maintain or hire a person to engage in prostitution or pornography. The Information invoked this provision; the dispositive referred to Section 4(a).
• Section 3(a), Republic Act No. 9208 — Defines trafficking in persons as the recruitment, obtaining, hiring, providing, offering, transportation, transfer, maintaining, harboring, or receipt of persons by means of threat, force, coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or position, taking advantage of vulnerability, or giving or receiving payments or benefits for exploitation, including prostitution or other sexual exploitation.
• Section 3(c), Republic Act No. 9208 — Defines prostitution as any act, transaction, scheme, or design involving the use of a person by another for sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct in exchange for money, profit, or any other consideration.
• Section 6(a) and (c), Republic Act No. 9208 — Provides that trafficking is qualified when the trafficked person is a child, and when the crime is committed by a syndicate or on a large scale. Trafficking is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three or more persons conspiring or confederating, and in large scale if committed against three or more persons.
• Section 10(e), Republic Act No. 9208 — Establishes the penalty for qualified trafficking: life imprisonment and a fine of not less than P2,000,000 but not more than P5,000,000.
• Section 8, Rule 15 in relation to Section 1, Rule 9, Rules of Court — Embodies the omnibus motion rule, requiring all available objections to be included in a party's motion, otherwise waived, subject only to exceptions for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, existence of another action pending, and bar by prior judgment or statute of limitations.
• Rule 126, Section 2(b), Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Allows an application for a search warrant to be filed with any court within the judicial region where the crime was committed, if the place is known, or where the warrant shall be enforced, for compelling reasons stated in the application.
• Section 5(a), Republic Act No. 7610 — The child abuse charge for which the accused were acquitted because the prosecution failed to prove that PPP was a minor at the time of the incident and that they induced or employed a minor for prostitution.

Gesmundo, Carandang, and Zalameda, JJ., concur. Gaerlan, J., was on leave.