March 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > March 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 190766 : March 15, 2010] DOMINADOR SUMILANG V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES :
[G.R. No. 190766 : March 15, 2010]
DOMINADOR SUMILANG V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 15 March 2010:
G.R. No. 190766 (Dominador Sumilang v. People of the Philippines).-
Petitioner Dominador Sumilang (Sumilang) was accused, together with his mother-in-law Leonisa Paorco (Paorco), of violating Article 341 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC)[1] by maintaining a sex den in Davao City.
Evidence for the prosecution shows that on January 24, 2000, the Anti-Vice Unit of the Philippine National Police (PNP) received information that a house along Guerrero St., Davao City, was being used as a prostitution den, known as "Inday's Casa" The PNP organized a team of 11 police officers to conduct an entrapment operation against those maintaining the house.
Members of the police team, PO2 Hedroto Develos, SPO1 Jesus Ranoa and P/Insp Danilo Obogon, met Sumilang along Guerrero St. in front of the alleged sex den. They told him that they were looking for women. Sumilang responded that they had women. Upon solicitation, Sumilang said the price was �700.00 for "a short time" and a different price for 24-hours. They proceeded into the house where several women then paraded themselves before the police officers. The remaining members of the police team who were outside the house then moved in to effect the arrests.
Accused-petitioner Sumilang testified that on January 24, 2000, just after dinner, he went out of his house to wait to be fetched for a meeting. He was positioned across the boarding house of his mother-in-law Paorco when some men came looking for her. The men went into her house and prodded him to join them inside, after which they arrested him for no reason. Sumilang was brought to the police station and charged with violation of Article 341. When the police learned that Paorco was the registered owner of the house, they included her in the charge as well. The women in Paorco's house were also brought to the station, but were not charged.
After trial, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City, Branch 11, found Dominador Sumilang guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged. Leonisa Paorco was acquitted for insufficiency of evidence.
On appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA), the judgment was affirmed with the modification that Sumilang be sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of five years, five months and eleven days of prision correctional as minimum, to nine years four months and one day of prision mayor as maximum.
Due to financial constraints, the petitioner manifests that he adopts his appellant's brief before the CA as his petition for review before this Court.
Whether or not Sumilang was proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court admits the Appellant's Brief before the CA as the petitioner's petition for review before this Court. The petition is denied, however, there being no reversible error on the part of the RTC and the CA finding Sumilang guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the violation of Article 341 of the RPC as amended.
One. Sumilang claims that the prosecution witnesses are not credible considering that there were inconsistencies in their testimonies. Sumilang argues that prosecution witness Develos' claim that he was the one who asked for the price for each woman, contradicts the testimonies of Ranoa and Obogon that it was Obogon who in fact asked the question. This alleged inconsistency, however, is more imagined than real. Sumilang misquoted a portion of the testimony. Develos did not categorically state that it was he who asked for the price, but rather that the query came from their group.
Sumilang also points out that Ranoa testified that he signaled the team to move in by using his radio, while Obogon testified that the team moved in 10-15 minutes after they entered the house, as previously planned. But this alleged inconsistency is not material to the offense, nor is it so glaring as to cast doubt or suspicion on the testimonies of the police officers, who are given the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties.
Two. Sumilang claims that the prosecution failed to prove all the elements of white slave trade under Article 341. He points out that the prosecution did not present any surveillance report on the alleged prostitution activities. The prosecution also failed to present any marked money, and as such, it was not shown that Sumilang engaged prostitution for business or profit.
The presentation of a surveillance report is not necessary to establish the guilt of the accused. Incedentally, it does not appear that a surveillance operation was conducted prior to and independent of the entrapment operaions. Neither is the failure to present any marked money fatal to the prosecution's case. Precisely, prosecution witnesses testified that they did not have the occasion to pay the agreed amount, nor were they required to pay the amount before the arrests were made. The offense punishes the mere engaging in the business of prostitution. Money need not change hands for the offense to be consummated. Sumilang also argues that since the police officers were not able to catch or see any of the women in the house engaged in sexual intercourse or any other lascivious acts, this negates the allegation of prostitution. But such illicit acts need not have been consummated for there to be a violation of Article 341.
Considering, however, that Article 341 imposes the penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, the CA erroneously applied the indeterminate sentence law.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR 00399-MIN dated March 19, 2009 is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that petitioner Dominador Sumilang shall suffer an indeterminate penalty of two (2) years and four (4) months of prision correccional as minimum to four (4) years and eight (8) months of prision correccional as maximum.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Roberto A. Abad and Jose P. Perez, Members, Second Division, this 15th day of March, 2010.
[1]ART. 341. White Slave Trade. - The penalty of prision correctional in its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed upon any person who, in any manner, or under any pretext, shall engage in the business or shall profit by prostitution or shall enlist the services of any other for the purpose of prostitution. (As amended by B.P. Big. 186)
G.R. No. 190766 (Dominador Sumilang v. People of the Philippines).-
The Facts and the Case
Petitioner Dominador Sumilang (Sumilang) was accused, together with his mother-in-law Leonisa Paorco (Paorco), of violating Article 341 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC)[1] by maintaining a sex den in Davao City.
Evidence for the prosecution shows that on January 24, 2000, the Anti-Vice Unit of the Philippine National Police (PNP) received information that a house along Guerrero St., Davao City, was being used as a prostitution den, known as "Inday's Casa" The PNP organized a team of 11 police officers to conduct an entrapment operation against those maintaining the house.
Members of the police team, PO2 Hedroto Develos, SPO1 Jesus Ranoa and P/Insp Danilo Obogon, met Sumilang along Guerrero St. in front of the alleged sex den. They told him that they were looking for women. Sumilang responded that they had women. Upon solicitation, Sumilang said the price was �700.00 for "a short time" and a different price for 24-hours. They proceeded into the house where several women then paraded themselves before the police officers. The remaining members of the police team who were outside the house then moved in to effect the arrests.
Accused-petitioner Sumilang testified that on January 24, 2000, just after dinner, he went out of his house to wait to be fetched for a meeting. He was positioned across the boarding house of his mother-in-law Paorco when some men came looking for her. The men went into her house and prodded him to join them inside, after which they arrested him for no reason. Sumilang was brought to the police station and charged with violation of Article 341. When the police learned that Paorco was the registered owner of the house, they included her in the charge as well. The women in Paorco's house were also brought to the station, but were not charged.
After trial, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City, Branch 11, found Dominador Sumilang guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged. Leonisa Paorco was acquitted for insufficiency of evidence.
On appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA), the judgment was affirmed with the modification that Sumilang be sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of five years, five months and eleven days of prision correctional as minimum, to nine years four months and one day of prision mayor as maximum.
Due to financial constraints, the petitioner manifests that he adopts his appellant's brief before the CA as his petition for review before this Court.
Issue Presented
Whether or not Sumilang was proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court's Ruling
The Court admits the Appellant's Brief before the CA as the petitioner's petition for review before this Court. The petition is denied, however, there being no reversible error on the part of the RTC and the CA finding Sumilang guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the violation of Article 341 of the RPC as amended.
One. Sumilang claims that the prosecution witnesses are not credible considering that there were inconsistencies in their testimonies. Sumilang argues that prosecution witness Develos' claim that he was the one who asked for the price for each woman, contradicts the testimonies of Ranoa and Obogon that it was Obogon who in fact asked the question. This alleged inconsistency, however, is more imagined than real. Sumilang misquoted a portion of the testimony. Develos did not categorically state that it was he who asked for the price, but rather that the query came from their group.
Sumilang also points out that Ranoa testified that he signaled the team to move in by using his radio, while Obogon testified that the team moved in 10-15 minutes after they entered the house, as previously planned. But this alleged inconsistency is not material to the offense, nor is it so glaring as to cast doubt or suspicion on the testimonies of the police officers, who are given the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties.
Two. Sumilang claims that the prosecution failed to prove all the elements of white slave trade under Article 341. He points out that the prosecution did not present any surveillance report on the alleged prostitution activities. The prosecution also failed to present any marked money, and as such, it was not shown that Sumilang engaged prostitution for business or profit.
The presentation of a surveillance report is not necessary to establish the guilt of the accused. Incedentally, it does not appear that a surveillance operation was conducted prior to and independent of the entrapment operaions. Neither is the failure to present any marked money fatal to the prosecution's case. Precisely, prosecution witnesses testified that they did not have the occasion to pay the agreed amount, nor were they required to pay the amount before the arrests were made. The offense punishes the mere engaging in the business of prostitution. Money need not change hands for the offense to be consummated. Sumilang also argues that since the police officers were not able to catch or see any of the women in the house engaged in sexual intercourse or any other lascivious acts, this negates the allegation of prostitution. But such illicit acts need not have been consummated for there to be a violation of Article 341.
Considering, however, that Article 341 imposes the penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, the CA erroneously applied the indeterminate sentence law.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR 00399-MIN dated March 19, 2009 is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that petitioner Dominador Sumilang shall suffer an indeterminate penalty of two (2) years and four (4) months of prision correccional as minimum to four (4) years and eight (8) months of prision correccional as maximum.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Roberto A. Abad and Jose P. Perez, Members, Second Division, this 15th day of March, 2010.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1]ART. 341. White Slave Trade. - The penalty of prision correctional in its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed upon any person who, in any manner, or under any pretext, shall engage in the business or shall profit by prostitution or shall enlist the services of any other for the purpose of prostitution. (As amended by B.P. Big. 186)
