LEONILA G. SANTIAGO v.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 200233, July 15, 2015 SERENO, C.J.:

FACTS:

The prosecution adduced evidence that Santos, who had been married to Estela Galang, asked
petitioner to marry him. Petitioner, who was a 43-year-old widow then, married Santos. Four
months after the solemnization of their marriage, Leonila G. Santiago and Nicanor F. Santos
faced an Information for bigamy. Petitioner pleaded "not guilty," while her putative husband
escaped the criminal suit.

Petitioner asserted that she could not be included as an accused in the crime of bigamy,
because she had been under the belief that Santos was still single when they got married. She
also averred that for there to be a conviction for bigamy, his second marriage to her should be
proven valid by the prosecution; but in this case, she argued that their marriage was void due
to the lack of a marriage license.

Eleven years after the inception of this criminal case, the rst wife, Estela Galang, testi ed for the
prosecution. She alleged that she had met petitioner on which occasions the former introduced
herself as the legal wife of Santos. Petitioner denied this allegation and averred that she met
Galang only or after she had already married Santos.

The RTC appreciated the undisputed fact that petitioner married Santos during the subsistence
of his marriage to Galang. Petitioner moved for reconsideration which was denied. On appeal,
the CA gave more weight to the prosecution witnesses' narration.

ISSUE:

Is the second marriage of Santiago valid, for there to be a conviction for bigamy?

HELD:

YES. It is clear that the marriage between petitioner and Santos took place without a marriage
license. The absence of this requirement is purportedly explained in their Certicate of Marriage,
which reveals that their union was celebrated under Article 34 of the Family Code, which
provides an exemption from the requirement of a marriage license if the parties have actually
lived together as husband and wife for at least ve years prior to the celebration of their
marriage.

Santiago and Santos, however, reacted the exact opposite of this fact. Although the records do
not show that they submitted an a davit of cohabitation as required by Article 34 of the Family
Code, it appears that the two of them lied before the solemnizing officer and misrepresented
that they had actually cohabited for at least five years before they married each other.

The Certicate of Marriage, signed by Santos and Santiago, contained the misrepresentation
perpetrated by them that they were eligible to contract marriage without a license. Petitioner
now seeks to be acquitted of bigamy based on her illegal actions of (1) marrying Santos without
a marriage license despite knowing that they had not satisfied the cohabitation requirement
under the law; and (2) falsely making claims in no less than her marriage contract.

In violation of our law against illegal marriages, petitioner married Santos while knowing full
well that they had not yet complied with the year cohabitation requirement under Article 34 of
the Family Code. It will be the height of absurdity for this Court to allow petitioner to use her
illegal act to escape criminal conviction.

No less than the present Constitution provides that "marriage, as an inviolable social institution,
is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State." It must be safeguarded
from the

whims and caprices of the contracting parties. In keeping therefore with this fundamental
policy, this Court a the conviction of petitioner for bigamy.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SHIRLEY A. CASIO
G.R. No. 211465, December 03, 2014

FACTS:

The case is about the Republic Act No. 9208 known as the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of
2003. The accused charged under this law is Shirley A. Casio. On May 5, 2008 at 1:00am in
Cebu, Philippines with deliberate intent, with intent to gain, did then and there hire and/or
recruit AAA, a minor, 17 years old and BBB for the purpose of prostitution and sexual
exploitation, by acting as their procurer for different customers, for money, profit or any other
consideration, in Violation of Sec. 4, Par. (a), Qualified by Sec. 6, Par. ( a), of R.A. 9208 (Qualified
Trafficking in Persons).

On the same month of the year the International Justice Mission (IJM), a non-governmental
organization, coordinated with the police in order to entrap persons engaged in human
trafficking in Cebu. They also provided the marked money for team that will be used for
entrapment.

The team went to Queensland Motel and rented Rooms 24 and 25. These rooms were adjacent
to each other. Room 24 was designated for the transaction while Room 25 was for the rest of
the police team.

They were able to entrap Casio who offered the police the two girls, AAA and BBB. Casio
received the marked money from there Casio was arrested and the two girls were rescude.
They were placed under the custody of the representatives from IJM and DSWD.

During trial, AAA testified that she was born on January 27, 1991 as supported by her birth
certificate. She worked before as a house helper in Mandaue City. However, when she stopped
working as a house helper, she transferred to Cebu City. In Cebu she met Gee Ann who offered
her to worked in a disco club. She agreed since she needed money for his father. Eventually,
Gee Ann brought her to Barangay Kamagayan, telling her that there were more customers in
that area. There she was able to meet Casio who gave her customers and was paid Php 400 for
every customers who choose her.

Contrary, Casio testified that she worked as a laundrywoman. On May 2008, went to buy
supper. While walking, she was stopped by two men on board a blue car. The two men asked
her if she knew someone named Bingbing. She replied that she only knew Gingging but not
Bingbing. The men informed her that they were actually looking for Gingging, gave her a piece
of paper with a number written on it, and told her to tell Gingging to bring companions. When
accused arrived home, she contacted Gingging. Gingging convinced her to come because
allegedly, she would be given money by the two males.

ISSUE:
(1) Whether the entrapment operation conducted by the police was valid, considering that
there was no prior surveillance and the police did not know the subject of the operation;

(2) Whether the prosecution was able to prove accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt
even though there was no evidence presented to show that accused has a history of engaging
in human trafficking; and

(3) Whether accused was properly convicted of trafficking in persons, considering that AAA
admitted that she works as a prostitute.

RULING:
In regards to the background of the RA No. 9208, the United Nations Convention against
Transnational Organized Crime (UN CTOC) was “adopted and opened for signature, ratification
and accession”54 on November 15, 2000.
The UN CTOC is supplemented by three protocols: (1) the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and
Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children; (2) the Protocol against the
Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air; and, (3) the Protocol against the Illicit
Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, their Parts and Components and Ammunition.

On December 14, 2000, the Philippines signed the United Nations “Protocol to Prevent,
Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children” (Trafficking
Protocol).This was ratified by the Philippine Senate on September 30, 2001.
At this time we've also signed the following: the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of
Discrimination Against Women; the 1995 Convention on the Rights of the Child; the United
Nations Convention on the Protection of Migrant Workers and their Families; and the United
Nations’ Resolution on Trafficking in Women and Girls, among others. As well as expressed our
support for the United Nations’ Convention Against Organized Crime, including the Trafficking
Protocol in October last year.

Republic Act No. 9208 was enacted in order to fully address the issue of human trafficking.
In regards to the issues raised in the case at bar, the knowledge or the consent of the minor is
not a defense in the RA No. 9208. As defined under Section 3(a) of Republic Act No. 9208,
trafficking in persons can still be committed even if the victim gives consent. The prosecution
was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused committed the offense of trafficking
in persons, qualified by the fact that one of the victims was a child.
The accused also argued the validity of the entrapment operation, all relevant facts such as the
accused's mental and character traits, his past offenses, activities, his eagerness in committing
the crime, his reputation, etc., are considered to assess his state of mind before the crime.
When accused was arrested, she was informed of her constitutional rights. The marked money
retrieved from her was recorded in the police blotter prior to the entrapment operation and
was presented in court as evidence. With regard to the lack of prior surveillance, prior
surveillance is not a condition for an entrapment operation’s validity.
With regards to the imposition of the fine and award of damages, the Court of Appeals imposed
the amount of P2,000,000.00. However it was modified into:
(1) P500,000.00 as moral damages; and

(2) P100,000.00 as exemplary damages.