People Vs Hashim

PEOPLE VS HASHIM
June 13, 2012

Facts: The accused were charged as having been engaged in the recruitment and
deployment of workers without having previously obtained from the POEA a license
or authority to do so. They promised employment abroad particularly in Brunei and
Malaysia, thus causing and prompting the persons of BBB and AAA to apply which
employment however did not materialize because in truth and in fact, the promised
employment is non-existent, in flagrant violation of the above-mentioned law and
causing damage and prejudice to said complainants. Instead of getting decent jobs,
they were forced to become sex workers to earn money and became prostitutes.
The lower court found the accused guilty of illegal recruitment defined under
Section 6 and penalized under Section 7(b) of Republic Act No. 8042 otherwise
known as the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, as principals
by direct participation, committed by a syndicate, against BBB and AAA, and
SENTENCES each of said accused to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to
pay a fine of P1,000,000.00 each; to pay each of the above victims P50,000.00 as
moral
damages; P300,000.00 as exemplary damages, and to pay the costs. The Court of
Appeals affirmed with modification that the amount of exemplary damages in favor
of the victims (private complainants) to be reduced to P25,000.00 each.
Issue: Whether or not the award of damages was proper.
Ruling: No. The Supreme Court modified the ruling of the Court of Appeals. It held
that Congress passed R.A. 9208 or the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act. Such law was
approved on 26 May 2003. Ironically, only a few days after, victims found
themselves in a situation that the law had sought to prevent.
In Lalli, the Supreme Court increased the amount of moral and exemplary damages
from P50,000 to P500,000 and from P50,000 to P100,000, respectively, having
convicted the accused therein of the crime of trafficking in persons.
The payment of P500,000 as moral damages and P100,000 as exemplary damages
for the crime of Trafficking in Persons as a Prostitute finds basis in Article 2219 of
the Civil Code, which states:
Art. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases:
(1) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries;
(2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries;
(3) Seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts;
xxx xxx xxx.
The criminal case of Trafficking in Persons as a Prostitute is an analogous case to the
crimes of seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts. In fact, it is worse. To
be trafficked as a prostitute without ones consent and to be sexually violated four
to five times a day by different strangers is horrendous and atrocious. There is no
doubt that Lolita experienced physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious
anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, and social

humiliation when she was trafficked as a prostitute in
Malaysia. Since the crime of Trafficking in Persons was aggravated, being committed
by a syndicate, the award of exemplary damages is likewise justified.
The Supreme Court found no legal impediment to increasing the award of moral and
exemplary damages in the case at bar. Neither is there any logical reason why we
should differentiate between the victims herein and those in that case, when the
circumstances are frighteningly similar. To do so would be to say that we
discriminate one from the other, when all of these women have been the victims of
unscrupulous people who capitalized on the poverty of others. While it is true that
accused-appellant was not tried and convicted of the crime of trafficking in persons,
this Court based its award of damages on the Civil Code, and not on the AntiTrafficking in Persons Act, as clearly explained in Lalli.
Hence the Decision of the Court of Appeals in is affirmed with modifications.
Accused-appellant Bernadette Pansacala a.k.a. Neneng Awid is ordered to pay
AAA and BBB the sum of P500,000 each as moral damages and P100,000 each as
exemplary damages and to pay the costs.

People Vs Hashim

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People Vs Hashim

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People Vs Hashim

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEOPLE VS HASHIM

June 13, 2012

anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, and social

You might also like