THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 213760. July 1, 2019.]

REYNALDO SANTIAGO, JR. y SANTOS , petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES , respondent.

DECISION

LEONEN , J : p

Human beings are not chattels whose sexual favors are bought or sold by greedy
pimps. Those who profit in this way by recruiting minors are rightfully, by law, labeled as
criminals. They should be the subject of aggressive law enforcement, prosecuted, tried,
and when proof beyond reasonable doubt exists, punished.
In the prosecution of the crime of tra cking in persons, the con dential asset or
the informant's testimony is not indispensable. It is enough that there is proof that "the
accused has lured, enticed[,] or engaged its victims or transported them for the
established purpose of exploitation." 1
For this Court's resolution is a Petition for Review on Certiorari 2 challenging the
May 30, 2013 Decision 3 and July 31, 2014 Resolution 4 of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. CR No. 34942. The Court of Appeals a rmed with modi cation the May 15, 2012
Decision 5 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 42, Manila. 6
In an October 7, 2011 Information, Reynaldo Santiago, Jr. y Santos (Santiago),
Ramil Castillo y Merano (Castillo), and Rebecca Legazpi y Adriano (Legazpi) were
charged with committing acts of trafficking in persons under Section 4 (c), in relation to
Section 6 (c) of Republic Act No. 9208, or the Anti-Tra cking in Persons Act of 2003. 7
The Information read:
That on or about September 30, 2011 in the City of Manila, Philippines,
the said accused, being a group consisting of three (3) persons and therefore
acting as a syndicate, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously,
knowingly and jointly commit act of quali ed tra cking in person for purposes
of prostitution, sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or
debt bondage upon a (sic) person of AAA, by then and there, for a fee, offering
her for sexual intercourse or exploitation to Romeo S. David, a police asset.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 8
On arraignment, Santiago and the other two (2) accused pleaded not guilty to the
crime charged. Trial then ensued. 9
The prosecution, through witnesses Police O cer 1 Jayboy Nonato (PO1
Nonato), PO1 Mark Anthony Ballesteros (PO1 Ballesteros), Melvin Espenida (Espenida),
and AAA, 1 0 established the following:
On September 26 and 27, 2011, TV5 segment producer Espenida and his crew
went to Plaza Morga and Plaza Moriones in Tondo, Manila to investigate the alleged
prostitution operations in the area. 1 1 They had earlier designated a con dential asset,
alias "Romeo David" 1 2 (David), on whom a lapel microphone was clipped, to pose as a
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 customer and transact with the alleged pimps for a night with a minor. 1 3 During the
transaction, the pimps allegedly asked for P500.00. 1 4 Espenida, who was on board a
TV5 vehicle located about a hundred meters away from where David and the pimps
were, heard the transaction through the microphone. 1 5 CAIHTE

On September 29, 2011, Espenida and his crew led a Complaint before the
Regional Police Intelligence Operations Unit, Regional Intelligence Division, Camp
Bagong Diwa, 1 6 reporting about the rampant human tra cking in Plaza Morga and
Plaza Moriones. Acting on the Complaint, Police Senior Inspector Pablo Quejada, PO1
Nonato, PO1 Mabel Catuiran (PO1 Catuiran), PO1 Ballesteros, and other police
operatives conducted an entrapment operation in those areas. 1 7
Later, at around 11:00 p.m., the team and David arrived at Plaza Morga. After
surveying the area, David pointed to the pimps, who, upon seeing the police, ran away
but were eventually caught and arrested. During trial, they were positively identi ed by
the police officers in court as the same people apprehended that night. 1 8
After the arrest, the team proceeded to the hotel where the tra cked person,
AAA, had been waiting. The o cers took her into custody and brought her to the
Regional Intelligence Division at Camp Bagong Diwa. 1 9
According to AAA, at around 1:30 a.m. on September 30, 2011, she was about to
buy coffee at Plaza Moriones when Santiago called her, offering to pay her to spend a
night with a customer. He allegedly promised to pay AAA P350.00 out of the P500.00
that the customer would pay for the transaction. Later, she and Santiago went to the
hotel, which was 15 meters away from Plaza Moriones. 2 0 There, the police came and
took them both into custody. AAA later con rmed during trial that Santiago was the
pimp, but said that she only saw Castillo and Legazpi for the rst time upon getting into
the van bound for the police station. 2 1
Santiago solely testi ed in his defense. He alleged that at around midnight of
September 29, 2011, while he was selling coffee at Plaza Morga, around 25 meters
away from Plaza Moriones, he was approached by David, who said that he was looking
for a woman. Santiago said that he ignored the man. 2 2
Then, Santiago allegedly saw AAA approach David, though he did not hear what
the two had talked about. AAA later waved at Santiago and invited him to accompany
her. AAA brought Santiago to a hotel, but as they were nearing it, the police arrived and
arrested him. 2 3
In its May 15, 2012 Decision, 2 4 the Regional Trial Court convicted Santiago of
committing tra cking in persons punished under Section 4 (a) of Republic Act No.
9208, or the Anti-Tra cking in Persons Act. It gave credence to AAA's testimony that
Santiago recruited her to have sex with David for P500.00. Santiago was sentenced to
20 years of imprisonment and was fined P1 million. Castillo and Legazpi were acquitted
for the prosecution's failure to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 2 5 The
dispositive portion of the Decision read:
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, this Court nds the accused
REYNALDO SANTIAGO, JR. y SANTOS @ "REY" guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of violating Section 4 (a) of Republic Act 9208 otherwise known as "Anti-
Tra cking in Persons Act of 2003" and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the
penalty of TWENTY YEARS IMPRISONMENT AND A FINE OF ONE MILLION
(Php1,000,000.00) PESOS.
Accused RAMIL CASTILLO y MERANO and REBECCA LEGAZPI y
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 ADRIANO are hereby acquitted for failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt
beyond reasonable doubt.
SO ORDERED. 2 6
In its May 30, 2013 Decision, 2 7 the Court of Appeals a rmed Santiago's
conviction. It found that all the elements to establish that an accused had committed
tra cking in persons, which were the act, the means, and the exploitative purpose as
provided under the Manual on Law Enforcement and Prosecution of Tra cking in
Persons Cases, were present. 2 8 The dispositive portion of the Decision read:
WHEREFORE , in view of the foregoing, the impugned Decision of the
court a quo is hereby AFFIRMED .
SO ORDERED . 2 9 (Emphasis in the original)
Santiago's Motion for Reconsideration 30 was denied in the Court of Appeals'
July 31, 2014 Resolution. 3 1
Santiago later led a Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review on
Certiorari, 3 2 which this Court granted in its September 8, 2014 Resolution. 3 3
Subsequently, he filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari. 3 4
In its January 12, 2015 Resolution, 3 5 this Court required respondent People of
the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, to file its comment on
the Petition within 10 days from notice.
The O ce of the Solicitor General led nine (9) Motions for Extension to File
Comment totaling 130 days which this Court granted in its August 17, 2015 3 6 and
January 13, 2016 3 7 Resolutions. It eventually filed its Comment. 3 8
This Court noted the Comment in its January 13, 2016 Resolution 3 9 and required
Santiago to file his reply within 10 days from notice, with which Santiago complied. 4 0
In its September 21, 2016 Resolution, 4 1 this Court gave due course to the
Petition and required the parties to submit their respective memoranda within 30 days
from notice. DETACa

Both parties initially led their respective Motions for Extension, and
subsequently, their respective Memoranda. 4 2
Arguing that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt,
petitioner points out that the lack of testimony from the con dential informant, David,
raises doubts on whether "petitioner truly offered AAA to him[.]" 4 3 He adds that the
witnesses were allegedly inconsistent on David's identity. 4 4
Petitioner also points out that AAA testi ed that she had not received the alleged
consideration for the transaction, dispelling the prosecution's claim that he was
engaged in tra cking. Thus, his defense of denial should not be dismissed since the
evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction. 4 5
Respondent counters that the Petition should be denied as petitioner raises
questions of fact, which are beyond the scope of a Rule 45 petition. 4 6 Nonetheless, it
maintains that the prosecution has established petitioner's guilt beyond reasonable
doubt for violating Section 4 (a) of the Anti-Tra cking in Persons Act. 4 7 It points out
that the witnesses have proved the elements of the crime, 4 8 and the testimony of the
confidential informant is not needed. 4 9
For this Court's resolution is the lone issue of whether or not petitioner Reynaldo
Santiago, Jr. y Santos is guilty of violating Section 4 (a) of the Anti-Tra cking in
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 Persons Act.
This Court denies the Petition.
This Court accords great respect to the trial court's ndings, 5 0 especially when
a rmed by the Court of Appeals. 5 1 "The trial court is in the best position to assess the
credibility of witnesses and their testimonies because of its unique opportunity to
observe the witnesses, their demeanor, conduct and attitude on the witness stand." 5 2
The exception is when either or both lower courts have "overlooked or misconstrued
substantial facts which could have affected the outcome of the case." 5 3
Here, nothing warrants a reversal of the Court of Appeals' and the Regional Trial
Court's Decisions. This Court sustains petitioner's conviction.
Section 3 (a) of Republic Act No. 9208, or the Anti-Tra cking in Persons Act,
defines the crime of trafficking in persons:
SECTION 3. Definition of Terms. — As used in this Act:
(a) Tra cking in Persons — refers to the recruitment, transportation,
transfer or harboring, or receipt of persons with or without the victim's consent
or knowledge, within or across national borders by means of threat or use of
force, or other forms of coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or
of position, taking advantage of the vulnerability of the persons, or, the giving or
receiving of payments or bene ts to achieve the consent of a person having
control over another person for the purpose of exploitation which includes at a
minimum, the exploitation or the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual
exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery, servitude or the removal or sale of
organs.
In People v. Casio, 5 4 we enumerated the elements of the crime:
The elements of tra cking in persons can be derived from its de nition
under Section 3 (a) of Republic Act No. 9208, thus:
(1) The act of "recruitment, transportation, transfer or harbouring, or
receipt of persons with or without the victim's consent or knowledge, within or
across national borders."
(2) The means used which include "threat or use of force, or other
forms of coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or of position,
taking advantage of the vulnerability of the person, or, the giving or receiving of
payments or bene ts to achieve the consent of a person having control over
another["]; and
(3) The purpose of tra cking is exploitation which includes
"exploitation or the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation,
forced labor or services, slavery, servitude or the removal or sale of organs." 5 5
On February 6, 2013, the law was amended by Republic Act No. 10364. 5 6 Casio,
likewise, enumerated the elements of the crime under the expanded definition:
Under Republic Act No. 10364, the elements of tra cking in persons
have been expanded to include the following acts:
(1) The act of "recruitment, obtaining, hiring, providing, offering,
transportation, transfer, maintaining, harboring, or receipt of persons with or
without the victim's consent or knowledge, within or across national borders[";]
(2) The means used include "by means of threat, or use of force, or
other forms of coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 position, taking advantage of the vulnerability of the person, or, the giving or
receiving of payments or bene ts to achieve the consent of a person having
control over another person"[;]
(3) The purpose of tra cking includes "the exploitation or the
prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or
services, slavery, servitude or the removal or sale of organs[.]" 5 7
Here, the offense was committed on September 30, 2011, 5 8 prior to the
amendment. Thus, the original provisions of Republic Act No. 9208 are applicable.
The Information charged petitioner with violation of Section 4 (c), in relation to
Section 6 (c) of the law. Section 4 (c) punishes the act of "[offering] or [contracting]
marriage, real or simulated, for the purpose of acquiring, buying, offering, selling, or
trading them to engage in prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor or
slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage[.]"
However, a perusal of the allegations in the Information reveals that petitioner
was su ciently charged with the crime of tra cking in persons under Section 4 (a).
The provision does not allow any person:
(a) To recruit, transport, transfer, harbor, provide, or receive a person by any
means, including those done under the pretext of domestic or overseas
employment or training or apprenticeship, for the purpose of prostitution,
pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or
debt bondage. aDSIHc

The trial court correctly convicted petitioner for violation of Section 4 (a), instead
of Section 4 (c) of Republic Act No. 9208. The Information su ciently averred that: (1)
petitioner committed an act of quali ed tra cking in persons by offering AAA to David
for sex or exploitation; (2) the act was done for a fee; and (3) for prostitution, sexual
exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary servitude, or debt bondage. 5 9
The rule is settled that "what controls is not the designation of the offense but its
description in the complaint or information[.]" 6 0
People v. Ramirez 6 1 held that the accused may not use the tra cked person's
consent as a valid defense. It also discussed relevant jurisprudence:
This Court in People v. Rodriguez acknowledged that as with Casio, the
corroborating testimonies of the arresting o cer and the minor victims were
su cient to sustain a conviction under the law. In People v. Spouses Ybañez, et
al., this Court likewise a rmed the conviction of tra ckers arrested based on a
surveillance report on the prostitution of minors within the area. . . . Casio also
recognizes that the crime is considered consummated even if no sexual
intercourse had taken place since the mere transaction consummates the crime.
6 2 (Citations omitted)

Here, the tra cked person, AAA, clearly recounted in her testimony how
petitioner engaged her for the illicit transaction:
Q: Where were you on September 30, 2011 at around 1:30 in the morning?
A: I was going to Plaza Moriones to buy coffee.
Q: And while you were going to Plaza Moriones to buy coffee, is there
anything unusual that happened?
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: Can you tell us what was that unusual [thing] that happened?
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 A: I was called [up] by Reynaldo Santiago, Sir.
Q: And what happened after you were called by Reynaldo Santiago?
A: There was someone asking in looking for a woman, Sir, and then I was
called.
Q: And what did you do after Reynaldo Santiago told you that someone was
looking for a woman? What did you do then?
A: I went with him, Sir.
Q: You went with whom?
A: Reynaldo Santiago, Sir, to go to the man.
Q: Did you go to the man?
A: No, I went ahead to the hotel, Sir.
Q: Did you reach the hotel?
A: Yes, Sir, I was able to reach the hotel and at the hotel that's the place where
everything happened. "Nagkahulihan na po."
Q: Before going to the hotel and you were asked by Reynaldo to go to the
hotel, aside from telling you to go to the hotel, what else did you talk
about?
A: "Nilalakad niya po ako ng five hundred."
xxx xxx xxx
Q: You mentioned earlier of a ve hundred, that will be the amount of the
transaction, in that five hundred, how much will you receive?
A: Three hundred fifty, Sir.
Q: One hundred fifty will go to the person who facilitated?
A: Yes, Sir. 6 3
I n People v. Rodriguez , 6 4 this Court held that the tra cked victim's testimony
that she had been sexually exploited was "material to the cause of the prosecution." 6 5
Here, AAA's testimony was corroborated by the testimonies of the police o cers who
conducted the entrapment operation. They recalled in detail the steps they had taken to
verify the surveillance report and ensure that petitioner was the same person with
whom the confidential informant transacted. 6 6
Contrary to petitioner's contention, the testimony of the con dential informant is
not indispensable in the crime of tra cking in persons. Neither is his identity relevant.
"It is su cient that the accused has lured, enticed[,] or engaged its victims or
transported them for the established purpose of exploitation," 6 7 which was su ciently
shown by the tra cked person's testimony alone. As explained by the Court of
Appeals:
Jurisprudence consistently holds that there are compelling
considerations why con dential informants are usually not presented by the
prosecution. One is the need to hide their identity and preserve their invaluable
service to the police. Another is the necessity to protect them from being objects
or targets of revenge by the criminals they implicate once they become known.
The testimony of the con dential asset is not relevant for conviction nor is it
indispensable for a successful prosecution of this case because his testimony
would merely be corroborative and cumulative. The testimonies of the tra cked
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 person, AAA, clearly narrating what transpired on the tra cking incident and the
police o cers regarding the entrapment operation were su cient to prove
appellant's guilt of the crime charged. 6 8 (Citation omitted) ETHIDa

Thus, we a rm the lower courts' conviction of petitioner for violation of Republic

Act No. 9208, Section 4 (a), as punished under Section 10 (a). 6 9 Moreover, since this
Court cannot impose an indeterminate sentence due to the straight penalty imposed by
law, the trial court correctly imposed the penalty of 20 years of imprisonment and the
fine of P1,000,000.00.
However, damages in favor of AAA must be awarded. In People v. Lalli: 7 0
The Civil Code describes moral damages in Article 2217:
Art. 2217. Moral damages include physical suffering,
mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation,
wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar
injury. Though incapable of pecuniary computation, moral
damages may be recovered if they are the proximate result of the
defendant's wrongful act for omission.
Exemplary damages, on the other hand, are awarded in addition to the
payment of moral damages, by way of example or correction for the public
good, as stated in the Civil Code:
Art. 2229. Exemplary or corrective damages are
imposed, by way of example or correction for the public good, in
addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory
damages.
Art. 2230. In criminal offenses, exemplary damages as
a part of the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was
committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. Such
damages are separate and distinct from nes and shall be paid to
the offended party.
The payment of P500,000 as moral damages and P100,000 as
exemplary damages for the crime of Tra cking in Persons as a Prostitute nds
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;
(4) Adultery or concubinage;
(5) Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest;
(6) Illegal search;
(7) Libel, slander or any other form of defamation;
(8) Malicious prosecution;
(9) Acts mentioned in Article 309;
(10) Acts and actions referred to in Articles 21, 26, 27,
28, 29, 30, 32, 34, and 35.
The parents of the female seduced, abducted, raped, or
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 abused, referred to in No. 3 of this article, may also recover moral
damages.
The spouse, descendants, ascendants, and brothers and
sisters may bring the action mentioned in No. 9 of this article, in
the order named.
The criminal case of Tra cking 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. 7 1
Thus, moral damages of P500,000.00 and exemplary damages of P100,000.00
are imposed, with interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the nality of
this Decision until fully paid. 7 2
WHEREFORE , the Petition is DENIED . The Court of Appeals' May 30, 2013
Decision and July 31, 2014 Resolution in CA-G.R. CR No. 34942 are AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION .
Petitioner Reynaldo Santiago, Jr. y Santos is found GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt of violating Section 4 (a) of Republic Act No. 9208. He is sentenced to suffer the
penalty of imprisonment of twenty (20) years and to pay the victim, AAA: (1) a ne of
One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00); (2) moral damages of Five Hundred Thousand
Pesos (P500,000.00); and (3) exemplary damages of One Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P100,000.00).
All damages awarded shall be subject to the rate of six percent (6%) per annum
from the finality of this Decision until its full satisfaction. cSEDTC

SO ORDERED .
Peralta, A.B. Reyes, Jr., Hernando and Inting, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1. People v. Aguirre, G.R. No. 219952, November 20, 2017, 845 SCRA 227, 244 [Per J. Tijam,
First Division].
2. Rollo, pp. 13-30.
3. Id. at 76-89. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla, and
concurred in by Associate Justices Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente and Agnes Reyes-Carpio
of the Eighth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
4. Id. at 107-108. The Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla,
and concurred in by Associate Justices Agnes Reyes-Carpio and Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr.
of the Special Former Eighth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.

5. Id. at 46-55. The Decision was penned by Presiding Judge Dinnah C. Aguila-Topacio of
Branch 42, Regional Trial Court, Manila.

6. Id.
7. Id. at 76.
8. Id. at 46.
9. Id. at 77.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com

 10. Id.
11. Id. at 79.
12. Id. at 78.

13. Id. at 79.

14. Id. at 80.
15. Id. at 79.
16. Rollo, p. 77, n.b. The Court of Appeals at times stated NCRPO instead. A perusal of the
records reveals it should be its Regional counterpart.
17. Id. at 77-78.
18. Id. at 78.

19. Id.
20. Id.
21. Id. at 80.
22. Id. at 81.
23. Id.

24. Id. at 46-55.

25. Id. at 81-82.
26. Id. at 55.
27. Id. at 76-89.

28. Id. at 84-86.

29. Id. at 88.
30. Id. at 90-97.
31. Id. at 107-108.
32. Id. at 3-10.

33. Id. at 11.

34. Id. at 13-30.
35. Id. at 109.
36. Id. at 154.
37. Id. at 179.

38. Id. at 158-177.

39. Id. at 179.
40. Id. at 187-193.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com

 41. Id. at 195.
42. Id. at 215-236, OSG's Memorandum, and 238-250, petitioner's Memorandum.
43. Id. at 20 and 243.
44. Id. at 243.

45. Id. at 244.

46. Id. at 223.
47. Id. at 226.
48. Id. at 228-234.
49. Id. at 227.

50. People v. Montinola, 567 Phil. 387, 404 (2008) [Per J. Carpio, Second Division] citing People
v. Fernandez, 561 Phil. 287 (2007) [Per J. Carpio, Second Division]; People v. Abulon, 557
Phil. 428 (2007) [Per J. Tinga, En Banc]; and People v. Bejic, 552 Phil. 555 (2007) [Per J.
Chico-Nazario, En Banc].
51. People v. Baraoil, 690 Phil. 368, 377 (2012) [Per J. Reyes, Second Division].
52. Ditche v. Court of Appeals, 384 Phil. 35, 46 (2000) [Per J. De Leon, Jr., Second Division].

53. People v. Montinola, 567 Phil. 387, 404 (2008) [Per J. Carpio, Second Division] citing People
v. Fernandez, 561 Phil. 287 (2007) [Per J. Carpio, Second Division]; People v. Abulon, 557
Phil. 428 (2007) [Per J. Tinga, En Banc]; and People v. Bejic, 552 Phil. 555 (2007) [Per J.
Chico-Nazario, En Banc].
54. 749 Phil. 458 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
55. Id. at 472-473 citing Republic Act No. 9208 (2003), sec. 3 (a).
56. Expanded Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2012.

57. People v. Casio, 749 Phil. 458, 474 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
58. Rollo, p. 46.
59. Id.
60. People v. Maravilla, 247-A Phil. 475, 482 (1988) [Per J. Cruz, First Division].
61. G.R. No. 217978, January 30, 2019,
<http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65006> [Per J. Leonen, Third
Division].
62. Id.
63. Rollo, pp. 168-169.
64. G.R. No. 211721, September 20, 2017, 840 SCRA 388 [Per J. Martires, Third Division].

65. Id. at 401.

66. Rollo, pp. 77-81.
67. People v. Aguirre, G.R. No. 219952, November 20, 2017, 845 SCRA 227, 244 [Per J. Tijam,
First Division].
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 68. Rollo, p. 87.
69. Republic Act No. 9208, sec. 10 (a) provides:
   SECTION 10. Penalties and Sanctions. — The following penalties and sanctions are
hereby established for the offenses enumerated in this Act:
   (a) Any person found guilty of committing any of the acts enumerated in Section 4 shall
suffer the penalty of imprisonment of twenty (20) years and a fine of not less than One
million pesos (P1,000,000.00) but not more than Two million pesos (P2,000,000.00).

70. 675 Phil. 126 (2011) [Per J. Carpio, Second Division].

71. Id. at 158-159.
72. See Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267 (2013) [Per J. Peralta, En Banc].

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com