G.R. No. 270934 – Criminal Law – Book I – Conspiracy – May be proven by circumstantial evidence
Minors AAA, BBB, and CCC filed a complaint against Joemarie Ubanon and Amirah Macadatar alleging that: In April 2014, they were watching a boxing match when Joemarie Ubanon approached them. Joemarie offered them a job as onion peelers with a salary of Php2,500.00 a month. The minors told Joemarie that they are interested but that they need to seek permission from their parents first. However, Joemarie told them that their employer is already waiting. Joemarie then brought the minors to Amirah’s house. Later, Joemarie brought the minors to a bus terminal where they were transported to a different municipality where they were each brought to different employers to work as domestic helpers. They were not paid any salary.
Later, Amirah returned the minors to their parents.
In his defense, Joemarie explained that he was approached by the minors who were then looking for employment. He merely referred them to Amirah and he had no participation after the referral was made.
The trial court convicted Joemarie for qualified trafficking in persons. His conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE: Whether or not the conviction is proper.
HELD: Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that the testimonies of the Complainants are credible. Joemarie’s defense that he had no participation in the transporting of the minors into a different municipality is not tenable; that it was Amirah who caused the minors to be transported. The SC declared that conspiracy need not be proven by direct evidence of prior agreement to commit the crime. It can be proven by evidence of a chain of circumstances. Conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime which unmistakably indicate a joint purpose, concerted action, and community of interest (NOTE that the only accused convicted by the trial court was Joemarie).
In this case, conspiracy between Joemarie and Amirah was proven: (1) Joemarie approached the minors and offered them a job as onion peelers; (2) he hurriedly took them to Amirah’s house without allowing them to secure their parents’ consent; (3) when the minors arrived at Amirah’s house, Joemarie and Amirah talked privately; (4) he accompanied the minors to a bus terminal; and (5) Joemarie instructed the minors to board the bus. Joemarie actively recruited the victims to facilitate their transport to a different municipality. While there is no direct evidence of previous agreements between him and Amirah, the chain of circumstances leads to no other conclusion than that Joemarie and Amirah conspired to ultimately subject the minor victims to forced labor.
