G.R. No. 186027 December 8, 2010 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. MERLYN MERCADERA through her Attorney-in-Fact, EVELYN M. OGA, Respondent.

Republic of the Philippines vs Merlyn Mercadera

GR 186027 December 08, 2010

Merlyn Mercadera sought the correction of her given name as it appeared in her Certificate of Live Birth - from Marilyn L. Mercadera to Merlyn L. Mercadera before the Office of the LCR of Dipolog City pursuant to R.A. No. 9048, as she never used the name "Marilyn" in any of her public or private transactions. However, it refused to effect the correction unless a court order was obtained because the Civil Registrar therein is not yet equipped with a permanent appointment before he can validly act on petitions for corrections filed before their office as mandated by RA 9048.

Mercadera was then constrained to file a Petition For Correction of Some Entries as Appearing in the Certificate of Live Birth under Rule 108 before the RTC of Dipolog City.

The OSG posits that the conversion from "MARILYN" to "MERLYN" is not a correction of an innocuous error but a material correction tantamount to a change of name which entails a modification or increase in substantive rights. For the OSG, this is a substantial error that requires compliance with the procedure under Rule 103, and not Rule 108. 

Whether or not the petition correctly falls under Rule 108

Yes. The petition filed by Mercadera before the RTC correctly falls under Rule 108 as it simply sought a correction of a misspelled given name. 

Rule 103 procedurally governs judicial petitions for change of given name or surname, or both, pursuant to Article 376 of the Civil Code.This rule provides the procedure for an independent special proceeding in court to establish the status of a person involving his relations with others, that is, his legal position in, or with regard to, the rest of the community. In petitions for change of name, a person avails of a remedy to alter the "designation by which he is known and called in the community in which he lives and is best known." When granted, a person’s identity and interactions are affected as he bears a new "label or appellation for the convenience of the world at large in addressing him, or in speaking of, or dealing with him." Judicial permission for a change of name aims to prevent fraud and to ensure a record of the change by virtue of a court decree. The proceeding under Rule 103 is also an action in rem which requires publication of the order issued by the court to afford the State and all other interested parties to oppose the petition. When complied with, the decision binds not only the parties impleaded but the whole world.

Rule 108, on the other hand, implements judicial proceedings for the correction or cancellation of entries in the civil registry pursuant to Article 412 of the Civil Code. Entries in the civil register refer to "acts, events and judicial decrees concerning the civil status of persons,” also as enumerated in Article 408 of the same law.

The "change of name" contemplated under Article 376 and Rule 103 must not be confused with Article 412 and Rule 108. A change of one’s name under Rule 103 can be granted, only on grounds provided by law. In order to justify a request for change of name, there must be a proper and compelling reason for the change and proof that the person requesting will be prejudiced by the use of his official name. To assess the sufficiency of the grounds invoked therefor, there must be adversarial proceedings

In petitions for correction, only clerical, spelling, typographical and other innocuous errors in the civil registry may be raised. Considering that the enumeration in Section 2, Rule 108 also includes "changes of name," the correction of a patently misspelled name is covered by Rule 108. Suffice it to say, not all alterations allowed in one’s name are confined under Rule 103. Corrections for clerical errors may be set right under Rule 108. 

To correct simply means "to make or set aright; to remove the faults or error from." To change means "to replace something with something else of the same kind or with something that serves as a substitute." In this case, the use of the letter "a" for the letter "e," and the deletion of the letter "i," so that what appears as "Marilyn" would read as "Merlyn" is patently a rectification of a name that is clearly misspelled. 

G.R. No. 211465, December 03, 2014 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SHIRLEY A. CASIO

G.R. No. 211465, December 03, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SHIRLEY A. CASIO

Facts:

On May 2, 2008, International Justice Mission (IJM) coordinated with coordinated with the police in order to entrap persons engaged in human trafficking in Cebu City. Several police officers were designated then as decoys, pretending to be tour guides looking for girls to entertain their guests. PO1 Luardo and PO1 Veloso proceeded to D. Jakosalem St red light district. Accused, Casio, noticed them and called their attention and offered if they’d like some girls. After the conversation, Casio presented to the police officers two minors, AAA and BBB. After having settled the negotiation, they went to Queensland Motel. The marked money was handed to Casio and the two minors were brought to another room in the custody of the representatives of IJM and DSWD.

The accused however, contends that there was no valid entrapment instead she was instigated into committing the crime, since the police did not conduct prior surveillance and did not even know who their subject was. She also denied being a pimp and asserted that she was a laundrywoman. Also, AAA admitted that she worked as a prostitute thus, it was her decision to display herself to solicit customers.

Issue/s:

1. Whether or not the entrapment operation conducted was valid
2. Whether or not the accused shall be liable for the crime human trafficking

Ruling:

1. Yes there was a valid entrapment and it was recognized by courts. It was the accused-appellant who commenced the transaction with the officers by calling their attention on whether they wanted girls and when the officers responded, it was the accused-appellant who told them to wait while she would fetch the girls for their perusal. This shows that accused was predisposed to commit the offense because she initiated the transaction.

There is entrapment when law officers employ ruses and schemes to ensure the apprehension of the criminal while in the actual commission of the crime. There is instigation when the accused is induced to commit the crime. The difference in the nature of the two lies in the origin of the criminal intent. In entrapment, the mens rea originates from the mind of the criminal. The idea and the resolve to commit the crime comes from him. In instigation, the law officer conceives the commission of the crime and suggests to the accused who adopts the idea and carries it into execution

2. Yes.  The Court of Appeals found that AAA and BBB were recruited by accused when their services were peddled to the police who acted as decoys. AAA was a child at the time that accused peddled her services. AAA also stated that she agreed to work as a prostitute because she needed money. Accused took advantage of AAA’s vulnerability as a child and as one who need money, as proven by the testimonies of the witnesses. Therefore, the accused is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violating Section 4(a), qualified by Section 6(a) of Republic Act No. 9208 Anti Trafficking Act.

RA 9208, SEC. 3. Definition of Terms. – As used in this Act:

(a) Trafficking in Persons – refers to the 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 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 person, or, the giving or receiving of payments or benefits 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.

The recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, adoption or receipt of a child for the purpose of exploitation or when the adoption is induced by any form of consideration for exploitative purposes shall also be considered as ‘trafficking in persons’ even if it does not involve any of the means set forth in the preceding paragraph

GR No. 195419 Oct 12, 2011 People of the Philippines vs Hadja Lalli

GR No. 195419 Oct 12, 2011

People of the Philippines vs Hadja Lalli

Facts:

On June 3, 2005 in the City of Zamboanga, Lolita Plando who was on her to the house of her grandfather, met Ronnie Aringoy and Rachel Canete. On the day they met, Ronnie proposed to Lolita a work in Malaysia. She was interested and so she gave her mobile number. On the next day, Lolita and Ronnie met again to discuss further the job he was offering in Malaysia. She was told that she will work as a restaurant entertainer and will be paid 500 Malaysian ringgits. She only need to have a passport and she’s good to go on June 6, 2005. On the following day, Ronnie introduced Lolita to Hadja Lalli, the person who will be helping her and three other girls to go to Malaysia to work. On June 6, 2005, Lolita together with Hadja Lalli, Nestor who the financier, and the 3 other girls went on board and travelled to Malaysia. Upon arriving the girls were introduced to a Chinese Malay who will be their Boss. When they arrived at the Pipen club, they were informed that they will be work as entertainers. Lolita was forced. She had customers night after night who used her and forced her to have sexual intercourse. Some even physically abused her. One night, Lolita was able to contact her sister who is in Malaysia and asked for help. Lolita was able to escape – she was rescued and was able to go back to Zamboanga City. Lolita was advised to file a complaint against Hadja Lalli and Ronnie Arngoy with the police regarding her ordeal in Malaysia.

Issue/s:

Whether or not the accused are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of illegal recruitment and trafficking in persons for their acts

Ruling:

The Court of Appeals and RTC found accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of Illegal recruitment and Trafficking in Persons.

Section 6 of RA 8042 defines illegal recruitment, as follows:

[I]llegal recruitment shall mean any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers and includes referring, contact services, promising or advertising for employment abroad, whether for profit or not, when undertaken by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority contemplated under Article 13(f) of Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, otherwise known as the Labor Code of the Philippines.

In this case, the trial court, as affirmed by the appellate court, found Lalli, Aringoy and Relampagos to have conspired and confederated with one another to recruit and place Lolita for work in Malaysia, without a POEA license. The three elements of syndicated illegal recruitment are present in this case, in particular: (1) the accused have no valid license or authority required by law to enable them to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers; (2) the accused engaged in this activity of recruitment and placement by actually recruiting, deploying and transporting Lolita to Malaysia; and (3) illegal recruitment was committed by three persons (Aringoy, Lalli and Relampagos), conspiring and confederating with one another.

Section 3(a) of Republic Act No. 9208 (RA 9208), otherwise known as the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003, defines Trafficking in Persons, as follows: Trafficking in Persons refers to the recruitment, transportation, transfer or harboring, or receipt of persons with or without the victims 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 person, or, the giving or receiving of payments or benefits 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.