People vs. Nuevas

Under Article 341 of the Revised Penal Code, the crime of white slave trade is consummated by the commission of any one of three enumerated acts—(a) engaging in the business of prostitution, (b) profiting by prostitution, or (c) enlisting the services of women for the purpose of prostitution—and proof that the accused is the owner or lessee of the premises where prostitution occurs is not an element of the offense.

About three or four months before September 22, 1945, Jesus Nuevas contracted the services of four women of ill repute and brought them to a house in the barrio of Alangilang, Batangas, Batangas, for the purpose of engaging in prostitution. He furnished them food and lodging and, in return, received one-half of their earnings from sexual intercourse with colored soldiers. On the afternoon of September 22, 1945, acting on a tip, military police raided the house, found soldiers and women present, and arrested Nuevas.

• Recruitment and Operation: Around three to four months prior to September 22, 1945, the appellant, Jesus Nuevas, contracted the services of four women of ill repute and brought them to a house in the barrio of Alangilang, Batangas, Batangas, to engage in prostitution. He provided them with food and lodging. In exchange, he took one-half of the fees the women charged colored soldiers for each act of sexual intercourse.
• The Raid and Arrest: On the afternoon of September 22, 1945, military police, acting on a tip that the house was a brothel, raided the premises. They found thirteen colored soldiers, three of whom were inside separate rooms each with a woman, and the appellant present. Upon questioning, the appellant stated that the owner had left him in charge of the house. The women told the sergeant that they split their earnings with the appellant, and the soldiers stated they paid P10 per intercourse.
• Prosecution Testimonies: Two of the women, Emilia de la Cruz and Juanita Fernandez, each identified the appellant as their “manager,” testified that he had engaged them four months earlier, and confirmed they gave him half of the P10 they received per coition. Sergeant Angelo Murano corroborated these accounts and described the circumstances of the raid.
• Defense Version: The appellant, the sole defense witness, claimed he was a Manila resident who went to the house on September 22, 1945, merely to collect a debt of P150 from the lessee, a certain Moises Santos. He denied managing the prostitution business.
• Trial Court’s Evaluation: The Court of First Instance disbelieved the uncorroborated testimony of the appellant and gave credence to the prosecution witnesses, finding that the appellant had enlisted the women for prostitution and profited by sharing in their earnings.

• Elements of the Offense Under Article 341: Appellant argued that conviction could not stand because the prosecution (a) failed to specifically identify the house as a house of ill fame, (b) failed to prove that it was in fact a house of ill fame, and (c) failed to prove that the accused was either the owner or the lessee of the house. He maintained that these were essential elements of the crime charged.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: The prosecution countered that the testimonies of the two women and the arresting sergeant, together with the appellant’s admission that he had been left in charge of the house, established beyond reasonable doubt both that he enlisted the services of the women for prostitution and that he profited thereby, regardless of whether he was formally the lessee or owner.

• Elements of the Offense: Whether the conviction must be reversed because the prosecution failed to prove that the accused was the owner or lessee of the house where prostitution took place, and whether the evidence otherwise established guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

• Elements of the Offense: The appeal lacked merit. Article 341 punishes three distinct acts: (a) engaging in the business of prostitution, (b) profiting by prostitution, or (c) enlisting the services of women for the purpose of prostitution. Proof of any one of these acts is sufficient for conviction; the statute does not make ownership or lease of the premises an element of the offense. The evidence demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant enlisted the four women for the purpose of prostitution and profited by receiving one-half of their earnings. Even if the appellant were not the lessee of the particular house, he could not escape liability for the illicit trade. As a matter of law, enlistment alone would support conviction absent proof of profit, and profiting alone would support conviction absent proof of enlistment. The conviction was therefore affirmed.

• White slave trade (Article 341, Revised Penal Code) — Tripartite modes of commission — Article 341 penalizes any person who, in any manner or under any pretext, (a) engages in the business of prostitution, (b) profits by prostitution, or (c) enlists the services of women for the purpose of prostitution. The commission of any one of these three enumerated acts constitutes the crime. It is not necessary to prove that the accused was the owner or lessee of the house where prostitution took place. The provision targets the immoral trade itself, irrespective of the accused’s relationship to the premises. In this case, the Court applied the doctrine by holding that proof of both enlistment and profiting placed the appellant squarely within the statute, rendering irrelevant his claim that he was not the lessee.

• “Article 341 penalizes three acts: (a) engaging in the business of prostitution, (b) profiting by prostitution, or (c) enlisting the service of women for the purpose of prostitution. Any person committing any one of these acts comes within the purview of said article.” (The controlling structural interpretation of the provision.)
• “As a matter of law, once it was proved that the accused had enlisted the services of women for the purpose of prostitution, he was criminally liable even if there were no proof that he had shared in the profit. And even if there were no proof that he had enlisted the services of women for the purpose of prostitution, he would still be criminally liable because there is indubitable proof in this case that he had share in the income of the prostitutes.” (Articulation of the independent sufficiency of each mode of commission.)

• Article 341, Revised Penal Code (White slave trade) — The provision makes it a crime for any person to engage in the business of prostitution, profit by prostitution, or enlist the services of women for the purpose of prostitution. The Court interpreted the article as establishing three distinct and independently sufficient modes of commission, and accordingly held that proof of ownership or lease of the house of prostitution is not required.

De Joya, Perfecto, Hilado, and Bengzon, JJ., concur.