4/10/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly We find 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 Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act, as clearly explained in Lalli. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00644-MIN dated 20 July 2010 is hereby 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. SO ORDERED. Carpio, (Chairperson), Brion, Perez, and Reyes, JJ., concur. [1] Rollo, pp. 3-18; penned by Associate Justice Leoncia R. Dimagiba, with Associate Justices Edgardo A. Camello and Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela concurring. [2] Rollo, p. 4. [3] The real names of private complainants were disclosed in the proceedings before the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals. However, pursuant to Section 6 of R.A. 9208 or the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003, the real names of private complainants herein are withheld and replaced with fictitious initials to protect their identity. While the case was not prosecuted under R.A. 9208, the policy behind the confidentiality provision – to protect human dignity – is nevertheless applicable to the case at bar. [4] Rollo, pp. 6-7. [5] CA rollo, pp. 21-43. [6] Id. at 43. [7] At the time of the conviction, the amount of the fine imposed by R.A. 8042 was not less than P500,000 and not more than P1 million. It was later amended by R.A. 10022, which was passed on 8 March 2010. [8] Rollo, p. 18. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/54824 9/10