Case Digest by Ryan Julianne L. Monzon
FACTS: On March 15, 2016, Police Inspector Magno Abana Jr. together with police operatives conducted surveillance and investigation on Villaria and Maghirang. Maghirang asked Abana’s team if they wanted to have lady companions aged 14 to 18 for sex, with prices ranging from PHP 1,000.00 for three hours to PHP 3,000.00 for an overnight stay. An entrapment operation was executed, where Villaria and Maghirang A.K.A. ‘Apple’ conspired and confederated with each other as handler and agent of the victims.
During the trial of the accused for qualified human trafficking, the prosecution presented nine witnesses, including PINSP Abana and eight minor victims of the accused who testified that Villaria and Maghirang cajoled them to go to a party and prostitute themselves. In defense, the accused contended that the prosecution failed to prove that the minors were forced, coerced, or deceived into prostitution and that they voluntarily submitted themselves to prostitution. RTC found the defendants guilty. CA affirmed the RTC ruling.
ISSUE: Whether the victim’s consent to prostitution is material in convicting the accused of qualified human trafficking.
RULING: The Supreme Court ruled in the NEGATIVE. The Court held that there is trafficking in persons if the victim is a child, even when the means employed are different from those set forth in the law. The victims’ testimonies are sufficient to convict the accused beyond reasonable doubt; it was also clear that the victims were minors at the time of the trafficking.
The absence of threat, force, or coercion is immaterial and irrelevant in this case. Accordingly, Section 3(a) of Republic Act No. 9208, as amended, the crime is still considered trafficking if it involves “[t]he recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring] or receipt of a child for the purpose of exploitation” even if the means employed is not within those outlined in the law. At any rate, accused-appellants evidently took advantage of the victims’ youth and their need to earn money to obtain their consent.
Finally, the accused-appellants’ unsupported assertion that the victims testified under duress or undue influence is untenable and baseless. The victims clarified on cross-examination that they were not forced to execute their affidavits or to testify. Thus, the appeal is DENIED.
THE BARRISTER 