G.R. No. 259133 - People vs. Jhona Galeseo Villaria and Lourdes Aralar Maghirang

Jhona Galeseo Villaria and Lourdes Aralar Maghirang were charged with eight counts of qualified trafficking in persons under Section 4(a) in relation to Sections 6(a) and 6(c) of Republic Act No. 9208, as amended by RA No. 10364.
The victims were minors ranging from 15 to 17 years old at the time of the offense.
The accused pleaded not guilty during arraignment.

On March 14, 2016, Police Inspector Magno Abana Jr. was informed of trafficking activities in Rizal through a confidential informant.
On March 15, 2016, the police found Villaria and Maghirang in xxxxxxxxxxx, Rizal; Maghirang offered the team minor girls aged 14-18 for sex at set prices.
The police planned and executed an entrapment operation on March 18, 2016, where marked money worth PHP 30,000.00 was used.
During the operation, Villaria and Maghirang brought multiple minor girls, offered them to the poseur customer (PINSP Abana), and accepted money.
The accused were arrested and the girls were taken under the custody of the Department of Social Welfare and Development.

The eight minor victims testified that they were cajoled by Villaria and Maghirang to prostitute themselves for money at a party on March 18, 2016.
Villaria and Maghirang denied the accusations, claiming they were forcibly detained and given money by partygoers.
Defense witness Judilyn Lastrilla corroborated their story, alleging coercion to implicate the accused.

The Regional Trial Court found accused’s denials incredible and convicted them of qualified trafficking with life imprisonment and fines.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified damages awarded to the victims.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of Villaria and Maghirang for qualified trafficking in persons.
Whether the victims were forced, coerced, or deceived into prostitution.
Whether victims’ testimonies were given voluntarily, free from undue influence or duress.
Whether the accused-appellants actually received money for sexual services, given absence of physical evidence (marked money, photographs).