Case Digest (G.R. No. 252230)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. XXX, G.R. No. 252230, October 05, 2022, Third Division, Gaerlan, J., writing for the Court. The appeal is an ordinary appeal from the Court of Appeals Decision dated October 15, 2019 affirming the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Decision dated July 25, 2018 convicting accused-appellant XXX of Qualified Trafficking in Persons under Section 4(e) in relation to Section 6(a) of Republic Act No. 9208, as expanded by R.A. No. 10364.The Information (filed October 18, 2016) charged XXX with maintaining/harboring AAA, a ten-year-old minor, by offering and peddling her to a male customer for monetary consideration for purposes of sexual exploitation between September 25 and 27, 2017 in Mandaluyong City. At trial the prosecution presented PNP-WCPC investigators, an Australian Federal Police liaison, and the minor victim AAA; XXX was the lone defense witness. The criminal case originated from an Australian Federal Police referral concerning online sexual exploitation (the “Darknet” videos) and an email account allegedly used to offer a minor for sexual services.
PNP-WCPC undercover operations established communications with the email account ivyianl823@protonmail.com, an agreed meeting at SM Megamall, and a coins.ph transfer of P1,000 as fare to a recipient named XXX at the cellphone number later linked to accused-appellant. At J.CO Donuts an undercover female officer and a foreign civilian undercover met accused-appellant and AAA. The undercover paid P5,000 as a down payment; a prearranged signal prompted the arrest. Items seized from accused-appellant included the marked money, a cellphone, a backpack (containing identification cards and sex aids), condoms, lubricant, and a finger vibrator. Ultraviolet powder testing and inventory procedures were stipulated; AAA’s date of birth (September 23, 2007) and minority were also stipulated.
AAA testified in detail that she was ten years old, lived with her grandmother and accused-appellant (her paternal uncle), and was repeatedly forced by accused-appellant to perform oral sex and other sexual acts on foreigners and on accused-appellant himself, often while he photographed or videotaped her; she described threats that he would harm her three-year-old cousin if she did not obey. PCI Virtudazo and other police witnesses described the international referral, the undercover email/text communications, the meeting and arrest, and the chain of events leading to seizure and inquest. XXX denied guilt, offered an alternative explanation that he was returning personal effects to a friend known as “Asian Lover” and that the seized backpack and sex aids were not his, and characterized the money as a return of belongings rather than payment for sexual services.
The RTC convict...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the prosecution establish the victim’s minority as a qualifying circumstance for Qualified Trafficking in Persons?
- Did the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant committed Qualified Trafficking in Persons — i.e., that he was the person who recruited/maintained/harbored AAA and used the means and purposes constituting trafficking under R.A. No. 9208, as expanded ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)