Title
Supreme Court
People vs. Jerrie Arraz y Rodriguez
Case
G.R. No. 252353
Decision Date
Jul 6, 2022
Jerrie Arraz y Rodriguez was convicted of qualified trafficking, rape, and cybercrime for exploiting AAA252353 through forced cybersex, prostitution, and sexual assault, resulting in life imprisonment and substantial damages.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 173559)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and Charges
    • Accused-Appellant: Jerrie Arraz y Rodriguez.
    • Plaintiff-Appellee: People of the Philippines.
    • Informations filed (March–June 2014, Quezon City jurisdiction):
      • Two counts of qualified trafficking in persons (RA 9208 as amended by RA 10364).
      • Three counts of rape (Art. 266-A(1)(a), 266-A(1)(b), 266-A(2) of the RPC as amended by RA 8353).
      • One count of cybersex/online pornography (Sec. 4(c)(1), RA 10175).
  • Victim Recruitment and Exploitation
    • AAA252353, from Surigao del Sur, recruited as domestic helper (March 1, 2014).
    • Initial abuses (second week March 2014): forced to strip, perform oral sex, have intercourse before webcam with foreign client Patrick; photos taken and sent for payment.
    • Subsequent sexual exploitation (April–June 2014):
      • Hotel encounters with “Gunter” and “John”—forced intercourse, live nude shows for pay; money remitted to Jerrie.
      • Incidents of rape by Jerrie and his ward Mark (minor) and by friend Ramil when AAA252353 was intoxicated.
      • Parallel exploitation of CCC252353 (minor) and DDD252353, culminating in entrapment operation rescue.
  • Investigation, Trial, and Evidence
    • Complaint filed October 16, 2014; WCPU-CIDG surveillance and entrapment (confidential informants, seized communications).
    • Digital forensic examination: hard drives, memory cards, USBs revealed lascivious photos/videos.
    • Witnesses: AAA252353’s detailed testimony; corroboration by sisters BBB252353 and CCC252353; expert testimony by PO3 Garcia and NUP Salcedo.
    • Accused’s defense: denial of coercion, claim of consensual relationship, denial of ownership of digital evidence, assertion of invalid arrest (instigation).

Issues:

  • Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the elements of qualified trafficking, rape (various modes), and cybersex.
  • Whether AAA252353’s testimony was credible and sufficient to sustain convictions.
  • Whether the entrapment operation amounted to unlawful instigation or valid apprehension.
  • Whether the penalties and damage awards conform to statutory and jurisprudential standards.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.