G.R. No. 229514 - People vs. Amurao y Tejero

Case Summary (G.R. No. 229514)

Factual Background and Charges

On February 22, 2013, Amurao and Valencia were charged through five separate Informations for trafficking in persons under RA 9208 and four separate Informations for child prostitution and other sexual abuse under RA 7610, all involving acts allegedly committed on or about February 20, 2013 in the City of Angeles.

For the trafficking cases, Criminal Cases Nos. 13-9736 to 13-9740, each Information alleged that the accused, by fraud, deception, abuse of power, and for the purpose of promoting trafficking in persons while taking advantage of the victims’ vulnerability, recruited, hired, harbored, and engaged the victims into prostitution and other sexual exploitation, as well as slavery and servitude. The Informations differed according to the alleged victim and whether the victim was a minor. Criminal Case No. 13-9736 involved AAA, alleged to be of majority age; Criminal Cases Nos. 13-9737, 13-9738, 13-9739, and 13-9740 involved BBB, CCC, DDD, and EEE, respectively, who were alleged to be minors, specifically seventeen (17) or fifteen (15) years old in the manner described in the Informations.

In the RA 7610 cases, Criminal Cases Nos. 13-9741 to 13-9744, the Informations alleged that both accused, with lewd design, and by taking advantage of the victims’ innocence and tender age, coerced the minors into sexual abuse, treating them as prostitutes and giving them money in exchange for sexual services, allegedly in violation of Section 5, Article III of RA 7610.

Both accused pleaded “not guilty” to all charges.

Prosecution Version: Entrapment and Recruitment for Prostitution

The prosecution’s account, as presented through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), began with a report received by the National Bureau of Investigation – Central Luzon Regional Office (NBICELRO) from the International Justice Mission (IJM). The report alleged that Amurao was involved in prostituting women in Balibago, Angeles City, including some minors.

On February 19, 2013, two NBI agents conducted a verification by going to Fields Avenue and entering Natalia Hotel. They met a hotel security guard, who called Amurao. The agents observed that Amurao was selling cigarettes and Viagra. When the agents asked Amurao about minor girls, he allegedly stated he could provide girls at P1,500.00 each and asked the agents to return the next night for six (6) girls.

On the evening of February 20, 2013, SI Henry Roxas, Jr. organized a team for rescue and entrapment operations. Because they did not secure an arrest warrant, they proceeded with an entrapment operation. The team prepared entrapment money worth P9,000.00, all in P1,000.00 denominations. The agents returned to Natalia Hotel and insisted on minor girls. Amurao allegedly arrived together with Valencia and brought six (6) minor girls.

After the agents realized the girls were indeed minors, they directed the girls inside their van. Valencia allegedly boarded the van as the “mamasan” because she was allegedly chaperoning the girls. SI Roxas then handed Amurao the marked money worth P9,000.00. Amurao allegedly deducted P1,000.00 as commission and gave the remainder to the girls, with the girl identified as BBB allegedly acting as the leader. When the girls were inside the van, SI Roxas signaled the rest of the team through a missed call and proceeded with the rescue. Amurao was subsequently arrested, and the marked money was recovered from him and BBB.

After the operation, the team brought the six girls to the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) Region III Office. At DSWD, the girls executed sworn statements detailing the recruitment and promise of P1,500.00 in exchange for sex with customers, and they declared that they were still minors at the time of rescue. The inquest followed on February 22, 2013, and the prosecutor found probable cause for filing multiple Informations under RA 9208 and RA 7610.

Defense Version: Alleged Tips and Lack of Inducement

Amurao’s defense relied on a narrative that he was merely vending goods at Natalia Hotel. He stated that on February 19, 2013, NBI agents introduced themselves through the hotel guard and gave him P500.00 to look for girls. He claimed that when he failed to provide girls, the agents nevertheless gave him an additional P500.00 as a tip because the agents allegedly won in a casino. On February 20, 2013, he claimed that he again encountered the agents, who asked him to look for girls and told him not to “ipahiya” them. He asserted that because the agents promised a tip, he took the opportunity to look for six girls. He claimed that he and Valencia were able to bring only four girls at first, and later two other girls approached and joined the group, after which the girls and Valencia boarded the van of the agents. He stated that the agents handed him P9,000.00, he took P1,000.00 as tip, and he passed the remainder to the girls. He then alleged that the agents declared they were NBI agents and immediately arrested him.

In his memorandum of appeal to the CA, Amurao specifically invoked instigation, and he also argued that he should have been convicted only of White Slave Trade under Article 341 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).

RTC Proceedings and Disposition

After trial, the RTC convicted Amurao in Criminal Cases Nos. 13-9736, 13-9737, and 13-9738, while acquitting Valencia in Criminal Cases Nos. 13-9736 and 13-9738, and acquitting Amurao in Criminal Cases Nos. 13-9739 and 13-9740. The RTC also dismissed the four Informations under RA 7610 (Criminal Cases Nos. 13-9741 to 13-9744) on the ground of double jeopardy.

In summary of its findings, the RTC held that the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt that Amurao committed acts of recruitment for prostitution involving AAA, and recruitment for prostitution involving minors BBB and CCC, under the qualified forms of trafficking. It also found Valencia guilty for certain qualified trafficking charges involving minors, while acquitting her on other counts for failure to meet the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

The RTC’s penalties included imprisonment and fines corresponding to the nature of the trafficking offenses, and it also ordered indemnification in the form of nominal damages for the victims it found covered by the proven convictions.

CA Ruling: Affirmance with Modification of Damages

On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC decision in its entirety except for modification as to the award of damages. The CA did not accord credence to Amurao’s defenses, including instigation.

On instigation, the CA held that there was no indication that Amurao was merely induced. It found that the testimonies showed Amurao was already engaged in the illegal business of recruiting women into prostitution. The CA characterized the NBI agents’ role as a scheme to facilitate apprehension through entrapment, not an unlawful inducement that would exculpate the accused.

On the classification of the offense, the CA affirmed Amurao’s convictions for trafficking and qualified trafficking, ruling that the elements were present because the evidence showed Amurao recruited women, including minors, for trafficking into prostitution.

With respect to damages, the CA awarded moral damages of P500,000.00 and exemplary damages of P100,000.00 for each of AAA, BBB, and CCC, deleted nominal damages, and imposed interest at 6% per annum on the damages awarded from the time the judgment became final until fully paid.

Issue Raised on Appeal

The core question raised by Amurao was whether his guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Legal Framework Applied: Definitions and Elements under RA 9208

The Court relied on the statutory definitions under Section 3 of RA 9208. Under Section 3(a), trafficking in persons includes the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, or receipt of persons, with or without the victim’s consent or knowledge, by means such as fraud, deception, abuse of power, and by taking advantage of vulnerability, for the purpose of exploitation, including at minimum prostitution and other sexual exploitation, forced labor or services, and slavery. Section 3(c) defined prostitution as any act, transaction, scheme, or design involving the use of a person for sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct in exchange for money, profit, or other consideration.

For acts of trafficking, Section 4(a) of RA 9208 penalized unlawful recruitment, transport, transfer, harboring, provision, or receipt of a person, by any means, including those done under the pretext of employment, for the purpose of prostitution and related exploitations.

The Court also invoked Section 6(a) of RA 9208, under which trafficking was qualified when the trafficked person was a child, defined as a person below eighteen (18) years of age or above eighteen but unable to fully take care of or protect oneself due to certain conditions.

Elements of Trafficking and Application to the Evidence

Citing People v. Casio, the Court treated the elements of trafficking in persons as: (1) the act of recruitment/transportation/transfer/harboring/receipt; (2) the means such as coercion, fraud, deception, abuse of power, taking advantage of vulnerability, or payments to achieve consent over another person; and (3) the purpose of trafficking, namely exploitation that includes prostitution and other sexual exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery, servitude, or removal or sale of organs.

The Court held that the prosecution established all elements for both simple trafficking and qualified trafficking. It emphasized that the testimonies of AAA, BBB, and CCC were direct, straightforward, and consistent, and that they testified that Amurao recruited them for prostitution on the night of February 20, 2013. The Court also treated the minority of BBB and CCC as duly proven through birth certificates.

The Court found corroboration between the victims’ testimony and the testimony of the arresting officer, SI Henry Roxas,

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 229514)

The appeal arose from the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR.-HC. No. 06499, promulgated on December 21, 2015, which affirmed the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Angeles City, Branch 59, convicting accused-appellant Esmeraldo “Jay” Amurao y Tejero and his co-accused Marlyn “Lyn” Dizon Valencia of violation of Republic Act No. 9208 (Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003).
The CA affirmed the RTC’s convictions with modification only as to the award of damages, and the case proceeded to the Supreme Court because Valencia did not appeal and Amurao appealed only from his convictions in Criminal Cases Nos. 13-9736, 13-9737, and 13-9738.

Parties and Procedural Posture

The People of the Philippines prosecuted Amurao and Valencia for multiple offenses under RA 9208 and RA 7610 based on events occurring on February 20, 2013.
The RTC convicted Amurao in Criminal Cases Nos. 13-9736, 13-9737, and 13-9738, and convicted Valencia only in selected cases.
The RTC dismissed the RA 7610 cases (Criminal Cases Nos. 13-9741 to 13-9744) on the ground of double jeopardy.
The CA affirmed the RTC’s findings, rejected instigation as a defense, and modified the civil awards by adding moral and exemplary damages, deleting nominal damages, and imposing six percent (6%) interest per annum on damages from finality until full payment.
On appeal to the Supreme Court, the sole issue presented was whether Amurao’s guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Key Factual Allegations

In February 2013, the National Bureau of Investigation - Central Luzon Regional Office (NBICELRO) received a report from the International Justice Mission (IJM) that Amurao was involved in prostituting women in Balibago, Angeles City, Pampanga, including minors.
On February 19, 2013, NBI agents posed as customers at Fields Avenue and approached Natalia Hotel, where they met the hotel security guard who called Amurao.
The NBI agents inquired about minor girls and Amurao told them he could provide girls at P1,500.00 each, and requested the next night for delivery.
On February 20, 2013, the NBI agents returned to Natalia Hotel, insisted on minor girls, and Amurao later arrived with six (6) girls accompanied by Valencia, who acted as “mamasan” or chaperone.
The NBI team conducted a rescue after learning the girls were minors, then Amurao handed over money arranged for the entrapment, deducted P1,000.00 as commission, and gave the rest to the girls’ leader BBB.
After the signal for the operation, the NBI arrested Amurao, and recovered the marked money from him and BBB.
After arrest, the girls were brought to the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) Region III Office, where they executed sworn statements recounting recruitment, promises of P1,500.00 in exchange for sex with a customer, and that they were still minors.
The inquest proceedings occurred on February 22, 2013, where the prosecutor found probable cause and recommended the filing of multiple informations for RA 9208 and RA 7610 violations.

Defense Theory at Trial

Amurao pleaded not guilty and presented a narrative that he merely vended cigarettes and Viagra in front of Natalia Hotel and that the NBI agents gave him money because the agents had “won in the casino.”
Amurao claimed that on February 20, 2013, the NBI agents asked him to look for girls and promised him a tip, leading him to procure girls voluntarily in response.
Amurao alleged that when recruitment yielded only four (4) girls, the remaining girls were invited by another passing girl and that Valencia and the other girls boarded the agents’ van.
Amurao maintained that after receiving P9,000.00, he took P1,000.00 as his “tip” and handed P8,000.00 to the girls, and that the agents then revealed they were from the NBI and arrested him.
In his memorandum of appeal to the CA, Amurao invoked instigation and further argued that he should have been convicted only of white slave trade under Article 341 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).

Statutory Framework

RA 9208 defines “Trafficking in Persons” under Section 3(a) as the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, or receipt of persons with or without consent or knowledge, by means including fraud, deception, abuse of power, or taking advantage of vulnerability, for the purpose of exploitation.
RA 9208 provides that the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, or receipt of a child for exploitation is considered trafficking even without the means ordinarily required under Section 3(a).
RA 9208 defines “Prostitution” under Section 3(c) as the use of a person for sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct in exchange for money, profit, or any other consideration.
RA 9208, Section 4(a) makes it unlawful to recruit, transport, transfer, harbor, provide, or receive a person by any means, including under the pretext of employment, for the purpose of prostitution or other forms of exploitation.
RA 9208, Section 6(a) qualifies trafficking as qualified trafficking when the trafficked person is a child, defined in the law as a person below eighteen (18) years of age or above eighteen (18) but unable to fully protect himself/herself from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation, or discrimination due to physical or mental disability or condition.
RA 9208, Section 10(a) sets the penalty for acts enumerated in Section 4 at imprisonment of twenty (20) years and a fine of not less than P1,000,000.00 but not more than P2,000,000.00, while Section 10(c) sets the penalty for qualified trafficking at life imprisonment and a fine of not less than P2,000,000.00 but not more than P5,000,000.00.
The Court also relied on the doctrinal elements of trafficking in People v. Casio, requiring proof of the act,