Title
People vs. XXX
Case
G.R. No. 235652
Decision Date
Jul 9, 2018
Parents convicted of exploiting minor children for cybersex and prostitution, sentenced to life imprisonment and fines under RA 9208.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 235652)

Factual Background

From 2008 until March 5, 2011, XXX and YYY compelled their children to engage in cybersex performances via webcam. AAA, then age 13 to 14, was ordered to perform simulated sexual acts and expose intimate body parts to paying online viewers. BBB (age 10) and CCC (age 9) were required to dance naked on camera for a foreign client known as “Sam.” The children were led to believe that earnings were necessary for the family’s daily sustenance. In April 2010, XXX allegedly transported AAA to Makati City and delivered her to John Hubbard for prostitution in exchange for ₱100,000.

Procedural History

· February 2011: AAA sought assistance from the DSWD and NBI, leading to a rescue operation, seizure of computers, and arrest of XXX and YYY.
· October 23, 2015 (RTC): Convicted XXX and YYY for four counts of Qualified Trafficking in Persons; sentenced to life imprisonment, ₱2,000,000 fine per count, ₱30,000 moral and ₱10,000 exemplary damages each.
· August 25, 2017 (CA): Affirmed convictions, reduced YYY’s liability to three counts, increased damages to ₱500,000 moral and ₱100,000 exemplary per count.
· September 2017: Accused-Appellants filed a timely appeal to the Supreme Court.

Issue Presented

Whether XXX and YYY are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Qualified Trafficking in Persons for three counts (YYY) and four counts (XXX) under Sections 4(a), 4(e) in relation to Sections 6(a) and 6(d) of RA 9208.

Applicable Legal Framework

Trafficking in Persons (Section 3[a], RA 9208): Recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring or receipt of persons for exploitation.
Qualified Trafficking (Section 6): Elevated penalty when (a) the victim is a child; (d) the offender is a parent or exercises authority over the victim.
Acts Prohibited (Section 4):
• 4(a) – recruit, transport, provide or receive persons for prostitution or sexual exploitation;
• 4(e) – maintain or hire a person for prostitution or pornography.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

  1. Parental Authority & Vulnerability: XXX and YYY, as biological parents, exercised control over the minors and exploited their vulnerability.
  2. Elements Proven Beyond Reasonable Doubt:
    − Relationship: Established parent-child bonds.
    − Act: Children performed sexualized acts on webcam and in person.
    − Compensation: Parents received payment for each performance.
    − Means: Deception and abuse of power to convince minors of necessity for family support.
  3. Credibility of Witnesses: The trial court properly credited the straightforward testimonies of AAA, BBB, and CCC, with no evident collusion or ill motive.
  4. Count Allocation: YYY was charged in only three of the four Informations; thus his liability was confined to those three counts.
  5. Transportation Charge: XXX alone was charged under Section 4(a) for transporting AAA to Makati for prostitution with John Hubbard.

Penalties and Damages

Under Section 10

    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.