Title
People vs. XXX
Case
G.R. No. 252230
Decision Date
Oct 5, 2022
XXX convicted of Qualified Trafficking for sexually exploiting minor AAA, proven through valid entrapment, victim testimony, and evidence; life imprisonment imposed.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 252230)

Factual Background: Referral, Online Contact, and Undercover Operations

In July 2017, Stanford, an Australian Federal Police official and senior liaison officer at the Australian Embassy in Manila, referred an online sexual exploitation case to the Philippine National Police-Women and Children Protection Center (PNP-WCPC). The referral was anchored on an intelligence report indicating a Filipino suspect who allegedly trafficked a young Filipino female for sexual abuse and exploitation by foreigners. The suspect allegedly contacted an online personality identified as JORDY59, who posted videos showing sexual abuse of minors and who allegedly traded child pornographic materials through the Darknet. The Australian law enforcement also informed the PNP-WCPC that the Filipino adult male used an email under the account name ivyianl823@protonmail.com, and that the victim’s name was AAA. A subsequent notification indicated that JORDY59 had been arrested by French authorities for transactions with a man by the name of XXX, identified as the alleged trafficker.

Based on the referral, the PNP-WCPC commenced its own investigation and received a package from the Australian Federal Police containing videos and photos showing sexual abuse committed on a minor. The PNP’s assigned online investigator, Police Chief Inspector (PCI) Michael T. Virtudazo, testified that the PNP received the referral letter and the accompanying information, including the suspect’s email account. On September 25, 2017, PCI Virtudazo conducted an undercover engagement. He sent an email using an undercover address to ivyian1823@protonmail.com, introducing himself as a friend of JORDY59 and pretending to seek entertainment. The person behind the email replied, referencing that “the daughter” was ten years old for sex and offering sexual services for monetary consideration. The price was initially quoted and later reduced to P20,000.00. The parties agreed to meet on September 27, 2017 at J.CO Donuts Cafe in SM Megamall in Mandaluyong City.

PCI Virtudazo testified that the person behind the email asked for money for transportation fare. PCI Virtudazo sent P1,000.00 through coins.ph and, before the meeting, the person behind the email provided the name XXX as recipient and a cellphone number. Separately, prior to the entrapment operation, PCI Virtudazo texted accused-appellant, who informed him of the planned attire of both accused-appellant and AAA for the meeting.

Entrapment Operation: Site Coordination, Marked Money, and Arrest

On September 27, 2017, a pre-operational briefing was conducted with PCI Virtudazo and other officers of the PNP-WCPC, including social workers and a male civilian foreign undercover. The team was shown pictures of accused-appellant and AAA taken from the videos provided by the Australian Federal Police. PO2 Mary Grace A. Guache was tasked to accompany the foreign undercover, who would pose as a customer. Five P1,000.00 bills with specified serial numbers were prepared as bust money.

The team proceeded to SM Megamall. PCI Virtudazo and the Chief of Anti-Trafficking in Persons Division positioned themselves at Starbucks, opposite J.CO Donuts Cafe. PCI Virtudazo continued engaging accused-appellant via text messages until the team located him. PO2 Guache, the foreign undercover, and the rest of the team members proceeded to J.CO Donuts Cafe, where they saw accused-appellant with AAA.

PO2 Guache testified that she and the foreign undercover approached and sat at the same table. The foreign undercover went to the cafe’s counter to order food. PO2 Guache spoke with accused-appellant and asked what AAA could do. Accused-appellant replied that AAA could perform “handjob,” “blowjob,” or sex. PO2 Guache told accused-appellant that the hotel room was ready and gave him P5,000.00 as down payment, after which accused-appellant counted the money. PO2 Guache informed accused-appellant that the team would take them to the hotel and that the balance would be paid there. PO2 Guache then made the pre-arranged signal by removing her hair ponytail, prompting the arrest team to immediately apprehend accused-appellant.

Upon arrest, SPO1 Lucob introduced himself, informed accused-appellant of the arrest and his rights, and AAA was taken away by the DSWD social worker. SPO1 Bitoon seized items belonging to accused-appellant, inventoried them, and prepared a receipt signed by the officers. The seized items included marked money, a cellphone, a backpack containing a wallet, identification cards, some money, oral lubricant, a condom, and a finger vibrator. After the arrest, accused-appellant was brought to Camp Crame where mug shots were taken, he underwent physical and ultraviolet powder examinations, and he was subjected to inquest proceedings the morning after the arrest.

PCI Virtudazo also testified that after arrest he confirmed that AAA was not accused-appellant’s daughter but his niece. During the trial, AAA corroborated these events by narrating that she was ten years old and that accused-appellant, her uncle, took advantage of her and coerced her to engage in sexual acts with foreigners and to be photographed and video-recorded.

AAA’s Testimony on Minority and Coercion

AAA testified that she was ten (10) years old, born on September 23, 2007, and that her father was already dead. She stated that her mother lived in Isabela as a laundry woman and that she lived in Cavite with her grandmother, two older brothers, a three-year-old cousin, and accused-appellant. AAA stated that she was playing when accused-appellant called her and told her that they would go to SM Megamall the next day to meet a foreigner. Her grandmother prepared her clothes. AAA testified that they rode a bus to Manila the next day and arrived at SM Megamall where they met a male foreigner and a lady at J.CO Donuts Cafe.

AAA narrated that accused-appellant mentioned the words “sex,” “handjob,” and “blowjob.” She stated that she became scared and wanted to cry because of what she was about to do. She further testified that accused-appellant would ask her to remove her clothes and put the foreigner’s sexual organ into her mouth, while accused-appellant would take pictures and videos of her. AAA testified that after accused-appellant obtained money from the lady, another man arrived, showed identification, and introduced himself as a police officer. A woman then covered her face and brought her outside. AAA was taken to a vehicle and brought to a place where social workers, police officers, and a lawyer interviewed her. AAA testified that she told them accused-appellant had taken her to different foreigners and she performed oral sex, while the foreign men also mounted her and rubbed their penis against her legs near her vagina, with accused-appellant recording the acts. She estimated that it happened more than five times and began when she was about five or six years old. She also testified that accused-appellant forced her by telling her that if she disobeyed, he would do the same to her three-year-old cousin.

The prosecution evidence included the stipulation that certain testimonies related to the ultraviolet powder examination and documentary preparation were dispensed with. The trial court thus considered the remaining testimonial evidence and the physical exhibits.

Defense Theory and Trial Court Conviction

Accused-appellant denied the charge. He testified that he was AAA’s uncle, his deceased brother being AAA’s father. He claimed that AAA’s grandmother had custody because AAA’s mother had a new family. Accused-appellant presented himself as the breadwinner and a teacher.

Accused-appellant testified that on the incident date, he was supposed to go to Zambales, but AAA insisted on coming to visit their father’s grave. He claimed they passed by SM Megamall to meet an online contact known as Asian Lover, who was said to be a friend of JORDY59 whom accused-appellant met once in Negros Oriental. Accused-appellant claimed the purpose was to return a backpack mistakenly taken by JORDY59, in exchange for a necklace and ring left inside the backpack. Accused-appellant alleged that PO2 Guache introduced herself as the girlfriend of the foreigner, who he assumed was Asian Lover.

Accused-appellant testified that when PO2 Guache asked whether AAA knew how to perform “handjob” and “blowjob,” he thought he misheard and only smiled in embarrassment. He also testified that he received a brown envelope thinking it contained his necklace and ring, and that upon being told to count it, he counted the P5,000.00. He stated that SPO1 Lucob entered when he was already counting, handcuffed him, and instructed him to count money. Accused-appellant claimed he was not informed of the violation immediately and that at the PNP-WCPC he was only told he was a pimp. He denied that the seized backpack and items inside it were his and claimed that the bag was JORDY59’s.

Despite the defense theory, the RTC found the prosecution evidence sufficient. On July 25, 2018, it convicted accused-appellant of Qualified Trafficking in Persons under Section 4(e) in relation to Section 6(a) of R.A. No. 9208, as expanded by R.A. No. 10364, sentencing him to life imprisonment, imposing a fine of P2,000,000.00, and ordering moral damages of PS00,000.00 and exemplary damages of Pl 00,000.00, with six percent (6%) legal interest from finality until fully paid. The RTC held that the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant, through threat and coercion, offered and peddled AAA, a minor, for sexual services in exchange for monetary consideration, taking advantage of her minority and vulnerability.

Arguments on Appeal and the Supreme Court’s Issues

On appeal to the Supreme Court, accused-appellant argued that the prosecution failed to establish AAA’s age as a qualifying circumstance because the prosecution did not present documentary evidence of minority. He also argued that the prosecution failed to prov

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.