People v. De Dios
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The accused was charged with qualified trafficking in persons under Section 3(a) in relation to Section 6(a) of Republic Act No. 9208, as amended by Republic Act No. 10364, for having recruited/harbored a person below eighteen years of age for the purpose of sexual exploitation. The prosecution's case rested on a surveillance and subsequent entrapment operation conducted on August 29, 2013 by law enforcement and allied agencies, testimony of the minor complainant and investigating officers, and physical custody of the minor by social welfare personnel. The Information dated October 14, 2013 alleged that the crime was attended by the qualifying circumstance of minority and was committed in large scale. 2. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court, Branch 192, Marikina City, rendered judgment on October 26, 2015 finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Qualified Trafficking in Persons and sentenced her to life imprisonment, imposed a fine of Two Million Pesos, and ordered payment of moral and exemplary damages. The Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 07879, affirmed the RTC Decision on May 12, 2017. The accused appealed to the Supreme Court, which required supplemental briefs but proceeded to resolution on the records when the parties declined to file additional briefs. The Supreme Court, Second Division, rendered its Decision on June 6, 2018, dismissing and affirming the conviction. 3. The Petition: De Dios insists on an acquittal, as she claims that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she was guilty of the crime of Qualified Trafficking in Persons under Section 3 (a) of R.A. No. 9208. AAA voluntarily peddled herself near the Marikina bridge for sexual services. De Dios was regularly seen in the area but only because her house was situated under the bridge. There was no threat, force, coercion, abduction, fraud, deception or abuse of power that was established in the case. The activities of AAA were never under the monitor or control of De Dios.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of the accused for Qualified Trafficking in Persons under Section 3(a) in relation to Section 6(a) of R.A. No. 9208, as amended. Whether the prosecution sufficiently proved the elements of trafficking in persons, particularly the "means" element, where the victim was a minor and the accused contends the victim voluntarily engaged in prostitution. Whether the testimonies and evidence arising from the surveillance and entrapment operation (including the testimonies of investigating officers and an intelligence agent) were properly admitted and afforded the evidentiary weight given by the trial and appellate courts.
Ruling
The appeal is dismissed. The Decision dated May 12, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 07879 is affirmed. The accused, Evangeline De Dios y Barreto, is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Qualified Trafficking in Persons under Section 3(a) in relation to Section 6(a) of R.A. No. 9208, as amended by R.A. No. 10364, and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment, pay a fine of Two Million Pesos (P2,000,000.00), and pay moral damages of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) and exemplary damages of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00).
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the CA erred in affirming the conviction: The Court held that the lower courts did not err in affirming the conviction because the prosecution established all essential elements of qualified trafficking. The Court applied the elements as reiterated in People v. Hirang (G.R. No. 223528, January 11, 2017) which derive from Section 3(a) of R.A. No. 9208: the act (recruitment/harboring), the means, and the purpose (exploitation). The testimonies of the minor complainant, the NBI investigator and the intelligence agent were consistent and corroborative; the trial court's factual findings on credibility and weight of evidence were given respect under the rule on factual findings of trial courts. The Court emphasized that the recruitment/harboring of a child constitutes trafficking even in the absence of the enumerated means, and thus the presence of minority rendered the "means" element satisfied under the statute. Consequently, the appellate affirmation of guilt was supported by substantial evidence and did not merit reversal. On Whether the prosecution sufficiently proved the elements of trafficking, particularly the "means" element given the victim's minority: The Court explained that Section 3(a) expressly provides that "the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring or receipt of a child for the purpose of exploitation shall also be considered as 'trafficking in persons' even if it does not involve any of the means set forth in the preceding paragraph." Applying People v. Hirang and People v. Casio, the Court reasoned that where the victim is a child, the legislature has dispensed with the requirement to prove force, coercion, deception or other similar means. The Court noted the evidence showed the accused procured and facilitated the minor's exploitation by offering her for sexual services and receiving consideration, and that the minor had previously been lured into prostitution by the accused. The statutory classification of the victim as a child transforms the nature of the offense into qualified trafficking, and the absence of the enumerated means does not defeat conviction. The Court therefore found that the statutory scheme and the proofs adduced sufficiently established the offense beyond reasonable doubt. On the admissibility and weight of evidence from surveillance and entrapment operation and testimonies of officials: The Court upheld the reception and weight given to the testimonies of the investigating officers and the intelligence agent, reasoning that their accounts related to the performance of official duties and are presumed to have been regularly performed. The Court found no reason to disbelieve their testimonies nor to conclude the entrapment operation tainted the prosecution's case; rather, the entrapment culminated from a validated surveillance and intelligence lead. The trial court's assessment of credibility, which the appellate court affirmed, was entitled to great respect because the trial court had the opportunity to observe the witnesses. The Court stressed that the defense's lone testimony, being uncorroborated and weak, could not overcome the consistent prosecution evidence. Therefore, both admissibility and evidentiary weight of the operation-derived evidence were affirmed by the Court.
Main Doctrine
Trafficking in persons is constituted by the act, the means, and the purpose; recruitment/harboring of a child constitutes qualified trafficking even in the absence of force, threat, coercion or other enumerated means where the victim is a minor.