People v. Almero
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The facts involve the elements of qualified trafficking in persons under Philippine law. In Criminal Case No. 01-0029-2019, Almero was charged with violation of Section 4(k)(2) in relation to Section 6(a) of Republic Act No. 9208, as amended by Republic Act No. 10364. On September 30, 2018, Almero asked AAA, a minor, via Facebook message if she knew a girl willing to be paid for sex, eventually leading to AAA's sexual exploitation by a certain Carlo. 2. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court rendered judgment finding the accused guilty of qualified trafficking and imposed life imprisonment, a fine of PHP 2,000,000.00, and awards for moral and exemplary damages (Decision dated August 7, 2020). The Court of Appeals affirmed that decision (Decision dated October 28, 2022). 3. The Petition: The accused appealed to the Supreme Court, which dismissed and affirmed the conviction (Decision promulgated April 11, 2024). Almero maintains that the prosecution failed to demonstrate that she, upon meeting Carlo, actually offered AAA for sexual exploitation. AAA's Sinumpaang Salaysay as well as her testimony only show that Almero "was just fooling around with Carlo" but never mentioned any particular instance where Almero offered AAA's services to Carlo in exchange for money. Further, AAA herself offered to perform sexual acts for Carlo as evinced by her statement "Ano kainin ko 'yan?" the word '"yan" referring to Carlo's penis. Thus, the intent to commit fellatio originated entirely from her mind. Too, there was no proof that AAA received any part of the PHP 1,000.00 allegedly given by Carlo to Almero. Therefore, it cannot be presumed that the amount was received by Almero in consideration of AAA's sexual acts. Because the prosecution allegedly failed to establish the elements of the offense charged, the courts below should not have disfavored Almero's denial and alibi. Although inherently weak, denial and alibi assume relevance when the evidence of the prosecution linking the Almero to the crime is inconclusive. Meanwhile, the OSG counters in its Brief' that the prosecution established all the elements of trafficking in persons. More, it was shown that the trafficked person, i.e., AAA, was a child when the crime was committed, thus qualifying the offense.
Issue(s)
Whether the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt the elements of qualified trafficking in persons under Section 4(k)(2) in relation to Section 6(a) of Republic Act No. 9208, as amended. Whether the minor's consent is a defense to the crime of trafficking in persons. Whether the trial court and the Court of Appeals correctly admitted and relied upon the Facebook screenshots and other documentary evidence, considering claims of objection. Whether the awards of moral and exemplary damages and the imposition of 6% legal interest are proper.
Ruling
The appeal is dismissed. The Decision dated October 28, 2022 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 14822 is affirmed. In Criminal Case No. 01-0029-2019, Mary Joyce Almero y Pascual is found guilty of qualified trafficking in persons under Section 4(k)(2) in relation to Section 6(a) of Republic Act No. 9208, as amended by Republic Act No. 10364, sentenced to life imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine of PHP 2,000,000.00. She is ordered to pay the complainant PHP 500,000.00 as moral damages and PHP 100,000.00 as exemplary damages. All monetary awards are subject to 6% interest per annum from finality of the Decision until full payment.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the prosecution established the elements of qualified trafficking: The Court found that the elements enumerated in People v. Casio and in the statutory definition were proven: the act (recruitment/offer/obtaining), the means (taking advantage of vulnerability), and the purpose (sexual exploitation). The Court accepted the testimony of the victim as credible and consistent on material points and gave probative value to the documentary evidence identified during trial. The Facebook screenshots, which were identified and not objected to by the accused at trial, corroborated the testimony and showed the accused's solicitation of the minor. The timing of the monetary exchange reported in evidence supported the inference that payment was for the purpose of exploitation. Considering the minor status of the complainant, the qualifying circumstance under Section 6(a) was present, justifying the imposition of penalties for qualified trafficking. On Whether the minor's consent is a defense: Applying the settled rule in People v. Casio, the Court reiterated that a minor's consent is irrelevant to the crime of trafficking in persons and does not negate criminal liability. The Court explained that the gravamen of the offense is the recruitment or use of a person for sexual exploitation, and when the victim is a child the law deems consent immaterial because a child cannot give legally valid consent to such exploitation. The Court cited authorities such as People v. Dela Cruz and People v. Ramirez to underscore that a minor's apparent acquiescence does not convert an act into lawful conduct and that consent obtained from a child is not a defense. The Court also observed that the prosecution did not rely solely on alleged consent but established recruitment and exploitation elements independent of any asserted consent. Therefore, the accused's argument that the minor voluntarily engaged in the acts did not absolve liability. On the Admissibility and Reliance on Facebook Screenshots and Other Evidence: The Court held that the screenshots were properly considered because the accused did not object to their admissibility at trial, which the Court treated as a waiver. The Court emphasized that documentary evidence identified in court and admitted without objection may be accorded probative weight. The corroboration between the victim’s testimony and the screenshots strengthened the evidentiary foundation for conviction. The Court further noted that the trial court properly weighed testimonial and documentary evidence together in reaching its factual findings. Given the totality of the evidence and the absence of convincing contradictory proof, the appellate courts did not err in admitting or relying on those materials. On Damages and Legal Interest: The Court affirmed the awards of moral and exemplary damages as within the trial court’s discretion given the nature of the qualified trafficking offense and the minor victim status, citing People v. XXX as supportive precedent. The imposition of 6% legal interest per annum on monetary awards from finality until full payment was sustained pursuant to Nacar v. Gallery Frames. The Court found no reason to disturb the amounts awarded nor the application of legal interest, given the gravity of the offense and the compensatory and deterrent purposes of the damages awarded.
Main Doctrine
A minor's consent is immaterial to the crime of trafficking in persons; recruitment, offering or procuring a child for sexual exploitation constitutes qualified trafficking when the trafficked person is a child.