People v. De Dios
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Evangeline De Dios y Barreto was involved in peddling minors and young women for sexual services near the Marikina River Park under the bridge in Marikina City. On August 29, 2013, at around evening, De Dios approached Rugielito Gay, a poseur customer who was actually a DOJ-IACAT Intelligence Agent, and offered 'gimik' (sex for P500) with three girls standing nearby, including 16-year-old AAA (born October 21, 1996), XXX (18 years old), and YYY (23 years old). Gay negotiated the price, paid P500 (later testified as P700 by AAA), selected AAA, marking the consummation of the transaction in an NBI-AHTRAD entrapment operation prompted by prior surveillance confirming De Dios's activities. AAA had been recruited by De Dios since May 2012 through her friend Nicole, starting with her first 'gimik' in Antipolo City where she had sex with a customer and received P400 from De Dios; subsequent transactions followed the same pattern with De Dios handling customers and payments. On the entrapment night, De Dios invited AAA and others (BBB, XXX, YYY, ZZZ, KKK, MMM) from Lola Helen's Panciteria to the park, where she solicited customers by asking 'Kuya, gigimik kayo?' and pointing to the girls. After payment, AAA and the poseur took a tricycle toward McDonald's, where NBI and DSWD personnel intervened, rescuing AAA. This was part of validated intelligence on De Dios peddling minors under the bridge. Procedural History: De Dios was charged via Information dated October 14, 2013, before RTC Branch 192, Marikina City, for qualified trafficking under Section 4(a) r.a. Sections 3(a) and 6(a) of R.A. 9208, alleging recruitment/harboring of AAA (minor), XXX, and YYY via coercion/fraud/abuse for prostitution, qualified by minority and large scale. She pleaded not guilty, trial ensued with prosecution witnesses AAA, NBI-AHTRAD Investigator Doriente Durian, and Agent Gay testifying. RTC convicted her on October 26, 2015, of qualified trafficking under Section 3(a) r.a. Section 6(a), imposing life imprisonment, P2M fine, P500K moral damages, P100K exemplary damages. CA affirmed on May 12, 2017, in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 07879, reiterating the conviction and penalties. De Dios appealed to SC, waiving supplemental briefs to rely on CA briefs. The Petition: De Dios argued for acquittal, claiming prosecution failed to prove elements beyond reasonable doubt; AAA voluntarily peddled herself near the bridge; De Dios was merely seen in the area due to her former residence; no proof of threat, force, coercion, fraud, deception, or abuse; AAA's activities were independent, not monitored/controlled by De Dios.
Issue(s)
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the elements of qualified trafficking in persons under Section 3(a) r.a. Section 6(a) of R.A. No. 9208, as amended. Whether the defense of voluntary prostitution by the minor victim and lack of coercive means negates liability.
Ruling
The appeal is dismissed. The CA Decision dated May 12, 2017, affirming RTC's conviction for qualified trafficking in persons under Section 3(a) r.a. Section 6(a) of R.A. No. 9208, as amended by R.A. No. 10364, is affirmed. De Dios is sentenced to life imprisonment, P2,000,000 fine, P500,000 moral damages, and P100,000 exemplary damages.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The prosecution established all elements of trafficking under Section 3(a): (1) De Dios's act of harboring/recruiting AAA (minor) and others, as she approached Gay offering 'gimik,' called the girls, accepted payment, and had prior history of involving AAA since May 2012; (2) means via taking advantage of AAA's vulnerability as a minor and offering financial gain (P400 per transaction), which substitutes for force/coercion in child cases per the law's explicit provision that recruitment of a child for exploitation is trafficking sans means; (3) purpose of sexual exploitation/prostitution, confirmed by testimonies of AAA (detailing multiple 'gimiks'), Gay (entrapment details), and Durian (surveillance), all corroborating De Dios's role. These align with elements reiterated in People v. Hirang from People v. Casio, where positive, consistent prosecution evidence from official functions (presumed regular) outweighs denials. RTC and CA findings of fact, based on credible witnesses without motive to falsify, bind the Court. Entrapment validity stems from prior surveillance, not inducement by agents. Minority of AAA (16 years old) qualifies under Section 6(a), mandating life imprisonment per Section 10(c). Thus, guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt. On Issue 2: Lack of threat/force is immaterial for child victims, as Section 3(a) deems recruitment/harboring of minors for exploitation as trafficking ipso facto, exploiting their inherent vulnerability without needing coercive means. AAA's testimony of De Dios's prodding, promises of money, and handling transactions establishes control and inducement, not voluntariness; her youth made her susceptible. Defense denial is weak, uncorroborated, contradicted by converging testimonies; mere proximity to the area (former residence) does not negate active solicitation observed in entrapment. Law protects minors absolutely, per policy against sexual exploitation, rendering 'voluntary' claims irrelevant when recruiter profits.
Main Doctrine
Trafficking in persons under Section 3(a) of R.A. No. 9208 requires proof of (1) the act of recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, or receipt of persons; (2) the means used, such as threat, force, coercion, fraud, deception, abuse of power, or taking advantage of vulnerability; and (3) the purpose of exploitation, including prostitution or sexual exploitation. However, when the victim is a child (under 18 years old), the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, or receipt for exploitation constitutes trafficking even without the means element, as explicitly provided in the law. Qualified trafficking under Section 6(a) applies when the trafficked person is a child, warranting the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of at least P2,000,000 under Section 10(c). The prosecution's evidence from entrapment operations, victim testimony, and law enforcement accounts prevails over uncorroborated denials by the accused. Financial inducements and prior involvement in prostituting the minor establish the taking advantage of vulnerability, fulfilling the elements beyond reasonable doubt.