People vs. Dela Cruz y Bucaling

The crime of qualified trafficking in persons is consummated by the mere transaction of offering or providing a child for sexual exploitation, and actual sexual intercourse need not occur. When the trafficked person is a child, the prosecution need not prove the use of threat, force, coercion, or deception; the consent of the minor is irrelevant, and the offense is malum prohibitum where good faith or absence of criminal intent is not a defense.

Accused-appellant owned and operated the xxxxxxxxxxxxx Resto Bar, which featured VIP rooms on the second floor. She employed waitresses and Guest Relations Officers (GROs), including the private complainants AAA and BBB, who submitted bio-data falsely indicating they were 18 years old. Acting on a report of an illegal sex trade involving minors at the establishment, the Women’s Desk and Intelligence Branch of the xxxxxxxx City Police conducted an entrapment operation on 14 April 2014.

• Nature of the Charges: Accused-appellant was charged with two counts of Qualified Trafficking in Persons for allegedly recruiting, harboring, and providing minors AAA (17 years old) and BBB (15 years old) to customers for prostitution and sexual exploitation at her resto bar. The Informations alleged that on 14 April 2014, she offered the minors for sexual intercourse to police officers posing as customers in exchange for P1,000.00 each.

• Employment and the VIP Scheme: AAA and BBB were hired by accused-appellant, whom they called “Mommy Celia,” as waitresses and GROs after submitting bio-data stating they were 18 years old. Their duties included sitting and drinking with male customers. When a customer requested “VIP service,” accused-appellant negotiated the transaction; the payment was split evenly — P500.00 to the girl and P500.00 to the management. Both minors testified that VIP service entailed sexual intercourse with the customer in upstairs rooms. BBB testified that she began rendering VIP services a few days after starting work.

• The Entrapment Operation: On 14 April 2014, acting on a report of an illegal sex trade involving minors, a police team conducted an entrapment. PO3 Abonita and PO2 Villanueva posed as customers. Accused-appellant approached them and asked if they wanted girls; when they assented, AAA and BBB were brought to their table. Accused-appellant then offered VIP service, explaining it meant “panandaliang aliw” or sexual intercourse, for P1,000.00 per girl. After PO3 Abonita confirmed that sexual intercourse was included, he handed two marked P1,000.00 bills to accused-appellant. She instructed the group to go to the second-floor VIP rooms. Once inside, PO3 Abonita gave the pre-arranged signal; the backup team entered, rescued the minors, and arrested accused-appellant.

• Defense Version: Accused-appellant denied any involvement in prostitution. She claimed VIP service only provided privacy, drinks for the customer and two ladies, and the P1,000.00 payment covered beer, ladies’ drinks, and room amenities — not sexual acts. She asserted she had a strict no-sex policy and warned the waitresses to be “palaban” (strong-willed). She maintained she did not know the girls were minors because their bio-data indicated they were 18 and they failed to submit birth certificates. She stated that on the night of the operation, the customers handed her P1,000.00 each for the VIP service; later, she heard shouting upstairs and was prevented from going up by the police.

• RTC and CA Findings: The RTC gave full credence to the prosecution’s evidence, finding that minority was proved by birth certificates, the VIP service unequivocally meant sexual intercourse for money, and the offense under a special law made criminal intent immaterial. The CA affirmed, holding that the accused’s warnings against flirting were meaningless in light of the proven practice, and that all elements of qualified trafficking were established.

• Absence of Coercion or Threat: Accused-appellant maintained that the prosecution failed to prove the second element of trafficking — the use of threat, force, intimidation, or other forms of coercion. She contended that the decision to have sexual intercourse with customers rested entirely on the will of the private complainants and was not subject to her control or manipulation.

• Lack of Proof of Purpose of Exploitation: Accused-appellant argued that the third element was not established because, aside from the bare allegations of the police officers, no evidence corroborated the claim that she hired the minors for prostitution or sexual exploitation. She insisted the P1,000.00 payment was solely for the VIP room, the customer’s drinks, and the ladies’ drinks.

• Establishment of All Elements: The prosecution countered that the testimonies of AAA, BBB, and the police decoys proved the act of hiring and providing the minors, that the means element was satisfied by taking advantage of their youth and vulnerability, and that the purpose of sexual exploitation was demonstrated by the explicit offer of “panandaliang aliw” for money.

• Irrelevance of Coercion for Child Victims: The People argued that under R.A. No. 9208, as amended, when the trafficked person is a child, the recruitment or harboring for exploitation need not involve threat, force, or coercion. Thus, the absence of such means did not negate criminal liability.

• Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Whether the guilt of the accused-appellant for two counts of Qualified Trafficking in Persons was proved beyond reasonable doubt.

• Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: The appeal was denied. The conviction was affirmed because all elements of qualified trafficking were established by the prosecution.

  The first element — the act of “recruitment, obtaining, hiring, providing, offering” — was satisfied by the clear and categorical testimonies of AAA and BBB that they were hired by accused-appellant as GROs/waitresses and that she offered and provided them to customers for sexual services. Accused-appellant herself admitted hiring them and receiving their bio-data.

  The second element — the means used — did not require proof of threat, force, or coercion because the trafficked persons were children. Under Section 3(a), paragraph 2, of R.A. No. 9208, as amended, the recruitment or receipt of a child for exploitation constitutes trafficking even if none of the enumerated means are employed. The minority of AAA and BBB was alleged in the Informations and proved by their birth certificates. Accused-appellant took advantage of their youth and vulnerability by luring them into prostitution for financial gain.

  The third element — the purpose of exploitation, namely prostitution — was conclusively proven. Both minors testified that VIP service meant having sexual intercourse with customers for a fee split with accused-appellant. Their accounts were corroborated by the police officers, who testified that accused-appellant explicitly offered “panandaliang aliw” — sexual intercourse — for P1,000.00 per girl. The transaction with the decoys consummated the crime; actual sexual intercourse was not required.

  Accused-appellant’s claimed ignorance of the minors’ true ages was immaterial. Qualified trafficking in persons is punished by a special law and is a malum prohibitum offense; good faith and absence of criminal intent are not defenses. Similarly, the willingness or consent of the child victims does not negate criminal liability; a minor’s consent is rendered meaningless under the law.

• Trafficking in Children Does Not Require Coercive Means — Under Section 3(a), paragraph 2, of R.A. No. 9208, as amended by R.A. No. 10364, when the trafficked person is a child (a person below 18 years of age), the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, or receipt for the purpose of exploitation constitutes trafficking even if it does not involve threat, force, coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power, or taking advantage of vulnerability. The minority of the victim alone substitutes for the means element.

• Irrelevance of a Minor’s Consent — The consent of a minor to sexual exploitation is not a defense in trafficking cases. Because minors cannot give valid consent, any purported acquiescence is treated as meaningless, and the crime is committed regardless of the child’s willingness.

• Trafficking as Malum Prohibitum — Qualified trafficking in persons is a crime under a special law and is classified as malum prohibitum. The absence of criminal intent or good faith, including ignorance of the victim’s minority due to misrepresentation, does not exculpate the accused.

• Consummation by Mere Transaction — The crime of trafficking in persons is consummated by the mere act of recruiting or transacting to offer a person for sexual exploitation. Actual sexual intercourse need not occur; once the victim is offered, provided, or maintained for purposes of prostitution in exchange for money, the offense is complete.

• Sufficiency of Corroborative Testimonies in Entrapment Cases — The consistent and corroborating testimonies of the minor victims and the police officers who conducted the entrapment operation are sufficient to sustain a conviction for qualified trafficking.

• “[T]he minor's consent to the sexual transaction [is] irrelevant to the commission of the crime. [K]nowledge or consent of the minor is not a defense under R.A. No. 9208. The victim's consent is rendered meaningless due to the coercive, abusive, or deceptive means employed by perpetrators of human trafficking. Even without the use of coercive, abusive, or deceptive means, a minor's consent is not given out of his or her own free will.” — This passage underscores the rationale for disregarding a child victim’s consent in trafficking offenses.

• “It did not matter that there was no threat, force, coercion, abduction, fraud, deception or abuse of power that was employed by [the accused] when she involved [the minor] in her illicit sexual trade. [The minor] was still a minor when she was exposed to prostitution by the prodding, promises and acts of [the accused].” (Quoting People v. De Dios) — The Court reaffirmed that the absence of coercive means is immaterial when the victim is a child.

• “[T]here is no requirement that there be an actual sexual intercourse with the victim to sustain a finding of trafficking. [T]he crime is considered consummated even if no sexual intercourse had taken place since the mere transaction consummates the crime.” — This defines the point of consummation for trafficking cases.

• People v. Casio, 749 Phil. 458 (2014) — Established the three elements of trafficking in persons under R.A. No. 9208 and clarified that consent of a minor is not a defense; followed and quoted extensively.

• People v. De Dios, 832 Phil. 1034 (2018) — Held that threat, force, or coercion need not be proved when the trafficked person is a minor; cited for the rule that taking advantage of a minor’s vulnerability is sufficient.

• People v. Ramirez, G.R. No. 217978, 30 January 2019 — Reiterated that a minor’s acquiescence or receipt of payment does not constitute a valid defense to trafficking.

• People v. Rodriguez, 818 Phil. 625 (2017) and Santiago, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 213760, 1 July 2019 — Affirmed that corroborating testimonies of minor victims and police officers are adequate to sustain a trafficking conviction.

• People v. Estonilo, G.R. No. 248694, 14 October 2020 — Ruled that sexual intercourse need not be consummated; the gravamen is the act of recruiting for sexual exploitation.

• Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267 (2013) — Applied for the imposition of 6% interest per annum on damages from finality until full payment.

• Section 3(a), R.A. No. 9208, as amended by R.A. No. 10364 — Defines “Trafficking in Persons” to include the recruitment, obtaining, hiring, providing, offering, transportation, transfer, maintaining, harboring, or receipt of persons for the purpose of exploitation, which includes prostitution or sexual exploitation. The second paragraph expressly provides that the recruitment or receipt of a child for exploitation constitutes trafficking even without any of the enumerated means. The Court applied this to excuse proof of threat or coercion because the victims were minors.

• Section 4(a), R.A. No. 9208, as amended — Enumerates the acts of trafficking, including recruiting, obtaining, hiring, providing, or offering a person for the purpose of prostitution, pornography, or sexual exploitation. The Court found accused-appellant’s conduct fell squarely within this provision.

• Section 6(a), R.A. No. 9208, as amended — Qualifies the crime when the trafficked person is a child. The victims being 15 and 17 years old triggered this qualifying circumstance, elevating the penalty to life imprisonment.

• Section 12(e), R.A. No. 10364 (formerly Section 10(c), R.A. No. 9208) — Prescribes the penalty for qualified trafficking: life imprisonment and a fine of not less than P2,000,000.00 but not more than P5,000,000.00. The lower courts’ imposition of life imprisonment and a fine of P2,000,000.00 per count was held to be in accordance with this provision.

Leonen (Chairperson), Inting, and Delos Santos, JJ., concurred. Hernando, J., was on leave.