G.R. No. 266754 , January 29, 2024
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MARIVIC SALDIVAR Y REGATCHO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS

The case stemmed from an Information charging Marivic Saldivar with Qualified Trafficking in Persons under RA 9208, as amended. The prosecution alleged that from March 2016 to May 2017, Saldivar, taking advantage of the vulnerability of AAA, a 14-year-old street child, took custody of her and acted as a procurer, pimping her to different male customers for money. AAA testified that after being introduced to Saldivar, she lived with her and was forced into prostitution, with Saldivar receiving payment from the men. AAA was eventually rescued, and a medico-legal report confirmed blunt penetrating trauma to her hymen. Saldivar, in her defense, claimed AAA voluntarily engaged in prostitution and only pointed men in AAA’s direction when asked. She alleged AAA had a motive to lie due to being asked to leave and that social workers had a grudge against her.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Saldivar, sentencing her to life imprisonment and a fine. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but increased the moral damages. Saldivar appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing inconsistencies in AAA’s testimony, the lack of an entrapment operation, and the improbability of her actions given her own family’s living conditions.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Saldivar’s conviction for Qualified Trafficking in Persons.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction. The Court held that all elements of qualified trafficking under Section 4(a) in relation to Section 6(a) of RA 9208, as amended, were proven beyond reasonable doubt. The act of recruiting, harboring, and obtaining a child for the purpose of prostitution was established through AAA’s credible and categorical testimony, which was consistent on material points. The Court emphasized that the law protects children from exploitation, and their consent is immaterial and not a defense. The qualifying circumstance of the victim being a minor was also duly proven.
The Court rejected Saldivar’s arguments. First, minor inconsistencies in AAA’s testimony regarding the place of exploitation (a tent) did not undermine her credibility, as the specific location is not an element of the crime. Second, an entrapment operation is not a requisite for prosecution; the crime can be proven by direct testimony and circumstantial evidence. Third, the defense of denial and alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification and testimony of the victim. The medico-legal report corroborated AAA’s account of sexual abuse. Finally, the alleged motives of the victim and social workers were unsubstantiated. The Court found that Saldivar, by providing shelter and then procuring customers, took advantage of AAA’s vulnerability as a homeless minor, fulfilling the element of means under the law. Thus, the conviction was upheld, and the modified damages awarded by the CA were sustained.