G.R. No. 217978 January 30, 2019
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. NANCY LASACA RAMIREZ, Accused-Appellant

FACTS

Accused-appellant Nancy Lasaca Ramirez was charged with Qualified Trafficking in Persons under Republic Act No. 9208 . The prosecution alleged that on December 5, 2009, in Lapu-Lapu City, police officers conducted an entrapment operation. Posing as customers, PO1 Nemenzo and PO1 Llanes were approached by minors AAA and BBB at a KTV bar. When the officers requested two more girls, Ramirez intervened, offered to provide them, and later returned with two additional women. An agreement was reached for sexual services at ₱600 per girl, totaling ₱2,400. Ramirez instructed the girls to accept the payment. The group then boarded a taxi, where the payment was handed over, prompting the officers to reveal their identities and arrest the group. BBB later identified Ramirez as the pimp.
In her defense, Ramirez denied the allegations, claiming she was merely watching a live band with her sister when she was abruptly arrested. She asserted that BBB was the one who negotiated with the customers and received the payment, arguing that it was contrary to human nature to pay in advance before any sexual act occurred. The Regional Trial Court found her guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced her to life imprisonment and a fine. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of accused-appellant for Qualified Trafficking in Persons.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction. The Court held that all elements of trafficking under Section 3(a) of R.A. 9208 were proven beyond reasonable doubt. The act of recruiting, transporting, or obtaining a person for the purpose of prostitution or sexual exploitation constitutes trafficking. The prosecution successfully established through the testimonies of the police officers and the minor victims, AAA and BBB, that Ramirez actively recruited and provided the minors, negotiated the price for sexual services, and instructed them to collect payment. Her direct participation was clear and crucial to the transaction.
The Court rejected Ramirez’s arguments. Her claim of merely being a bystander was contradicted by the positive and categorical identification by the victims. The argument that advance payment was unnatural is irrelevant, as the law punishes the act of offering or recruiting for sexual exploitation, which is consummated upon agreement, not upon the actual performance of the sexual act or payment. The involvement of minors, AAA (16) and BBB (15), qualified the offense under Section 6(a) of the law, warranting the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine. The trial court’s assessment of witness credibility, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, is accorded great weight and respect. Thus, no reversible error was committed in upholding the judgment of conviction.