G.R. No. 267946 , May 27, 2024
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. NELL JACKEL TUAZON Y PANLAQUI, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Nell Jackel Tuazon y Panlaqui was charged with violation of Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9208 (the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003), as amended by R.A. No. 10364 , for trafficking a 16-year-old minor, AAA. The Information alleged that on or about August 19, 2016, he willfully engaged the services of AAA for prostitution through a sex peddler for PHP 4,500.00. AAA testified that she was invited by a certain “Mamu Respito” to meet friends. Mamu instructed her to enter a car where accused-appellant was the driver. They proceeded to a hotel. Inside the hotel room, accused-appellant disclosed he paid Mamu PHP 5,000.00 for AAA. He then kissed her, molested her, and attempted to have sexual intercourse with her while she cried and resisted. A hotel service crew and later police officers, alerted by AAA’s friend, intervened. AAA pointed to accused-appellant as her abuser. The medico-legal report indicated AAA had deep healed hymenal lacerations. The defense filed a demurrer to evidence, which was denied. Accused-appellant then exercised his right to remain silent and presented no evidence. The Regional Trial Court convicted him. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. Accused-appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming accused-appellant’s conviction for violation of Section 11 of R.A. No. 9208 , as amended.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the appeal and AFFIRMED the Decision of the Court of Appeals with MODIFICATION. The Court found all elements of trafficking in persons under Section 11 of R.A. No. 9208 , as amended, were present: (1) the act of “engaging the services” of a trafficked person for prostitution; (2) the means used, such as abuse of vulnerability; and (3) the purpose of exploitation, which includes sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct. The Court held that the act of “engaging the services” under Section 11 includes the conduct of a customer or buyer of services from a trafficked person. AAA’s credible and detailed testimony established that accused-appellant, as a paying customer, secured her for sexual exploitation through a sex peddler. His act of bringing her to a hotel, confining her, and molesting her constituted the crime. The minor’s consent is immaterial, and proof of sexual intercourse is not required. The medico-legal findings were consistent with AAA’s testimony of digital and penile intrusion. The defense of denial cannot prevail over positive identification. The penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals was proper: reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua (17 years and 4 months to 40 years of imprisonment) and a fine of PHP 500,000.00. The Court ordered accused-appellant to pay AAA PHP 100,000.00 as moral damages and PHP 100,000.00 as exemplary damages, with legal interest.