G.R. No. 252507. April 18, 2022.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. BBB AND XXX, ACCUSED; BBB, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS

Accused-appellant BBB, together with her co-accused XXX who remained at large, was charged with Qualified Trafficking in Persons under Republic Act No. 9208 (the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003), as amended. The Information alleged that sometime prior to and on July 28, 2014, in Manila, they conspired to commit trafficking against AAA, a 14-year-old minor, for the purpose of sexual exploitation. The means alleged included offering or contracting marriage through force, coercion, fraud, deception, abuse of power, or taking advantage of vulnerability, and giving payments or benefits to achieve the minor’s consent for marriage in exchange for sexual exploitation.
The prosecution evidence established that AAA was born on August 6, 2000, making her 13 years old at the time of the incident on July 28, 2014. The case came to light when AAA, accompanied by her mother (appellant BBB), attended a pre-departure counseling seminar at the Commission on Filipino Overseas (CFO) on October 3, 2014. The CFO officer, Lucille Ronda, noticed AAA’s young age and distress. AAA revealed she was deceived by her mother into going to the Golden Mosque in Quiapo, where she was forced to marry XXX, a 56-year-old man. Appellant told AAA the marriage was necessary so she could travel to Kuwait and inherit XXX’s wealth. Investigation revealed that AAA’s birth year on the marriage certificate was altered from “2000” to “1990” to make her appear 24 years old.
AAA disclosed through letters and interviews with social workers and NBI investigators that her mother had, for years, coerced her into allowing XXX to perform sexual acts on her, citing his financial support to the family. The sexual abuse occurred multiple times when XXX was in the Philippines. Psychological evaluations diagnosed AAA with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and trauma from the sexual violence, exacerbated by her mother’s awareness and facilitation of the abuse.
The defense, consisting solely of appellant BBB’s testimony, claimed that XXX was her employer in Kuwait who provided financial support. She denied forcing AAA into marriage, claiming the ceremony was a mere engagement (pamamanhikan) and that AAA loved XXX. She asserted she was unaware of any sexual abuse.
The Regional Trial Court convicted BBB of Qualified Trafficking in Persons. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Hence, this appeal.

ISSUE

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

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the appeal and AFFIRMED the conviction. The Court found all elements of Qualified Trafficking in Persons under Section 4(c) in relation to Section 6(a) and (d) of R.A. No. 9208, as amended, to be present.
The elements of trafficking under Section 4(c) are: (1) the act of “offering or contracting marriage, real or simulated”; (2) for the purpose of acquiring, buying, offering, selling, or trading a person; (3) to engage in prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary servitude, or debt bondage. The qualifying circumstances under Section 6 are: (a) the trafficked person is a child, and (d) the offender is a parent of the trafficked person.
The evidence conclusively proved these elements. First, appellant orchestrated a real marriage contract between her minor daughter AAA and XXX. Second, the purpose was to “acquire, buy, offer, sell, or trade” AAA, as appellant traded her daughter’s welfare and person for the continued financial support from XXX. Third, this was done to engage AAA in sexual exploitation, as proven by the repeated sexual abuse facilitated by appellant and the marriage intended to give XXX perpetual sexual access. The qualifying circumstances were also present: AAA was a 13-year-old child, and the offender was her biological mother.
The Court rejected appellant’s defenses. Her claim of a mere pamamanhikan was belied by the Certificate of Marriage. Her denial of knowledge of the sexual abuse was contradicted by AAA’s consistent accounts that her mother instructed her to submit to XXX’s sexual acts. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, particularly the social workers and psychologists, were found credible, detailed, and consistent, establishing AAA’s vulnerability and the psychological impact of the trafficking.
The crime is qualified under the law, warranting the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of Two Million to Five Million Pesos. The Court affirmed the penalties imposed by the lower courts and awarded AAA moral and exemplary damages, with interest.