GR 211465; (December, 2014) (Digest)
G.R. No. 211465 , December 3, 2014
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-appellee, vs. Shirley A. Casio, Accused-appellant.
FACTS
On May 2, 2008, the International Justice Mission (IJM) coordinated with a police team in Cebu City to entrap persons engaged in human trafficking. Police operatives, including decoys PO1 Luardo and PO1 Veloso, rented rooms at Queensland Motel. The decoys proceeded to Barangay Kamagayan, a red-light district. Accused Shirley A. Casio called their attention by saying, “Chicks mo dong?” (Do you like girls, guys?). The decoys expressed interest in young girls for guests waiting at a motel. Accused left and returned with minors AAA (17 years old) and BBB. After assuring the decoys of the girls’ sexual services for ₱500 each, accused accompanied them to the motel room. Upon receiving the marked money from the decoys, a pre-arranged signal was given, and the police team arrested accused. The marked money was confiscated from her hand. AAA testified that she worked as a prostitute, was solicited by accused on that day, and that accused was known as a pimp in the area. AAA’s minority was established by her birth certificate. Accused denied the charges, claiming she was a laundry woman who was merely asked by two men to contact someone named Gingging.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused Shirley A. Casio beyond reasonable doubt for Qualified Trafficking in Persons under Republic Act No. 9208 .
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The elements of trafficking under RA 9208 were present: (1) the act of “recruiting” AAA and BBB; (2) the means used were not relevant as the law presumes coercion when the victim is a child; (3) the purpose was for prostitution and sexual exploitation; and (4) AAA was a minor at the time. The defense of instigation was rejected; the operation was a valid entrapment where police officers merely provided an opportunity for the accused to commit the crime. The accused’s act of soliciting customers, presenting the minors, and receiving payment consummated the crime; actual sexual intercourse was not required. The minor’s consent or prior engagement in prostitution is immaterial and not a defense under the law. The Court of Appeals’ modification of the penalty to life imprisonment and a fine of ₱2,000,000.00, plus moral damages to each victim, was affirmed.