G.R. No. 227704 , April 10, 2019
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. Susan Sayo y Reyes and Alfredo Roxas y Sagon, Accused-Appellant

FACTS

Accused-appellants were charged with violating Republic Act No. 9208 (Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003). The Information alleged that on November 15, 2005, in Pasig City, Susan Sayo recruited and transported minors AAA (15) and BBB (16), along with CCC, taking advantage of their vulnerability for prostitution. Alfredo Roxas, conspiring with Sayo, owned and operated a room in his apartment used as a prostitution den, receiving and harboring the trafficked persons for the same purpose. The prosecution established that Sayo acted as a pimp for the minors, providing them customers and taking a portion of their earnings. Roxas provided a room in his house for sexual activities for a fee and supplied condoms. The operation was confirmed through surveillance, leading to an entrapment where undercover agents, posing as customers, negotiated with Sayo and paid Roxas for the room. Upon the pre-arranged signal, both accused were arrested with the marked money in their possession.
The defense presented a denial, claiming the charges were fabricated. Sayo asserted she was merely a friend to the girls and a laundrywoman, while Roxas denied knowledge of any illicit activities, stating he was asleep during the incident and that the marked money was planted. The Regional Trial Court convicted both accused, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. They appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the prosecution failed to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that the elements of trafficking were not established.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of accused-appellants for violation of R.A. No. 9208 .

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the convictions. The Court meticulously examined the elements of trafficking under Section 4(a) of R.A. No. 9208 , which were all proven. The act of “recruitment” was satisfied by Sayo’s regular provision of customers to the minors, establishing a pattern of control and supervision for commercial sexual exploitation. The act of “transporting” was fulfilled when Sayo brought the minors from Pasig Plaza to Roxas’s apartment for the pre-arranged sexual transaction. The purpose of prostitution and sexual exploitation was evident from the negotiated fees for sexual services. The element of “means,” specifically “taking advantage of the vulnerability” of the persons, was conclusively established by the minors’ status as children, which per se constitutes vulnerability under the law. Roxas’s conviction was upheld based on conspiracy, demonstrated by his direct participation in providing the venue for a fee, fully aware of its use for prostitution with the trafficked minors. His actions in discussing the room rate and accepting payment in the presence of all parties showed a community of criminal design with Sayo. The defenses of denial and frame-up were rejected for being weak and unsupported by clear and convincing evidence, especially against the strong and consistent testimonies of the victims and the police operatives involved in the valid entrapment operation.