GR 258194; (May, 2024) (Digest)
G.R. No. 258194 , May 29, 2024
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. XXX, Accused-Appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant XXX was charged with eight counts of crimes against a minor, AAA, who was 13 years old at the time of the incidents. The charges stemmed from events occurring between December 31, 2016, and January 11, 2017. The Informations alleged: (1) three counts of violating Section 5(a)(1) of R.A. No. 7610 (procuration of a child for prostitution) on December 31, 2016, January 4, 2017, and January 11, 2017; (2) three counts of violating Section 4(a) of R.A. No. 7610 in relation to Sections 6(a) and 10(c) of R.A. No. 9208 , as amended (qualified trafficking in persons) on the same dates; and (3) two counts of violating Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 (sexual abuse of a child) on January 3 and 5, 2017. The prosecution’s evidence, primarily from AAA’s testimony, established that accused-appellant recruited AAA for an escort service, facilitated her sexual encounters with male clients for monetary consideration, and on two occasions, sexually assaulted her himself through coercion and intimidation.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed with modification the Regional Trial Court’s judgment finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of guilt. The Court found AAA’s testimony to be credible, consistent, and sufficient to establish all elements of the crimes charged. For the violations of Section 5(a)(1) of R.A. No. 7610 , the prosecution proved that accused-appellant acted as a procurer by facilitating AAA’s prostitution for monetary consideration. For the violations of R.A. No. 9208 (Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act), the Court held that the acts of recruitment for sexual exploitation, taking advantage of AAA’s vulnerability as a minor, constituted qualified trafficking. For the violations of Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 , the Court found that accused-appellant, through coercion and intimidation, had sexual intercourse with AAA against her will. The minority of the victim was duly proven by her Certificate of Live Birth, which qualifies the offenses and warrants the imposition of higher penalties. The Court modified the penalties and awarded damages in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.