G.R. No. 261134 , October 11, 2023
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Anabelle Yamson y Montero a.k.a. “Mommy Janice,” and Randy Tacda y Huelar a.k.a. “Biboy,” Accused-Appellants.

FACTS

Accused-appellants Anabelle Yamson (floor manager “Mommy Janice”) and Randy Tacda (waiter/cashier “Biboy”) were charged with Qualified Trafficking in Persons under RA 9208, as amended by RA 10364, and Anabelle was separately charged with Child Abuse under RA 7610. The charges stemmed from operations at Love Birds KTV Bar. The prosecution presented witnesses, including IACAT agents Rugie Lito Gay and Paul Vincent M. Tamaray, who conducted surveillance on October 22, 2013, and an entrapment/rescue operation on October 24, 2013. During these operations, Anabelle offered them women and VIP rooms for sexual services. Victims AAA261134, BBB261134, and CCC261134, all 17 years old, testified that they were hired as Guest Relations Officers (GROs) and were required to perform “table” services (drinking with customers, allowing kissing and touching), “VIP” services (sexual intercourse in VIP rooms), and “bar find” services (sexual intercourse in hotels) for money. They identified Anabelle as the one who assigned them to customers and made introductions emphasizing their youth and virginity, and Randy as the one who gave them their daily earnings. The defense presented denials, with Anabelle claiming she was outside the bar applying as a waitress when arrested.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of Anabelle Yamson and Randy Tacda for Qualified Trafficking in Persons and, for Anabelle, Child Abuse.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions with modifications. It held that all elements of Qualified Trafficking in Persons were established: (1) the acts of recruiting, transporting, transferring, harboring, or receiving a person; (2) through means such as abuse of vulnerability or deception; (3) for the purpose of prostitution or sexual exploitation. The minority of the victims (17 years old) and the commission of the crime against four persons qualified the trafficking as “in large scale,” warranting life imprisonment and a fine. Anabelle, as principal by direct participation (floor manager who recruited, assigned, and offered the victims), was convicted under Section 4(a) in relation to Sections 3(a) and 6(a) and (c) of RA 9208, as amended. Randy, as an accomplice (waiter/cashier who facilitated the crime by providing the victims’ earnings and supporting the operation), was convicted under Section 4-B in relation to Section 10(c) of RA 10364. The Court also affirmed Anabelle’s conviction for Child Abuse under Section 5(a) of RA 7610, as her acts constituted promoting, facilitating, and inducing child prostitution. The penalties imposed by the Court of Appeals were upheld: for Anabelle, life imprisonment and a P2,000,000.00 fine for Qualified Trafficking, and an indeterminate penalty of 12 years, 10 months, and 21 days to 14 years, 10 months, and 20 days for Child Abuse; for Randy, an indeterminate penalty of 15 years, 6 months, and 20 days to 20 years for his accomplice liability.