GR 261882; (January, 2023) (Digest)
G.R. No. 261882 , January 23, 2023
Arturo Realeza y Valenton, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.
FACTS
This case stemmed from an Information charging petitioner Arturo Realeza with Trafficking in Persons under Section 4(e) of Republic Act No. 9208 (the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003), as amended. The prosecution alleged that on November 19, 2016, Realeza knowingly offered the victim, AAA, to customers for sex in exchange for money. The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Special Task Force conducted an entrapment operation after receiving information that Realeza was offering a minor for sexual favors. During the operation, an NBI agent, posing as a customer, negotiated with Realeza, who offered AAA for sexual intercourse for a fee of P1,000.00 and prepared a makeshift cubicle for the act. After the marked money was given, Realeza was arrested. In his defense, Realeza denied the allegations, claiming the NBI agents visited for a drinking session and that the money given was merely a tip. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Realeza guilty beyond reasonable doubt, a decision affirmed with modification by the Court of Appeals (CA).
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed Realeza’s conviction for the crime of Trafficking in Persons under Section 4(a) of RA 9208, as amended.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the conviction. The Supreme Court held that all elements of Trafficking in Persons were established: (1) Realeza offered and provided AAA for a fee; (2) the means employed involved deception, as AAA was approached and told she would be introduced to a man who would give her money, without her full knowledge of the purpose; and (3) the purpose was exploitation for prostitution, as Realeza explicitly offered AAA for sexual intercourse in exchange for money. The Court emphasized that the law does not require the victim to actually be subjected to prostitution for the crime to be consummated; the act of offering or providing a person for that purpose is sufficient. Realeza’s defense of denial was deemed weak and unsubstantiated against the positive testimonies of prosecution witnesses. The RTC and CA decisions were upheld, sustaining Realeza’s penalty of twenty years imprisonment and a fine of P1,000,000.00, with the additional awards of moral and exemplary damages to AAA as modified by the CA.