G.R. No. 266608, August 07, 2024
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Roxin Grace Batomalaque, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Roxin Grace Batomalaque was charged with two counts of violating Section 4(e) of Republic Act No. 9208 (Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003). In Criminal Case No. II-14654, the Information alleged that from November 2008 to August 2009, Batomalaque, by means of deceit and taking advantage of his minority, poverty, and lack of education, recruited the minor AAA (6 years old) for sexual exploitation through cybersex. AAA was made to perform lascivious acts in front of a webcam at Batomalaque’s residence and was paid PHP 100.00. In Criminal Case No. II-14655, the Information alleged that during the same period, Batomalaque similarly recruited BBB (17 years old) for cybersex, instructing her to perform sexual acts, and paid her PHP 100.00 to PHP 150.00. Batomalaque pleaded not guilty. The prosecution presented witnesses AAA, BBB, their mother QQQ, another minor CCC, and NBI Special Investigator Arvin Cabigon. Their testimonies established that Batomalaque, their neighbor, took the minors to a locked room in her house equipped with a computer and webcam, forced them to perform sexual acts (including nudity, masturbation, fellatio, and sexual intercourse) alone or with others while being viewed by foreigners online, and paid them afterwards. The NBI executed a search warrant at Batomalaque’s residence, confiscating computer equipment. The defense presented Batomalaque and her husband, who denied the accusations, claiming the charges were fabricated due to a land dispute with QQQ’s family. The Regional Trial Court found Batomalaque guilty beyond reasonable doubt in both cases. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision. Batomalaque appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of accused-appellant Roxin Grace Batomalaque for violation of Section 4(e) of Republic Act No. 9208.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the appeal and AFFIRMED the Decision of the Court of Appeals with MODIFICATION. The Court found no merit in Batomalaque’s arguments challenging the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and the sufficiency of the evidence. The testimonies of the victims (AAA, BBB, and CCC) were found to be credible, consistent, and corroborative of each other on material points, establishing all the elements of qualified trafficking in persons under Section 4(e) of R.A. No. 9208. The acts of recruiting and maintaining the minors in a locked room to perform sexual acts for paying online customers constituted “acts of trafficking” for the purpose of sexual exploitation. The minority of AAA qualified the offense under Section 6(a) of the law. The defense of denial and frame-up was weak and unsupported by evidence. The penalty imposed by the CA was modified. For Criminal Case No. II-14654 (involving minor AAA), the Court imposed the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of Two Million Pesos (PHP 2,000,000.00), with the accessory penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification. For Criminal Case No. II-14655 (involving BBB), the Court imposed the penalty of imprisonment of twenty (20) years and a fine of One Million Pesos (PHP 1,000,000.00), with the accessory penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification. Accused-appellant was ordered to pay each victim moral damages and exemplary damages. The Court affirmed the grant of civil indemnity. All monetary awards shall earn legal interest at 6% per annum from finality of judgment until full payment.