G.R. No. 269401, April 11, 2024
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MARY JOYCE ALMERO Y PASCUAL ALIAS “MAJOY”, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Mary Joyce Almero was charged with violation of Section 4(k)(2) in relation to Section 6(a) of the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003, as amended. The Information alleged that on September 30, 2018, Almero, by taking advantage of the minor-complainant AAA’s vulnerability, willfully recruited, procured, or offered AAA, a 14-year-old minor, to a certain “Carlo” for a fee for the purpose of sexual exploitation. The parties stipulated that AAA was a minor and that a medical examination revealed her hymen was no longer intact.
The prosecution’s evidence established that on September 30, 2018, Almero, via Facebook, repeatedly asked AAA if she was willing to have sex with a man for money. After persistent persuasion and despite AAA’s initial refusals, Almero brought AAA to meet Carlo. AAA, Almero, and Carlo rode in Carlo’s vehicle to a location where Carlo and AAA went into a room. Inside, AAA performed fellatio on Carlo, and Carlo touched her breasts and vagina. Afterwards, Carlo gave Almero PHP 1,000.00. Facebook message screenshots showed Almero later asking AAA if she would go with Carlo again. AAA reported the incident to her mother 17 days later.
The defense claimed AAA sought Almero’s help regarding a suspected pregnancy and that it was AAA who insisted on meeting Carlo for a drinking session, which did not push through. The trial court convicted Almero of qualified trafficking and sentenced her to life imprisonment, a fine of PHP 2,000,000.00, and damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming accused-appellant Almero’s conviction for qualified trafficking in persons.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the appeal and AFFIRMED the conviction. The Court held that all elements of qualified trafficking under Section 4(k)(2) of RA 9208, as amended, were proven beyond reasonable doubt: (1) The accused recruited, transported, or offered a person for the purpose of exploitation; (2) The act was done through any means; (3) The means included “taking advantage of the vulnerability of the person” as defined under the law; and (4) The trafficked person was a child. The Court found that Almero, through repeated and persistent solicitation via Facebook and in person, recruited and offered the minor AAA to Carlo for sexual intercourse in exchange for money, taking advantage of AAA’s vulnerability as a child. AAA’s credible testimony, the medico-legal findings, and the Facebook message screenshots corroborated the prosecution’s case. The defense of denial was inherently weak and could not prevail over the positive identification and credible testimony of the victim. The penalties and awards of damages imposed by the lower courts were affirmed with modification, imposing legal interest on all monetary awards.