Are the elements of threat, force, or coercion necessary to establish child trafficking cases? | G.R. No. 259133

Facts

Police operatives from the Philippine National Police Women and Children Protection Center (PNP-WCPC) and Anti Trafficking in Person Division formed a team to investigate and conduct surveillance in Rizal after receiving information from a confidential informant about child trafficking

On March 15, 2016, the team proceeded to the area subject of the information and found Villaria and Maghirang, sitting at a table. The confidential informant called them to join the team’s table to talk. A few hours later, Maghirang asked the team if they wanted to have lady companions aged 14 to 18 for sex, with prices ranging from Php 1,000.00 for three hours to Php 3,000.00 for an overnight.  A police officer informed them that they would be back to celebrate a friend’s birthday. The accused were arrested on the agreed date after bringing several female minors to the hotel room and accepting marked money from the police.

During the trial, the victims revealed that the accused enticed them to attend a party and perform sexual acts in exchange for money.

The accused argued that the prosecution failed to prove they threatened, forced, or coerced the minors into prostitution.

ISSUE: Is threat, force, or coercion required in child trafficking cases?

Ruling

NO.

The elements of trafficking in persons, as derived from its definition under Section 3 (a) of Republic Act No. 9208, as amended by Republic Act No. 10364, are: 

1. The act of “recruitment, obtaining, providing, offering, transportation, transfer, harboring, or receipt of persons with or without the victim’s consent or knowledge, within or across national borders;
2. The means used which include “threat or use of force, or other forms of coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power of position, taking advantage of the vulnerability of the person, or the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another, and
3. The purpose of trafficking is exploitation which includes exploitation or the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or service, slavery, servitude or the removal or sale of organs

All of the elements of qualified trafficking were proven beyond reasonable doubt. The testimonies of the victims clearly established that the appellants recruited, obtained, hired, provided, offered, and transported the minors for the purpose of “awra” or prostitution. Their testimonies were corroborated by PINSP Abana who stated that he negotiated with the accused-appellants to procure the sexual services of the victims in exchange for money at an agreed price. It was further established that all the victims were minors at the time of trafficking. 

The absence of threat, force, or coercion is immaterial and irrelevant. Under Section 3 (a) of Republic Act No. 9208, as amended, the crime is still considered trafficking if it involves the “recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, or receipt of a child for the purpose of exploitation” even if the means employed are not within those outlined in the law. At any rate, accused-appellants evidently took advantage of the victims’ youth and need to earn money to obtain their consent.