Brozoto vs. People

A conviction for qualified trafficking in persons and child prostitution may be sustained on the sole testimony of the minor victim where the testimony is straightforward, consistent with human nature, and corroborated by medical findings, and the victim's consent is not a valid defense when the trafficked person is a child presumed by law incapable of giving rational consent to sexual activity.

Petitioner Wilbert Brozoto y De Leon was charged under two separate Informations with violations of R.A. No. 9208 (Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003) and R.A. No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act). The offenses were committed on November 28, 2011, prior to the amendment of R.A. 9208 by R.A. No. 10364 (Expanded Trafficking in Persons Act of 2012), such that the original provisions of R.A. 9208 govern. The private offended party, AAA, was 14 years old at the time of the incident, having been born on May 1, 1997, as evidenced by her birth certificate.

On November 23, 2011, AAA, then 14 years old, had a misunderstanding with her mother and ran away from home. With nowhere to go, she stayed with a friend named Marivic for four to five days before transferring to the house of a childhood friend named Dianne, where she helped with household chores in exchange for food. On November 27, 2011, AAA met petitioner Wilbert Brozoto y De Leon through a common friend named Mary Joy. During that encounter, petitioner asked AAA whether she would be willing to engage in sexual intercourse for money. With Mary Joy's persuasion, AAA agreed, as she needed money and had no one else to depend on. Petitioner then instructed AAA to tell her future clients that she was already 18 years old.

The next day, November 28, 2011, Mary Joy approached AAA and told her that petitioner had found her a customer, whom she would meet at his house later that day. Late that afternoon, AAA met a man and rode with him in a red car. When the man asked about her age, AAA replied that she was 18, following petitioner's instruction. At around 7:00 in the evening, they arrived at a house where the man led AAA to a room, instructed her to remove her clothes, and engaged in sexual intercourse with her—inserting his penis into her vagina, fondling her breast, and inserting his finger into her vagina. After about an hour, the man brought AAA back to petitioner's house. The man gave AAA P2,000.00, from which she gave petitioner P600.00 as his share. AAA then bought food and went home.

On November 30, 2011, AAA learned that her sister, together with personnel from the Crime Investigation and Detection Group, was looking for her. She gathered her things and moved to the house of another friend, as she was too ashamed and embarrassed to return home. On December 4, 2011, AAA's mother finally found her. That evening, AAA told her mother everything she had gone through. They immediately reported the incident to the police station, where AAA and her mother executed their sworn statements. The following day, December 5, 2011, Dr. Anna Marie Cabral of the regional hospital examined AAA and found finger-like lesions around her labia minora and healed lesions at the 7 o'clock position of her hymen.

Petitioner presented a different account. He testified that on the day of the incident, he and his wife were at the small town lottery, remitting the collection of bets—they were there at around 10:00 in the morning, returned from 3:30 to 5:30 in the afternoon for the second draw, and attended the last draw at around 9:30 in the evening. He claimed to have first known AAA only on November 29, 2011, when she and three other companions passed by his house. The RTC found AAA's testimony to be candid, straightforward, and unequivocal, corroborated by Dr. Cabral's medical findings, and brushed aside petitioner's denial and alibi as weak defenses that could not prevail over the victim's positive testimony.

• Insufficiency of Evidence: Petitioner asserted that the uncorroborated testimony of AAA was not sufficient to establish that there was prostitution, and thus it cannot be concluded that petitioner committed trafficking in persons and child abuse.
• Incredible Testimony: Petitioner argued that the CA erred in giving credence to the testimony of the prosecution witness despite its alleged incredibility and inconsistency.
• Defense of Denial: Petitioner maintained that the CA gravely erred in dismissing his defense of denial.

• Sufficiency of Single Witness: Respondent countered that the testimony of a single witness may be sufficient to produce conviction if the same appears to be trustworthy and reliable.
• Weakness of Denial: Respondent argued that denial is a weak defense as against the positive identification by the victim.
• Absence of Improper Motive: Respondent maintained that no improper motive could be imputed to AAA to show that she would falsely testify against petitioner.
• Deference to Factual Findings: Respondent argued that great weight is accorded to the factual findings of the trial court, which are generally not overturned by appellate courts.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: Whether the prosecution proved all the elements of sexual abuse under Section 5, Article III of R.A. No. 7610.
• Credibility of Witness: Whether the CA erred in giving credence to the testimony of the prosecution witness despite its alleged incredibility and inconsistency.
• Defense of Denial: Whether the CA erred in dismissing the petitioner's defense of denial.
• Proper Penalty: Whether the penalties and damages imposed should be modified.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: Yes. All elements of qualified trafficking in persons under R.A. 9208 and child prostitution under Section 5(a) of R.A. 7610 were established through AAA's lone testimony, corroborated by medical findings of genital lesions.

• Credibility of Witness: No error. The lone testimony of AAA was straightforward, convincing, and consistent with human nature, unflawed by material inconsistency, and thus passed the test of credibility; the testimonies of child-victims are given full weight and credit.

• Defense of Denial: No error. Denial is an intrinsically weak defense that cannot prevail over the positive testimony and identification by the victim, especially absent strong evidence of non-culpability.

• Proper Penalty: Yes, modified. The conviction was upgraded to qualified trafficking in persons with life imprisonment and a P2,000,000.00 fine; the indeterminate sentence for child prostitution was adjusted to 14 years and 8 months to 20 years of reclusion temporal; and damages were increased.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: The elements of trafficking in persons under R.A. 9208 are: (1) the act of recruitment, transportation, transfer or harboring, or receipt of persons; (2) the means used, including fraud, deception, or taking advantage of the vulnerability of the person; and (3) the purpose of exploitation, including prostitution or sexual exploitation. When the trafficked person is a child, the crime is qualified under Section 6(a). AAA's testimony proved that petitioner recruited her for the purpose of prostitution—asking her to engage in sexual intercourse for money, instructing her to lie about her age, procuring a customer, and receiving P600.00 as commission. AAA was 14 years old at the time, as established by her birth certificate, qualifying the offense. For child prostitution under Section 5(a) of R.A. 7610, the elements are: (1) the accused engages in, promotes, facilitates or induces child prostitution; (2) the act is done through, but not limited to, acting as a procurer of a child prostitute; (3) the child is exploited or intended to be exploited in prostitution; and (4) the child is below 18 years of age. AAA's testimony established that petitioner acted as a procurer by finding a customer for her and benefiting financially from the arrangement. The medical findings of Dr. Cabral—finger-like lesions around AAA's labia minora and healed lesions at the 7 o'clock position of her hymen—corroborated AAA's account of sexual exploitation. A child's consent is not a valid defense, as a child is presumed by law incapable of giving rational consent to any sexual intercourse; the victim's consent is rendered meaningless due to the coercive, abusive, or deceptive means employed, and even without such means, a minor's consent is not given out of free will.

• Credibility of Witness: The RTC found AAA's testimony to be straightforward and consistent, a finding affirmed by the CA. The rule is that when the victim's testimony is straightforward, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things, unflawed by any material or significant inconsistency, it passes the test of credibility and the accused may be convicted solely on the basis thereof. The testimonies of child-victims are given full weight and credit, as youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth. Courts are inclined to give credit to the account of witnesses of tender age, considering their relative vulnerability and the shame to which they would be exposed if the matter testified to were not true. The findings of the trial court on witness credibility carry great weight and respect, and this rule finds even more stringent application where the said findings are sustained by the CA. No improper motive was imputed to AAA to show that she would falsely testify against petitioner.

• Defense of Denial: Denial is an intrinsically weak defense that must be supported by strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility, and alibi is the weakest of all defenses, as it is easy to contrive and difficult to disprove. Petitioner's denial and alibi—claiming he was at the small town lottery remitting collections—could not prevail over AAA's positive testimony. The Court has consistently ruled that denial cannot prevail against positive identification.

• Proper Penalty: Under Section 10(c) of R.A. 9208, qualified trafficking is punishable by life imprisonment and a fine of not less than P2,000,000.00 but not more than P5,000,000.00. The RTC had convicted petitioner of trafficking under Sections 3(a) and 4(a) in relation to Section 10(a), but the Court deemed it proper to convict him of qualified trafficking under Section 6(a), since AAA was a child. For the R.A. 7610 violation, the penalty is reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua; in the absence of mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the proper imposable penalty is reclusion temporal in its maximum period. Because R.A. 7610 adopts the nomenclature of penalties under the Revised Penal Code, the Indeterminate Sentence Law applies, entitling petitioner to a maximum term within reclusion temporal in its maximum period (17 years, 4 months and 1 day to 20 years) and a minimum term within the range of the penalty next lower, i.e., prision mayor in its medium period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period (8 years and 1 day to 14 years and 8 months). Following People vs. Dulay, the proper indeterminate sentence is 14 years and 8 months of reclusion temporal as minimum to 20 years of reclusion temporal as maximum. Moral damages of P500,000.00 and exemplary damages of P100,000.00 were warranted for trafficking, analogous to crimes of seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts. Civil indemnity of P50,000.00 was awarded for the child prostitution count. All monetary awards earn 6% interest per annum from finality of judgment until full payment.

• Elements of Trafficking in Persons — The crime comprises three elements: (1) the act of recruitment, transportation, transfer or harboring, or receipt of persons with or without the victim's consent; (2) the means used, including threat, force, coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or position, taking advantage of vulnerability, or giving/receiving of payments or benefits; and (3) the purpose of exploitation, including prostitution or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery, servitude, or removal or sale of organs. When the trafficked person is a child, the crime is qualified trafficking even without any of the means set forth in the law.

• Incapacity of Children to Consent — A child is presumed by law incapable of giving rational consent to any sexual intercourse. The victim's consent is rendered meaningless due to the coercive, abusive, or deceptive means employed by perpetrators of human trafficking; even without such means, a minor's consent is not given out of free will. Children should not be deemed to have validly consented to adult sexual activity, as they are not capable of fully understanding the nature or import of their actions, and the State as parens patriae is obligated to minimize the risk of harm to those who, because of minority, are unable to fully take care of themselves.

• Credibility of Child-Victim Testimony — The testimonies of child-victims are given full weight and credit, as youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth. Courts are inclined to give credit to the account of witnesses of tender age, considering their relative vulnerability and the shame to which they would be exposed if the matter testified to were not true. When the victim's testimony is straightforward, convincing, and consistent with human nature, unflawed by material or significant inconsistency, it passes the test of credibility and the accused may be convicted solely on the basis thereof. Findings of the trial court on witness credibility carry great weight and respect, with more stringent application where sustained by the CA.

• Denial and Alibi as Weak Defenses — Denial is an intrinsically weak defense that must be supported by strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility. Alibi is the weakest of all defenses, as it is easy to contrive and difficult to disprove. Neither can prevail against the positive identification and testimony of the victim.

• Applicability of the Indeterminate Sentence Law to Special Laws — When a special law adopts the nomenclature of penalties provided under the Revised Penal Code, the accused may enjoy the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, entitling him to a minimum term within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed and a maximum term within the range of the proper imposable penalty.

• "Human beings are not chattels whose sexual favors are bought or sold by greedy pimps. Those who profit in this way by recruiting minors are rightfully, by law, labeled as criminals." — Quoted from Santiago, Jr. vs. People to underscore the gravity of recruiting minors for sexual exploitation and the State's duty to prosecute and punish such conduct.

• "The gravamen of the crime of trafficking is 'the act of recruiting or using, with or without consent, a fellow human being for [inter alia,] sexual exploitation.'" — Defines the essential nature of the crime of trafficking in persons, emphasizing that the act of recruitment or use for exploitation is the core of the offense.

• "a child is presumed by law to be incapable of giving rational consent to any sexual intercourse" — From Malto vs. People, establishing the foundational principle that minors cannot validly consent to sexual activity and must be protected from the harmful consequences of attempts at adult sexual behavior.

• "The victim's consent is rendered meaningless due to the coercive, abusive, or deceptive means employed by perpetrators of human trafficking. Even without the use of coercive, abusive, or deceptive means, a minor's consent is not given out of his or her own free will." — Explains why consent is not a valid defense in child trafficking cases, articulating the legal rationale for disregarding a minor's apparent acquiescence.

• People vs. Casio, 749 Phil. 458 (2014) — Controlling precedent defining the three elements of trafficking in persons (act, means, purpose) and explaining that a minor's consent is not given out of free will.

• People vs. Dulay, 695 Phil. 742 (2012) — Followed for the enumerated elements of Section 5(a) of R.A. 7610, the proper indeterminate sentence (14 years and 8 months of reclusion temporal as minimum to 20 years as maximum), and the award of P50,000.00 civil indemnity.

• Santiago, Jr. vs. People, G.R. No. 213760, July 1, 2019 — Cited for the principle that those who profit by recruiting minors for sexual exploitation are criminals subject to aggressive law enforcement, and that a child's consent is not a valid defense.

• Malto vs. People, 560 Phil. 119 (2007) — Foundational authority establishing that children cannot validly consent to adult sexual activity, with the State as parens patriae obligated to protect them from harmful consequences.

• People vs. Lalli, 675 Phil. 126 (2011) — Followed for the award of P500,000.00 moral damages and P100,000.00 exemplary damages in trafficking cases, on the rationale that the offense is analogous to seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts.

• Nacar vs. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267 (2013) — Applied for the imposition of 6% interest per annum on all monetary awards from the finality of judgment until full payment.

• Section 3(a), R.A. No. 9208 — Defines "trafficking in persons" as the recruitment, transportation, transfer or harboring, or receipt of persons by means including fraud, deception, or taking advantage of vulnerability, for the purpose of exploitation including prostitution. Applied to establish that petitioner's recruitment of AAA constituted trafficking.

• Section 4(a), R.A. No. 9208 — Enumerates the act of recruiting, transporting, transferring, harboring, providing, or receiving a person for the purpose of prostitution as unlawful. Applied to petitioner's act of recruiting AAA and procuring a customer for her.

• Section 6(a), R.A. No. 9208 — Provides that trafficking is qualified when the trafficked person is a child. Applied to upgrade the conviction from trafficking to qualified trafficking, as AAA was 14 years old.

• Section 10(c), R.A. No. 9208 — Prescribes the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of not less than P2,000,000.00 but not more than P5,000,000.00 for qualified trafficking. Applied to impose life imprisonment and a P2,000,000.00 fine.

• Section 5(a), R.A. No. 7610 — Penalizes those who engage in, promote, facilitate, or induce child prostitution, including acting as a procurer of a child prostitute, with reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua. Applied to convict petitioner for procuring AAA as a child prostitute.

• Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act No. 4103, as amended) — Applied to petitioner's R.A. 7610 conviction because the law adopts the nomenclature of penalties under the Revised Penal Code, entitling him to an indeterminate sentence.

Leonen (Chairperson), Hernando, Inting, and Delos Santos, JJ., concurred.