People of the Philippines vs. Princess Gine C. San Miguel

A conviction for Qualified Trafficking in Persons under RA 9208, as amended by RA 10364, is proper where the prosecution proves the elements of trafficking and the minority of the victims, and where the accused was apprehended through a valid entrapment operation—not instigation—because the criminal intent originated in the accused and the law enforcers merely employed ruses and schemes to facilitate apprehension.

The offense is governed by Republic Act No. 9208, the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003, as amended by Republic Act No. 10364, the Expanded Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2012. The law defines Trafficking in Persons, including recruitment or offering of persons for prostitution or other forms of sexual exploitation, and provides that the offense is qualified when the person trafficked is a child. Princess Gine C. San Miguel was prosecuted under this statute.

An Information filed before Branch 4, Regional Trial Court, Manila charged Princess Gine C. San Miguel with trafficking in persons under Section 4(a) and (e) in relation to Section 6(a) and (c) of Republic Act No. 9208, as amended by Republic Act No. 10364. The Information alleged that on or about March 26, 2015, at Broadway Lodge located at the corners of C.M. Recto and Calero Streets, City of Manila, she willfully, knowingly, unlawfully, and feloniously hired and/or recruited CCC, DDD, and minors AAA (14 years old) and BBB (15 years old), and offered them to customers by acting as their procurer for prostitution and other forms of sexual exploitation for money, profit, or other consideration. Upon arraignment, she pleaded not guilty, and trial on the merits followed.

According to the prosecution, on March 24, 2015, the National Bureau of Investigation-Anti Human Trafficking Division (NBI-AHTRAD) received a report about human trafficking activities outside Isetann Mall at Recto corner Evangelista Street, Manila. Intelligence agents conducted police surveillance to verify the report. Agent John Rolex Follosco testified that when the team arrived at Isetann Mall, they positioned themselves at the entrance; accused-appellant approached them and offered him a “gimik.” When Agent Follosco replied “sige patingin,” accused-appellant pointed to the girls seated at the sidewalk and said that each girl cost P800.00. After Agent Follosco told her that they did not have money, accused-appellant gave him her cellphone number, and the team left.

On March 26, 2015, NBI-AHTRAD Chief Atty. Czar Eric M. Nuqui organized an entrapment operation. He designated Agents Follosco, Eduardo Collegio, William France, and Glenn Melodillar as poseur-customers. A team member informed accused-appellant by text message to meet them at Isetann Mall at about 7:00 p.m. The team prepared a coordination form with the Manila Police District and the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), as well as 12 pieces of P500-bills as marked money. At the target area, accused-appellant told them to wait because she needed to call the girls. After a few minutes, two girls arrived, and accused-appellant invited the team to Broadway Lodge, where two other girls were already waiting at the lobby. Accused-appellant asked for P600.00 for the payment of four rooms. Agent Collegio handed the marked money. As accused-appellant was giving the room keys to Agent Collegio, she reminded the poseur-customers of the payment for the girls. Agent Follosco then sent the pre-arranged signal—“kumpleto na ang mga babae”—to the back-up officers, who arrived and arrested accused-appellant. She was brought to the NBI-AHTRAD office and later identified.

The DSWD took custody of the four girls: AAA, BBB, CCC, and DDD. All four executed sworn affidavits, but only the minors AAA and BBB were presented in court to testify. Their statements revealed that for the last six months, they were peddled by accused-appellant to perform sexual activities with various men in exchange for money.

Accused-appellant denied the accusation. She averred that she was not a pimp but one of the prostitutes rescued from the operation, and that as a prostitute, she avoided coursing her transactions with pimps because she did not want to pay commission fees.

The RTC and the CA found that AAA and BBB were recruited and offered for sexual exploitation in exchange for money to the NBI agents who merely acted as poseur-customers, and that accused-appellant was engaged in the business of providing women to customers for money. The prosecution also proved that AAA and BBB were children at the time of the offense, with their minority alleged in the Information and proven by their respective birth certificates.

• Invalid Entrapment/Instigation: Accused-appellant insisted that there was no valid entrapment operation conducted and that she was only instigated into committing the offense by the NBI agents.
• Denial Defense: Accused-appellant claimed that both the RTC and the CA erred in not giving credence to her defense of denial.
• Not a Pimp: Accused-appellant maintained that she was not a pimp but one of the prostitutes rescued from the operation, and that as a prostitute, she avoided coursing her transactions with pimps because she did not want to pay commission fees.

• All Elements Present: The Office of the Solicitor General argued that all the elements of the offense are present.
• Positive Identification: The OSG maintained that AAA and BBB positively identified accused-appellant as the person who recruited and offered them for prostitution.
• Valid Entrapment: The OSG argued that the NBI operation was a valid entrapment against accused-appellant.

• Validity of Entrapment: Whether the NBI-AHTRAD conducted a valid entrapment operation or merely instigated accused-appellant into committing the offense.
• Elements of Qualified Trafficking: Whether all elements of Trafficking in Persons and the qualifying circumstance of minority were proven beyond reasonable doubt.
• Credibility of Defense: Whether the RTC and CA erred in not giving credence to accused-appellant’s defense of denial.
• Penalty and Damages: Whether the penalty of life imprisonment, fine of P2,000,000.00, and awards of moral and exemplary damages were proper, and whether legal interest should be imposed.

• Validity of Entrapment: Yes. A valid entrapment operation was conducted; the criminal intent originated in accused-appellant, who had the predisposition to commit the offense, while the NBI agents merely used ruses and schemes to apprehend her.
• Elements of Qualified Trafficking: Yes. The prosecution established all elements of Trafficking in Persons under Section 3(a) of RA 9208, as amended by RA 10364, and the minority of AAA and BBB qualified the offense under Section 6(a).
• Credibility of Defense: No. The defense of denial is intrinsically weak and cannot prevail over the direct, positive, and categorical testimonies of AAA and BBB.
• Penalty and Damages: Yes, with modification. Life imprisonment and a P2,000,000.00 fine are correct under Section 10(c); moral damages of P500,000.00 and exemplary damages of P100,000.00 each to AAA and BBB are consistent with jurisprudence, but all monetary awards bear 6% legal interest per annum from finality until full payment.

• Validity of Entrapment: The Court distinguished instigation from entrapment. Instigation means luring the accused into a crime that he otherwise had no intention to commit, in order to prosecute him. Entrapment is the employment of ways and means to trap or capture a lawbreaker. In entrapment, the criminal intent originates in the mind of the accused; law enforcement officials merely facilitate apprehension through ruses and schemes. In instigation, law enforcers act as active co-principals; instigation leads to acquittal, while entrapment does not bar prosecution and conviction. Under People vs. Doria, the subjective or origin-of-intent test focuses on the accused’s predisposition, state of mind, and inclination before initial exposure to government agents, while the objective test focuses on the nature and propriety of police conduct and whether it was likely to induce a normally law-abiding person to commit the offense. Using both tests, the Court found a valid entrapment operation: accused-appellant, as a prostitute, had the predisposition to commit the offense even before she met the NBI agents; AAA and BBB testified that for the last six months she peddled them to various men for sexual activities in exchange for money; during police surveillance, accused-appellant approached the NBI agents and offered the services of AAA, BBB, and other girls for money; she commenced the transaction with Agent Follosco, gave her number when told the agents had no money, brought the girls to a nearby hotel during the entrapment, asked for P600.00 for rooms, and reminded the agents to pay for the girls’ services. These circumstances showed entrapment, not instigation.

• Elements of Qualified Trafficking: Under Section 3(a) of RA 9208, as amended by RA 10364, the elements of Trafficking in Persons are: (1) the act of recruitment, obtaining, hiring, providing, offering, transportation, transfer, maintaining, harboring, or receipt of persons with or without the victim’s consent or knowledge, within or across national borders; (2) the means used include threat, use of force, other forms of coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or position, taking advantage of the vulnerability of the person, or giving or receiving payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another; and (3) the purpose of trafficking is exploitation, including prostitution or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery, servitude, or the removal or sale of organs. The recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, adoption, or receipt of a child for exploitation, or when adoption is induced by consideration for exploitative purposes, is also trafficking even without the means. The prosecution satisfactorily established the elements: both the RTC and the CA found that AAA and BBB were recruited and offered for sexual exploitation in exchange for money to the NBI agents who merely acted as poseur-customers; accused-appellant was engaged in the business of providing women to customers for money; and her actions established beyond reasonable doubt that she recruited AAA and BBB for prostitution. Under Section 6(a) of RA 9208, as amended, the offense is qualified when the person trafficked is a child. AAA and BBB were children at the time of the offense, and their minority was sufficiently alleged in the Information and proven by their respective birth certificates. Thus, accused-appellant committed Qualified Trafficking in Persons.

• Credibility of Defense: Findings of the trial court that are factual in nature and involve the credibility of witnesses are accorded respect, if not finality, by the appellate court when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts, and speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings. The trial judge is in a better position to ascertain conflicting testimonies after having heard the witnesses and observed their deportment and mode of testifying. No compelling reason existed to depart from the RTC and CA’s uniform factual findings. Accused-appellant’s denial is intrinsically weak and must be supported by strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility. It contravened the prosecution evidence and the statements of AAA and BBB. Although accused-appellant admitted she was a prostitute, she denied being the pimp of AAA and BBB. Her bare denial cannot prevail over the direct, positive, and categorical testimony and identification by AAA and BBB. The prosecution evidence disclosed that she offered to the NBI agents the sexual services of AAA, BBB, and two other girls in exchange for money, consistent with the straightforward testimonies of AAA and BBB that accused-appellant peddled them to various men for sexual services in exchange for money.

• Penalty and Damages: Considering that the qualifying circumstance of minority was alleged and proven during trial, the RTC and the CA did not err in convicting accused-appellant for Qualified Trafficking in Persons. Section 10(c) of RA 9208 provides that any person found guilty of qualified trafficking under Section 6 shall suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of not less than P2,000,000.00 but not more than P5,000,000.00. Thus, the RTC and the CA correctly imposed life imprisonment and a fine of P2,000,000.00. The awards of moral damages of P500,000.00 and exemplary damages of P100,000.00 each to AAA and BBB are consistent with prevailing jurisprudence. However, all monetary awards due to the victims must bear legal interest of 6% per annum from the finality of judgment until full payment.

• Entrapment vs. Instigation — Instigation means luring the accused into a crime that he otherwise had no intention to commit, in order to prosecute him. Entrapment is the employment of ways and means to trap or capture a lawbreaker. Instigation presupposes that the criminal intent originated from the inducer and not from the accused, who had no intention to commit the crime and would not have committed it were it not for the inducer’s initiatives. In entrapment, the criminal intent or design to commit the offense originates in the mind of the accused; law enforcement officials merely facilitate apprehension through ruses and schemes. In instigation, law enforcers act as active co-principals. Instigation leads to acquittal, while entrapment does not bar prosecution and conviction. The Court applied this doctrine in finding that accused-appellant was not instigated but entrapped, because she initiated the transaction and had the predisposition to traffic women.

• Subjective and Objective Tests for Entrapment — Under People vs. Doria, the subjective or origin-of-intent test focuses on the accused’s predisposition to commit the offense, his state of mind and inclination before initial exposure to government agents, considering relevant facts such as mental and character traits, past offenses, activities, eagerness in committing the crime, and reputation. The objective test focuses on the nature of the police activity and the propriety of police conduct, asking whether the conduct of the law enforcement agent was likely to induce a normally law-abiding person, other than one who is ready and willing, to commit the offense. The Court used both tests and found a valid entrapment operation because accused-appellant had the predisposition to commit the offense even before she met the NBI agents, and the agents merely used ruses and schemes to apprehend her.

• Elements of Trafficking in Persons under RA 9208 as amended by RA 10364 — The elements are: (1) the act of recruitment, obtaining, hiring, providing, offering, transportation, transfer, maintaining, harboring, or receipt of persons with or without the victim’s consent or knowledge, within or across national borders; (2) the means used include threat, use of force, other forms of coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or position, taking advantage of the vulnerability of the person, or giving or receiving payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another; and (3) the purpose of trafficking is exploitation, including prostitution or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery, servitude, or the removal or sale of organs. The recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, adoption, or receipt of a child for exploitation, or when adoption is induced by any form of consideration for exploitative purposes, is also trafficking even if it does not involve any of the means. The Court found all elements present because accused-appellant recruited and offered AAA and BBB for sexual exploitation in exchange for money to NBI agents acting as poseur-customers.

• Qualified Trafficking in Persons — Under Section 6(a) of RA 9208, as amended, the offense of Trafficking in Persons is qualified when the person trafficked is a child. A child is defined under Section 3(b) as a person below eighteen years of age or one over eighteen but unable to fully take care of or protect himself or herself from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation, or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition. The Court applied this doctrine because AAA and BBB were children at the time of the offense, and their minority was alleged in the Information and proven by their birth certificates.

• Denial as an Intrinsically Weak Defense — Denial is an intrinsically weak defense which must be supported by strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility. It cannot prevail over direct, positive, and categorical testimony and identification by prosecution witnesses. The Court applied this doctrine in rejecting accused-appellant’s bare denial that she sold AAA and BBB for prostitution, especially since it contravened the evidence and the statements of AAA and BBB.

• Finality of Trial Court Findings on Credibility — Findings of the trial court that are factual in nature and involve the credibility of witnesses are accorded respect, if not finality, by the appellate court when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts, and speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings. The trial judge is in a better position to ascertain conflicting testimonies after having heard the witnesses and observed their deportment and mode of testifying. The Court found no compelling reason to depart from the RTC and CA’s uniform factual findings.

• Legal Interest on Damages — All monetary awards due to the victims bear legal interest of 6% per annum from the finality of judgment until full payment. The Court imposed this interest on the moral and exemplary damages awarded to AAA and BBB.

• “Instigation means luring the accused into a crime that he, otherwise, had no intention to commit, in order to prosecute him. On the other hand, entrapment is the employment of ways and means in order to trap or capture a lawbreaker. Instigation presupposes that the criminal intent to commit an offense originated from the inducer and not the accused who had no intention to commit the crime and would not have committed it were it not for the initiatives by the inducer. In entrapment, the criminal intent or design to commit the offense charged originates in the mind of the accused; the law enforcement officials merely facilitate the apprehension of the criminal by employing ruses and schemes. In instigation, the law enforcers act as active co-principals. Instigation leads to the acquittal of the accused, while entrapment does not bar prosecution and conviction.” — This passage states the canonical distinction between instigation and entrapment, the ratio for rejecting accused-appellant’s claim that she was merely instigated.

• “The elements of Trafficking in Persons can be derived from its definition under Section 3(a) of RA 9208, as amended, thus: (1) the act of "recruitment, transportation, transfer or harbouring, 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 or 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 services, slavery, servitude or the removal or sale of organs."" — This passage sets out the elements of Trafficking in Persons that the Court found established beyond reasonable doubt.

• “Under Section 6(a) of RA 9208, as amended, the offense of Trafficking In Person is qualified 'when the person trafficked is a child.' The prosecution was able to prove that both AAA and BBB were children at the time of the commission of the offense. The minority of AAA and BBB has been sufficiently alleged in the Information and proven by their respective birth certificates.” — This passage explains the qualifying circumstance that elevated the offense to Qualified Trafficking in Persons.

• “No jurisprudence in criminal law is more settled than that denial is an intrinsically weak defense which must be supported by strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility and that alibi, on the other hand, is the 'weakest of all defenses, for it is easy to contrive and difficult to disprove and for which reason it is generally rejected.'” — This passage states the rule on denial that the Court applied in rejecting accused-appellant’s defense.

• People vs. Doria, 361 Phil. 595 (1999) — Cited for the extensive discussion of the objective and subjective tests to determine whether a valid entrapment operation occurred; the Court applied both tests to find entrapment valid.
• People vs. Mendoza, 814 Phil. 31, 42 (2017), citing People vs. Dansico, et al., 659 Phil. 216, 225-226 (2011) — Source of the quoted distinction between instigation and entrapment; used to characterize the NBI operation as entrapment.
• People vs. Casio, 749 Phil. 458, 473 (2014) — Cited for the elements of Trafficking in Persons under Section 3(a) of RA 9208; also cited in the award of damages.
• People vs. Ramirez, G.R. No. 217978, January 30, 2019 — Cited for the expanded elements of Trafficking in Persons under RA 10364.
• People vs. Baguion, G.R. No. 223553, July 4, 2018, 871 SCRA 1, 14 — Cited for the rule that denial is an intrinsically weak defense requiring strong evidence of non-culpability.
• People vs. Aguirre, et al., 820 Phil. 1085, 1105 (2017), citing People vs. Lalli, et al., 675 Phil. 126, 158 (2011); People vs. Casio, 749 Phil. 458, 482 (2014); and People vs. Hirang, 803 Phil. 277, 292-293 (2017) — Cited to support the awards of moral and exemplary damages.
• People vs. XXX, G.R. No. 235652, July 9, 2018, 871 SCRA 424, 437, citing People vs. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806, 854 (2016) — Cited for imposing 6% legal interest per annum on monetary awards from finality until full payment.
• People vs. Aspa, Jr., G.R. No. 229507, August 6, 2018, citing People vs. De Guzman, 564 Phil. 282, 290 (2017) — Cited for according respect and finality to trial court factual findings involving credibility.
• People vs. Villamin, 652 Phil. 698, 713 (2010) — Cited for the trial judge’s better position to ascertain conflicting testimonies.

• Section 4(a) and (e), RA 9208, as amended by RA 10364 — The Information charged accused-appellant with trafficking in persons under these provisions in relation to Section 6(a) and (c). The Court affirmed the conviction for Qualified Trafficking in Persons.
• Section 3(a), RA 9208, as amended by RA 10364 — Defines Trafficking in Persons and sets out the elements. The Court used this definition to find all elements present.
• Section 3(b), RA 9208, as amended — Defines “Child” as a person below eighteen years of age or one over eighteen but unable to fully take care of or protect himself or herself from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation, or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition. Applied to AAA and BBB.
• Section 6(a), RA 9208, as amended — Qualifies Trafficking in Persons when the person trafficked is a child. Applied because AAA and BBB were minors, as alleged in the Information and proven by birth certificates.
• Section 10(c), RA 9208 — Provides 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 under Section 6. Applied to affirm life imprisonment and the P2,000,000.00 fine.
• RA 10364 (Expanded Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2012) — Amended Section 3(a) of RA 9208 and expanded the elements of Trafficking in Persons. The Court applied the amended definition.
• RA 7610, RA 9262, Section 40 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, and Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 — Cited for withholding the identity of the victims and using fictitious initials; the Court used AAA and BBB in the decision.

Perlas-Bernabe, S.A.J. (Chairperson), Hernando, and Delos Santos, JJ., concurred. Baltazar-Padilla, J., was on leave.