The recruitment element in trafficking in persons includes providing the conditions for prostituting a minor, and a victim's consent is rendered meaningless when the victim is a minor, even without coercive means. Discrepancies between a witness's affidavit and testimony do not necessarily impair credibility as affidavits taken ex parte are generally considered inferior to testimony given in open court.

Ruth Dela Rosa and her common-law spouse Crisanto Samper took in and raised AAA, Crisanto's niece, for six years. Dela Rosa had a friend named Kim Caben, a Korean national who would visit Angeles City. The case arose from incidents in February and March 2013 involving the sexual exploitation of AAA and another minor, BBB, orchestrated through Dela Rosa's introduction of AAA to Kim.

• In February 2013, AAA received a call from Dela Rosa asking to meet at JJ's Supermarket for an errand. Upon meeting, they proceeded to Coa Hotel where AAA waited with Dela Rosa and another woman.
• Kim Caben arrived at the hotel and sent the other woman home. Dela Rosa introduced AAA to Kim as her niece and instructed AAA to take a bath.
• While Dela Rosa was bathing, AAA witnessed Kim inject and smoke a white "tawas-like substance" using a syringe. Dela Rosa later joined Kim in smoking the substance.
• Dela Rosa performed fellatio on Kim in front of AAA. Kim then sexually abused AAA by touching her breasts and genitals and having sex with her.
• Upon leaving the hotel, Kim paid Dela Rosa P2,200, of which Dela Rosa gave AAA P700. Dela Rosa warned AAA not to tell anyone and to comply with Kim's future requests.
• On March 6, 2013, Kim texted AAA asking if she had a "lady friend" she could bring. Under threat from Dela Rosa, AAA brought her 15-year-old friend BBB to Avante Hotel.
• At the hotel, Kim ordered both girls to shower, then had sex with each of them - AAA first, then BBB.
• Police officers later barged into the room, arrested Kim, and took all three to the police station.
• Based on AAA's interview, police conducted an operation to arrest Dela Rosa at AAA's house, where she was identified by AAA as the trafficker.

• The prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to material inconsistencies between AAA's sworn statement and her testimony in court.
• AAA's sworn statement failed to mention the February 2013 incident, which contradicted her testimony that Dela Rosa brought her to Coa Hotel and instructed her to have sex with Kim.
• The sworn statement indicates that AAA went to Avante Hotel on March 6, 2013 "on her own volition" without any prodding from others.
• Even AAA admitted during trial that she was not sure if Dela Rosa actually gave her phone number to Kim as stated in the sworn statement.

• AAA's sworn statement and testimony had no material inconsistencies as the statement was merely responding to standard questions about the March 6, 2013 incident.
• AAA's failure to disclose the February 2013 incident in her sworn statement was due to the limited scope of questions asked, not any attempt to deceive.
• AAA's testimony established that only through Dela Rosa's actions did AAA come to know Kim.
• AAA was exposed to sexual exploitation only because Dela Rosa introduced her to Kim and facilitated the meetings.

• Whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed accused-appellant's conviction for qualified human trafficking under Republic Act No. 9208.
• Whether the material differences between AAA's sworn statement and oral testimony cast reasonable doubt on accused-appellant's guilt.

• The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding all elements of qualified trafficking in persons present: (1) recruitment/transfer of persons, (2) through threats and taking advantage of vulnerability, (3) for sexual exploitation.
• The Court held that discrepancies between sworn statements and testimonies do not necessarily impair credibility, as affidavits taken ex parte are generally considered inferior to testimony given in open court.
• The absence of the February 2013 incident from AAA's sworn statement was understandable given the limited questions asked, which focused only on the March 6, 2013 incident.
• "Recruitment" as an element includes providing conditions for prostituting a minor, and accused-appellant's acts of introducing AAA to Kim and facilitating their meetings constituted trafficking.
• A minor's consent is irrelevant to trafficking charges as it is not given out of free will, and trafficking can be committed even with the victim's consent.
• The Court modified damages to include P500,000 in moral damages but declined to award exemplary damages due to absence of aggravating circumstances.

• Ex parte affidavits vs. testimony in open court — Affidavits taken ex parte are generally considered inferior to testimony given in open court because they are often incomplete or inaccurate due to lack of searching inquiries by investigating officers. Applied to find that AAA's omission of the February 2013 incident in her sworn statement did not impair her credibility.
• Trafficking in persons - recruitment element — "Recruitment" in trafficking includes providing the conditions for prostituting a minor, not just formal hiring arrangements. Applied to find Dela Rosa guilty despite absence of prior agreement with AAA.
• Minor's consent in trafficking cases — A victim's consent is rendered meaningless due to coercive means employed in trafficking; even without coercive means, a minor's consent is not given out of free will. Applied to reject Dela Rosa's defense that AAA voluntarily met with Kim.
• Trial court's assessment of witness credibility — Trial court's factual findings and assessment of witness credibility are accorded great respect and conclusive effect, acquiring greater weight when affirmed by Court of Appeals. Applied to uphold lower courts' credence given to AAA's testimony.

• "Sworn statements often conflict with testimonies given in open court because the former are seldom complete or comprehensive accounts of what actually happened."
• "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."
• "To be trafficked as a prostitute without one's consent and to be sexually violated four to five times a day by different strangers is horrendous and atrocious."

• People v. Casio — Established the elements of trafficking in persons and the principle that a minor's consent is irrelevant to trafficking charges.
• People v. Mora — Example of qualified trafficking where accused convinced minor to accompany her and forced her to work as prostitute for eight months.
• People v. SPO1 Gonzalez, Jr. — Established that discrepancies between affidavits and testimonies do not necessarily impair credibility.
• People v. Dabon — Established that affidavits taken ex parte are generally considered inferior to testimony in open court.
• People v. Diu — Established that trial court's factual findings acquire greater weight when affirmed by Court of Appeals.
• People v. Lalli — Basis for awarding P500,000 moral damages and P100,000 exemplary damages in trafficking cases.
• People v. Dimapilit — Established that trial court's assignment of probative value to testimonies will not be disturbed except when significant matters were overlooked.
• Nacar v. Gallery Frames — Basis for 6% per annum interest rate on damages from finality of decision.

• Republic Act No. 9208, Section 3(a) — Defines trafficking in persons as recruitment, transportation, transfer or harboring of persons with or without victim's consent.
• Republic Act No. 9208, Section 3(c) — Defines prostitution as any act involving use of person for sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct in exchange for money or consideration.
• Republic Act No. 9208, Section 4(a) — Defines acts of trafficking in persons.
• Republic Act No. 9208, Section 6(a) — Provides for qualified trafficking when victim is a child.
• Republic Act No. 9208, Section 10(c) — Provides penalty of life imprisonment and fine of P2,000,000 for qualified trafficking.
• Civil Code, Article 2219 — Provides basis for recovery of moral damages in criminal offenses and analogous cases including trafficking.