The Supreme Court held that trafficking in persons may be committed with or without the victims' consent, and that when committed by three or more persons conspiring together, it qualifies as "trafficking committed by a syndicate" under Section 6(c) of R.A. No. 9208, warranting the penalties of life imprisonment and a fine of not less than PHP 2,000,000.00.

The case arose from incidents between January 5, 2017 and February 1, 2017, where two minors, BBB263264 (13 years old) and AAA263264 (14 years old), were recruited through Facebook, transported to various locations, and made to engage in sexual acts with different men in exchange for money. The victims stayed with Aquino and Rosal for approximately one month and were subjected to sexual exploitation almost daily until they decided to leave and report the incidents to authorities.

• On January 5, 2017, 13-year-old BBB263264 started chatting with Aquino on Facebook upon the prodding of her friend, while her 14-year-old cousin AAA263264 encouraged her to accept Aquino's invitation to meet at SM.
• BBB263264 and AAA263264 met Aquino who was accompanied by Rosal, then they all met Mariano at Robinson's. Aquino invited them to attend an old man's birthday party, promising they would earn money just by drinking alcoholic beverages.
• At the party venue, four old men were having a drinking spree. Despite the victims' discomfort, Aquino prevented them from leaving.
• An old man forcibly took BBB263264 to a room where he sexually abused her. Another man took AAA263264 to a separate room and similarly had sex with her.
• After the sexual acts, the men gave money, portions of which were kept by Aquino and Mariano.
• Later, Aquino and Mariano introduced the victims to Dela Cruz at a 7-Eleven store, who then took them to a bar and arranged for them to have sex with more men at a hotel.
• BBB263264 and AAA263264 stayed at Aquino and Rosal's house for a month, during which time they were made to have sex with different men almost daily for a fee.
• On January 10, 2017, Aquino and Rosal asked BBB263264 to recruit other girls, resulting in BBB263264's friend CCC263264 joining them.
• On January 27, 2017, the victims decided to go home, which angered Aquino and Rosal. The victims eventually reported the incidents to authorities.

• The appellants claimed that the trial court erred in convicting them as the prosecution failed to prove the elements of qualified trafficking in persons beyond reasonable doubt.
• They argued that there were inconsistencies in the testimonies of BBB263264 and AAA263264 that should have affected their credibility.
• Aquino claimed that BBB263264 contacted her on Facebook asking for a place to stay as they had been asked to leave their parents' house, and she merely accommodated them.
• Aquino stated that she asked Dela Cruz to help find jobs for the victims but was told minors could not be employed.
• The appellants claimed that the victims stayed voluntarily and left abruptly, with Aquino reporting this to the barangay.
• Dela Cruz claimed he was arrested after responding to BBB263264's text asking for fare money.
• Mariano claimed he only met the victims once at 7-Eleven when Aquino introduced them.

• The Office of the Solicitor General defended the trial court's ruling, arguing that all elements of qualified trafficking in persons were established beyond reasonable doubt.
• They maintained that the victims' testimonies were credible and consistent regarding how they were recruited, transported, and sexually exploited by the appellants.
• They argued that the chain of circumstances showed that the four appellants acted in unison for the common purpose of engaging the victims in prostitution.
• They emphasized that under the law, trafficking in persons could be committed with or without the victims' consent.
• They contended that the crime was qualified under Section 6(c) of R.A. No. 9208 because it was committed by a syndicate (three or more persons conspiring together).

• Whether the prosecution was able to establish all the elements of qualified trafficking in persons beyond reasonable doubt.
• Whether the inconsistencies in the victims' testimonies affected their credibility.
• Whether the appellants acted in conspiracy to commit the crime of trafficking in persons.
• Whether Rosal was correctly convicted as an accessory rather than as a principal.
• Whether the penalties and damages imposed were appropriate.

• The Supreme Court found that all elements of trafficking in persons were established: (1) the act of recruitment, transportation, and harboring of the victims; (2) the means of deception and taking advantage of the victims' vulnerability; and (3) the purpose of exploitation through prostitution.
• The Court held that the appellants' guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt through the credible testimonies of the victims, which were corroborated by each other.
• The Court ruled that conspiracy was established by the chain of circumstances showing that the appellants acted in unison for the common purpose of recruiting, transporting, and harboring the victims for prostitution.
• The Court affirmed that Rosal was correctly convicted as an accessory since his participation was limited to having knowledge of the sexual exploitation and profiting from the payments.
• The Court upheld the penalties of life imprisonment and a fine of PHP 2,000,000.00 for Aquino, Mariano, and Dela Cruz, and 15 years imprisonment and a fine of PHP 500,000.00 for Rosal.
• The Court affirmed the awards of PHP 500,000.00 as moral damages and PHP 100,000.00 as exemplary damages for each victim from Aquino, Dela Cruz, and Mariano (jointly and severally), and PHP 250,000.00 as moral damages and PHP 50,000.00 as exemplary damages for each victim from Rosal.
• The Court also ordered interest of 6% per annum on all monetary awards from the finality of the decision until full payment.

• Trafficking in Persons — Refers to the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, or receipt of persons with or without the victim's consent, by means of threat, force, coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power, or taking advantage of vulnerability, for the purpose of exploitation. The Court emphasized that trafficking in persons can be committed with or without the victims' consent.
• Qualified Trafficking in Persons — The Court clarified that trafficking becomes qualified when committed by a syndicate (a group of three or more persons conspiring together) under Section 6(c) of R.A. No. 9208, as amended.
• Conspiracy — The Court applied the doctrine that conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Conspiracy can be proven by evidence of a chain of circumstances and inferred from the acts of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime.
• Accessory Liability — The Court explained that under Section 4-C of R.A. No. 9208, as amended, a person who has knowledge of the commission of the crime and profits from it without participating as a principal or accomplice is liable as an accessory.

• "It is also immaterial that BBB263264 and AAA263264 had given consent to the sexual acts. Under Republic Act No. 9208, as amended by Republic Act No. 10364, trafficking in persons could still be committed with or without the victims' consent."
• "The criminal case of Trafficking in Persons as a Prostitute is an analogous case to the crimes of seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts. In fact, it is worse. 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 — Cited to enumerate the three elements of trafficking in persons: (1) the act of recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, or receipt of persons; (2) the means used; and (3) the purpose of exploitation.
• People v. Bawalan — Cited to emphasize that the factual findings of the trial court must be respected absent any indication that it overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied the surrounding facts and circumstances of the case.
• People v. Lalli — Cited to justify the award of moral and exemplary damages, emphasizing that trafficking in persons as a prostitute is analogous to crimes of seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts, and in fact, worse.
• Ferrer v. People — Cited regarding the award of damages and the imposition of legal interest on monetary awards.

• Republic Act No. 9208 (Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003) — The primary law that defines and penalizes trafficking in persons.
• Section 3(a) — Defines trafficking in persons, emphasizing that it can occur with or without the victim's consent.
• Section 3(c) — Defines prostitution as any act involving the use of a person by another for sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct in exchange for money or consideration.
• Section 4 — Criminalizes acts of trafficking in persons.
• Section 4-C(a) — Defines accessories as those who profit from or assist offenders to profit from the effects of the crime.
• Section 6(c) — Specifies that trafficking committed by a syndicate (three or more persons conspiring) is qualified trafficking.
• Section 10(c) — Prescribes the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of not less than PHP 2,000,000.00 for qualified trafficking.
• Section 10(d) — Prescribes the penalty of 15 years imprisonment and a fine of PHP 500,000.00 for accessories.
• Republic Act No. 10364 (Expanded Anti-trafficking in Persons Act of 2012) — Amended R.A. No. 9208 to strengthen anti-trafficking measures.