People vs. Ramirez

Maintaining or hiring a person, particularly a child, to engage in prostitution consummates qualified trafficking upon the transaction itself, without need for actual sexual intercourse and regardless of the victim's consent or receipt of payment by another. The elements were satisfied by approaching poseur-customers, providing four girls including two minors for ₱2,400.00 for sexual services, and reserving a pimp's commission from the payment.

Nancy Lasaca Ramirez was a private individual prosecuted by the People of the Philippines for allegedly pimping young women and minors in Lapu-Lapu City. Republic Act No. 9208, or the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003, defines trafficking in persons and punishes as unlawful the act of maintaining or hiring a person to engage in prostitution or pornography under Section 4(e), with the crime qualified when the trafficked person is a child under Section 6(a).

At around 9:45 p.m. on December 5, 2009, Police Officer 1 Nef Nemenzo and 13 other members of the Regional Anti-Human Trafficking Task Force conducted an entrapment operation in Lapu-Lapu City based on surveillance of widespread sexual service for sale by young girls in the area. The operation was divided into two groups, with PO1 Nemenzo's group targeting the area of █████████ KTV Bar in front of █████ Grill, where PO1 Nemenzo, disguised as a customer with team member Police Officer 1 Llanes, would negotiate prices for minors' services.

According to the prosecution, PO1 Nemenzo and PO1 Llanes ordered beers inside the bar and waited for pimps. Two women approached and introduced themselves as AAA, 16 years old, and BBB, 15 years old. Upon hearing that two more girls were needed, another woman who introduced herself as Nancy, later identified as Ramirez, approached and said she could provide the girls. BBB and Ramirez then left and returned with two more girls, Nica Jean U. Goc-ong, 20 years old, and Cindy Pancho, 20 years old. The agreed price was ₱600.00 per girl for sexual services, or ₱2,400.00 total.

Thereafter, Ramirez told the girls to accept the money they would be given, and the group left and hailed a taxi heading for ████████ Motel. In the taxi, PO1 Llanes handed ₱2,400.00 to one of the girls. As soon as the money was received, PO1 Nemenzo and PO1 Llanes identified themselves as police officers and turned the girls over to their team leader in a civilian van parked nearby. Later, Ramirez was arrested when BBB pointed to her as the pimp.

BBB testified that she knew Ramirez and had been pimped out by her several times already. On that night, Ramirez had approached her and asked if she wanted to have sex for ₱200.00, which she accepted. She and AAA then approached the two customers, who said they needed two more girls, so Ramirez instructed BBB to get two more. BBB returned with Nica and Cindy. Before leaving, Ramirez instructed BBB to get the money from the men. While in the taxi, one man handed BBB ₱2,400.00, which she received and from which she told her companions to set aside ₱400.00 as their pimp's share. Instead of reaching the motel, the taxi stopped and the men revealed themselves as police officers. AAA likewise testified that she had been pimped by Ramirez twice before, that Ramirez pimped her and three other girls to two customers for ₱2,400.00 on the night of the incident, and that Ramirez was known to her as a pimp who looked for customers, negotiated prices, supplied girls for sex, and took commission.

For her part, Ramirez testified that at about 9:00 p.m. on December 5, 2009, she and her sister Francy Ramirez were at █████ Grill watching a live band when two men rushed to them, arrested her, and pushed her into a van. When she asked why, the men just laughed. In the van she saw BBB, who said police were around to arrest prostitutes. The men brought her to a gas station where they boarded another van with other women and two gay men, then to the police station in █████████, Cebu City, where they were investigated for prostitution. While the case was pending, she sent a handwritten letter claiming she only met BBB that night, that BBB dragged her to look for two more girls and negotiated with the customers without her knowledge, and that BBB pointed to her as pimp only because police threatened to detain BBB.

The trial court credited the prosecution witnesses and convicted Ramirez, a finding affirmed by the Court of Appeals on the ground that two minor victims positively identified her as their pimp, that non-employment at the KTV bar was irrelevant, that the deal was closed only when Ramirez brought the other pair of girls, and that earmarking ₱400.00 from the payment as her commission established her role.

• Non-employment at Bar: Petitioner argued that she does not work at █████████ KTV Bar, implying she could not have been the pimp operating there.
• Negotiation and Payment by BBB: Petitioner maintained that it was BBB who negotiated with the poseur-customers about the girls' prices and received the supposed payment for sexual services.
• Advance Payment Contrary to Human Experience: Petitioner posited that advance payment to BBB was contrary to human nature and the natural course of events since no sexual activity had yet occurred.
• Mere Presence: Petitioner insisted that she was in the area just to watch a live band with her sister, and in her handwritten letter claimed she only met BBB that night, was dragged by BBB to look for girls, had no idea what was going on, and was pointed to as pimp only because police threatened to detain BBB.

• Qualified Trafficking — Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Whether the prosecution proved accused-appellant Nancy Lasaca Ramirez's guilt beyond reasonable doubt of qualified trafficking of persons.
• Damages for Trafficking: Whether moral and exemplary damages must be imposed in addition to life imprisonment and fine upon conviction for qualified trafficking.

• Qualified Trafficking — Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Yes. Guilt was established by the poseur-buyer's testimony corroborated by two minor victims that accused-appellant supplied four girls including minors for prostitution for an agreed price.
• Damages for Trafficking: Yes. Moral damages of ₱500,000.00 and exemplary damages of ₱100,000.00 to each minor victim were imposed, with 6% per annum interest from finality until full satisfaction.

• Qualified Trafficking — Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: The act of recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring or receipt, the means through taking advantage of vulnerability or giving payments, and the purpose of prostitution or sexual exploitation were all present. On the night of December 5, 2009, accused-appellant approached PO1 Nemenzo, offered the sexual services of four girls two of whom were minors for ₱2,400.00, following prior surveillance by the Regional Anti-Human Trafficking Task Force. Both minors testified the incident was not the first pimping by accused-appellant and that payment included her commission, corroborating the arresting officer as recognized in prior jurisprudence. Mere transaction consummates the crime even without sexual intercourse; consent of the minors is meaningless, especially as minors, and taking advantage of their vulnerability through offer of financial gain satisfies the means element. Receipt of payment by BBB did not exculpate, ₱400.00 having been earmarked as the pimp's share. Denial was weak against positive identification by the poseur-buyer and minors with no ill motive shown, and the handwritten letter contradicting the live-band alibi further corroborated presence at the transaction.
• Damages for Trafficking: Trafficking in persons as a prostitute is analogous to, and worse than, seduction, abduction, rape or other lascivious acts, justifying moral damages, while the aggravated, qualified character justifies exemplary damages. Accordingly, ₱500,000.00 as moral damages and ₱100,000.00 as exemplary damages to each of AAA and BBB were imposed, subject to 6% per annum interest from finality until full satisfaction.

• Trafficking in persons; elements — Trafficking is (1) the act of recruitment, transportation, transfer or harboring, or receipt of persons with or without consent within or across borders; (2) by means of threat or use of force, coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or position, taking advantage of vulnerability, or giving or receiving payments or benefits to achieve consent of a person having control over another; (3) for the purpose of exploitation including prostitution of others or other sexual exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery, servitude or removal or sale of organs. Under Republic Act No. 10364, the act element was expanded to include obtaining, hiring, providing, offering, and maintaining. Applied here, offering and providing four girls for prostitution for money satisfied the crime under Section 4(e).
• Qualified trafficking when victim is a child — Trafficking is qualified when the trafficked person is a child. The presence of 16-year-old AAA and 15-year-old BBB among the four girls supplied for prostitution qualified the Section 4(e) violation under Section 6(a), punishable under Section 10(c) by life imprisonment and fine of not less than ₱2,000,000.00 but not more than ₱5,000,000.00.
• Consummation by transaction; minority and consent immaterial — The crime is consummated by the mere transaction, even if no sexual intercourse takes place. A victim's consent is rendered meaningless by coercive, abusive or deceptive means, and a minor's consent is in any event not given out of free will; taking advantage of minors' vulnerability through prodding and offer of financial gain suffices. Thus, absence of sexual activity, minors' acquiescence, and receipt of money by BBB rather than Ramirez did not negate liability.
• Denial vs. positive identification — Denial is a weak defense against positive and categorical identification by the poseur-buyer and victims absent ill motive. Ramirez's denial and inconsistent live-band alibi failed against PO1 Nemenzo's categorical testimony and the minors' identification.
• Damages in trafficking as prostitute — Trafficking in persons as a prostitute warrants moral damages as analogous to seduction, abduction, rape or other lascivious acts, and exemplary damages when aggravated as in qualified trafficking. Moral damages of ₱500,000.00 and exemplary damages of ₱100,000.00 per minor victim were therefore imposed.

• "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." — States why minors' acquiescence and BBB's receipt of payment cannot exculpate Ramirez.
• "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, thus, justifying the award of moral damages. Exemplary damages are imposed when the crime is aggravated, as in this case." — Provides the doctrinal basis for imposing moral and exemplary damages in addition to imprisonment and fine.
• "To maintain or hire a person to engage in prostitution or pornography[.]" — Quotes the Section 4(e) act of trafficking charged against Ramirez for supplying girls for sexual services.

• People vs. Casio, 749 Phil. 458 (2014) — Controlling precedent enumerating the elements of trafficking under Republic Act No. 9208 and as expanded by Republic Act No. 10364; followed for consummation by mere transaction, immateriality of minor's consent, and imposition of moral and exemplary damages.
• People vs. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 211721, September 20, 2017 — Followed for the rule that corroborating testimonies of the arresting officer and minor victims suffice to sustain conviction.
• People vs. Spouses Ybanez, et al., 793 Phil. 877 (2016) — Followed to affirm conviction of traffickers arrested based on surveillance report on prostitution of minors in the area.
• People vs. XXX and YYY, G.R. No. 235652, July 9, 2018 — Cited for the rule that exploitation of minors through prostitution or pornography is explicitly prohibited.
• People vs. De Dios, G.R. No. 234018, June 6, 2018 — Followed to hold that absence of threat, force or coercion is immaterial where vulnerability as minors was taken advantage of through offer of financial gain.
• People vs. Aguirre, G.R. No. 219952, November 20, 2017 — Followed, together with Casio, for consummation without sexual intercourse and for award of moral and exemplary damages.
• People vs. Bandojo, Jr., G.R. No. 234161, October 17, 2018 — Cited to reject denial as weak against positive identification.
• Nacar vs. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267 (2013) — Applied to impose 6% per annum interest on damages from finality until full satisfaction.

• Section 3(a), Republic Act No. 9208 — Defines trafficking in persons as recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring or receipt by coercive or abusive means or taking advantage of vulnerability for exploitation including prostitution; applied to derive the three elements, with child recruitment for exploitation constituting trafficking even without the stated means.
• Section 4(e), Republic Act No. 9208 — Makes it unlawful to maintain or hire a person to engage in prostitution or pornography; applied as the specific act committed when Ramirez offered and provided four girls for sexual services for ₱2,400.00.
• Section 6(a), Republic Act No. 9208 — Qualifies trafficking when the trafficked person is a child; applied because AAA was 16 and BBB was 15.
• Section 10(c), Republic Act No. 9208 — Punishes qualified trafficking with life imprisonment and fine of not less than ₱2,000,000.00 but not more than ₱5,000,000.00; applied to sentence Ramirez to life imprisonment and ₱2,000,000.00 fine.
• Republic Act No. 10364 — Expanded Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2012 amending Republic Act No. 9208 effective February 6, 2013 to include obtaining, hiring, providing, offering and maintaining in the act element; referenced to clarify elements for crimes prosecuted under the amendment.

Carpio, J., Peralta, J. (Chairperson), A. Reyes, Jr., J., and Carandang, J., concurred. No separate concurring reasoning was recounted.