People vs. XXX and YYY

Parents who maintain their own minor children to engage in cybersex or pornography for money, or who recruit, transport, and provide a minor child for prostitution, commit qualified trafficking in persons when the victims are children and the offenders exercise parental authority. Liability attached under Section 4(e) and Section 4(a) in relation to Section 6(a) and (d) of Republic Act No. 9208 because minority, parental relationship, sexual exploitation, and receipt of money were all proven beyond reasonable doubt.

XXX and YYY are spouses and the biological parents of three minor children identified as AAA, BBB, and CCC. Republic Act No. 9208, otherwise known as the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003, defines trafficking in persons and qualifies the crime when the trafficked person is a child and when the offender is a parent or ascendant exercising authority over the victim.

Spouses XXX and YYY were the biological parents of AAA, born on 14 December 1996, BBB, born on 14 May 2000, and CCC, born on July 24, 2001, all minors during the periods charged from 2008 to March 5, 2011 in Cabuyao, Laguna. According to the prosecution, sometime in April 2010 when AAA was 13 years old, her mother XXX brought her from their residence in Cabuyao to a hotel room in Makati City occupied by a foreign national, John Hubbard, where Hubbard had sexual intercourse with AAA in exchange for P100,000.00. From 2008 to 2011, XXX ordered AAA to engage in cybersex three to four times a week through computer, webcam, and internet connections, appearing in her underwear and performing simulated sexual activities such as showing her genitals, buttocks, breasts, and pubic area and uttering lewd words while foreigners paid a fee in private chat.

For their part, BBB and CCC corroborated AAA, averring that from 2010 to 2011 XXX ordered them to dance naked in front of the camera for viewing through the internet by foreigners, usually one called Sam who paid a fee, while XXX facilitated the webcam sessions and chatted with the client. During those sessions their father YYY would be outside the room or fixing the computer. All three children claimed they were made to perform sexual activities to earn money for household expenses for food, rental, and utilities, which YYY collected in remittance centers, under the instilled notion that the earnings were necessary for family support.

Sometime in February 2011 AAA sought assistance from the Department of Social Welfare and Development to have herself and her siblings rescued. The DSWD social worker took AAA and coordinated with the National Bureau of Investigation, which conducted investigation and technical verification of pornographic websites revealing photos and transactions of AAA, then applied for and obtained a search warrant. Law enforcement authorities implemented the warrant, resulting in the rescue of AAA, BBB, and CCC, confiscation of computer units and paraphernalia connected with the crimes, and arrest of XXX and YYY.

Accused-appellants, for their part, denied the accusations, with XXX claiming to be a housewife and YYY claiming to work at a printing press, alleging they knew no motive for their children's accusations, that AAA had run away after being impregnated by her boyfriend, and that no computer gadgets were confiscated from them. The trial court credited the children's clear and straightforward testimonies, found no ill motive for them to testify against their own parents, and found conspiracy between the spouses to maintain and exploit the children for cybersex.

• Fabrication and Absence of Motive: Petitioner argued that the charges were merely fabricated, claiming no knowledge of any motive for their own children to accuse them.
• Denial and Alternative Explanation: Petitioner maintained that XXX is a housewife and YYY works at a printing press, that AAA ran away after being impregnated by her boyfriend, and that no computer gadgets were confiscated from them.

• Parental Maintenance for Cybersex and Pornography: Respondent countered that accused-appellants, as biological parents with custody and control, maintained AAA, BBB, and CCC through deception and taking advantage of their vulnerability to engage in cybersex and pornography for fees paid by foreigners.
• Recruitment and Transport for Prostitution: Respondent argued that XXX transported and provided minor AAA from Cabuyao to a Makati hotel for sexual intercourse with a foreigner for P100,000.00 by exerting maternal influence and control for exploitation.
• Credibility and Corroboration: Respondent maintained that the straightforward testimonies of the three children, corroborated by NBI technical verification, rescue, and confiscated computer paraphernalia, proved conspiracy and guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

• Maintenance for Prostitution or Pornography: Whether XXX and YYY are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three counts of Qualified Trafficking in Persons under Section 4(e) in relation to Section 6(a) and (d) of RA 9208 for maintaining AAA, BBB, and CCC for cybersex.
• Recruitment and Transport for Prostitution: Whether XXX is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of one count of Qualified Trafficking in Persons under Section 4(a) in relation to Section 6(a) and (d) of RA 9208 for recruiting, transporting, and providing AAA for prostitution with a foreigner.

• Maintenance for Prostitution or Pornography: Yes. Both accused are guilty of three counts under Section 4(e) in relation to Section 6(a) and (d), minority, parenthood, maintenance for pornography, receipt of money, and abuse of vulnerability having been proven.
• Recruitment and Transport for Prostitution: Yes. XXX is guilty of one additional count under Section 4(a) in relation to Section 6(a) and (d), having transported and provided her minor daughter AAA to a foreigner for prostitution for material consideration.

• Maintenance for Prostitution or Pornography: Section 4(e) punishes maintaining or hiring a person to engage in prostitution or pornography, qualified under Section 6(a) when the victim is a child and Section 6(d) when the offender is a parent exercising authority. The elements were satisfied because accused-appellants admittedly are the biological parents of AAA, BBB, and CCC who were minors when the crimes were committed, made them perform cybersex for foreign customers and thus engaged them in prostitution and pornography, received money for the exploitation, and achieved their design by taking advantage of the children's vulnerability and deceiving them that earnings were needed for daily sustenance. Credence was properly given to the children's positive identification and straightforward explanation of sexual exploitation, with deference to the trial court's assessment of credibility absent any showing that surrounding facts were overlooked or misapplied.
• Recruitment and Transport for Prostitution: Section 4(a) punishes recruiting, transporting, transferring, harboring, providing, or receiving a person for prostitution, pornography, or sexual exploitation, likewise qualified by minority and parenthood. XXX's separate liability was established because she transported and provided her own minor biological child AAA from Cabuyao to Makati for prostitution with a foreigner under the pretext that the money was needed for family sustenance. YYY was correctly held liable for only three counts, not being named as an accused in the Information in Criminal Case No. 24608-B which charged only XXX and John Doe.

• Trafficking in Persons; child victim — Trafficking in Persons is the recruitment, transportation, transfer or harboring, or receipt of persons with or without consent, by threat, force, coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or position, taking advantage of vulnerability, or giving or receiving payments to achieve consent of a person having control over another, for exploitation including prostitution or other sexual exploitation. The recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring or receipt of a child for exploitation is trafficking even without any of those means. Applied to hold that exploiting minors through cybersex and transporting a minor for sex constituted trafficking.
• Qualified Trafficking in Persons — Trafficking is qualified when (a) the trafficked person is a child, and (d) the offender is an ascendant, parent, sibling, guardian, or person exercising authority over the trafficked person. Applied because AAA, BBB, and CCC were 14, 10, and 9 years old respectively and the offenders were their biological parents with custody and control.
• Acts of Trafficking under Section 4(a) and 4(e) of RA 9208 — Section 4(a) punishes recruiting, transporting, transferring, harboring, providing, or receiving a person for prostitution, pornography, or sexual exploitation; Section 4(e) punishes maintaining or hiring a person to engage in prostitution or pornography. Applied to convict both accused under Section 4(e) for maintaining the three children for cybersex, and XXX alone under Section 4(a) for providing AAA to a foreigner.
• Penalty and civil liability for Qualified Trafficking — Persons found guilty of Qualified Trafficking suffer life imprisonment and a fine of not less than P2,000,000.00 but not more than P5,000,000.00, with moral damages of P500,000.00 and exemplary damages of P100,000.00 per count at par with prevailing jurisprudence, plus 6% legal interest per annum from finality until full payment. Applied to impose life imprisonment and P2,000,000.00 fine per count and the stated damages with interest.

• "[t]he recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring or receipt of a child for the purpose of exploitation shall also be considered as 'trafficking in persons' even if it does not involve any of the means set forth in the preceding paragraph." — States the rule dispensing with proof of coercion or deception when the victim is a child exploited for trafficking.
• "To maintain or hire a person to engage in prostitution or pornography;" — Quotes the punishable act under Section 4(e) applied to the cybersex exploitation of the three minors.
• "In light of the foregoing, the Court finds no reason to deviate from the factual findings of the trial court, as affirmed by the CA, as there is no indication that it overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied the surrounding facts and circumstances of the case." — Explains deference to the trial court's credibility assessment sustaining the children's testimonies.
• "The appeal is without merit." — Announces rejection of the defense denials and affirmance of the qualified trafficking convictions.

• Peralta vs. People, G.R. No. 221991, August 30, 2017 — Cited with People vs. Matibag on deference to the trial court's credibility assessment, supporting affirmance of factual findings.
• People vs. Matibag, 757 Phil. 286, 293 (2015) — Cited as authority that the trial court is in the best position to assess witness credibility, warranting due deference.
• People vs. Hirang, G.R. No. 223528, January 11, 2017 — Cited as prevailing jurisprudence supporting the awards of P500,000.00 moral damages and P100,000.00 exemplary damages per count.
• People vs. Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016, 788 SCRA 331, 338 — Cited as basis for imposing 6% legal interest per annum on monetary awards from finality until full payment.

• Section 3(a), RA 9208 — Defines Trafficking in Persons and provides that recruitment or receipt of a child for exploitation is trafficking even without coercive means; applied to characterize cybersex exploitation and transport of minors as trafficking.
• Section 4(a), RA 9208 — Punishes recruiting, transporting, providing, or receiving a person for prostitution or sexual exploitation; applied to XXX's act of bringing AAA to a Makati hotel for intercourse with a foreigner for P100,000.00.
• Section 4(e), RA 9208 — Punishes maintaining or hiring a person to engage in prostitution or pornography; applied to both accused for maintaining AAA, BBB, and CCC for paid cybersex shows.
• Section 6(a) and (d), RA 9208 — Qualify trafficking when the victim is a child and the offender is a parent exercising authority; applied because victims were 14, 10, and 9 and offenders were their biological parents.
• Section 10(c), RA 9208 — Imposes life imprisonment and fine of not less than P2,000,000.00 nor more than P5,000,000.00 for qualified trafficking; applied to sentence each accused to life imprisonment and P2,000,000.00 fine per count.

Carpio (Chairperson), Peralta, Caguioa, and Reyes, Jr., JJ., concur.