People v. Tuazon [May 27, 2024]

By •

G.R. No. 267946 – PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. NELL JACKEL TUAZON Y PANLAQUI, ACCUSED-APPELLANT

LAZARO-JAVIER, J.

Rule Synopsis

The gravamen of the crime of trafficking is ‘the act of recruiting or using, with or without consent, a fellow human being for [inter alia,] sexual exploitation. It is considered consummated even if no sexual intercourse takes place. Merely engaging in the transaction consummates the crime.

Facts

Under Information dated September 2, 2016, Nell Jackel Tuazon (Nell) was charged with trafficking of persons committed against 16-year-old AAA.

Prosecution version:
AAA was 16 years old at the time of the incident. On August 19, 2016, AAA received a text from one “Mamu” asking to meet with her friends from the volleyball league. AAA met with and boarded Mamu’s car. Later, Mamu disembarked and one “Lian” sat beside AAA while two men also boarded the car, including “Nell” who drove the car. Nell drove to a hotel. They all proceeded to Room 12A. However, AAA’s volleyball friends were not there, contrary to Mamu’s promise. Nell disclosed that he paid Mamu P5,000. Nell and AAA were left alone in the room where the former molested and had carnal knowledge of the latter against the latter’s will. AAA was able to get away and texted one Jommel Mulacruz (Jommel) to ask for help. Police came and Nell was arrested. AAA’s Medico-Legal report showed that she had several deep healed lacerations.

After denial of the Demurrer to Evidence filed by Nell’s counsel, he manifested that he “is exercising his constitutional right to remain silent and will no longer adduce evidence . . .”

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Nell guilty, which the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed with modification (increased Nell’s sentence). The CA also denied Nell’s Motion for Reconsideration.

Hence, the instant appeal.

Issues

Is Nell guilty of the crime trafficking of persons?

Ruling and Discussion

Yes. Nell is guilty of qualified trafficking.

Republic Act (RA) 9208, Sec. 3 (a), as amended by RA 10364, defines “Trafficking in Persons.” Sec. 4 (a) further enumerates the acts that fall under the term “trafficking” in persons.

“The gravamen of the crime of trafficking is ‘the act of recruiting or using, with or without consent, a fellow human being for [inter alia,] sexual exploitation” (Brozoto v. People).

The elements of trafficking under the expanded definition of RA 10364 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 “by means of 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 person”;
  3. The purpose of trafficking includes “the 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.

Sec. 6 (a) of RA 9208, as amended, states that the crime is deemed qualified when the victim is a “child.” A “child” is “a person below 18 years of age or one who is over 18 but is unable to fully take care of or protect himself/herself from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition.”

Here, records show that Nell should be liable for qualified trafficking under Sec. 6(a) of RA 9208, as amended.

  1. AAA’s birth certificate shows that she was only 16 years old when she was victimized. This remains undisputed.
  2. She positively identified Nell as the person who received and used her to satisfy his sexual desires through a paid sexual peddler. She also recalled that Nell himself disclosed that he paid Mamu for PHP5,000,00 to be with her.
  3. The crime may be committed “with or without the victim’s consent or knowledge.” Nell’s claim that he never forced AAA to travel with him and go to the hotel is of no moment.
  4. In the prosecution of trafficking in persons, corroborating testimonies of the arresting officer and the minor victim suffice to convict. The failure of the prosecution to present a hotel crew, Mamu, or Lian, was not indispensable. In this case, AAA’s clear recollection of events and positive identification of her sexual predator did not stand alone. It was corroborated by the testimony and stipulations of arresting police officers.
  5. The crime of trafficking in persons is considered consummated even if no sexual intercourse takes place. Merely engaging in the transaction consummates the crime. Nell’s argument that the deep healed lacerations found on AAA meant that she may have had sexual intercourse with other men in the past, and not with him is of no moment. Further, the trial court’s findings on AAA’s credibility are accorded respect.
  6. The crime of trafficking in persons was qualified by the fact that it was committed against AAA, who was only 16 years old at the time the incident happened.

dispositive

Appeal denied. Decision and Resolution of the CA affirmed with modifications.

Scroll to Top