G.R. No. 232358 , May 12, 2021
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. BELINA BAWALAN Y MOLINA, BBB AND CCC, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

FACTS

An Information was filed charging accused-appellants Belina Bawalan y Molina (Bawalan), BBB, and CCC with Qualified Trafficking in Persons under Republic Act No. 9208 . The charge alleged that on or about January 29, 2009, for the purpose of prostitution and sexual exploitation, and by means of fraud and deceit while taking advantage of the vulnerability of the complainant due to lack of job, they conspired to promote and facilitate child prostitution by procuring AAA, a 14-year-old minor, to work as a prostitute.
The prosecution presented AAA, who testified that she lived with her mother BBB and BBB’s live-in partner CCC. On the night of January 29, 2009, at about 11:00 p.m., she was at a park in front of Bawalan’s store when a man arrived, handed money to Bawalan, and Bawalan then instructed AAA to go with the client. AAA’s mother BBB and CCC were nearby. As AAA and the man were about to board a tricycle, police officers arrived and arrested Bawalan, BBB, CCC, and another accused, Samud. AAA stated this was not the first instance; she had been pimped by the accused-appellants on more than five prior occasions, sometimes being taken to a motel for sexual intercourse. She would receive a portion of the payment given to Bawalan.
Police Officer Eleanor B. Pabion testified that a police operation was conducted against prostitution. PO1 Orlando F. Intoy acted as a poseur-customer carrying marked money. She witnessed PO1 Intoy hand money to Bawalan, and upon the pre-arranged signal of boarding a tricycle with AAA, the team moved in and arrested the accused.
The defense presented denials. BBB and CCC claimed they were merely eating near the church and buying balut, and were arrested without knowing why. They suggested the operation involved media personnel. Bawalan testified she did not know AAA, BBB, or CCC prior to the incident and was merely selling balut that night.
The Regional Trial Court found accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision. Hence, this appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of accused-appellants for Qualified Trafficking in Persons.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction. The Court held that all elements of Qualified Trafficking in Persons under Section 6(c) and (d) of RA 9208 were proven beyond reasonable doubt.
The crime of trafficking under the law involves the recruitment, transportation, or receipt of persons by means of threat, force, deception, or abuse of power for the purpose of exploitation, which includes prostitution. For the qualified offense under Section 6, the trafficked person is a child. The elements are: (1) the act of “recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring or receipt of a child” for the purpose of exploitation; (2) the means used, such as threat, force, coercion, fraud, or abuse of power; and (3) the purpose of exploitation, which includes prostitution.
The Court found the testimony of AAA credible, straightforward, and consistent. She clearly identified the accused-appellants and detailed how Bawalan, upon receiving payment, instructed her to go with a client, with her mother BBB and CCC present and involved in the scheme. Her testimony was corroborated by the police officer’s account of the entrapment operation. The defense of denial and alibi could not prevail over the positive identification and credible narration of the victim. The fact that AAA was a minor at the time and her exploitation was due to her vulnerability and family circumstances constituted the qualifying circumstance. The accused-appellants acted in conspiracy, as their collective actions demonstrated a common purpose to exploit AAA for prostitution.