G.R. No. 265754 , February 05, 2024
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DENNIS HERNANDEZ Y CARINGAL AND MARIA CRISTINA ANONUEVO Y CORIANA, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

FACTS

Accused-appellants Dennis Hernandez and Maria Cristina Anonuevo were charged with qualified trafficking in persons under Republic Act No. 9208 (Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003) and violation of Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act). The cases were consolidated for trial.
The prosecution established that on June 19, 2012, Anonuevo approached AAA, a 17-year-old street dweller, and offered her house cleaning work. On June 23, 2012, Anonuevo fetched AAA and transported her to Hernandez’s house in a different province under the pretext of cleaning, despite AAA’s initial reluctance. That night, after witnessing Anonuevo and Hernandez having sexual intercourse, Anonuevo woke AAA and told her Hernandez wanted to have sex with her. When AAA refused, Anonuevo whispered she should agree or Hernandez would hurt her. Hernandez then approached AAA, pulled down her shorts, threatened her with a gun he retrieved from under the bed, and proceeded to rape her while Anonuevo watched. The following day, Anonuevo agreed to bring AAA home only on the condition that AAA would not tell anyone and would find a replacement girl of similar age and appearance for Hernandez’s sexual services. AAA reported the incident to her father and authorities. A medico-legal examination confirmed injuries consistent with sexual abuse. Upon instructions from the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), AAA communicated with Anonuevo about the replacement. An entrapment operation was conducted on July 2, 2012, where Anonuevo gave AAA PHP 500.00 as payment for her previous sexual services and for finding a replacement. The NBI agents arrested Hernandez and Anonuevo at Hernandez’s house.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of accused-appellants for qualified trafficking in persons and violation of Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 .

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the convictions with modifications to the penalties and awards of damages. The Court held that all elements of qualified trafficking in persons were proven beyond reasonable doubt: (1) the act of recruiting, transporting, transferring, harboring, or receiving a person; (2) the means used, such as threat or intimidation; (3) the purpose of exploitation, which includes sexual intercourse; and (4) the victim is a child. The qualifying circumstance of minority was also established. The acts of Anonuevo in recruiting and transporting AAA under false pretenses, and the subsequent rape committed by Hernandez with Anonuevo’s facilitation and presence, constituted trafficking for sexual exploitation. The Court also found the elements of violation of Section 5(b) of R.A. 7610 present, as the accused, through threat and intimidation, induced AAA to engage in sexual intercourse. The defenses of denial and frame-up were rejected for being weak and unsupported by evidence. The Court modified the penalties and awarded civil indemnity, moral damages, exemplary damages, and interest in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.