The Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal of Mary Joy Dela Torre and affirmed her conviction for qualified trafficking in persons, sentencing her to life imprisonment and ordering her to pay PHP 2,000,000.00 in fines and PHP 600,000.00 in damages to the minor victim identified as AAA268971.
The Case
On August 19, 2016, AAA268971 — then 13 years old — was on her way to school when she was called by her neighbor Mary Joy, known to her as "Ate Bebe," to the latter's house. Mary Joy told her they would be going the next day to meet a man so AAA268971 could earn PHP 15,000.00 in exchange for sex. AAA268971 replied "bahala na" but, according to her testimony, did not agree.
The following morning, AAA268971 was brought to a bus station where she met Mary Joy. While in transit, Mary Joy told AAA268971 she must do whatever the male client asked of her. Upon arriving at their destination, they proceeded to a hotel where they were met by an old man who appeared to be around 60 years old. Inside the hotel room, Mary Joy handed AAA268971 a cotton soaked in blood and instructed her to squeeze it on the bed after the man had sex with her to make it appear she was still a virgin. Before leaving the room, AAA268971 saw Mary Joy receive money from the old man.
AAA268971 performed sexual acts with the old man and received PHP 15,000.00 from him. When Mary Joy returned, she took the money from AAA268971. Afterward, Mary Joy bought AAA268971 a cellular phone worth PHP 5,000.00 and gave her PHP 3,000.00, instructing her to give PHP 200.00 each to certain individuals.
After AAA268971's mother, BBB268971, found out what happened, she and AAA268971 filed a complaint at the barangay hall. AAA268971 was also brought to a doctor for physical examination. Sometime before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered judgment, AAA268971 executed an Affidavit of Desistance signed by her and her mother. On cross-examination, AAA268971 admitted she accepted PHP 30,000.00 from Mary Joy and Mary Jane in exchange for signing the affidavit, but she reaffirmed her earlier testimony about Mary Joy's role in the incident.
Mary Joy was charged, along with her elder sister Mary Jane Dela Torre and a certain Jella Lobos, with qualified trafficking in persons under Section 4(a) in relation to Sections 4(e) and 6(a) of Republic Act No. 9208, as amended by Republic Act No. 10364. The case against Jella was dismissed by the RTC. Mary Jane was acquitted for failure of the prosecution to prove her knowledge and involvement. Mary Joy was convicted by the RTC, a ruling affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
The Issue
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Mary Joy Dela Torre committed qualified trafficking in persons against AAA268971, a minor.
The Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the March 29, 2023 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 13930. The Court declared Mary Joy Dela Torre guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified trafficking in persons under Section 4(a) in relation to Sections 4(e) and 6(a) of Republic Act No. 9208, as amended by Republic Act No. 10364. The dispositive portion of the Supreme Court's Decision states that she is "SENTENCED to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and ORDERED to PAY a fine of PHP 2,000,000.00" and is "likewise ORDERED to PAY AAA268971 PHP 500,000.00 as moral damages and PHP 100,000.00 as exemplary damages, with legal interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this Decision until full payment."
By the Numbers
- Age of victim AAA268971 at the time of the offense: 13 years old
- Amount offered to AAA268971 for sexual services: PHP 15,000.00
- Amount paid to AAA268971 for signing the Affidavit of Desistance: PHP 30,000.00
- Penalty: Life imprisonment
- Fine: PHP 2,000,000.00
- Moral damages: PHP 500,000.00
- Exemplary damages: PHP 100,000.00
- Legal interest: 6% per annum from finality of decision until full payment
- Date of offense: August 20, 2016
- Date of RTC Decision: November 14, 2019
- Date of CA Decision: March 29, 2023
The Court's Reasoning
The Court held that all the elements of qualified trafficking in persons were proven by the prosecution. The parties had stipulated during pre-trial that AAA268971 was a minor at the time of the offense. The Court found that AAA268971's testimony sufficiently established that Mary Joy took advantage of her vulnerability — AAA268971 was scared and apprehensive, yet Mary Joy was insistent on convincing her to meet with a man for sexual services in exchange for money.
The Court rejected the defense argument that there could have been no recruitment for prostitution since AAA268971 initially declined Mary Joy's offer. The Court ruled that regardless of whether AAA268971 agreed to or declined the offer, the mere fact that Mary Joy called and convinced her to offer sexual services already meets the element of "recruitment" for purposes of trafficking. The Court further noted that under Section 3, paragraph (a) of the law, sex trafficking can happen even with the victim's consent.
The Court also rejected the defense claim that the encounter was purely the result of AAA268971's own volition, stating there was nothing in evidence to support the narrative that a 13-year-old voluntarily offered sexual favors for a fee without the accused's knowledge or involvement. Mary Joy's presence in the hotel, the Court said, already belied that claim.
On damages, the Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that the moral damages award should be increased to PHP 500,000.00, citing its rulings in People v. Lalli, People v. Dela Rosa, and People v. Macatangay. The Court stated that being trafficked as a child prostitute "causes immeasurable emotional and mental suffering, besmirched reputation, and moral shock" and that the damages awarded may aid in the victim's recovery from the traumatic experience.
Source: Supreme Court of the Philippines, G.R. No. 268971, Decision penned by Associate Justice Sinag. Concurring: Associate Justices Henri Jean Paul Inting and Filomena D. Singh, with Division Chairperson's Attestation by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa.
This report summarizes a public Supreme Court decision and is not legal advice.