The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Ludivico Patrimonio Bandojo, Jr. and Kenny Joy Villacorta Ileto for qualified trafficking in persons under Republic Act No. 9208, specifically for exploiting a minor for prostitution. The Court emphasized that the victim’s consent is irrelevant when trafficking involves minors or when perpetrators take advantage of a victim’s vulnerability. This ruling reinforces the state’s commitment to protect children from sexual exploitation and holds traffickers accountable, regardless of the victim’s apparent consent or initial willingness.

From “Raket” to Rescue: Unmasking the Deceptive Web of Human Trafficking

This case revolves around the grim reality of human trafficking, where Ludivico and Kenny Joy were charged with recruiting and exploiting AAA, a 17-year-old girl, for prostitution. AAA, facing financial difficulties, was lured into this exploitative situation by the promise of earning money through “rakets.” Kenny Joy, through deceptive means, introduced AAA to clients, while Ludivico managed a Facebook account offering sexual services. The central legal question is whether the accused-appellants’ actions constitute human trafficking under R.A. No. 9208, considering AAA’s initial consent and the accused-appellants’ defense of denial.

The prosecution presented compelling evidence, including AAA’s testimony detailing how Kenny Joy recruited her and facilitated her encounters with clients. NBI Agent Señora’s testimony further exposed Ludivico’s involvement in offering sexual services through social media. The entrapment operation confirmed Ludivico’s role, as he received the down payment from Agent Señora. Significantly, the forensic examination revealed fluorescent powder on Ludivico and the recovered bills, directly linking him to the illicit transaction. These pieces of evidence, when viewed together, paint a disturbing picture of exploitation and trafficking.

The legal framework for this case rests on Sections 4(a) and 6(a) of R.A. No. 9208, which define and penalize acts of trafficking in persons, especially when the victim is a child. Section 4(a) specifically prohibits recruiting, transporting, or harboring a person for the purpose of prostitution or sexual exploitation. Section 6(a) classifies trafficking as qualified when the victim is a child, highlighting the vulnerability and heightened protection afforded to minors. To understand the full scope, Section 3 defines “Trafficking in Persons” as:

Section 3. Definition of Terms. – As used in this Act:

(a) Trafficking in Persons – refers to the recruitment, transportation, transfer or harboring, or receipt of persons with or without the victim’s consent or knowledge, within or across national borders 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 for the purpose of exploitation which includes at a minimum, 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.

The 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.

The Supreme Court, in its analysis, focused on whether the prosecution successfully demonstrated the presence of all the elements required to prove human trafficking. These elements, derived from People v. Casio, include the act of recruitment, the means used (such as taking advantage of vulnerability), and the purpose of exploitation. The Court determined that the prosecution had indeed proven each of these elements beyond reasonable doubt.

One of the key arguments raised by the accused-appellants was that AAA had voluntarily sought the “raket” and therefore, there was no trafficking. However, the Supreme Court firmly rejected this argument, citing Section 3(a) of R.A. No. 9208, which explicitly states that trafficking can occur with or without the victim’s consent. The Court further emphasized that the consent of a minor is inconsequential due to their inherent vulnerability and lack of full understanding. Building on this principle, the Court reinforced that exploiting a person’s vulnerability, particularly when that person is a minor, constitutes a severe violation of the law.

Accused-appellants likewise argued that they had no knowledge of the victim’s real age. The Court addressed the argument pertaining to the knowledge of AAA’s minority, clarifying that under Section 6(a) of R.A. No. 9208, the crime automatically qualifies as trafficking when the victim is a minor, regardless of the perpetrator’s awareness. This legal stance underscores the law’s protective intent towards children, assigning strict liability for acts of trafficking that involve minors.

The defense also challenged the existence of a conspiracy, asserting that there was no agreement between Ludivico and Kenny Joy to commit human trafficking. The Supreme Court disagreed, pointing to the coordinated actions of the accused-appellants. Evidence showed that Kenny Joy recruited AAA, while Ludivico facilitated the arrangement through his online activities, leading to the entrapment operation. According to People v. Lago:

The elements of conspiracy are the following: (1) two or more persons came to an agreement, (2) the agreement concerned the commission of a felony, and (3) the execution of the felony was decided upon. Proof of the conspiracy need not be based on direct evidence, because it may be inferred from the parties’ conduct indicating a common understanding among themselves with respect to the commission of the crime. Neither is it necessary to show that two or more persons met together and entered into an explicit agreement setting out the details of an unlawful scheme or objective to be carried out. The conspiracy may be deduced from the mode or manner in which the crime was perpetrated; it may also be inferred from the acts of the accused evincing a joint or common purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest.

The Court ruled that these actions demonstrated a common design and purpose, establishing the existence of a conspiracy. This ruling serves as a reminder that conspiracy can be inferred from the conduct of the accused, especially when their actions align to achieve a common unlawful objective.

Finally, the accused-appellants raised the defense of denial, which the Supreme Court rejected, emphasizing the positive identification made by the prosecution’s witnesses. AAA and Agent Señora both identified Ludivico and Kenny Joy in court. Furthermore, the Court noted that the accused-appellants failed to present any evidence of ill motive on the part of the witnesses, thereby undermining their defense of denial. As stated in Eduardo Quimvel y Braga v. People of the Philippines, “A categorical and consistent positive identification which is not accompanied by ill motive on the part of the eyewitness prevails over mere denial.”

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether the actions of Ludivico and Kenny Joy constituted qualified trafficking in persons under R.A. No. 9208, considering the victim’s initial consent and their defense of denial. The court also assessed whether the knowledge of the victim’s real age mattered in the case.
What is the definition of trafficking in persons according to R.A. No. 9208?	Trafficking in persons involves the recruitment, transportation, transfer, or harboring of individuals, with or without their consent, for the purpose of exploitation, including prostitution, forced labor, or other forms of sexual exploitation. The law also states that the perpetrator doesn’t have to use force for it to be called trafficking.
Is the victim’s consent a valid defense in trafficking cases?	No, the victim’s consent is not a valid defense, especially when the victim is a minor or when the trafficker takes advantage of the victim’s vulnerability. The court said in this case the consent of the minor is inconsequential.
What makes trafficking a “qualified” offense under R.A. No. 9208?	Trafficking becomes a qualified offense when the trafficked person is a child, meaning a person below eighteen (18) years of age. This qualification increases the severity of the penalties imposed on the perpetrators.
What evidence did the prosecution present to prove the accused-appellants’ guilt?	The prosecution presented AAA’s testimony detailing her recruitment and exploitation, Agent Señora’s testimony exposing Ludivico’s involvement, and forensic evidence linking Ludivico to the illicit transaction. It was a collection of statements and forensic evidence that helped lead to the conviction of the accused.
What was the accused-appellants’ defense, and why did the court reject it?	The accused-appellants claimed that AAA voluntarily sought the “raket” and denied any agreement to commit human trafficking. The court rejected these defenses because the law states that consent is not a defense, and the evidence showed the accuseds had a common intention.
What is the significance of proving conspiracy in this case?	Proving conspiracy demonstrated that Ludivico and Kenny Joy acted together with a common purpose and design to commit the crime of qualified trafficking in persons. Their coordinated actions showed that they both acted in the same case.
What penalties were imposed on the accused-appellants in this case?	The Supreme Court imposed a penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of Php 2,000,000.00 on each of the accused-appellants. They were also held jointly and severally liable to pay the victim Php500,000.00 as moral damages and Php100,000.00 as exemplary damages.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in this case underscores the stringent measures against human trafficking, particularly when it involves children. By affirming the conviction of Ludivico and Kenny Joy, the Court reiterated that consent is not a defense and that perpetrators will be held accountable for exploiting vulnerable individuals. The ruling serves as a powerful deterrent and reinforces the state’s commitment to safeguarding the rights and well-being of its citizens.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. LUDIVICO PATRIMONIO BANDOJO, JR. AND KENNY JOY VILLACORTA ILETO, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS., G.R. No. 234161, October 17, 2018