This Supreme Court decision reinforces the State’s responsibility to prove all elements of human trafficking beyond a reasonable doubt. To secure a conviction for qualified human trafficking, specifically involving minors for prostitution, the prosecution must demonstrate the act, means, purpose (prostitution), and the victim’s age being under 18. The ruling clarifies that actual engagement in prostitution at the time of arrest is not necessary. The crucial element is the recruitment and transportation of individuals for the purpose of prostitution, aligning with the law’s intent to curb human trafficking. This decision underscores the importance of protecting vulnerable minors and holding traffickers accountable, while emphasizing the need for thorough and accurate evidence in prosecuting such cases.

“Mommy Riza” and “Mommy Glo”: Unmasking Exploitation in Disguise

The case of People of the Philippines vs. Rizalina Janario Gumba and Gloria Bueno Rellama centers around the conviction of two individuals, Rizalina Janario Gumba and Gloria Bueno Rellama, for qualified trafficking of persons. These individuals, known as “Mommy Riza” and “Mommy Glo,” were accused of exploiting minors for prostitution. The case hinges on whether the prosecution successfully proved all the elements of qualified human trafficking beyond a reasonable doubt, including the act of trafficking, the means used, the purpose of exploitation, and the victims’ ages.

The events leading to the arrest of Gumba and Rellama began with a tip-off to the Women and Children Protection Unit-Criminal Investigation and Detection Group, indicating prostitution activities at a bar in Cavite. Police Officer 3 Christopher Artuz was assigned to conduct surveillance. Disguised as a band member, PO3 Artuz and his team entered the bar as customers. Gumba, Rellama, and another woman offered them the company of young girls for a fee of PHP 1,500.00 per girl for sexual intercourse in the bar’s VIP room. After confirming that customers could pay for sex with the girls, the surveillance team concluded their operation and submitted a report.

Subsequently, an entrapment and rescue operation was planned. PO3 Artuz contacted Gumba, pretending to need fifteen girls for a party and agreeing to pay PHP 1,500.00 per girl. On the agreed date, Gumba and Rellama brought AAA, BBB, and six other girls to PO3 Artuz. While en route to the supposed party venue, Gumba purchased condoms and distributed them to all the girls, including the minors. Gumba then increased the price to PHP 2,000.00 per girl, citing their youth. PO3 Artuz handed over marked money, and the team identified themselves, arresting Gumba and Rellama.

During the trial, AAA and BBB testified that Gumba and Rellama were their “bugaw” (pimps), who offered them to customers for paid sex. The six other rescued girls echoed similar accounts in their written statements. Gumba and Rellama, in their defense, denied the charges. They claimed that they believed the girls were only hired for entertainment and that they did not receive the marked money. They further argued that the operation was an instigation rather than a valid entrapment.

The Regional Trial Court found Gumba and Rellama guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of qualified human trafficking, emphasizing the minors’ ages and the act of offering them for paid sex. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Regional Trial Court’s decision, stating that all elements of qualified trafficking were present, including the act of recruitment, the means of exploiting the victims’ vulnerability, and the purpose of prostitution. The Court of Appeals ordered Gumba and Rellama to pay moral and exemplary damages to the victims. The accused then appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether Gumba and Rellama were guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of qualified human trafficking. The Court examined the definition of “trafficking in persons,” “child,” and “prostitution” under Republic Act No. 9208, as amended. It noted that a conviction for qualified human trafficking requires proof of the commission of any act under Sections 4, 4-A, 4-B, 4-C, or 5 of the Act, combined with any of the qualifying circumstances under Section 6.

To be convicted of qualified human trafficking, the prosecution must prove the act of trafficking, the means used, the purpose of prostitution, and the victim’s age (under 18). In this case, the Supreme Court found that AAA and BBB’s testimonies established the acts of offering them for sexual intercourse. The victims also confirmed that the sex was in exchange for money. With regard to the exploitation, the prosecution also established that AAA and BBB were minors at the time of the operation by presenting the victim’s Certificates of Live Birth.

The Supreme Court rejected the argument that the crime was not consummated because the girls were not engaged in sexual intercourse at the time of arrest. The Court reiterated that the essential element is the recruitment and transportation for the purpose of prostitution. The Supreme Court also dismissed the argument that the operation was an instigation, not an entrapment.

In the discussion of entrapment, the Supreme Court explained:

There is entrapment when law officers employ ruses and schemes to ensure the apprehension of the criminal while in the actual commission of the crime. There is instigation when the accused is induced to commit the crime. The difference in the nature of the two lies in the origin of the criminal intent. In entrapment, the mens rea originates from the mind of the criminal. The idea and the resolve to commit the crime comes from him. In instigation, the law officer conceives the commission of the crime and suggests to the accused who adopts the idea and carries it into execution.

Using the **subjective test**, the Court noted that the accused were predisposed to commit the offense, because they initiated the transaction, using the words “Chicks mo dong?”. On the other hand, under the **objective test**, the Court determined that there was no illicit inducement on the part of the police for the accused to commit the crime.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, finding Gumba and Rellama guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of qualified human trafficking. The Court imposed the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of PHP 2,000,000.00 each. Furthermore, the Court ordered the accused to pay moral and exemplary damages to the victims. The Court deleted the phrase “ineligible for parole,” aligning with guidelines for indivisible penalties.

FAQs

What is qualified human trafficking?	Qualified human trafficking occurs when the trafficked person is a child or when other aggravating circumstances are present, such as abuse of authority or commission of the crime by a syndicate.
What are the key elements the prosecution must prove in a qualified human trafficking case?	The prosecution must prove the act of trafficking (recruitment, transportation, etc.), the means used (threat, force, deception, etc.), the purpose of exploitation (prostitution, forced labor, etc.), and the victim’s age (under 18).
Is it necessary for the victim to be engaged in prostitution at the time of the arrest for a conviction?	No, the essential element is the recruitment and transportation of the person for the purpose of prostitution, regardless of whether the actual act of prostitution has occurred at the time of the arrest.
What is the difference between entrapment and instigation?	Entrapment occurs when law enforcement officers create schemes to apprehend a criminal already intending to commit a crime, while instigation is when law enforcement officers induce an individual to commit a crime they had no prior intention of committing.
What is the subjective test for entrapment?	The subjective test focuses on the accused’s predisposition to commit the offense, looking at their state of mind and inclination before contact with government agents.
What is the objective test for entrapment?	The objective test focuses on the nature of the police activity involved, examining the propriety of police conduct and whether it would induce a normally law-abiding person to commit the offense.
What penalty is imposed for qualified human trafficking under Republic Act No. 9208, as amended?	The penalty is life imprisonment and a fine of not less than Two million pesos (P2,000,000.00) but not more than Five million pesos (P5,000,000.00).
What kind of damages can victims of human trafficking receive?	Victims can receive moral damages to compensate for mental anguish and suffering, as well as exemplary damages to serve as a deterrent against similar acts.

This Supreme Court decision reaffirms the government’s commitment to combatting human trafficking, especially involving vulnerable minors. It emphasizes that the state must prove all elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, focusing on the intent of the traffickers and the vulnerability of the victims. The ruling underscores the judiciary’s role in upholding the law and protecting the rights of those exploited by human trafficking.

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 v. Gumba and Rellama, G.R. No. 260823, June 26, 2023