People
v. Monsanto
G.R.
No. 241247
March
20, 2019
FACTS:
RTC
and CA convicted Reynold Monsanto y Familaran/Pamilaran for the crime of child
trafficking. That sometime in or before February 2013, in the City of Manila,
Philippines, the said accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
knowingly, for purposes of prostitution, pornography or sexual exploitation, in
consideration of price, reward or promise, recruit and transport to Manila AAA,
a minor, 16 years old, under the pretext of living-in together with the accused
and with the promise that he would be sending her to school. That the crime is
committed with the qualifying circumstances that the trafficked person is below
18 years old and the aggravating circumstances of having committed the crime in
consideration of price, reward or promise. The other case is that sometime in
February, 2013, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly, acting as procurer of a child
prostitute, where she is required to go out with foreign men, and in return,
give monetary consideration with intent to engage and actually engage in
prostitution, minor AAA, a minor 16 years old, against her will and consent, to
her damage and prejudice.
ISSUE:
Whether
or not the prosecution failed to prove his guilt.
HELD:
No. in People v. Ocdol, It is well settled
that the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is a
matter best undertaken by the trial court because of its unique opportunity to
observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct, and
attitude under grilling examination. As reiterated in People v. Ortega: It bears emphasis that when the offended parties
are young and immature girls from the ages of twelve to sixteen, courts are
inclined to lend credence to their version of what transpired, considering not
only their relative vulnerability but also the shame and embarrassment to which
they would be exposed by court trial if the matter about which they testified
is not true. Section 4 (a) and (e), in relation to Section 6 (a) of R.A. No.
9208 or the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003, as expanded in 2012 by
R.A. No. 10364. The pertinent provisions state: Section 4. Acts of Trafficking
in Persons. - It shall be unlawful for any person, natural or juridical, to commit
any of the following acts: (a) To recruit, transport, transfer; harbor,
provide, or receive a person by any means, including those done under the
pretext of domestic or overseas employment or training or apprenticeship, for
the purpose of prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor,
slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage; x x x x (e) To maintain or hire
a person to engage in prostitution or pornography; x x x x Section 6. Qualified
Trafficking in Persons. - The following are considered as qualified
trafficking: (a) When the trafficked person is a child; In People v. Casio, this Court derived the elements of trafficking in
persons, namely: (1) The act of "recruitment, obtaining, hiring,
providing, offering, transportation, transfer, maintaining, harboring, or
receipt of persons with or without the victim's consent or knowledge, within or
across national borders;" (2) The means used include "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;" and (3) The
purpose of trafficking includes "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."
AAA
transferred from Valenzuela City to move in with accused-appellant in Manila
with the expectation that he would provide for her studies and because they
were already lovers. As it turned out, accused-appellant manipulated and
coerced AAA into engaging in prostitution with foreign men, from which income
he also benefited. Accused-appellant himself admitted that his earnings were
not enough to support himself and AAA when he took her under his wing. Despite
the fact that they could barely afford to pay their rent and basic necessities,
AAA eventually acquired an iPad and a laptop computer. The Court finds it
incredible that accused-appellant was turning a blind eye to the source of
these items, or that he also had no hand in AAA's engagement in prostitution.
Initiation into the flesh trade with foreign clients requires a level of
familiarity with its ways and inner workings that an untrained minor,
particularly one living under the same roof and under the economic control of
her middle-aged lover, would not have stumbled into on her own. Wherefore, appeal is dismissed. Pamilaran is
guilty of violating RA 10364.
No comments:
Post a Comment