Minor’s consent immaterial in human trafficking
‘The gravamen of the offense is the act of recruiting or using a fellow human being for sexual exploitation.’
Text size
‘The gravamen of the offense is the act of recruiting or using a fellow human being for sexual exploitation.’
What constitutes human trafficking under Republic Act 9208, or the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003, as amended by Republic Act 10364, or the Expanded Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2012? What if a minor willingly allowed herself to engage in a sexual act? Would not her consent be the most cogent proof that she willingly engaged in it?
In this case, the accused persuaded AAA, a minor, to commit a sexual act with a male. After the act was committed and upon discovery of the incident, the accused was charged with trafficking under the said laws. She was convicted, after proceedings, by the Regional Trial Court. This was then affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
The accused brought the matter to the Supreme Court, arguing that she did not persuade AAA to perform a sexual act with the male. Rather, the minor very well knew what she was getting into and was even enthusiastic to do so. Because of this circumstance, the accused contended that she could not be held liable for the crime she was charged with.
The Supreme Court did not agree with her. It decreed that: “Trafficking in persons is a deplorable crime. The gravamen of the offense is not so much the offer of a woman or a child; it is the act of recruiting or using, with or without consent, a fellow human being for sexual exploitation. Though it may be committed against anyone, it is more frequently targeted at women and children — sectors of our society which are more susceptible to abuse.
“It is well-settled that trafficking in persons is committed even though the trafficked person knew about or consented to the act of trafficking. To reiterate, the gravamen of the offense is the act of recruiting or using a fellow human being for sexual exploitation.
“The Court in Casio ordained that ‘[a] minor’s consent to [a] sexual transaction [is not a defense under Republic Act No. 9208 and is] irrelevant to the commission of the crime. Indeed, a minor’s consent is not given out of his or her own free will even without the use of coercive, abusive, or deceptive means.
“Second, Almero took advantage of AAA’s vulnerability to ensure that she would meet up with Carlo. Almero asked AAA on at least three occasions if she was willing to perform sexual services for another person. More, she convinced AAA not to go home to her mother and provided alibis that she could use in case AAA’s mother got upset.
“Finally, the purpose of Almero’s communication with both AAA and Carlo was the sexual exploitation of AAA. AAA testified that Almero asked her if she knew anyone who was willing to perform sexual services for money. When AAA could not provide any leads to persons willing to offer such services, Almero then directly asked her if she was willing to offer her sexual services to another.
“Too, AAA testified that after she performed [the sexual act] on Carlo, the latter handed P1,000 to Almero. That the money was given by Carlo to Almero immediately after AAA performed the sexual service lends itself to no other interpretation than that payment was made for that purpose.
“As for the qualifying circumstance, Republic Act 9208 defines the term ‘child’ as ‘a person below eighteen (18) years of age or one who is over eighteen (18) but is unable to fully take care of or protect [themselves] from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation, or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition.’
“AAA’s Certificate of Live Birth shows that her date of birth is [redacted]. She was only 14 years of age at the time of the incident, hence a child. In all, it is indisputable that Almero offered AAA, a child, to Carlo for sexual exploitation.”
The facts and redacted quoted portion of the decision are from SC GR 269401 (11 April 2024).
