The Supreme Court (SC) has affirmed that inviting and meeting with a minor for purposes of sexual exploitation is qualified trafficking in persons.
In a Decision written by Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr., the SC En Banc found a 68-year-old foreigner guilty of rape and qualified trafficking in persons for sexually exploiting a minor. The SC held that the foreigner forced the victim to go to his apartment to engage in sexual acts in exchange for money and under threat of uploading her nude photos online if she refused.
The minor met the foreigner through Facebook Messenger, and they later became online “sweethearts.” The foreigner began asking her for nude photos, offering money in return. She initially complied, but later told him to stop asking for photos. However, the foreigner became angry and threatened to upload her nude photos on Facebook if she refused. He then convinced her to meet him in person to have sex, again promising money.
The minor went to the foreigner’s apartment, and after eating and drinking wine, the foreigner had sexual intercourse with her. Despite the minor’s pleas for him to stop, he continued the assault. When the foreigner fell asleep, the minor escaped and immediately went to the police for help.
The Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals found him guilty of sexual abuse under the Republic Act No. (RA) 7610 or the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act, and qualified trafficking under RA 9208, or the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003, as amended by RA 10364, or the Expanded Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2012.
While the SC upheld the conviction for qualified trafficking, it found the foreigner guilty of rape under the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and not sexual abuse under RA 7610.
Trafficking occurs when a person is harbored or received for prostitution, pornography, or sexual exploitation. Harboring may refer to accommodating or holding a person at the place of exploitation, while receipt can refer to meeting a person at an agreed-upon location. There is sexual exploitation when a person participates in prostitution or the production of pornographic materials due to threat or abuse of the victim’s vulnerability. The crime is qualified, or comes with a higher penalty, when the victim is a minor.
The SC found that the victim was a minor and that the foreigner received her in his apartment. He had taken advantage of her youth and vulnerability, including her family’s severe poverty, and threatened to post her nude photos online if she declined to meet him.
Rape under Article 266-A(1)(A) of the RPC is committed when a man has sexual intercourse with a woman through force, threat, or intimidation or when the victim is under 12 years of age.
On the other hand, under Section 5(b) of RA 7610, sexual abuse includes sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct committed against a child below 18 years old, who is either exploited in prostitution or subjected to other forms of sexual abuse.
In this case, the SC noted that the charge against the foreigner did not allege that the minor was exploited in prostitution or subjected to sexual abuse as defined under RA 7610. What was charged and proven during trial is that he used “force and intimidation,” an element of rape under the RPC.
He was sentenced to a maximum of 40 years in prison for rape, and ordered to pay the victim PHP 225,000 in damages. For the crime of qualified trafficking, he was sentenced to life imprisonment, fined PHP 2,000,000, and ordered to pay PHP 600,000 in damages.
In his Concurring Opinion, Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen agreed with the ruling but added that the foreigner should also have been charged with pornography under RA 9775, or the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009, in relation to the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.
Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, in her Concurrence and Dissent, agreed with the foreigner’s conviction of rape. However, she said that the foreigner should not be penalized for qualified trafficking, arguing that he did not hire the minor for prostitution to a third party.
Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, in his Concurring Opinion, held that trafficking does not require hiring the victim as a prostitute. Coercion and threats for sexual exploitation are enough. (Press release courtesy of the SC Office of the Spokesperson)
Originally published by the Supreme Court Public Information Office.