The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Nerissa Mora for Qualified Trafficking in Persons, emphasizing that consent from a minor victim is irrelevant when exploitation is involved. This ruling underscores the state’s commitment to safeguarding children from sexual exploitation and forced labor. It serves as a stern warning against those who exploit vulnerable individuals, highlighting that even a minor’s purported consent does not absolve perpetrators of their criminal liability. This decision reinforces the stringent measures in place to combat human trafficking, especially when children are involved.

Exploitation Under the Guise of Opportunity: Can a Minor Truly Consent?

This case revolves around the trafficking of a minor, AAA, by Nerissa Mora and Maria Salome Polvoriza. Mora allegedly convinced AAA to go to a videoke bar owned by Polvoriza, where AAA was forced into prostitution. The central legal question is whether the accused can be convicted of trafficking even if the minor victim seemingly consented to the exploitative conditions. The Supreme Court’s decision provides crucial insights into the application of the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act, particularly concerning the exploitation of minors.

The prosecution presented compelling evidence that Mora deceived AAA, taking advantage of her vulnerability as a minor to bring her to Polvoriza’s bar. Once there, AAA was forced to work as a prostitute, enduring harsh conditions. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Mora and Polvoriza guilty, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). Mora appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing against her conviction.

The Supreme Court anchored its decision on Republic Act No. 9208, also known as the “Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003.” Section 3(a) of the Act defines “Trafficking in Persons” broadly:

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 Court emphasized that the victim’s consent is immaterial when the purpose is exploitation, especially when the victim is a child. Section 6(a) of RA 9208 explicitly states that trafficking is qualified when the trafficked person is a child:

Section 6. Qualified Trafficking in Persons. — The following are considered as qualified trafficking:

(a) When the trafficked person is a child[.]

The Supreme Court highlighted the elements necessary for a successful prosecution of Trafficking in Persons, as outlined in previous jurisprudence. These elements include the act of recruitment, transportation, or harboring of persons, the means used (such as deception or coercion), and the purpose of exploitation. In this case, all these elements were demonstrably present.

Mora’s defense hinged on the argument that AAA voluntarily went to the videoke bar. However, the Court rejected this argument, citing People v. Casio, which clarifies that a minor’s consent is not a valid defense against trafficking charges:

The victim’s consent is rendered meaningless due to the coercive, abusive, or deceptive means employed by perpetrators of human trafficking. Even without the use of coercive, abusive, or deceptive means, a minor’s consent is not given out of his or her own free will.

Building on this principle, the Court found that Mora’s actions, in conjunction with Polvoriza’s exploitation of AAA, constituted qualified trafficking. The Court deferred to the trial court’s assessment of the witnesses’ credibility, noting that the RTC was in the best position to evaluate their testimonies. This deference is a standard practice in appellate review, recognizing the trial court’s direct observation of the witnesses.

The penalty for Qualified Trafficking in Persons, as stipulated in Section 10(c) of RA 9208, is life imprisonment and a fine ranging from P2,000,000.00 to P5,000,000.00. The Court affirmed the lower courts’ decision to impose life imprisonment and a fine of P2,000,000.00 on Mora. In addition, the Court upheld the award of moral damages (P500,000.00) and exemplary damages (P100,000.00) to AAA, recognizing the profound suffering she endured. These damages serve to compensate the victim and deter similar offenses.

This case is of paramount importance due to its explicit reiteration of the principle that minors cannot provide valid consent to acts of exploitation. It emphasizes the state’s protective stance towards children, especially in the context of human trafficking. The ruling sends a clear message to potential offenders: exploiting children will be met with severe consequences, irrespective of any purported consent.

The decision also underscores the critical role of the courts in protecting vulnerable populations. By affirming the lower courts’ findings, the Supreme Court reinforces the importance of thorough investigation and prosecution of trafficking cases. The award of substantial damages further highlights the judiciary’s commitment to providing redress to victims of human trafficking. Furthermore, the decision is a reminder to law enforcement agencies to prioritize the investigation of human trafficking cases with the ultimate goal of prosecuting offenders and protecting victims.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether a person can be convicted of Qualified Trafficking in Persons when the victim is a minor who seemingly consented to the exploitative conditions. The Supreme Court ruled that a minor’s consent is irrelevant in such cases.
What is Qualified Trafficking in Persons?	Qualified Trafficking in Persons, under RA 9208, occurs when the trafficked person is a child or when other aggravating circumstances are present, such as the use of coercion or deception. This carries a heavier penalty than simple trafficking.
What is the penalty for Qualified Trafficking in Persons?	The penalty for Qualified Trafficking in Persons is life imprisonment and a fine of not less than P2,000,000.00 but not more than P5,000,000.00, as per Section 10(c) of RA 9208.
Why is a minor’s consent irrelevant in trafficking cases?	A minor’s consent is considered invalid because minors are deemed incapable of fully understanding the nature and consequences of exploitation. The law protects them from exploitation, regardless of their apparent willingness.
What are the elements of Trafficking in Persons?	The elements are: (a) recruitment, transportation, or harboring of persons; (b) the use of means like threat, force, or deception; and (c) the purpose of exploitation, such as prostitution or forced labor.
What kind of evidence did the prosecution present?	The prosecution presented testimony from the victim, AAA, detailing the deception and coercion she experienced. They also provided medical evidence confirming the sexual exploitation she endured.
What was the role of Nerissa Mora in the trafficking?	Nerissa Mora was found to have deceived AAA, taking advantage of her vulnerability to bring her to the videoke bar owned by Maria Salome Polvoriza. Mora was an essential cog in the machine of trafficking.
What damages were awarded to the victim?	The victim, AAA, was awarded P500,000.00 as moral damages and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages, both with legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of the decision until full payment.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in this case reinforces the Philippines’ commitment to combating human trafficking and protecting its most vulnerable citizens. By upholding the conviction of Nerissa Mora, the Court sends a strong message that those who exploit children will face severe consequences, and that a minor’s purported consent is no defense against such heinous crimes.

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. Mora, G.R. No. 242682, July 01, 2019