View full case

PEOPLE v. EMMA LEOCADIO Y SALAZAR

FACTS:

Accused-appellants Emma Leocadio y Salazar and Sherryl Leocadio y Salazar were charged with Qualified Trafficking in Persons under Section 6(a) and (c), in relation to Sections 4(a) and 3, and penalized under Section 10(a) and (c) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9208, otherwise known as the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003.

The prosecution presented witnesses, including the four victims - CCC, DDD, AAA, and BBB - who were minors at the time. The victims were recruited to work in an internet cafe in Angeles, Pampanga. Emma and Sherryl assured the victims of the job and taught them how to undress if asked. The victims were later taken to Cebu City, where they met accused-appellants Emma and Sherryl, who further discussed their job.

Accused-appellants pleaded not guilty during their arraignment and were detained throughout the trial.

Another instance involved Emma and Sherryl being requested as escort for children who were traveling to Manila. Emma and Sherryl agreed, and upon their return to Manila, they were accompanied by hired helpers and other young girls. However, they were detained at the Supercat Terminal after they were stopped and asked for their tickets.

The accused-appellants, Emma and Sherryl, were found guilty of qualified trafficking in persons and sentenced to life imprisonment and fined Two Million Pesos. The court found that they had conspired in recruiting and transporting the minors for sexual exploitation. On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the guilty verdict with modifications, awarding additional damages.

Before the Supreme Court, both the People and accused-appellants maintained their positions stated in their appeal briefs before the appellate court. Accused-appellants claimed innocence, denying the recruitment of the minors and the existence of conspiracy between them.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the prosecution was able to sufficiently establish the commission of the crime of trafficking in persons.

  2. Whether all the elements of trafficking in persons were proven by the prosecution.

  3. Whether the consent of the victims is a defense in trafficking cases.

  4. Whether the purpose of trafficking in this case is for prostitution or sexual exploitation.

  5. Whether the purpose of the perpetrators in recruiting the victims was for prostitution or sexual exploitation.

  6. Whether the crime committed by the accused-appellants qualifies as trafficking in persons.

  7. Whether conspiracy exists in the commission of the crime.

  8. Whether the proper penalty was imposed on the accused-appellants.

  9. Whether the amount of damages awarded to the victims is proper.

  10. Whether the phrase on parole eligibility should be included in the sentence.

RULING:

  1. The appeal is bereft of merit.

  2. The prosecution successfully established all the elements of trafficking in persons.

  3. The Court held that the consent of the victims is not a defense in trafficking cases. Even if the victims gave their consent, it is rendered meaningless because of the coercive, abusive, or deceptive means employed by the perpetrators of human trafficking.

  4. The Court found that the purpose of trafficking in this case is for prostitution or sexual exploitation. The testimonies of the victims revealed that they were told they would work in an internet cafe to undress and perform obscene acts. This falls within the definition of prostitution and sexual exploitation under the law.

  5. The purpose of the perpetrators in recruiting the victims was for prostitution or sexual exploitation. The fact that there were no actual indecent shows performed by the victims is immaterial. The material fact in the crime charged is the purpose of engaging the victims in the act of prostitution or sexual exploitation.

  6. The crime committed by the accused-appellants qualifies as trafficking in persons. Based on the definition of trafficking in persons and the enumeration of acts of trafficking in persons, the accused-appellants performed all the elements of the offense. The victims were recruited for the purposes of prostitution or sexual exploitation and the crime was committed against three or more persons, individually or as a group, making it qualified.

  7. Conspiracy exists based on the totality of the circumstances. The accused-appellants performed overt acts for the accomplishment of a common purpose and there was a concerted action between them with the objective of trafficking the minors for the purpose of pornography or sexual exploitation.

  8. The courts correctly sentenced the accused-appellants to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Two Million Pesos (P2,000,000.00) in accordance with Section 10 (c) of R.A. No. 9208.

  9. The Court affirmed the award of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) as exemplary damages. However, an adjustment was made with regard to the moral damages, reducing the award to One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) considering the difference in the factual circumstances from previous jurisprudence.

  10. The phrase on parole eligibility need not be appended to qualify the prison term of life imprisonment and must be deleted. Parole is only extended to those convicted of divisible penalties.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Trafficking in Persons is defined as 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 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, among others, the exploitation or prostitution of others, forced labor or services, slavery, servitude, or the removal or sale of organs.

  • The elements of trafficking in persons include: (1) recruitment, transportation, transfer, or harboring, or receipt of persons with or without the victim's consent or knowledge; (2) use of threat or force, coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or position, taking advantage of the vulnerability of the person, or the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve consent; and (3) purpose of trafficking which includes exploitation or prostitution of others, forced labor or services, slavery, servitude, or removal or sale of organs.

  • Knowledge or consent of the minor is not a defense in human trafficking cases.

  • Prostitution refers to any act or transaction involving the use of a person for sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct in exchange for money or profit.

  • Sexual exploitation refers to participation in prostitution or the production of pornographic materials as a result of being subjected to threat, deception, coercion, abduction, force, abuse of authority, or through the abuse of a victim's vulnerability.

  • It is not necessary that victims have performed or were performing the act of prostitution or sexual exploitation at the time of apprehension for the crime of trafficking in persons to be committed. The material fact is the purpose of engaging the victims in such acts.

  • Conspiracy in the commission of a crime is not presumed. It must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Conspiracy may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime. The evidence must be strong enough to show a community of criminal design. It is necessary for a conspirator to have performed some overt act as a direct or indirect contribution to the execution of the crime. Mere presence or approval of a conspiracy without active participation is not enough for conviction.

  • Conspiracy may be proven by evidence of a chain of circumstances and acts of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime that indicate joint purpose, concert of action, and community of interest.

  • The penalty for qualified trafficking 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) in accordance with Section 10 (c) of R.A. No. 9208.

  • The award of damages in trafficking cases should take into consideration the factual circumstances and the extent of the harm suffered by the victims.

  • Parole is only extended to those convicted of divisible penalties.