Qualified Trafficking in Persons: When Recruitment Alone Suffices for Conviction

The Supreme Court recently affirmed the conviction of a woman for qualified trafficking in persons, clarifying that the act of recruitment for sexual exploitation is enough to sustain a conviction—even when the victim initially turned down the offer. The case, People v. Dela Torre (G.R. No. 268971, February 19, 2026), also reinforces the rule that affidavits of desistance carry little weight in trafficking cases, especially when executed by a child victim for money.

The Facts of the Case

Mary Joy Dela Torre was charged with qualified trafficking in persons under Section 4(a) in relation to Sections 4(e) and 6(a) of Republic Act No. 9208, as amended by Republic Act No. 10364. The victim, AAA268971, was 13 years old at the time.

The prosecution established that Mary Joy called the minor to her house and told her they would meet a man the next day to earn PHP 15,000.00 in exchange for sex. The child replied "bahala na" but later testified she was afraid and did not actually agree. Despite this, Mary Joy brought her to a hotel in Cavite, where an elderly man was waiting. Mary Joy gave the child a blood-soaked cotton to place on the bed to fake virginity, received the PHP 15,000.00 payment from the man, and later bought the victim a cellphone and gave her a share of the money.

The trial court convicted Mary Joy and sentenced her to life imprisonment with a PHP 2,000,000.00 fine. The Court of Appeals affirmed with modification, increasing moral damages to PHP 500,000.00. The Supreme Court sustained the conviction.

The Issue: Did Recruitment Occur Despite the Victim's Initial Refusal?

Mary Joy argued that no recruitment took place because the victim initially declined the offer. She claimed the encounter was purely the child's own volition.

The Supreme Court rejected this argument. Under Section 3(a) of RA 9208, trafficking can occur with or without the victim's consent or knowledge. The Court held that the mere act of calling and convincing the minor to offer sexual services already satisfies the element of recruitment for trafficking purposes.

The Court also noted that Mary Joy took advantage of the child's vulnerability. She facilitated transportation, gave explicit instructions on what to do with the client, and was present at the hotel when the transaction occurred. This belied the claim that a 13-year-old planned and executed the encounter alone.

The Affidavit of Desistance Carries No Weight

During trial, the victim and her mother executed an Affidavit of Desistance. On cross-examination, the victim admitted she accepted PHP 30,000.00 from Mary Joy's counsel to sign it.

The Court gave this affidavit no evidentiary value. Under Section 8 of RA 9208, as amended, trafficking cases should not be dismissed based on an affidavit of desistance executed by the victim or their parents or legal guardians. Public and private prosecutors are directed to oppose motions for dismissal based on such affidavits.

The Court emphasized that affidavits of desistance are highly suspect when executed by victims of exploitation, particularly children who may not fully understand the consequences of retracting a testimony. The execution of such an affidavit does not imply the witness lacks credibility or has a propensity for perjury.

The Elements of Qualified Trafficking

The Court restated the elements of trafficking under Section 4(a): (1) the act of recruitment, transportation, transfer, or harboring of persons; (2) the means used, which may include taking advantage of the victim's vulnerability; and (3) the purpose of exploitation, including prostitution or sexual exploitation.

All elements were proven. The parties stipulated the victim's minority. Her testimony established that Mary Joy recruited her for prostitution, took advantage of her fear and vulnerability, and profited from the transaction. Because the trafficked person was a child, the crime was qualified under Section 6(a), warranting life imprisonment and a fine of PHP 2,000,000.00.

Practical Takeaways

• Recruitment alone is enough. For trafficking in persons, the act of recruiting someone for sexual exploitation constitutes the crime—even if the victim initially refuses or later consents.
• Victim consent is not a defense. The law covers trafficking with or without the victim's consent or knowledge.
• Affidavits of desistance rarely matter in trafficking cases. Such affidavits cannot justify dismissal of trafficking cases under RA 9208, as amended.
• Child testimony is given great weight. When a child victim's testimony is straightforward and categorical, it creates a prima facie case that the accused must overcome.
• Damages are substantial. For qualified trafficking, courts may award PHP 500,000.00 in moral damages and PHP 100,000.00 in exemplary damages, with 6% legal interest from finality of judgment.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.