Minor's Consent No Defense: Trafficking Conviction Upheld by Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has reaffirmed a rule that is central to child protection in the Philippines: when the victim is a minor, consent is irrelevant. In People v. Mora (G.R. No. 242682, July 1, 2019), the Court upheld a conviction for Qualified Trafficking in Persons, holding that a child's supposed willingness to work as a sex worker does not excuse the trafficker.

The facts of the case

The case began in November 2011, when Nerissa Mora convinced AAA, then a minor, to travel with her to Buhi, Camarines Sur. Upon arrival, Mora left AAA at a videoke bar owned by Maria Salome Polvoriza. There, Polvoriza allegedly locked AAA in a room, took her mobile phone, and forced her to work as an entertainer under the name "Rizza M. Rañada."

For roughly eight months, AAA was made to dance naked, take shabu, and have sex with customers. She eventually escaped and reported her ordeal to her father and the police. A medico-legal examination found multiple hymenal lacerations.

The charges and the defense

Mora and Polvoriza were charged with Qualified Trafficking in Persons under Section 4(e) in relation to Section 6(a) of Republic Act No. 9208, the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003. The qualifying circumstance was AAA's minority.

Both accused denied the charges. Mora claimed AAA had insisted on traveling to Buhi and that she had assumed AAA was already of age. Polvoriza maintained that AAA had presented herself for work voluntarily and that she only learned AAA's true identity upon arrest.

The Supreme Court's ruling

The Court rejected these defenses. It held that the prosecution had established all the elements of trafficking: the recruitment or transfer of a person, the use of deception or taking advantage of vulnerability, and the purpose of exploitation. Mora had convinced AAA to travel through deception and took advantage of her minority; Polvoriza then forced her into prostitution.

Crucially, the Court ruled that the victim's consent is immaterial. Quoting People v. Casio, the Court explained that a victim's consent is rendered meaningless by the coercive, abusive, or deceptive means used by traffickers. Even without such means, a minor's consent is not given out of free will.

The Court also stressed that under Section 3(a) of RA 9208, recruiting, transporting, or harboring a child for exploitation is trafficking even if none of the usual means — force, fraud, or coercion — are present.

Penalty and damages

Under Section 10(c) of RA 9208, qualified trafficking carries life imprisonment and a fine of not less than P2,000,000 but not more than P5,000,000. The Court affirmed the penalty of life imprisonment and a P2,000,000 fine.

The Court also upheld the awards of P500,000 in moral damages and P100,000 in exemplary damages, with legal interest at six percent per annum from finality of judgment until full payment, consistent with prevailing jurisprudence.

Practical takeaways

• Consent is not a defense. When the victim is a minor, any apparent willingness to engage in prostitution or other exploitation does not absolve the trafficker.
• Exploitation alone can suffice. For child victims, trafficking may be established even without proof of force, fraud, or coercion.
• Business owners are accountable. Bar and establishment owners who receive or employ minors for exploitation face the same liability as those who recruit them.
• Minority qualifies the crime. Trafficking becomes qualified — and the penalty more severe — when the victim is a child.
• Courts defer to trial findings. The Supreme Court will not overturn factual findings on witness credibility absent clear error.

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